Insomniac, makers of Ratchet & Clank, my favorite platformer since Mario, are currently working on Fuse, which you may remember being announced as Overstrike. Fuse is a 4-player co-op 3rd person shooter, set to be released on PS3 and Xbox 360 at some point before our sun burns out. That’s not the news part of this post.
Ted Price, CEO of Insomniac, said in an interview with GameSpot:
I can’t imagine that any game we’d do from here on out will be single-player-only. The [game industry] has changed. As gamers, we have always been social, but thanks to the way technology has evolved, it’s much easier for us to play together.
Price went on to say that this doesn’t mean games will be multiplayer only, just that there will be a multiplayer component to games that would normally just be single-player. While I can’t be upset at that part, this paradigm shift that seems to be permeating throughout the industry, notably with EA, is a little bit frustrating. Some of the most popular games have been single-player only experiences and the constant denial of this by the publishers is staggering.
Am I shouting into the wind here or do you guys feel the same? I love multiplayer games, but shoehorning them into every release seems counterproductive to me. What say you?
Source: GameSpot
You’re definitely not shouting into the wind Anthony, I know how you feel on this subject. It’s not that I don’t love multiplayer components (*cough* Mass Effect 3 *cough* *cough*) but there isn’t as much single player experiences as there used to be. What happened to those wonderful adventures of old, like Half-Life?
P.S. Gaben if you’re checking out this site, an advance copy of HL3 would be fantastic
I think that this is very narrow minded of him and I entirely disagree. I am sorry but claiming that, insert play style here, is going to be required in the future is stupid.
Fez would never have worked as a multiplayer game, Amnesia would NEVER have worked as a multiplayer game. I am not saying that they could not have had a good multiplayer mode, just that they could not exist in a non-single-player-only world.
similarly If you had claimed this about 3D in films you would be called a heretic
I’m right with my friend Jim. While this may be true in AAA titles, it doesn’t mean every smaller game needs or SHOULD have multiplayer. And as we’ve talked about here, these small games are becoming more frequent and better all the time.
@Julez I definitely agree. Have you noticed the amount of indie games croping up on the home page of Steam Store? I see more and more of them and less of AAA titles, though, they are there.
Oh boy have I ever. I’ve recently purchased Home and To The Moon, the latter of which is incredible so far. I love old school games but hate when a game is 8 bit “just to be 8 bit”. This game totally surprised me, The thing is, for 7.99 if you’re a little bit interested, why not buy it? Skip the big mac meal one day, and you have enough money to get one of these small games, and they might just steal your heart. And if they suck, you didn’t spend 59.99.
Also, yay for Greenligh! Love feeling like I have a say. This first round 2 of the games I voted for (Dream and Black Mesa (duh)) are both coming out, which is so great.
For 60 dollar games I agree. Sleeping Dogs and Just Cause 2 are examples that come to mind where I beat the game, messed around for a couple hours, and moved on. Both games that would be a blast with a friend.
As long as it doesn’t take away from the single player I’m all for coop being added. People need to learn by Resident Evil 5 and Mass Effect 3’s example.
As much as I loved the game, if I could go back I wouldn’t have spent $60 on Arkham City. If it had some coop challenge rooms or whatever I might feel different.