On the other hand, couch co-op brings another human presence into the room with you, a human presence also invested in the story, and the two of you can feed off of each other's willing suspension of disbelief to bring the gaming experience to a whole new level. At worse, co-op over the internet can feel like a single player experience with your co-op buddies playing the role of NPCs that don't fit into the tone of the story. Co-op over the internet, while still better than competitive multiplayer, for all intents and purposes can only be as good as single-player. It is the only type of multiplayer I really enjoy when done right. oddball or best of both worlds, whichever connotation you choose. Character development is often pushed to NPCs, but there are games where the player is able to mold the main character, such as the case of Shepard in Mass Effect, a game which in my opinion started off really, really strong on the top 3 elements but began to lose its grasp on them in favor of the lower 3 when EA got involved. There is nothing stopping a developer from making a phenomenal story. While this is not always done to the fullest potential, at least the option exists. However, in a good single player experience, the top 3 elements have a chance to shine. As a result, the game developers capitalize on the lower 3 elements. Lacking in plot, the story has no place for a character or thought to develop. There is minimal story, as a story is extremely difficult to craft from isolated rounds of deathmatch, capture the flag, or point-control games. While the mechanics of the game may differ (which is best related to the element of diction in the sense that the mechanics of the game are the means by which the message is communicated, much like how literal diction is used to literally convey a message in theater), really, the mechanics are all that separate one shooter from another in multiplayer. A lot of the recent multiplayer games come off as really cookie-cutter. If the game does not have an approachable story with compelling characters who are trying as an ensemble to communicate some worthwhile message, the game will be at best mediocre in my opinion. To me, it comes to me from Aristotle's Poetics in which he describes the elements of theater from greatest to least important as: But, in my opinion the souls series is simply one of the finest examples of video game making in many years.Īdd me to the "Prefers Single Player" list. The PvP invasions and co-op make perfect sense within the lore of the game. I think the BEST example of a "single player" game that has online aspects that really enhances it and fits right into the lore is the Dark Souls series. Those are two examples of SP games that I got extreme value from, but they are not the norm. The thing with SP games for me, is that I get through them pretty quickly. I certainly feel like many of the online games that I play would not have nearly the captivating power that they do if not for playing with friends. Maybe that helps out with the MP games for me. I have a close group of "online buddies" that I've been gaming with for many years, and we tend to try new games together. I personally like both SP and MP games, in their own way. Clearly a cash grab by EA, but, that's the game industry today for you. With DA:I, the tacked on MP was really a slap in the face to gamers. I love the Mass Effect series and wouldn't even dream of playing it online. And don't compare ESO to Skyrim - they are entirely different animals. However, as much as people say that it would be amazing, I don't think Skyrim would work very well online. I love D3 - obviously I play online exclusively, and with other players pretty much exclusively. I love both MP and SP games - so long as they are done right, respectively.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |