Lately ‘Multiplayer’ features of a game have risen from just a feature to a core experience of gaming. Games are now judged based on the quality of their co-op and multiplayer accessibility, along with the usual graphics, plot, and whatnot. I’m not saying that’s a bad thing, but unfortunately it can be—because of the frequency of co-op and multiplayer, single player games are also being subjected to that kind of review, even though multiplayer experiences would be highly unbalanced or even detrimental to gameplay.
Skyrim quickly comes to mind when thinking of games that received a backlash for having no co-op. Although it was a spectacular game in and of itself, there was a large amount of feedback regarding its single-player condition. With no co-op or multiplayer, gamers who entered into gaming through multiplayer facets were none too pleased. While a multiplayer Skyrim could be awesome, let’s be honest—it would more than likely be plagued with glitches, overpowered classes, and a different kind of battle system. You can see at least part of the MMO transition in the Elder Scrolls Online—they have already done away with skillsets and drifted more towards a traditional RPG MMO. Granted, it’s developed by a different company, but it does show that there are major differences between single-player and multiplayer games. If Skyrim had been multiplayer, it would have been a different game entirely.
But let’s move away from Skyrim for a moment. Let’s imagine a world where all games are multiplayer. It might seem crazy to an older player, familiar with single player experiences, but with major multiplayer games releasing each year, co-op and multiplayer are becoming an essential part of every game, and it’s not that strange of a future. First, co-op everything would get rid of the private, single player experience. You can certainly experience art and emotion with other people, but gaming on your own brings a more intimate experience. You can explore and play however you want without worrying about dragging your team down or boring your friends. You can bond with the characters instead of making fun of them. You can choose not to carry forward with the plot at all, and instead mess around talking to NPCs. Silent Hill games would be comedies, not horror or tragedy games. That freedom of experience would be gone.
Beyond just that, there are the people you play with. It’s one thing to deal with griefers, newbies, and idiots online—what if you had to deal with them when getting through the story modes as well? It works well for some games, but can you imagine dealing with a new player that joined you in the latter half of the game? Rationing out items to someone who will quickly waste them, just because it’s impossible to go through an area with one person? Constantly needing to retry because your other player has a sketchy internet connection?
I’m not saying multiplayer is bad—quite the opposite. Multiplayer adds another layer to an experience and, done well, can be greater than the single player campaign. I am only asking that the next time a high-profile game comes out with no multiplayer, don’t be so quick to judge it as a crappy game with no replay value. Not everything is good with multiplayer, and a game should not be condemned because of a feature it does not have that was not planned for it and would not suit it.