Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Luk3us

Gogogic CEO Says Single-Player is a "Gimmick"

Recommended Posts

]The CEO of social gaming company Gogogic says that games are naturally meant to be played with others.[/b]

Reykjavik-based Gogogic specializes in casual and social gaming, so it does have a certain bias about how people play games, but even so these comments by CEO Jonan Antonsson are a little extreme. In a recent interview, he effectively dismissed single-player gaming, saying that while there's a "strong audience for hard and unrelenting games" like Demon's Souls, games are meant first and foremost to be played with others.

 

"The single player mechanic is a gimmick - games are meant to be played with others and it doesn't matter if it's in-person or online," Antonsson said. "The first games were designed as multiplayer experiences, but when computer and console games became a thing there was a need to construct an antagonist and/or a protagonist for commercial purposes. You couldn't depend on people coming together to have a synchronous experience over a game. That would have simply stifled sales. And since there was no reasonable way to connect people in other ways - the arcade was the only serious attempt - it became an industry need to project the game as the other player."

 

"Playing a game is a multiplayer activity and can easily be seen as such when you watch young toddlers play by themselves," he added. "They invent someone to play with, someone that they talk to and interact with."

I can see where he's coming from - historically, especially as children, people have played with others - but videogames have changed the definition of "play." You don't read multiplayer books, after all, and listening to music or watching television isn't an inherently social activity either. Antonsson hedged his bet somewhat by stating that even something as simple as a high score list is enough to make a game social and "transform it to an asynchronous multiplayer experience," but he then went on to restate his belief that single-player experiences are becoming largely irrelevant to anyone outside a very niche audience.

 

"Now we can connect people in and around a game through real time PvP and PvE mechanics and the need for pure single player games had gone down. We have multiple plots and stories and build the meta-experience for the entire audience. The premise for making games has changed - reverted back to building multiplayer experiences that are true to the game form," he said. "This doesn't mean that we have run out of room when it comes to great single-player titles or games that make you sweat and curse every couple of minutes. It means that those titles have to be very appealing and cater well to the hardcore audience."

 

http://www.escapistmagazine.com/forums/read/7.392288-Gogogic-CEO-Says-Single-Player-is-a-Gimmick

 

 

Seriously this man needs a kick up his ass. :o

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post

I hate developers who think this way, they are ruining gaming. Through I fear that this mindset is growing in this new age of dependency, where self-sufficiency is becoming a dirty word.

Share this post


Link to post
Guest Stevie_K

The only thing he accomplishes by thinking in that way, is isolating important aspects of games.

People play as much for themselves if not more, than they play with others. I'm not just talking video games here, but any kind of game, be that even your own little made up game in your head when you walk to the bus and look for gum dots on the asphalt. I believe it's important to game and learn through storytelling, and this is particularly effective as single player experiences.

Share this post


Link to post

No matter how poor my imagination can be, I am not mentally able to give up on it.

Share this post


Link to post

So every successful single player game is a gimmicky title? So that means every refined genre of games that have seen success in the past is a gimmick because it's solo play? Yeah, this guy is an idiot. Not everything is a social experience and gaming is one of them. However, in his defense, gaming can easily be just as social as going out to the movies or what have you. In any case, this guy is a dip****.

Share this post


Link to post

I hate developers who think this way, they are ruining gaming. Through I fear that this mindset is growing in this new age of dependency, where self-sufficiency is becoming a dirty word.

 

^^ This.

 

I don't care what this guy says from whatever this company is I've never heard of. Most high ranking games developers have lost the plot! It's like this new Need For Speed: Most Wanted that's out. Every aspect of that now is tied into the autolog system. Which means you can't turn a corner or do anything without some notification popping up saying that "Friend X has beaten you, done more miles, smashed more billboards" I look at all this and think... Who cares!

 

I like many gamers play games for immersion. I want to feel a part of the world I'm in regardless of the genre and what I'm doing. Bringing all this social crap into my single player game absolutely kills that completely! I can imagine in the future this getting into RPGs where every bloody quest you undertake measures your speed, number of kills etc.. and then we'll be told that we didn't beat Fred's time because we were too busy looting for essential items. So it's essential that we must try again.

 

This isn't playing with others, it's just bone idle laziness and an excuse to shorten the game further by trying to add unnecessary replay value to a game. If I want to play with others, there's a menu option that says multiplayer.. I shall click and select it when I wish, and then I will interact with humans who also play that game. If I want to be social, I'll go outdoors where social activities are supposed to take place.

Share this post


Link to post

Okay, this guy is just here downtown and I've never heard of him in my life. I've heard of the company but only in passing. It's just some nobody who got some attention for being an idiot.

(Edit: To clarify, Iceland is such a ridiculously small country (similar to a small city) that pretty much everyone has heard of pretty much everyone worth hearing about. For example everyone knows CCP and most people that are in the video game scene recognize the names of the key people there. This guy does not make the cut.)

 

On a semi-related note, they spell and treat his name incorrectly. It's Jónas Antonsson and should be referred to as Jónas so [...] in-person or online," Antonsson said. is just wrong. Icelandic patronyms are never used except to distinguish this Jónas from some other Jónas. Considering the nature of patronyms there are no fewer last names than there are first names so it isn't any more telling to use the last name. Understandable mistake but a mistake nevertheless.

Edited by klandri

Share this post


Link to post

On a semi-related note, they spell and treat his name incorrectly. It's Jónas Antonsson and should be referred to as Jónas so [...] in-person or online," Antonsson said. is just wrong. Icelandic patronyms are never used except to distinguish this Jónas from some other Jónas. Considering the nature of patronyms there are no fewer last names than there are first names so it isn't any more telling to use the last name. Understandable mistake but a mistake nevertheless.

In English this is perfectly normal though, and the article happens to be in English, so this is faulty reasoning.

Share this post


Link to post

I've never been an online player, and I remember my feelings of rejection when I heard that games primarily designed for online play were being released (e.g. Quake III Arena). While I'm not as opposed to online gaming now, I don't play online at all.

 

There's a very understandable appeal in multiplayer games for the developers, namely, they don't have to bother with designing AI opponents, or complex mechanics of the game world. There's also a contingent of people - both among the developers and the gaming audience - who believe that the future of personal computers is in permanent online state, preferably within some social network or other. This is what "casual" users, and "casual" gamers tend to believe.

 

But then again, usually those aren't the people who'd join a real-life role-playing game (with a GM and all) either, they just need some quick entertainment to kill time during a coffee break. There's little difference for them between chatting online or playing some casual game with likewise-minded people.

 

And another thing: the guy who's quoted in the OP is a developer of casual games which are played through social networks. TBH, I've never thought of such... products as games at all.

 

To conclude, I don't think this guy's opinion matters. The casual game products have their niche in the market but they don't overlap with "serious" games much. Let the social networkers have their little fun, after all.

Share this post


Link to post

In English this is perfectly normal though, and the article happens to be in English, so this is faulty reasoning.

 

 

I disagree. I understand perfectly why they did it, they simply didn't know better or didn't want to confuse their readers but it's still wrong. Patronyms are never used in any contexts except to distinguish to individuals with the same given name. If I addressed the president I'd not use his last name, it would be stupid. There are people with more traditional family names where you'd maybe use the last names but it's an exception that does not apply here. I mean if I were to make an article in Icelandic about, for example, Barack Obama I wouldn't say: "Barack said this and Barack said that". Even though it's the norm in Iceland to use the first name it's just wrong and even disrespectful when talking about him. Except that that's less wrong, first names are used way more often and more formally in English.

 

Edit: Also if you'd want to know the man by his name (which the article presumably wants to do) knowing Antonsson does you no favors whatsoever. You can't look it up in any book as it'll always be sorted alphabetically by his first name, people who know him irl will be confused as they use his first name etc. You can also see that on Wikipediathey follow the correct procedure in English articles.

 

 

Edit 2: This got way too long for a short point. So nevermind the spoiler.

 

Main point is that language is irrelevant, his name is what matters. On Wikipedia for example on every entry of an Icelander they specifically mention at the top of the page that this should be avoided as it's wrong.

Edited by klandri

Share this post


Link to post

I'd like to hear him repeat that quote to 343 Industries.

Edited by F15pilotX

Share this post


Link to post

I'd like to hear him repeat that quote to 343 Industries.

 

No, just no. Not the guys that created Halo 4 which still has single-player to play on.

 

Besides, I do not believe what that guy said in the article. I am still dependent on single-player because it's still fun, but when you play dependently on multiplayer or co-op it's not much fun all the time.

Share this post


Link to post

Edit: Also if you'd want to know the man by his name (which the article presumably wants to do) knowing Antonsson does you no favors whatsoever. You can't look it up in any book as it'll always be sorted alphabetically by his first name, people who know him irl will be confused as they use his first name etc. You can also see that on Wikipediathey follow the correct procedure in English articles.

<...>

Main point is that language is irrelevant, his name is what matters. On Wikipedia for example on every entry of an Icelander they specifically mention at the top of the page that this should be avoided as it's wrong.

Ahh, I also didn't get it at first that this is a patronym :) There are obligatory patronyms in Russian names too, and using a patronym alone to refer to a person would be completely incorrect except for very limited number of informal social contexts. On the other hand, using both the first name and the patronym is the default formal, polite way to address and/or to refer to a person.

Share this post


Link to post

Seeing as games like The Elder Scrolls V Skyrim and even the additions being made to the single player in Call of Duty Black Ops 2. Singleplayer is far from a gimmick.

Share this post


Link to post

Like I said above, that company just serves a different market niche - which is indeed oriented towards online casual, social gaming. The company's CEO's generalizing is just a way to promote himself and his work, I'm guessing no one from either mainstream or indie "serious" game development would take this seriously.

Share this post


Link to post

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×