Single Player - Game over?

[Loony BoB]

Are rpg's in general losing popularity amongst young teenage gamers or is it just the final fantasy series? Because video games in general are still becoming more popular all the time.
Some video games are becoming more popular all the time, but I would put most of that down to the generation that is generally accepting of video games maturing and the older generation dying off. I don't think that video games are becoming that much better, let's put it that way - graphics aside, of course.

I think that the single player RPG is finding it hard to compete in a market that is being dominated more than ever by games with online multiplayer capabilities. People will talk about the big games of recent generations and they will be talking about games you can play from the start of the year through to the end of the year and still have new things happening. If there is one thing a Final Fantasy single player game is not, it's sandbox. Call of Duty? Online multiplayer. Sims 3? Ever-changing and a community dedicated to providing more and more stuff to use in your games. World of Warcraft? Obviously multiplayer! Even Uncharted 2 and Uncharted 3 have multiplayer. Even GTA IV has it, as did Red Dead Redemption. It gives an excuse for people to talk about the game more and more both online and offline. Skyrim has both the sandbox aspects and the community making mods, despite being single player.

I feel the exclusively single player RPG is destined to take a back seat now. There seems to be a cocktail at the moment where people look dismissively at them. I'm sure it's not helping that the games haven't been as good as they were in the past, but it seems like a change needs to be made. Make the game a little more multiplayer? A little more sandbox? There are fantasy MMOs out there in abundance and there seems to be a growing market for the anime style, so I don't think it's a lack of desire for the style of game. I just think that the style of game has not kept up with other games when it comes to change.

What do you think? Do you think the JRPG needs to evolve in gameplay in order to re-establish itself as a top genre, or do you think that it's purely a case of a bad run of games? If you do think it needs to evolve, what ideas do you have for how it could go about this? Do you think this extends to more than just the JRPG, and that fixed-story single player games are on the way out? Perhaps all single player games?

[krissy]

this might be more of a battle of east vs west.

now that north america has dedicated, popular development studios, their kind of games and gameplay end up dominating north american marketplaces. which also reduces imports, just cause the demand is being filled with something else.

it was either wolf kanno or someone else that posted a link to a blog that explained this in the same way, but i don't remember how long ago it was.

i guess evolution of a genre is unavoidable, especially if you want to keep old buyers coming back. however, new buyers (and they always appear) won't really care if something is a re-hash, as long as their experience is novel. cod, gta, etc.

i think there's a still a market for single player video gaming. i don't do multiplayer very often for example. if it's ingrained in the game play, ie quake or team fortress or demons souls or something, then sure. but if you have to do stuff to set up the multiplayer i get turned off, dunno why.

flower gets a lot of praise and it's definitely only a single player game.

but you're right i suppose. interactivity is conjoined with 'interacting with others' now. which is not a bad thing! one of the main selling points of the wii was the whole 'play as a family/party' thing, as are the music guitar games.

to be fair, pong was for two players too, so multiplayer isn't just now taking over. perhaps it evolved. it's hard to evolve the idea of a single player experience to anything other than a multi player experience... i guess, where do you go from 1 player? only up, right?

[I Don't Need A Name]

I don't think they need to re-establish themselves. JRPGs are JRPGs. They're a definition in themsevles, and they're usually a definition of quality and enjoyment. The issue just arises in that they can't be the top genre due to the current lame demand for gaming. In a world where the generation of gamers that grew up with Final Fantasy are now older and have less time to game, then delving into a long RPG is difficult (not for the want of trying though). This, coupled with the current multiplayer obsession, has caused the rampage of all subpar piles of tripe that has become the FPS genre. However, due to the multiplayer and the usual high expense that surrounds JRPGs when compared to the normal western FPS, these will continute to rule, in my opinion. The only way they could re-establish themselves to be the top genre would be for every JRPG to be conducted in first person, with an AK-47, with terrorists.. and I would quit gaming forever if that occured.

[Rocket Edge]

This, coupled with the current multiplayer obsession, has caused the rampage of all subpar piles of tripe that has become the FPS genre. However, due to the multiplayer and the usual high expense that surrounds JRPGs when compared to the normal western FPS, these will continute to rule, in my opinion. The only way they could re-establish themselves to be the top genre would be for every JRPG to be conducted in first person, with an AK-47, with terrorists.. and I would quit gaming forever if that occured.
I play Call Of Duty online regularly. The addiction lies in it's solid gameplay, and you aren't battling computer AI all the time. Calling it tripe or whatever just because it has a massive fanbase is a little unfair. The thing about title's like Call Of Duty & other online multiplayer's is that it is very accessible. I feel myself sometimes being drawn to playing online more often than playing offline since I've gotten the PS3 tbh. However, you could also say it's like my friends with playing FIFA. You can relate to other people and talk about the game, and it doesn't take much attention or time to have a quick match-up. I can see how casual gamers find that appealing.

I actually don't think there is much of a problem with (J)RPG's being popular these days. I just think since this console generation came in a few years back, the RPG genre has been lacking so much compared to it's earlier days. There is also the big problem of making a detailed environment for these games in HD, which takes a lot of time compared to said games above. I recently went onto gamespot and the amount of positive fan reaction towards the FFX remake was surprising. People can't wait for it. I think there is great potential in the gaming market for RPG's, it's just about whether they will make an RPG that is a breakthrough for this generation to get people talking. Let's not forget when Call Of Duty first came out & got it's critical acclaim there was an explosion of FPS on the market that followed after it. To a degree it was the same with the Uncharted series.

That brings me onto my final point. Final Fantasy for many years has been flying the flag as the staple for RPG's (particularly JRPG's) since it's inception really. I think if they had made FFXIII a groundbreaking RPG that had universal acclaim like when FFVII or FFX did when they entered a new generation, I don't think this would be such an issue. I don't think it's much of a case as where other games have become more popular, rather than the genre itself hasn't done itself many favors over the past few years.

[I Don't Need A Name]

This, coupled with the current multiplayer obsession, has caused the rampage of all subpar piles of tripe that has become the FPS genre. However, due to the multiplayer and the usual high expense that surrounds JRPGs when compared to the normal western FPS, these will continute to rule, in my opinion. The only way they could re-establish themselves to be the top genre would be for every JRPG to be conducted in first person, with an AK-47, with terrorists.. and I would quit gaming forever if that occured.
I play Call Of Duty online regularly. The addiction lies in it's solid gameplay, and you aren't battling computer AI all the time. Calling it tripe or whatever just because it has a massive fanbase is a little unfair. The thing about title's like Call Of Duty & other online multiplayer's is that it is very accessible. I feel myself sometimes being drawn to playing online more often than playing offline since I've gotten the PS3 tbh. However, you could also say it's like my friends with playing FIFA. You can relate to other people and talk about the game, and it doesn't take much attention or time to have a quick match-up. I can see how casual gamers find that appealing.

My problem is that they're games built soley for the multiplayer. They pump out a crap 4 hour campaign mode which is the same as all the rest, with a few more flashy explosions, then release more multiplayer maps of the same experience with the same weapons using the same guns. That's not a new game, that's just an overpriced expansion

[Roto13]

JRPGs suffer from being Japanese and Japan's game development industry has fallen behind in a number of ways this generation (long development cycles, not really getting online or DLC). But there will always be room for single player games. Some of the most critically acclaimed and best selling games of last year were single player games, including Skyrim, which is an RPG.

[Loony BoB]

JRPGs suffer from being Japanese and Japan's game development industry has fallen behind in a number of ways this generation (long development cycles, not really getting online or DLC). But there will always be room for single player games. Some of the most critically acclaimed and best selling games of last year were single player games, including Skyrim, which is an RPG.
Of those best selling games, how many had either an online element or a sandbox-moddable environment? I can't think of many that didn't have one or both. JRPGs have neither. It seems to me that these two aspects of gaming are the things that keep people talking about games long enough for them to become mainstream. Them being mainstream means that more people play them and more people will also play the next generation of the games.

Flower is a lovely game, krissy, but it is also dirt cheap and as much as I would love it to be, I wouldn't call it a mainstream game. I thought it was telling that Journey was a move towards creating a game that is different every time you play it. Games with low replayability are no longer the kind of games people are wanting to shell out £40/$60 on. The wider audience (that game developers hope to tap into) wants to be entertained for months for that kind of money, not days.

[Psychotic]

JRPGs were amazing in the 90's. Now we have Skyrim, Fallout, Mass Effect, Deus Ex, Witcher, Dragon Age, etc. etc. and JRPGs are still back in the 90's. Yes, they need to evolve, but can they? Adding multiplayer to a JRPG just wouldn't work. How the fuck would you even do it? Genres die - look at Platforming games. They were a huge fucking genre but what has happened to them now? Sorry JRPG your time is up.

[Bolivar]

No offense to BoB but I think this idea lost its traction a few years ago, it was a fad like episodic gaming, the "superiority" of non-linear design, or digital-only distribution. Since then we've certainly seen a lot of titles add multiplayer, with varying success, but we've still gotten a lot of single player masterpieces like LA Noire and Skyrim. I'd question how much the sandboxyness really counts because tracking has shown how very little the majority of players explore those world, pursue sidequests, or even just make it halfway through the game.

Final Fantasy's problem is Final Fantasy. Square was making sequels and spinoffs for then-current consoles while everyone else was making their first next-gen games. And Japan hasn't fallen off - look at how many modern classics have been released on handheld in the last few years. The problem is AAA gaming has become too bloated to produce innovative titles anymore. In order to make a AAA game you need a massive team and the only way to get so many different people to work together successfully on that one project is to make something everyone is already familiar with. That's why FPS and WRPGs have dominated this gen, because Western developers have been making these games for decades. A unique and innovative vision is easier to work on with smaller teams, where it's easier to get each member on board to know what they're making. That's why you get games like Radiant Historia and Valkyria Chronicles II on handheld and Call of Duty 8 on console (and people say Japan's fallen off...) That being said...


My problem is that they're games built soley for the multiplayer. They pump out a crap 4 hour campaign mode which is the same as all the rest, with a few more flashy explosions, then release more multiplayer maps of the same experience with the same weapons using the same guns. That's not a new game, that's just an overpriced expansion

MW3 sucked but both its predecessors had campaigns that, while short, did incredible things that no one saw in shooters before. Black Ops actually had an average-sized campaign that had a deep back story and did justice to the intrigue and paranoia of the Cold War. And each multiplayer mode brings not only new maps, but a new map design philosophy, a new progression system that changes the way you think about building classes and pursuing challenges in order to rank up quickly. I play each of the games very differently, and again, MW3 was a rush-job but if you look at what Black Ops added to MW2 or what MW2 added to MW1, it's pretty impressive. It's multiple teams and franchises and they take just as long as your average studio does crafting a game.

[Loony BoB]

No offense to BoB but I think this idea lost its traction a few years ago, it was a fad like episodic gaming, the "superiority" of non-linear design, or digital-only distribution. Since then we've certainly seen a lot of titles add multiplayer, with varying success, but we've still gotten a lot of single player masterpieces like LA Noire and Skyrim. I'd question how much the sandboxyness really counts because tracking has shown how very little the majority of players explore those world, pursue sidequests, or even just make it halfway through the game.
I don't know why you would think I would take offence to someone disagreeing with me. xD That's why I made this thread - for discussion and debate. :)

I disagree with you, though, regarding how much sandyboxness counts. Skyrim did well not because of it's epic storyline but because of the amount of things you could do in the game, and that you could explore such a massive game world, and because you could do things the way you want. These are exactly the reasons Skyrim got such high reviews. As for LA Noire, I don't think it was that big a deal, that game. The reviews I read had a lot of criticism for it. The game itself sold less copies than Final Fantasy XIII and the ratings weren't that much better, either.

Regardless, the games that have sold best have always had multiplayer or sandbox aspects. They have that ability to be talked about and replayed for a long time, and that means word of mouth hangs around for longer and the sales subsequently go higher. Meanwhile, single player games are played and then finished and then people move on to the next single player game and forget about the earlier one. It's the need to be able to play a game for more than a week that brings about an increase in sales purely on persistent word of mouth advertising.

[VeloZer0]

I think it isn't so much that games require open ended aspects, its that most single player focused games aren't good enough to justify the lack of them. When you start restricting the options a player has it gives you in turn more control over the game experience. However I don't think at this time game developers are good enough at using this control to produce a superior game experience, leaving it to languish behind in comparison to the players ability to make their own fun.

[NeoCracker]

JRPGs were amazing in the 90's. Now we have Skyrim, Fallout, Mass Effect, Deus Ex, Witcher, Dragon Age, etc. etc. and JRPGs are still back in the 90's. Yes, they need to evolve, but can they? Adding multiplayer to a JRPG just wouldn't work. How the fuck would you even do it? Genres die - look at Platforming games. They were a huge fucking genre but what has happened to them now? Sorry JRPG your time is up.

I'm not really sure if you are being sarcastic here, but this is a blatently silly statement. Not evolving? Look at all the advancements to the older RPG's in games like Persona 3 and 4. The Strategy RPG Subgenre does quite well for itself too, titles like Disgaea and Devil Survivor for example.

Hell, even Hyperdimension Neptunia is doing well enough for itself to be making the company money,and a third game is already in production.

Is the Genre the top of the charts? No. Do they still get a lot of well recieved, well selling games? Absolutely.

To slightly steal your comment in the 'eoff is dying' thread, 'I guess RPG's have been dying for the past 10 years then!'

[Roto13]

Don't be happy for Hyperdimension Neptunia's success.

[Bolivar]

I guess I didn't expect you to take offense, BoB, I'm just sensitive when it comes to disagreeing with posters I actually like :)

I would still disagree, though. Sandboxyness didn't make Skyrim a smash hit - hype did. I'm certain that if we looked at the tracking for how many players even scratched the surface of what the game offered, it would be minimal. Most of them didn't care about the randomly generated side stories, they just wanted to join in on the next big hit on the Xbox 360.

As far as the reviews, I honestly believe the video game journalist corp. of today is composed of a homogenous group of writers. If you look at a list of their favorite games of all time they all have Bioshock, Portal, and Oblivion in the top 5. I'm not bashing Skyrim or WRPGs (sometimes I do) but those games aren't for everyone and I don't think the aggregate on metacritic represents a range of opinion. Fallout 3 won so many awards and blew so many minds, but when I played the game I found myself bewildered by countless choices, none of which I could possibly care less about.



JRPGs were amazing in the 90's. Now we have Skyrim, Fallout, Mass Effect, Deus Ex, Witcher, Dragon Age, etc. etc. and JRPGs are still back in the 90's. Yes, they need to evolve, but can they? Adding multiplayer to a JRPG just wouldn't work. How the fuck would you even do it? Genres die - look at Platforming games. They were a huge fucking genre but what has happened to them now? Sorry JRPG your time is up.

I'm not really sure if you are being sarcastic here, but this is a blatently silly statement. Not evolving? Look at all the advancements to the older RPG's in games like Persona 3 and 4. The Strategy RPG Subgenre does quite well for itself too, titles like Disgaea and Devil Survivor for example.

Hell, even Hyperdimension Neptunia is doing well enough for itself to be making the company money,and a third game is already in production.

Is the Genre the top of the charts? No. Do they still get a lot of well recieved, well selling games? Absolutely.

To slightly steal your comment in the 'eoff is dying' thread, 'I guess RPG's have been dying for the past 10 years then!'

I gotta co-sign this post to the fullest, and I really, truly hate to sound like a snob, but if you think JRPGs are dead then you really are missing out on some great titles coming out from the genre today.

On the subject of multiplayer, while White Knight Chronicles was fairly mediocre, it did an excellent job of implementing multiplayer, adding a very addicting dymanic that's integrated with single player. I would love to see more console titles experiment in a similar fashion.

[Peegee]

You can have story telling elements in both single player and multiplayer, but for single player I find that it is more direct (because you need to pad it with content), rather than indirect / less direct in multiplayer.

For example in both Left 4 Dead games, there is a huge backstory and a lot of secrets and allusions based on wall textures, the plot developing, and replaying it so many times that you've heard every combination of sound clips (I haven't done this)

My brother has over 2000 hours of left 4 dead 2 gameplay. He knows more about it than I do, and I played the game first.

Personally though, I dislike single player games due to a high chance of boredom. I tried to play Metro 2033 and didn't get very far. I played Final Fantasy 9 up until vivi walked onscreen (that's like...5 minutes into the game?). I finished FF8, and I still haven't finished Doom 3 to this very day.

I might not be a single player gamer any more. Maybe when that was all there was, I was one, but now? No.

This isn't always the case though. Starcraft 2 is mostly a multiplayer game but I have finished the campaign along with all of the achievements. I suck at multiplayer so I only play it singleplayer mode (along with its comp stomp achievements and what-not).

I guess where I'm going with this is that it depends, but I prefer multiplayer. Are they dying out? I doubt it. Will it be as successful as the 1990s? Probably never again.

[NeoCracker]

Don't be happy for Hyperdimension Neptunia's success.

Hyperdimension is just to deep for you.

[Roto13]

Don't be happy for Hyperdimension Neptunia's success.

Hyperdimension is just to deep for you.

Deep like an ocean of crap.

[NeoCracker]

Don't be happy for Hyperdimension Neptunia's success.

Hyperdimension is just to deep for you.

Deep like an ocean of crap.

If by crap you mean a crap ton of AWESOME, they you sir are right.

[black orb]

>>> As long nerds exist in this world one player JRPGs will never die.. :luca:

[I Don't Need A Name]

Don't be happy for Hyperdimension Neptunia's success.

Hyperdimension is just to deep for you.

Deep like an ocean of crap.

If by crap you mean a crap ton of AWESOME, they you sir are right.

Seconded