Originally Posted by kanisatha
Therefore for me, ALL computer games should be SP, with MP added on in some of those games if it makes sense and can be technically done. But SP should be the focus - ALWAYS.

Huh, I’ll admit that seems an unwarrantedly strong statement to me. I don’t see why all computer games (or even all cRPGs) should be one thing or another. Yes, cRPGs are a fantastic resource for those who don’t have others to play with or don’t want to play with them (both those things apply to me!), but I can also see they’re potentially great at connecting people who do want to play with others across the globe and giving them a fun social experience. Sure, those people could play TTRPGs as well, but so what? There are many reasons I can see why someone might not want to play a TTRPG but would want to play a multiplayer cRPG, or might want to do both at different times as they scratch slightly different itches.

Because personally I have almost no interest in multiplayer gaming, I’m always happy when games that prioritise the single player experience come out. And a bit grumpy when a studio whose output I often enjoy, like BioWare, spend time on developing a multiplayer-focused game like Anthem rather than something I’d actually want to play. And I’m selfishly relieved when it appears that commercial drivers seem to be encouraging companies to create the kinds of games I like to play, particularly when it looked for a while as though things were going in a different direction.

But I feel this totally is self-interest on my part rather than some sort of (moral? practical? commercial?) imperative placed on developers by the very nature of computer games.

When I’m looking at the bigger picture, I’m all for there being lots of different kinds of games that will keep all kinds of gamers happy.

And I fully appreciate that, as Blackheifer says, when there’s a game that can manage to be great fun as a multiplayer as well as satisfying as a single player experience, as it sounds like BG3 has a fair chance of being, multiplayer can indirectly benefit singleplayer by extending the game’s longevity and fanbase, meaning that there’ll be more incentive to invest in it and sequels that single players will enjoy. Though I also don’t share his feeling that there’s no point in a D&D game without multiplayer, as I can see that for developers whose vision less naturally supports it, trying to bolt it on can compromise a good single player experience for the sake of a disappointing multiplayer one. Sometimes I do think it is best to do one thing well.


"You may call it 'nonsense' if you like, but I've heard nonsense, compared with which that would be as sensible as a dictionary!"