Why do single player gamers like high stakes stories but...

[anonpuffs]

It's so sad that an entire medium is held down by the lowest common denominator.

The same applies to live service and competitive multiplayer games. Games that have very high skill ceilings tend to die without pretty advanced matchmaking because experienced/skilled players completely stomp on new players. But advanced matchmaking also takes the high stakes out of the equation, because you're never matched up with anyone that is able to completely murk you 20-0.

 

[uyoung1989]

Because im playing a game and i play whichever way i like. im not going to torture myself.

 

[voke]

OP, have you ever heard of the term… preference?

Some people do NOT like competition, that applies to a lot of folks IRL as well. Some people aren’t willing to put the effort to be able to compete at at least an average level.

For examples, I spent years trying to convince friends to pick up DBFZ or SFVI… they try, get their ass whooped and never play again, why? Because their enjoyment of games isn’t to be able to compete, but maybe relax, enjoy gameplay systems or a good story. They will show up in droves for the new DB fighting game, because it’s incredibly casual friendly.

Where we differ is that I happen to enjoy single player games more bc they are significantly more time friendly, but I also have an appetite to compete as a higher level player in multiplayer… hell I do this in single player games too like DMC and Team Ninja games, because they directly appeal to players who like to go above and beyond.

 

[Shmunter]

It’s like everyone has unlimited time to play

GaaS games are at the core designed to be played infinitely and keep you there. This is why only a handful of cream of the crop can survive and the rest die toot sweet.

Time is the only high stakes, and because of that people want a pleasant experience for their time and $, and move on to a fresh one.

 

[Men_in_Boxes]

Because narrative in multiplayer and "emerging gameplay" is terrible in my opinion. I want a well crafted game with a beginning and an end when it comes to certain genres. Racing, Sports, Fighting yeah those can have the online component and be competitive (I still want a strong single player experience)

I want a well crafted game , not being with "GamEEERXXX78" jumping around in a multiplayer lobby while the quest giver sends me to kill X number of enemies to gain xp.

You can have great gameplay in single player games as well. Single player games have been around for far longer than multiplayer games. I still like multiplayer games like arena shooters, that genre respected your time. Not skinner boxes like Fornite, but at least that game is funding my Epic games collection 300 and counting.

You're still not answering my question.

Why do you crave a narrative of "the odds are stacked against you" but you prefer to play where the odds are stacked for you?

This really doesn't have to do with multiplayer. A small number of single player games do indeed have stakes.

 

[Men_in_Boxes]

OP, have you ever heard of the term… preference?

Some people do NOT like competition, that applies to a lot of folks IRL as well.

What I don't understand is why people like narratives about competing (Ganondorf vs Link) but not competitive based gameplay.

Like...Ganondorf is super powerful in the narrative of Zelda but he's actually extremely underpowered when it comes to the gameplay.

That feels so wrong.

 

[Yobo]

This is actually extremely rare on PC & console.

Love how you ignored the rest

 

[arvfab]

What I don't understand is why people like narratives about competing (Ganondorf vs Link) but not competitive based gameplay.

Like...Ganondorf is super powerful in the narrative of Zelda but he's actually extremely underpowered when it comes to the gameplay.

That feels so wrong.

That's some very weird argument. It's not like Link gets out of the bed, goes to Ganon and smashes him in the face.

In all of these games where the super baddy is on the verge of destroying the world while being almost invincible, the protagonist has to first get a legendary weapon/spell/companion/whatever, gaining experience/alliances/etc., and only then - after a not so easy journey - he is able to defeat the villain.

It's like saying that Lord of the Rings feels wrong because Sauron is never fought and all it took was walking in his home and dropping a ring.

 

[Men_in_Boxes]

That's some very weird argument. It's not like Link gets out of the bed, goes to Ganon and smashes him in the face.

Link is literally invincible. Ganon is not.

Link (the player) is Superman if Kryptonite didn't exist. Not only can't he die, but he can literally see into the future with regards to triggering super dumb attack patterns from AI. Narratively it just doesn't work.

All single player games should treat the player as the God they are. It would make more sense that way.

It's like saying that Lord of the Rings feels wrong because Sauron is never fought and all it took was walking in his home and dropping a ring.

I don't like this analogy because Tolkein had to work within the limits of his medium. There's no player agency in literature. Games can make us feel risk strictly from game design. That's unique to games and should be leveraged way better than it currently is.

 

[Boswollox]

Because modern multiplayer is crap. It's a gambling machine in a videogame skin.

The 90s shooters of unreal, quake and later counter strike were basic to play but repetitive fun without the OOT skins, loot boxes and screaming fannies blasting mumblerap down the mic.

Team death match is boring and no-one has the Brains for tactical/objective based multiplayer, outside of nolife sweats and tryhard teamspeak losers.

Plus I have to pay for online nowadays. Why? I've already bought the game.

 

[arvfab]

Link is literally invincible. Ganon is not.

Link (the player) is Superman if Kryptonite didn't exist. Not only can't he die, but he can literally see into the future with regards to triggering super dumb attack patterns from AI. Narratively it just doesn't work.

All single player games should treat the player as the God they are. It would make more sense that way.

Being able to reload a save game or continue after losing all your health does not equal to being invincible.

Or do you feel invincible when you respawn in a Call of Duty round?

I don't like this analogy because Tolkein had to work within the limits of his medium. There's no player agency in literature. Games can make us feel risk strictly from game design. That's unique to games and should be leveraged way better than it currently is.

There is always risk in games. Be it the risk of being hit, falling off, missing something along the way, being spotted, or even making the wrong decision or saying the wrong thing.