quote:The thing that made me realize this is Dauntless''s observations of cooperative gaming. An image of D&D: Shadow Over Mystara flashed into my mind: the tower levels about halfway through the game, with a multitude of doors that can only be opened if (a) you push statues onto several floor plates, or (b) a bunch of players stand on the plates themselves. There was even one door that could only be opened if you had four weights, and there were only two statues in the room; you needed at least two people to open it, and more would make it far easier.

The door with four pressure plates can actually be opened with one player alone. 2 statues on the plates, 1 from the player, and the last one you can accomplish by tricking the npc kobold to stand on it at the same time. Shows you what a great game design dosen''t it ?

quote:Single-player demands depth; multiplayer requires action. The End.

A single-player game should tell a story. Otherwise, it''s boring. Sure, you''re "doing" a lot - running, jumping, shooting - but nothing new is happening. And when nothing new happens, the game gets boring.

But in multiplayer, a story isn''t much of an option. Simply due to the way multiplayer works, games need to be relatively short (or better yet, designed with user-adjustable factors that can change a game''s length), and should not attempt to tell a story. Single-player happens once. But multiplayer matches happen over and over again. And nobody wants to hear the same story repeated a dozen times. In multiplayer, people just want to beat the other guy.

I disagree. This topic isn''t simple as that. Tetris, bust-a-move, and many puzzle games dosen''t have huge depth in the game yet they are able to attract many gamers. On the other hand, there are MMORPG/muds that only offers zero or little actions but a long evolving story and they are quite successful.

quote:If you lack the single goal that you (and perhaps enemies, in some sorts of game) are heading towards, then the pressure is off, and you don''t have enough action. If you lack the side distractions that allow the player to feel like their decisions influence the game, and that add variety to the gameplay, then you don''t have enough depth.

Kyoltan, you are taking all the words out of my mouth, boohoo. Anyway, I respect you as a good designer.

quote:Original post by TerranFury
Single-player demands depth; multiplayer requires action. The End.

What abut a multi-player game of Civilization or Master of Orion?
By "action" do you mean lots of stuff happening, or just SOMETHING happening?

quote:
A single-player game should tell a story. Otherwise, it''s boring. Sure, you''re "doing" a lot - running, jumping, shooting - but nothing new is happening. And when nothing new happens, the game gets boring.

You don''t always need a story for this. (Empire games, twitch, some shooters, open-ended games, space trading games, sims)

quote:
But in multiplayer, a story isn''t much of an option. Simply due to the way multiplayer works, games need to be relatively short (or better yet, designed with user-adjustable factors that can change a game''s length), and should not attempt to tell a story. Single-player happens once. But multiplayer matches happen over and over again. And nobody wants to hear the same story repeated a dozen times. In multiplayer, people just want to beat the other guy.

For some games this is true, but I think you''re ignoring co-op. I know people who are fiends for playing Baldur''s Gate and Phantasy Star Online cooperatively, even though they already know the story.


--------------------
Just waiting for the mothership...