use to like all campaign but eventually ur gonna pass it and have nothing to do!!! i play alot of multiplayer for the competition and HELL LOTZ OF FUN!!! XBOX LIVE!

I love a good story but online can be just as important too, all depends on the game really.

If a game doesn't have a good single player mode, I don't really feel any incentive to play the multiplayer.

I'm not all that convinced by the arguments here. Would it be true to say that as we are only coming to the end of the first round of games on this set of consoles that most of the games so far have had some basis of tech demo to them? Look how pretty it all is and how complex the effects are. Now for the next trick the better developers will have to put in more of a story so that their sequels don't seem like remakes.
True fps games have always been better when you could shoot your friends but how do they plan to make all platformers and adventure games or even puzzlers multi player?

single player > multi

EDIT: As a personal preference I enjoy a single player game with a great story as opposed to a multiplayer game where I can own/get owned by people I don't know.

Story is a BIG portion of gaming for me.

(single player >>> multi)
Got to agree on that. You have to remember that not everybody has access to multiple controllers, xbox live, internet connection, ect. If the single player is damn good, that's all I really need *bioshock, god of war, uncharted.. to name a few*

What a trash article. Ask these two questions. What game did most publications pick as game of the year in 2007? Did that game have a Multiplayer mode?

This is what happens when unimaginative people have internet access and no creativity for a worthwhile article.

To me it means everything, I prefer single player over online any day...

It shows that developers are committed to storytelling and event progression, instead of catering to the ADHD aspect of multiplayer gaming that many people are accustomed to seeing nowadays.

To me, what it boils down to is a developer either needs to A) do both equally well, or B) concentrated on one or the other, and not half-ass one aspect into the game to try to make the game seem more complete.

I really can't stand when people say a game "needs multiplayer", epecially when in certain games it would make no sense at all. I agree with the fact that it extends the life of a title after you beat the single player portion, but then again so can added replay value in the form of unlockables, hidden secrets and worthy achievements that reward an explorative player.

what does game of the year have to do with this article? Did you even read it properly?

Tell me a good single player game and I will ask how many times have you played it through?

Some multiplayer games can stay inside your console for months.

a good single player experience>>>>> >multiplayer.

Single player influences every buying decision I make.
If there is not a strong single player story I don't buy the game I rent it.

Single player is by far the most important aspect of games for me and always will be. I'm happy enough to play a decent multi player game, but 90% of my gaming is done single player and I'm happy tot keep it that way.
A very large proportion of a consoles user base does not even go online with it. Arguably the most developed online services are provided by MS and the 360 console, but if you look at live membership compared with sales of the machine, you can see that more than 50% of users don't play online multi player, and I expect the same is true for PS3, and most definitely for Wii owners.

Underestimating the need for great single player gaming is a sure way to not maximize your sales...

Single Player. I doubt the majorty of people who bought Naruto: Rise Of The Ninja bought it for the multiplayer aspect or those buying Naruto: Ultimate Ninja Storm are either.

It does if you have no friends

I've always preferred multi-player. I enjoy the competitive side of gaming and having a laugh with mates/clan members online. I do really enjoy a single player game but i personaly don't feel they have as much replayability.

Bioshock was the last true single player game i played and i loved it. amazing game but amazing as it was i've played through twice and doubt i will touch it again...

with a good multi-player game i can play it for years in some cases! I hope companies don't neglect single player games together since they are needed but if i was offered an amazing single player game or an amazing multi-player only i'd take the multi

Multiplayer = Replay value. Devs want people to play their games for months/years... not weeks.

I got a question for all of you:

If you HAD to pick, would you only play single player games for the rest of your life or multiplayer games?

multiplayer games shud be for multiplayer and single player shud be single player, i hate seeing games trying to throw in an online when it doesnt need one, i dont agree with resident evil 5 being online, nor do i agree with final fantasy 13 having online, i'd rather that time being put into the online be put into making single player longer.

come on i know idiots who didnt buy ninja gaiden 2 cuz it wasnt online. its said, shooters and, sports games and fighters shud be online games online, actually racers too, but action games/rpgs, adventure/horror/puzzle games shudnt but w/e that wont change people wanting it even if it sux

One only needs to mention Ico or Shadow of the Colossus to know that single player games matter a lot.

I prefer single player over online any day that's just me but u might be different.

These days every game u play has online i mean fighting game first person shooter is ok to have online play cause u need them but not action games etc its just a waste of time for them and people like me make a game then throw in any kind of online play thats it its ready to go out lol

on how good the game looks and feels like.

Halo 3 - good long story and wanted to know how to finish the fight.. And the Multiplayer is legendary...PWNing

Gears of War - I felt each characters personality during singleplayer and wanted to pwn people with Cole and Carmine.

Resistance - The campaign is pretty stupid, chimera..It was too linear... so I played multiplayer and it felt like a generic shooter on pc. So i'd only play multiplayer only.

TBH.

As long as their is co-op campaign.. It's all gravy.
even split-screen co-op is great!

for me it doesn't work. I'm not an online player, I like my games with Single-Player campaign, thus the reason I get DMC, GOW, Silent Hill etc. I'd rather do some physical activities with my friends than to go in virtual world and shoot things, so in that respect the Multi-player seems dry to me, not much of a story (*which is what matters to me) or point rather to beat the competition: but I guess Resistance 2 might change that; didn't they say they have an actual story cooked up for it (online part)?

To me replay value comes in form of extra missions, locating hidden items or secrets, perhaps trying to get a different ending. True I might throw the game in for weeks after all that but I always come back to 'em like nowadays I'm playing some of my old PSX games.

i think SP is more important than MP.

i hate it when devs only optimize the game for the online part.

Warhawk is great btw

Put it this way, if it DOES have multi player I usally dont buy it unless its Co op. Online had been the WORST thing about this generation IMO, it is becoming the cancer of the industry. If a game has online, the AP mode lacks, just look at Gears 1 and Condemed 2. Both games I was hyped about and both sucked SP wise.

I ONLY play Single player games because MP gets boring after 20 mins and all of these MP games are the exact same "Shootan death match crap". It takes ZERO effort to create a MP game and its a easy and cheap way out for developers.

The BEST developers create single player games because it is way more creative and artistic than MP.

RAF-TECH

Stop being a fan boy and think like a human being for once instead of being a puppet for some firm like Microsoft..
However the only thing I didn't like about Resistance was the narration cuz you didn't get to hear more about Nathan Hale but Resistance 2 is gonna change that.

Anyways
I think single player is essential to making a great game.
Everything in a game should be balanced.
Between single player, multiplayer, and even co op if some devs have it in their game should all be balanced and equally addicting for gamers.

I would hate to have SP go away for the simple reason: If you only play online, you will have to stop playing when everyone else stops playing. Even if you really love a game - you'll have no choice but to move on if there's no one to play with.

Also, you are dependent on the quality of your internet service. If you live in the busy neighborhood, you'll be experiencing a slowdown (meaning lag) during the evening hours, when everyone else is in front of their computer/console.

Look at my avatar.

for the most part i don't play multiplayer. right after i play through a game on single player i might get into the multiplayer for a few days but it's all the same. cod4, gears, TF2, i play the multiplayer part of a game for a few hours and think "ok, i've killed a bunch of ppl...now what?". but there is nothing else. it's very repetitive and gets boring fast. (shoot a few ppl, get killed. shoot a few ppl, get killed. rinse and repeat, change maps, start over. not fun.)

as for replay-ability of a game, i do not rely on multiplayer for that either. for me, games are like interactive movies. give me a good story and i'll want play it again.

Shake and Bake

Let me put it this way, I am more likely to buy a game with a good single player mode and a non existant or poor MP (Stranglehold) than I am a poor singleplayer game with a decent MP mode (Shadowrun).

Single player is gaming and developers should never forget that fact but co-op is always a nice addition.

Multi-player? I'd like more games to package split screen modes as well as the online stuff and not forget it; a group of mates at someones house playing split screen Halo etc is the legacy of the industry and should not die.

i love single player games since they posses a more engaging storyline in general...

Its crap like this that pisses me off. Multiplayer is not the f**king future. I dont care what the f**king sales pitch is. You see there is something that gamers already should know but may not...and that is without our fantastic single player experiences, gaming wouldnt be SH*T today. Multiplayer games with little to no story and that dont have single player modes are a bunch of mindless crap. THERE IS NO SUBSTANCE WHATSOEVER IN MULTIPLAYER ONLY! The storyline is dead? COME ON. A fantastic story is 50% of the battle BY ITSELF. I have gone back time and time again to games (albeit few) that have an engrossing storyline. Replay value for storylines will always be > multiplayer. Original gamers like myself are not pleased at all with everything and everyone having such a f**king HARD ON for everything multiplayer. Multiplayer is great, but only and I mean ONLY if it already compliments a fantastic single player experience. If single player EVER fizzles out...then you can count me OUT of gaming. I will box up everything about gaming that I have had the pleasure of enjoying for 24 years never to be touched again. Single player will always and forever be > multiplayer. For god sake just include both and put one hell of a lot of work into both. But dont ever disrespect gamers who have supported this industry since its infancy by not including the one thing that most look forward to the most in your video games. That being a great single player experience.

The thing I think and this is very true for FPS games. Is that the multi player always ends up being the same in some way or another just with a different coat of paint. You are always playing Deathmatch or CTF or whatnot the only difference is how the game looks and how many people are in it. Sure its a little more then that but thats what it basicly breaks down to. However Single player campaigns are not like that they are each unique and offer something different.

Personally I don't like online. With all the horrid people and trash talking homophobic 12 year olds online I don't see much reason to play. If I'm not playing online with a friend then I'm not playing period. I see the whole multi player thing as a fad and over the years I think it will balance itself out.

Im a single player first then multi-player second but then that depends on the type of game im looking at getting, FPS normally go multi-player but still hit that single player story first, then RTS and RPG's im there for the single player, and I still find my self going back to them like Final Fantasy.

The problem with multi-player is some times when left to the developer it comes out bad, and its been the modding community that has improved the lasting appeal of the game, this mainly applies to PC gaming since modding games isnt that easy on consoles yet.

My expamle goes to ID

Now ID made a very good game with Quake 2 but the multi-player really sucked, the maps in death match and team death match were average with only a handfull that were good, now along comes the modding community and added in CTF but with a few extras thrown in (Grappling hook, power-up techs) and after a few patchs to balance it out and a lot of great maps that the community created a fantastic game was created, leagues and servers popped up all over the net and there are still loads of servers running and leagues today, this game was released in 1997 and it had me playing on-line for 5-6 years in these leagues.

ID again with Quake 3 tried to use the success of Q2CTF to create the CTF multi-player side and it sucked, they took some of the ideas but then just messed it up and again it took the community (threewave) to fix it, ID make great games but there multi-player skills suck so hard, even Quake 4's multi-player had mixed reactions.

Alot of developers either put all their time in to one side of the project and it can work but then the other side takes a bad hit, but alot of companys latley have been using multiple teams within development to sort this problem out, R2 had different teams creating the different modes so hopfully this will work, only time will tell but hopfully the future is bright for both sides.

"How much does single player matter?" A lot, this may come as a surprise to those of you who think single player modes don't really matter, but a vast majority of gamers out there like the story telling aspect of a video game's single player campaign.

The more single player functionality the better for me. I still like playing multiplayer, but when games like Gears of War 2 add bots, that makes me want to play it even more. Bots in GOW 2 adds so much more value to the game for single player and the multiplayer. Without Bots on the Unreal Tournament 3 for the PC I wouldn't buy it since I don't play PC games online.
As far as I am concerned they could skip the campaigns entirely and just allow me to play multiplayer against the computer.

No matter how many times you try to say is not true.

My point is:

How many multiplayer are different?? a FPS is a FPS, when you played counter strike you already played the rest, i mean what´s so different about halo MP from counter MP??? the weapons??? thats it, is the same over and over and over again. The problem with multiplayer is that eventually ppl will realize that they are playing that same game for the 10th time and leave multiplayer.

Thats why single player is better, is true you still be playing the same game as the multi, that will use the same guns, grenades, etc but you are doing it for a reason and thats is why plot is so important, and that is why halo is so different from counter.

I will always want and look for single player experience. Multiplayer is fun and all but it is the single player experience that draws me into to the game.

I will not buy anymore games that have just single player. BUT I will rent them. Now a days with things like Gamefly or renting a game for 5 days for 5 bucks is great for Single player games only BUT if it does have online co-op or multiplayer game attached (halo 3, gears of war) I will buy it since it has MUCH replay value.

Why buy a game that just has single player and then will sit on my self for the longest time before I give it to a friend? (Don't say take it to Gamestop, I'd rather be shot in the foot then give those guys money)

Single Player very much matters!

If I am remembering this correctly that Battlefield: Modern Combat for Xbox and Playstation 2 was supposed to be online only games, but people complained alot and got it delayed to add a single player.

Also until I get a better connection a single player is very important to me.

I honestly dont believe single-player games will die out in the gaming industry. But if these games developers with their unimaginative and conformist methods one day decide to make most of their games with multiplayer/online features that take major priority over single-player campaigns, - then I too will officialy announce the end of my interest in video games and retire from gaming scene altogether. I just will not accept or buy into that sh*t. If this should happen then I'm done with gaming and I'm real serious about that. I'm fed up too with seeing all this nonesense about games these days being judged for most part on how good their online/multi-player is. I'm just one of those gamers who thinks, "who the f*ck cares about online gaming so much?". I know many people that do not care for it that much, and I know that I dont for sure. People need to realise that not everyone has ready internet access or has a lot of time on their hands to play endless hours online. Like me, there are many people out there that like single player games because they wanna play the role of a lead character, be part of an epic story, adventure and mission to complete an objective in the most immersive, fun,action-packed way possible. I'd rather take that over running around in endless online deathmatch battles with other gamers that go nowhere - there are a great many people out there who do not like that kind of video gaming.

And is it just me and few or what? Because I really do think many of these multi-player/online features and ideas are now getting exhausted and played out, especially with first-person shooters. Come on, I mean running around various locations and shooting and killing other competing gamers in online deathmatches must get repetitive and quite boring after a while! You just seem to go around in an aimless and endless cycle in a fight for srvival and killing enemies in repetitive deathmatches of many kinds. Where does it end? Whats the end result or fulfillment? It doesn't matter if the FPS games are different whether it's COD4, Halo 3, etc, it sill boils down to the same principal aim in - to kill as much rival players as you can on the screen and gain points and ranking positions. I think that some sports and fighting games are best suited to having major online prorities due to the competitive nature of sport itself.

I'm not saying I think multi-player/online gaming is rubbish or not needed. I'm just saying it is not essential for video games like everyone these days is making it out to be. From the past console generations up until now, it has always been classic, excellent single-player games that have made consoles the major commerically viable entertainment/media powerhouses that they are today. Games developers of today need to realise this now or else......

How important is a single player???

Im not even going to answer that, the question is so stupid.

Single player is very important. I like multiplayer if if all games were multi player i wouldn't buy another console. I like a story in my games.

when you just think of MP, what comes to my mind is "quick start the game! shoot everything! repeat!" and when i think of SP, I hear "slow, boring, quiet and patience for an interesting story".

it seems like in the ADD riddled timeframe of young adults that MP would be appealing to the masses.

yes, it does add replayability, and if they could think of a good way to add that to SP then i think it woould even out.

imagine if after beating MGS4 you could go to the main menu and jump to any fight / battle / level you wanted! that would be killer.

I personally LOVE SP more than MP. i know a good MP game can be addicting for some, but i cant get any joy in killing random, faceless strangers over Live or PSN. most of my friends dont play games so playing against strangers is kind of lackluster and boring.

hopefully game developers dont start abandoning good SP campaigns in favor of appealing to the "masses" because how are you gonna rate how many people love SP? obviously we're not online playing it lol

MP is reality TV. They claim the "masses" love it but there are only a few games where MP is done well and even with those the majority of gamers (outside of the hardcore) drift away from them quickely. It's the single player that brings in the players. The MP just gets people to play a little longer (on the few games its actually good in).

Really I think you cant have one without the other. To have the options of both makes for a more balanced gaming expirence overall.

Now that Jim Ryan is gone just need to remove Herman Hulst from his position! And maybe give Shuhei the position he deserved.

This gen hasn't been the best for games, last gen consoles are still out there and now there's been talk of the PS6 and Xbox Two for a year or so. Many games this gen will be ported to next gen and the cycle will continue. The re-release of the Neo Geo AES+, games on cartridge for £70 ($95), gaming is going back in time. Gaming has gone pricing mad with the high cost of games, consoles and controllers. The men and women at the top are clueless.

It’s always interesting to hear behind-the-scenes stories like this, especially involving veterans like Shuhei Yoshida and leadership figures like Jim Ryan. That said, there are usually multiple sides to decisions at that level. It could be less about not “listening” and more about differences in long-term vision for PlayStation. Yoshida played a huge role in shaping the brand, so whatever the reason, his impact is undeniable.

If true, and I'm inclined to believe it is, it goes to show that Sony lost their way when they became more western/didn't respect the PlayStation origin story. Andrew House and Jack Tretton did great work, but they also didn't try to fundamentally change the PlayStation DNA. Ryan oversaw the death of Japan Studio and a live service direction.

I already figured this, good lord imagine if Shuhei took over instead, would've been a platinum era 😩

I miss the first three generations of PlayStation. The way they turned PS3 around, we knew they meant business. We were all worried for a bit there around launch. Eventually from 2008 they started shifting slowly. But since Yoshida was fired, it's never been the same. Still enjoy my PS5 daily. I got a backlog dating back to PS2 lol So I'm fine but new games aren't as appealing anymore.

It seems like we were thrown on to the worst timeline possible where everything is too expensive and the wrong people were put in positions that makes the world a shitty place. We could have had Shu as the head of PS but we got the shitty alternative. Same goes for everyone in power around the world. Doesn’t matter the company or country the majority of us got the shitty picks and the world is declining like never before. I do think PS can come out of this because of their studios, talent and IP but they need someone more in touch with gamers leading things like Shu was. They’re still the best place for console gaming imo but it could be much better than it is especially without the massive live service failures. The rest of the world I have a lot less hope for right now. Hopefully the pendulum swings back towards the good ole days but I’m preparing for the worst.

There goes illuminati distraction story

So now there's certifiable proof that Ryan was in fact "fired", as opposed to when it was first announced that he "retired", in order to save face.

There's another guy who recently "retired" as CEO of another large gaming company, after doing a dismantling job as lead for well over a decade.

seems legit, the business man, fires the one who has ideas to move the business forward.

Jim Ryan is the reason why we are entering year 6 since the PS5 launch and many of us don't feel like the PS5 has gotten started as yet.

I hope going forward, we will see a return to form.