Games are all about having an experience. Some games are about a single player experience based on the story. Some are multiplayer and focus on fun with friends and strangers. While fairly common for there to be single player only games it is less accepted for a game to be strictly multiplayer. Since the start of the next gen systems (XBox and PS4) we’ve had a handful of multiplayer only games that brought about different emotions when talked about. Some love the solo experience and richness that comes from a story, while others only want to play (and dominate) with other people they’ll most likely never meet.
I personally prefer a story to an online multiplayer experience mostly because there isn’t an internet connection in my residence, so I’m conditioned to not care about multiplayers. Now many games exist that are strictly multiplayers that I enjoy like League of Legends. I think MOBAs (Multiplayer Online Battle Arenas) are perfectly fine in terms of a lack of story because the games aren’t as fun without the human aspect. Games like “Overwatch” and ”Rainbow Six: Siege” have been lauded for their gameplay whilst being criticized for lack of a story mode due to players wanting to know more about the universe they’re immersed in. “Overwatch” has supplemented the need for story by putting out animated shorts, comics and other media allowing players a brief glimpse into the lore of the game, but while this satiates the need for an entire story campaign, it does make players want one that much more.
The argument of why online multiplayers should have a story mode is brought up in this article from Kotaku.com which brings up the point that if a multiplayer only game is devoid of a story that it shouldn’t cost the standard $60 dollars that new games typically cost. The reasoning behind that statement is that with multiplayer games being entirely dependent on their community, once the games initial hype has worn off its community could dissipate in a year. Not to mention that games are becoming extremely money hungry due to the sheer amount of micro-transactions present in certain modern day games.
This article from mrblackmagik.com argues that multiplayer only games aren’t a problem because no one complains when games are single player only. It rationalizes this mentality by blaming tradition seeing as “Console gamers have come to expect a single player campaign since the release of the SNES in the early 90s. Whereas what constitutes multiplayer by today’s standard didn’t kick off until the early 2000s with the PlayStation 2 and Xbox.” Black Magik then goes on to argue that games with single player only campaigns last around 12 hours while multiplayer only games can sustain hours of gameplay as long as there is interest. He debates the Kotaku article by asking what defines a games worth.
While my preference is towards single player games, I do think that multiplayer only games have a place in the gaming society. That goes for games that are non-MOBA multiplayers but there is a certain degree of content and quality that must be reached in order for a multiplayer only game to succeed.
