Posted in: Movies, Recent Updates, Video Games | Tagged: activision, assassin's creed, Bioshock 2, bioware, call of duty, Call of Duty 4: Modern Warfare, entertainment, Infinity Ward, mass effect, Medal of Honor, ubisoft, video games, Wolfenstein

First Person Boredom – Sick Of Multiplayer Shooters?

By Jared Cornelius

So this week, the Wolfenstein series gets a reboot courtesy of Bethesda Softworks and I couldn't be happier.  It's not because I'm a huge Wolfenstein fan, or I'm starved for content, it's because Wolfenstein is a single player shooter with no multiplayer.  As of this writing I have no idea if Wolfenstein is good, bad, or just OK, the only thing I can say for sure is, it's not another Call of Duty game, or a Call of Duty want to be.  That to me is a good thing, I'm tired of every shooter trying and failing to be Call of Duty, to emulate Call of Duty, to seek Call of Duty's vast fortune by putting out a cheap knock off, (Medal of Honor I'm looking your way.)  Call of Duty has been incredibly important to video games, I said so in my "Call of Titanfall" article, where I examined how exactly Call of Duty changed the landscape of gaming back in 2007.  Call of Duty: 4 Modern Warfare is seven years old, and now it seems the lasting legacy of the title won't be its graphic or realistic storytelling, but its emphasis on multiplayer.

Now I'm sure you're asking yourself, "Why wouldn't you want multiplayer?"  It's a perfectly valid question, as some companies would like you to believe that a game is somehow less important if it doesn't contain a multiplayer element.  The Activisions of the world would have you believe a game is lesser if it doesn't have multiplayer, but that's not the truth.  The truth is that multiplayer is time and money that could've been spent elsewhere.  Multiplayer can create a loss of focus in a studio.  Multiplayer for a game like Call of Duty isn't a problem as the series always had multiplayer built in, it's always been a focus, some would even argue to the single player detriment.  Maybe it's the fact that Call of Duty's original Infinity Ward team is no longer intact, but all one has to do is look at the reviews of the original Modern Warfare, to the recently released Ghosts to see that the single player has become a casualty of the games multiplayer elements.  While the original Modern Warfare had people at outlets like Gamespot saying, "The quality of the content in the campaign is totally top-shelf", a read over any number of the reviews about Call of Duty: Ghosts and you'll find you statements like this from PC Gamer, "wrapped up in a goofy, inoffensive story about brothers trying to live up to their dad's super-soldier status."  A far cry from the days where the series storytelling was "top shelf".

But the big publishers don't care. They see Activision announce another record breaking quarter, in no small part to their golden first person goose.  Publishers like 2K, EA, and UbiSoft all salivate like Pavlov's dog waiting to get their hands on that sweet, sweet Call of Duty money.   They see the gobs of money Activision make and decide that Mass Effect needs a multiplayer shooter included, that Assassin's Creed needs a multiplayer mode.  All the while they take away from development time that the studio could be using to say, polish a game, look for bugs, maybe think about the end of their trilogy (Cough…Mass Effect).  I'm not saying I know for a fact the exclusion of multiplayer would've saved Bioware a lot of grief from the community, but I do think if the game was strictly single player they would've taken another look at the ending.  I'm not saying the exclusion of multiplayer would've made Bioshock 2 a better game, but I do think it would've given them more time to focus on the story telling.

You'll hear some publishers whine and moan that they need multiplayer because players will trade in a title immediately after completing a single player only game, and that multiplayer helps prolong the time a gamer will keep it.  I think that's a ridiculous notion, though. Let's just say for the sake of argument that the multiplayer is lousy, does bad multiplayer extend the life of a game?  No it doesn't.  Does mediocre multiplayer extend the life of a game?  Maybe for a handful of people.  The truth is that if a gamer is predisposed to play a multiplayer game, they already have a title they play religiously, they have a Call of Duty, or a Battlefield, or Counter Strike.  Those players have already sworn fealty to another game, and bad or mediocre multiplayer won't sway them.  The thing about multiplayer is it takes time and effort to be good at, players have to practice to keep sharp on the game they already like.  Mediocre multiplayer, more time than not, ends up only being a bullet point on a box.

I don't have a problem with developers trying to create a multiplayer experience if they think it's what the market wants.  Who knows where the next big thing will come from, who knows what the next big multiplayer experience is?  I do want to make a distinction though, as there's multiplayer that the developer wants to make, and multiplayer the publisher wants to make.  If a developer has a vision for multiplayer that they think needs to be in the game and is 100% their decision to put in, I can't fault them.  If the decision to put multiplayer in a game is from the publishers end, it's a tacked on appendage that no one asked for.  The multiplayer for those games only exist because the shareholders all hear about how well Call of Duty is doing.  Publishers need to realize we're all smart enough to see when something is tacked on.  Publishers can try and say it was their vision from the beginning and attempt to placate us, but the truth is far less encouraging.  Anyone remember the PlayStation 3's Sixaxis, and how Sony had been thinking about motion controls from the beginning?  How Sony wanted you to believe it wasn't just reacting to the Wii's success.  I think the same can be said about multiplayer in games, we know when it's been tacked on, we know when publishers are trying to make a buck off us. (PVZ Garden Warfare…)

It's why I'm ecstatic to see Wolfenstein as a standalone product. Bethesda Softworks had a vision for the title and stuck by it.  No need to advertise the gold weapons pack when you pre-order.  No double XP packs, no advanced unlocks, no character skins.  A game, just a game and a story that they felt confident in releasing, that to me is a good sign.  When Bioshock was released, the single player was the only priority and it was one of the best games released that generation.  Publishers need to learn that every game doesn't need multiplayer, but until that day comes, I'll be here playing single player in a multiplayer world.

That's all for this time, you can check out my regular articles, Typing on The Dead: Bleeding Cool's Walking Dead recap.  Live(ish) From The Games Shop, where I run down the weeks new video game releases.  You can follow me on Twitter @John_Laryngitis to see all the other random articles through the week.  Until next time, stay gold.

Jared Cornelius is some guy from New Jersey's coast who's so tired of mediocre multiplayer.  If you'd like to talk about your favorite mediocre experiences contact him on Twitter @John_Laryngitis

Enjoyed this? Please share on social media!

Stay up-to-date and support the site by following Bleeding Cool on Google News today!