It has been a long standing wish of mine that publishers release a singleplayer-only version of their game for $15 less than the regular one. I would buy many more games at launch if they did this.
Often the multiplayer component of a game is handled by an entirely different studio utilizing the same assets. If they diverge so much, I don’t understand why they can’t release the two separately for less (as well as in a single package, at say $30 each and $50 for the regular one). If I had to guess, I would say this will increase sales.

I don’t play multiplayer games; gaming to me is about immersion and escapism, not competition. Hearing about Mass Effect 2 multiplayer got me fairly agitated!

@ IceBrain:

Ah, good point. I didn’t really think about these challenge based arcade games. Mostly because I sort of tend to view them as idle entertainment. For example, if I’m standing in line, waiting for a table or at the dentist office might play some Angry Birds to kill time. It’s just that – idling.

When I play Dragon Age, Mass Effect, Fallout, etc I get something more out of it. I play them for immersion, escapist, experiencing some interesting setting.

These two types of games are quite different.

@ k00pa:

I actually did not know STALKER had multiplayer mode. I never noticed that…

@ Chris Wellons:

I have not seen it, but I will watch it right now. Thanks for the link.

@ Zel:

Ah, very good point. But I think it doesn’t really matter how good the story is. I guess the point is that the story is there.

Fallout 3 had crappy writing for the most part but I still enjoyed it. I liked doing the quests, talking to people, etc.. That’s what made it’s world real to me. If it would only be about running around, exploring the wasteland and shooting people it would be much more boring. It would be like Borderlands.

Most strategy games I have played did have a story driven single player campaign – not always a good one, but it was there. I’m talking about stuff like StarCraft, Command & Conquer, Warhammer 40k games, Homeworld 2, etc.. Most of these had characters and events that pushed the plot along. Of course if you are playing quick matches against the computer, you are really doing a multi player thing – only with bots.

Stuff like Dwarf Fortress and Minecraft don’t really have any story but they do offer great deal of immersion though. They let you build, expand and be creative – and you get attached to the stuff you create. You make your own stories.

So I guess it is not as much about “story” as it is about immersion.

Single player games are made to be immersive and provide you with interesting experiences. Multi player games are usually about social interaction and challenge.

I can’t say I agree with your views of what makes single and multiplayer games. I don’t care about the story when I play X-Com or other strategy games. Roguelikes like DCSS and games like Dwarf Fortress are single player only, yet there isn’t even a hint of story. I doubt many play FPSs in single player for their stories.

Even limiting the genre to RPGs, I find games that I enjoy and replay are not the ones with the best stories. Fallout’s story isn’t very good, but exploration, character development and multiple paths possible for each quest was what made it entertaining. Most free-form RPG’s stories tend to be quite bad, because they have trouble hooking on the player and suffer the random pacing leaving control to the player implies.

In fact, games with good stories are usually pretty terrible as far as gameplay goes. Planescape: Torment’s is much worse than the lighter Baldur’s Gate’s. Anachronox is interesting but the JRPG mechanics are annoying. The Longest Journey would be much more enjoyable with less pixel hunting and obscure puzzles. Good stories, but not good games.

Some manage to marry single and multiplayer quite well. Usually this involves games with good gameplay, and the single player campaign is both a vessel for the story and a gigantic tutorial before the real challenge begins online. Example include both old games like Starcraft and Jedi Knight, and more recent ones like Call of Duty: Modern Warfare or Dawn of War.

Luke, have you seen this presentation about game AI? Playing to Lose: AI and “Civilization” He places different computer game AIs on a scale between “good” AI (behaves like another human) and “fun” AI (creates an environment). A competitive game that is best suited for multiplayer will typically use good AI, and games designed primarily for singleplayer will typically use fun AI. In cooperative multiplayer situations, it’s typically fun AI — like your MMO dungeon example.

I hate the fact that many games have both single player and multi player… News about Mass Effect 3 and multiplayer didn’t sound fun.

I expect that a multiplayer game gives lots of game time and very good and stable gameplay. From a singleplayer game I expect great one-time experience.

When sp and mp are combined into one game, usually one of them sucks. Stalker: great single player, but boring multi player. Bad company 2: great multi player, but mediocre campaign.

Exception: arcade games. They are fun (well, if you like them, obviously) to play alone yet they are fast and have little text. There isn’t much scenery or background story in Hamsterball ;)

Of course, arcade games can be considered multiplayer games where you play against yourself.