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.

 

[Old Gamer]

Single player videogames are rife with high stakes stories. Eg. Ganondorf is going to destroy Hyrule again...

Then why don't they like high stakes gameplay?

Oh, those single player games simpletons!

They simply cannot comprehend the finesse and intricacies of games as a service...

 

[Men_in_Boxes]

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

It does. If you watch Bill Murrays Groundhogs Day, you'll see there's a point where his (restarting at checkpoint) becomes boring to him. He learns that when there's no risk / consequence, the game of life becomes muted.

It's why 99.999% of all stories told, since the dawn of time, do not have a restart mechanic. Stories that reset when the protagonist fails an obstacle are innately less interesting.

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

Traditional CoD multiplayer I find very unappealing for this exact reason. Warzone / Battle Royale games are innately more interesting because death has greater consequence.

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.

True, but the risk is so minimal that the player never feels it. Single player games have largely removed any punishment or consequence for failure because of the lowest denominator.

Think of it this way.

You turn on a random college football game on a Saturday morning and, if you don't follow college football, you'll mostly be bored. Compare that feeling with putting 1,000 dollars down on one of the teams and the game instantly becomes exponentially more exciting.

We've simply been conditioned to accept this inferior game design.

 

[Dr. E99]

Single player videogames are rife with high stakes stories. Eg. Ganondorf is going to destroy Hyrule again...

Then why don't they like high stakes gameplay?

I'm genuinely curious why you want a villain that's all powerful with the world hanging in the balance, but you don't want high stakes gameplay. You want minimal player punishment, unlimited lives, brain dead enemy AI etc...

Can someone explain this to me?

Because video games are supposed to be fun and not feel like a chore?

 

[arvfab]

It does. If you watch Bill Murrays Groundhogs Day, you'll see there's a point where his (restarting at checkpoint) becomes boring to him. He learns that when there's no risk / consequence, the game of life becomes muted.

It's why 99.999% of all stories told, since the dawn of time, do not have a restart mechanic. Stories that reset when the protagonist fails an obstacle are innately less interesting.

Well there are games where this "problem" is solved and even if the game does not support permadeath, one can impose the "penalty" oneself if wished.

Warzone / Battle Royale games are innately more interesting because death has greater consequence.

But even there, you simply start the next round.

Compare that feeling with putting 1,000 dollars down on one of the teams and the game instantly becomes exponentially more exciting.

We've simply been conditioned to accept this inferior game design.

If betting is what excites you, maybe you should consider visiting professional help. Gamble addiction is a serious problem.

And btw, even there you can say that if you are rich, betting sum x isn't exciting anymore.

What for you feels "riskless", for others, losing progress or even the fact of wasting time having to redo some things, is enough of a negative consequence.

 

[Kokoloko]

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.

Yes totally.
I still enjoy PVE games like Destiny PSO, FF14, RDR etc. I think there is space for narrative emerging gameplay in these games.

Why the whole topic is just unneeded. Both genres can strive

 

[Vertigo]

Yes totally.
I still enjoy PVE games like Destiny PSO, FF14, RDR etc. I think there is space for narrative emerging gameplay in these games.

Why the whole topic is just unneeded. Both genres can strive

Destiny, Final Fantasy or Monster Hunter can totally be enjoyed as fleshed out single player games. These games are also far more expensive to develop and sustain than a strictly PvP or arcade-like multiplayer experience (helldivers, exoprimal)

Games like Avengers, Suicide Squad and countless others have tried this to be dead on arrival legitimately. Aimed way too high.

Most haters of online games assume everything is a battle royale or arena shooter.

You also have others that think each new f2p piece of trash that has 15 mins of fame on steam is the new hot thing.

Proof is in the pudding and you can’t just copy what the winners do because they’re already at the top.

The series of failures in both single player and online spaces feels like it’s ushered in a void in which new ideas will spring from. I just don’t expect it from western devs who are at risk of making everything marvel and star wars just like Hollywood.

 

[Systemshock2023]

I see what you mean now.

 

[Men_in_Boxes]

Well there are games where this "problem" is solved and even if the game does not support permadeath, one can impose the "penalty" oneself if wished.

A tacked on mode, or imposing it on yourself is inherently inferior. The game would need to be built around the concept to actually take advantage of it.

But even there, you simply start the next round.

But again, we both agreed there are degrees to stakes and consequence. Battle Royale is inherently more consequential than traditional CoD.

If betting is what excites you, maybe you should consider visiting professional help. Gamble addiction is a serious problem.

And btw, even there you can say that if you are rich, betting sum x isn't exciting anymore.

What for you feels "riskless", for others, losing progress or even the fact of wasting time having to redo some things, is enough of a negative consequence.

Irrelevant to the discussion

 

[arvfab]

Irrelevant to the discussion

So subjectivity is irrelevant to the discussion...

Battle Royale is inherently more consequential than traditional CoD.

Nope, the "respawn" is just delayed. In both modes the stakes are equal. The "time loss" and the idle time is different.

You want high stakes? Play a single round of Warzone and delete the game to never play again if you die.

The game would need to be built around the concept to actually take advantage of it.

Games with permadeath are usually built around the concept. Best example are rogue likes, you usually have to start again, but usually still make some kind of progress.