I am full of rage threads lately.

Anyway, here you go.

Rant and debate away. Personally games are a break from social interaction for me, something I put headphones on and use to escape my constant interactions with others. Saying games should always be social means fuck off then.

Who's Jonas Antonsson? Why do you care about what he said?

What an asocial thing to say. :P

WOW Designer Claims SinglePlayer Games Are Dying

Can we take anything these people say seriously anymore? It's shit like this that makes me wish they die in a ditch and I would finally say "Really? Finally some good news."

'Cause RAAAAAAGE thread.

Indeed.

Games were fine for 25+ years as single player, and had many classics that will stand for decades. Are there games that work better as multi-player or online? yes. Does that mean almost every game should be pushed to it? Hell no.

It gets even worse with stupid gimmicks added to games like "Post this on twitter!" "Upload this replay to youtube!" ect.

This.

Agree with you . That guy is an idiot .

But RAAAAAGGGEEEEE!!!!!!!!!!!

Allright, allright.

WHO IS THIS DAMN CUNT AND WHO IS HE TO TELL ME WHAT I LIKE!

On a more serious note, as the trading of games has come to a halt on the PC I'm fairly certain that SP will actually become dominant again.

A MP game has a "shelf life" once the community is dead, there really is no point buying it. SP games will forever and always remain playable.

Just compare Battlefield 1942 to Blood.

I think StingingVelvet really disliked Rage.

If we're looking at more than just computer gaming he is most certainly correct, single player is the anomaly. That doesn't make it "bad" in any kind of moralistic or judgmental sense, it's actually kind of cool what the medium of video gaming has done for our ability to play games. It's important to note, though, that gaming fulfills a psychological need for us (at a very low level it appears extremely important, i.e. games are actually required for life, not at the level of food, but for anything above managing to not quiet starve a day at a time, it is).

Historically even single player gaming performed the function of enabling social interaction. That's why we had Nintendo Power magazine, its why my buddy and I would rent a NES and some awful game like Faxanadu and play all weekend, while taking turns. How do you think we learned all those easter eggs when we were kids? We learned them socially. Why did every kid know to blow on the end of NES cartridges when they didn't want to play? It's not like you learn that from your parents. I don't think me or any of my friends every had a video game magazine subscription, but we all knew how to do that, even in our hick town.

So, while I find the wording in the article tortured, the whole article is rather ass in fact, social is part of gaming and culture, even single player gaming. The internet has proven once and for all that single player is social, look around, it'll take about a millisecond to convince yourself. The premise in the article is no more than bringing video gaming into the home where they often had to be enjoyed individually was an odd shift from something that historically was far more of a social thing (even arcades are social from his perspective: the high score list at the very least, but the ring of people around any Street Fighter machine watching one kid rock every challenger was always a common sight).

I think Yaegar proved that single player experience have a fuckton to still give, but even that is inherently still social: everyone talked about Spec Ops: The Line, and couldn't stop talking about it, even months later.

From their site:
"We create games for social networks, web browsers and Apple devices"
I think what they create is all a gimmick

And yet it where the achievements that made this conversations especially interesting.

So, you got "A line crossed". Interesting ...

The very reason we are here shows that gaming is social. Yet, SP games are not a gimmick ;-P.

Rage or whatever/