The "General Games Chat" forum, which includes Retro Game Reviews, has been archived and is now read-only. You cannot post here or create a new thread or review on this forum.
This past year has seen a definite change in my gaming patterns. Besides playing even more than I ever have before (something my girlfriend really appreciates), I have been spending most of that time playing via the Internet. Here and there you’ll read articles bemoaning the end of the single player experience, as multi-player only titles such as Ultima Online, Everquest, and Quake 3 Arena garner greater and greater audiences. But while I read these articles I have to ask myself, why did no one bemoan the end of the multi-player experience?
Do you remember your very first video game? Mine was at my Aunt’s house just outside London, when I was all of about seven years old. The game was Pong, and I spent hours upon hours competing with my older cousins, keeping track of our overall standings, and complaining every time Mum and Dad made me go outside. From the very first instant, I was hooked. Was it the dazzling graphics? The outstanding soundtrack? The compelling gameplay? No to all of these. In fact, it was the very simple act of playing against a live opponent, one whom I wanted desperately to beat. The choice was simple: go outside and throw crab apples at each other, where my physically larger cousin had the advantage; or play on the level playing field of the television set.
The Greeks have a word for it. It’s called agon. From this word we derive such common usage as protagonist, antagonist, antagonize, and agony. Anyone who’s ever taken a Lit. course knows the first two, and anyone with a sibling knows the latter two. Boiled down to its root, agon means competition. A test of wills, a battle to the finish. It was what made these simple early video games as addictive as they were. And man, was I addicted.
Pong soon gave way to the joys of the Atari 2600 and its hundreds of different games. Friends (and new friends) from all over my neighbourhood would gather in my basement, where we would set up tournaments, ladders, and the like. Mum would bring down crisps and coke, and every weekend, and some weeknights, were a party at my place. Then, I began to notice something changing. A few of the newer cartridges coming out for the Atari did not have a multi-player aspect. Games such as Adventure and Superman, while addictive in their own right, really had no place at a social gathering. One could only handle so much of watching someone else having fun, before the parties began to dwindle down to nothing. The capper was when my Dad bought his first computer, a TRS Model II Level II, with a whopping 16K of RAM and its very own tape drive. I don’t mean like a tape backup, I mean literally a cassette tape. People who fondly remember their Commodore 64s and VIC 20s will know what I mean.
New games such as the NetTrek-like Invasion Force and Scott Adam’s Adventure series (text adventures, miles apart from Atari’s Adventure) killed off any multi-player gaming time I’d had left. A friend’s father who worked for IBM would occasionally bring home a terminal from work, and it was there that I learned about two knew things: modems and Zork. As odd as it may seem, the only way you could play the granddaddy of all single player adventure games at home was via the use of a modem, symbol of the connected multi-player age. Yet again, it was an exercise in watching someone else play for interminably long spans while waiting for your own turn. So back to the old TRS I went.
Meanwhile, such game systems as Intellivision, Colecovision, and Nintendo filled in the gap that the Atari had left behind as it became just another doorstop or paperweight. Multi-player perhaps reached its zenith with the Nintendo system, but even then, the computer age was dawning and many gamers were no longer satisfied with the limited abilities of a platform system. The problem with the games for the computer systems of the mid- to late-80s, was that they were almost exclusively single player experiences. As my list of game titles increased, so my list of friends dwindled. From an old XT machine, through a 286, a 386, a couple of 486 upgrades, and into the Pentium age, my primary motivation in gaming became not “Who am I going to play against,” but “How am I going to afford to upgrade.” About midway through this process something strange began to happen: multi-player games began to emerge on the PC.
Beginning with such BBS favorites as Tradewars and online Chess, “multi-player” began to creep back into my lexicon. Soon, my old XT was hooked up as a dedicated BBS (The Bag End for anyone who is interested) and I learned all about modems and cool programs like Remote Access. But at the same time, better and better single player games were coming out for faster computer systems, and I found myself on a new King’s Quest or exploring the expanses of Britannia more often than not. Then I discovered strategy games, and slowly began to reintegrate myself into the multi-player mainstream.
Now don’t get me wrong. I know there were plenty of great multi-player titles out on computer systems, primarily for the Commodore 64. I spent long nights playing M.U.L.E. and Bungling Bay with friends, but the single player games available to compete against them were just that much better. At least they were at the time; what I wouldn’t give now to have a working copy of M.U.L.E. again! The point is, we had gone from a time where all games were multi-player by default, to a time when they were the exception rather than the rule. Today, the trend appears to be reversing.
So before you go lamenting the late great solo game, remember this: gaming, as with all things, goes in cycles. Three years ago RPGs were dead, until a little game called Diablo came out. Adventure games were all the craze, but how many of them have you seen come out the past year? At least ones that you’d be willing to part with some cash to play? Massively multi-player games like the aforementioned UO and EQ are huge right now, and I fully expect them and similar titles to continue to capture a large percentage of the gaming populace. But single player games, despite the dirges you hear played for them, are not dead. Try your hand at an excellent puzzle game like Pandora’s Box, a strategy title such as Pharaoh, or an excellent RPG like Planescape: Torment to see what I mean. And in five years, who knows? I may be writing a post complaining about the lack of excellent multi-player experiences coming down the pipe.
Thanks for Reading,
o(^_^)o
Do you remember your very first video game? Mine was at my Aunt’s house just outside London, when I was all of about seven years old. The game was Pong, and I spent hours upon hours competing with my older cousins, keeping track of our overall standings, and complaining every time Mum and Dad made me go outside. From the very first instant, I was hooked. Was it the dazzling graphics? The outstanding soundtrack? The compelling gameplay? No to all of these. In fact, it was the very simple act of playing against a live opponent, one whom I wanted desperately to beat. The choice was simple: go outside and throw crab apples at each other, where my physically larger cousin had the advantage; or play on the level playing field of the television set.
The Greeks have a word for it. It’s called agon. From this word we derive such common usage as protagonist, antagonist, antagonize, and agony. Anyone who’s ever taken a Lit. course knows the first two, and anyone with a sibling knows the latter two. Boiled down to its root, agon means competition. A test of wills, a battle to the finish. It was what made these simple early video games as addictive as they were. And man, was I addicted.
Pong soon gave way to the joys of the Atari 2600 and its hundreds of different games. Friends (and new friends) from all over my neighbourhood would gather in my basement, where we would set up tournaments, ladders, and the like. Mum would bring down crisps and coke, and every weekend, and some weeknights, were a party at my place. Then, I began to notice something changing. A few of the newer cartridges coming out for the Atari did not have a multi-player aspect. Games such as Adventure and Superman, while addictive in their own right, really had no place at a social gathering. One could only handle so much of watching someone else having fun, before the parties began to dwindle down to nothing. The capper was when my Dad bought his first computer, a TRS Model II Level II, with a whopping 16K of RAM and its very own tape drive. I don’t mean like a tape backup, I mean literally a cassette tape. People who fondly remember their Commodore 64s and VIC 20s will know what I mean.
New games such as the NetTrek-like Invasion Force and Scott Adam’s Adventure series (text adventures, miles apart from Atari’s Adventure) killed off any multi-player gaming time I’d had left. A friend’s father who worked for IBM would occasionally bring home a terminal from work, and it was there that I learned about two knew things: modems and Zork. As odd as it may seem, the only way you could play the granddaddy of all single player adventure games at home was via the use of a modem, symbol of the connected multi-player age. Yet again, it was an exercise in watching someone else play for interminably long spans while waiting for your own turn. So back to the old TRS I went.
Meanwhile, such game systems as Intellivision, Colecovision, and Nintendo filled in the gap that the Atari had left behind as it became just another doorstop or paperweight. Multi-player perhaps reached its zenith with the Nintendo system, but even then, the computer age was dawning and many gamers were no longer satisfied with the limited abilities of a platform system. The problem with the games for the computer systems of the mid- to late-80s, was that they were almost exclusively single player experiences. As my list of game titles increased, so my list of friends dwindled. From an old XT machine, through a 286, a 386, a couple of 486 upgrades, and into the Pentium age, my primary motivation in gaming became not “Who am I going to play against,” but “How am I going to afford to upgrade.” About midway through this process something strange began to happen: multi-player games began to emerge on the PC.
Beginning with such BBS favorites as Tradewars and online Chess, “multi-player” began to creep back into my lexicon. Soon, my old XT was hooked up as a dedicated BBS (The Bag End for anyone who is interested) and I learned all about modems and cool programs like Remote Access. But at the same time, better and better single player games were coming out for faster computer systems, and I found myself on a new King’s Quest or exploring the expanses of Britannia more often than not. Then I discovered strategy games, and slowly began to reintegrate myself into the multi-player mainstream.
Now don’t get me wrong. I know there were plenty of great multi-player titles out on computer systems, primarily for the Commodore 64. I spent long nights playing M.U.L.E. and Bungling Bay with friends, but the single player games available to compete against them were just that much better. At least they were at the time; what I wouldn’t give now to have a working copy of M.U.L.E. again! The point is, we had gone from a time where all games were multi-player by default, to a time when they were the exception rather than the rule. Today, the trend appears to be reversing.
So before you go lamenting the late great solo game, remember this: gaming, as with all things, goes in cycles. Three years ago RPGs were dead, until a little game called Diablo came out. Adventure games were all the craze, but how many of them have you seen come out the past year? At least ones that you’d be willing to part with some cash to play? Massively multi-player games like the aforementioned UO and EQ are huge right now, and I fully expect them and similar titles to continue to capture a large percentage of the gaming populace. But single player games, despite the dirges you hear played for them, are not dead. Try your hand at an excellent puzzle game like Pandora’s Box, a strategy title such as Pharaoh, or an excellent RPG like Planescape: Torment to see what I mean. And in five years, who knows? I may be writing a post complaining about the lack of excellent multi-player experiences coming down the pipe.
Thanks for Reading,
o(^_^)o
ßër§ëkër wrote:
> maybe it's just because you don't get crisps and
> coke any more.
I think he still has crisps... and one giant nostril!
> maybe it's just because you don't get crisps and
> coke any more.
I think he still has crisps... and one giant nostril!
Another 2 Q's post if I may say so Mr.squiggely name.
I'd thought that single player games had made a bit of a comeback this last year or so?
Id certainly seen a lot more AAA titles with single player as the primary game mode?
Id certainly seen a lot more AAA titles with single player as the primary game mode?
Weh hey!
Small_Frog wrote:
> Good grief thats a long one
I know it is, the posts pretty long too :-D
> Good grief thats a long one
I know it is, the posts pretty long too :-D
Good grief thats a long one
This past year has seen a definite change in my gaming patterns. Besides playing even more than I ever have before (something my girlfriend really appreciates), I have been spending most of that time playing via the Internet. Here and there you’ll read articles bemoaning the end of the single player experience, as multi-player only titles such as Ultima Online, Everquest, and Quake 3 Arena garner greater and greater audiences. But while I read these articles I have to ask myself, why did no one bemoan the end of the multi-player experience?
Do you remember your very first video game? Mine was at my Aunt’s house just outside London, when I was all of about seven years old. The game was Pong, and I spent hours upon hours competing with my older cousins, keeping track of our overall standings, and complaining every time Mum and Dad made me go outside. From the very first instant, I was hooked. Was it the dazzling graphics? The outstanding soundtrack? The compelling gameplay? No to all of these. In fact, it was the very simple act of playing against a live opponent, one whom I wanted desperately to beat. The choice was simple: go outside and throw crab apples at each other, where my physically larger cousin had the advantage; or play on the level playing field of the television set.
The Greeks have a word for it. It’s called agon. From this word we derive such common usage as protagonist, antagonist, antagonize, and agony. Anyone who’s ever taken a Lit. course knows the first two, and anyone with a sibling knows the latter two. Boiled down to its root, agon means competition. A test of wills, a battle to the finish. It was what made these simple early video games as addictive as they were. And man, was I addicted.
Pong soon gave way to the joys of the Atari 2600 and its hundreds of different games. Friends (and new friends) from all over my neighbourhood would gather in my basement, where we would set up tournaments, ladders, and the like. Mum would bring down crisps and coke, and every weekend, and some weeknights, were a party at my place. Then, I began to notice something changing. A few of the newer cartridges coming out for the Atari did not have a multi-player aspect. Games such as Adventure and Superman, while addictive in their own right, really had no place at a social gathering. One could only handle so much of watching someone else having fun, before the parties began to dwindle down to nothing. The capper was when my Dad bought his first computer, a TRS Model II Level II, with a whopping 16K of RAM and its very own tape drive. I don’t mean like a tape backup, I mean literally a cassette tape. People who fondly remember their Commodore 64s and VIC 20s will know what I mean.
New games such as the NetTrek-like Invasion Force and Scott Adam’s Adventure series (text adventures, miles apart from Atari’s Adventure) killed off any multi-player gaming time I’d had left. A friend’s father who worked for IBM would occasionally bring home a terminal from work, and it was there that I learned about two knew things: modems and Zork. As odd as it may seem, the only way you could play the granddaddy of all single player adventure games at home was via the use of a modem, symbol of the connected multi-player age. Yet again, it was an exercise in watching someone else play for interminably long spans while waiting for your own turn. So back to the old TRS I went.
Meanwhile, such game systems as Intellivision, Colecovision, and Nintendo filled in the gap that the Atari had left behind as it became just another doorstop or paperweight. Multi-player perhaps reached its zenith with the Nintendo system, but even then, the computer age was dawning and many gamers were no longer satisfied with the limited abilities of a platform system. The problem with the games for the computer systems of the mid- to late-80s, was that they were almost exclusively single player experiences. As my list of game titles increased, so my list of friends dwindled. From an old XT machine, through a 286, a 386, a couple of 486 upgrades, and into the Pentium age, my primary motivation in gaming became not “Who am I going to play against,” but “How am I going to afford to upgrade.” About midway through this process something strange began to happen: multi-player games began to emerge on the PC.
Beginning with such BBS favorites as Tradewars and online Chess, “multi-player” began to creep back into my lexicon. Soon, my old XT was hooked up as a dedicated BBS (The Bag End for anyone who is interested) and I learned all about modems and cool programs like Remote Access. But at the same time, better and better single player games were coming out for faster computer systems, and I found myself on a new King’s Quest or exploring the expanses of Britannia more often than not. Then I discovered strategy games, and slowly began to reintegrate myself into the multi-player mainstream.
Now don’t get me wrong. I know there were plenty of great multi-player titles out on computer systems, primarily for the Commodore 64. I spent long nights playing M.U.L.E. and Bungling Bay with friends, but the single player games available to compete against them were just that much better. At least they were at the time; what I wouldn’t give now to have a working copy of M.U.L.E. again! The point is, we had gone from a time where all games were multi-player by default, to a time when they were the exception rather than the rule. Today, the trend appears to be reversing.
So before you go lamenting the late great solo game, remember this: gaming, as with all things, goes in cycles. Three years ago RPGs were dead, until a little game called Diablo came out. Adventure games were all the craze, but how many of them have you seen come out the past year? At least ones that you’d be willing to part with some cash to play? Massively multi-player games like the aforementioned UO and EQ are huge right now, and I fully expect them and similar titles to continue to capture a large percentage of the gaming populace. But single player games, despite the dirges you hear played for them, are not dead. Try your hand at an excellent puzzle game like Pandora’s Box, a strategy title such as Pharaoh, or an excellent RPG like Planescape: Torment to see what I mean. And in five years, who knows? I may be writing a post complaining about the lack of excellent multi-player experiences coming down the pipe.
Thanks for Reading,
o(^_^)o
Do you remember your very first video game? Mine was at my Aunt’s house just outside London, when I was all of about seven years old. The game was Pong, and I spent hours upon hours competing with my older cousins, keeping track of our overall standings, and complaining every time Mum and Dad made me go outside. From the very first instant, I was hooked. Was it the dazzling graphics? The outstanding soundtrack? The compelling gameplay? No to all of these. In fact, it was the very simple act of playing against a live opponent, one whom I wanted desperately to beat. The choice was simple: go outside and throw crab apples at each other, where my physically larger cousin had the advantage; or play on the level playing field of the television set.
The Greeks have a word for it. It’s called agon. From this word we derive such common usage as protagonist, antagonist, antagonize, and agony. Anyone who’s ever taken a Lit. course knows the first two, and anyone with a sibling knows the latter two. Boiled down to its root, agon means competition. A test of wills, a battle to the finish. It was what made these simple early video games as addictive as they were. And man, was I addicted.
Pong soon gave way to the joys of the Atari 2600 and its hundreds of different games. Friends (and new friends) from all over my neighbourhood would gather in my basement, where we would set up tournaments, ladders, and the like. Mum would bring down crisps and coke, and every weekend, and some weeknights, were a party at my place. Then, I began to notice something changing. A few of the newer cartridges coming out for the Atari did not have a multi-player aspect. Games such as Adventure and Superman, while addictive in their own right, really had no place at a social gathering. One could only handle so much of watching someone else having fun, before the parties began to dwindle down to nothing. The capper was when my Dad bought his first computer, a TRS Model II Level II, with a whopping 16K of RAM and its very own tape drive. I don’t mean like a tape backup, I mean literally a cassette tape. People who fondly remember their Commodore 64s and VIC 20s will know what I mean.
New games such as the NetTrek-like Invasion Force and Scott Adam’s Adventure series (text adventures, miles apart from Atari’s Adventure) killed off any multi-player gaming time I’d had left. A friend’s father who worked for IBM would occasionally bring home a terminal from work, and it was there that I learned about two knew things: modems and Zork. As odd as it may seem, the only way you could play the granddaddy of all single player adventure games at home was via the use of a modem, symbol of the connected multi-player age. Yet again, it was an exercise in watching someone else play for interminably long spans while waiting for your own turn. So back to the old TRS I went.
Meanwhile, such game systems as Intellivision, Colecovision, and Nintendo filled in the gap that the Atari had left behind as it became just another doorstop or paperweight. Multi-player perhaps reached its zenith with the Nintendo system, but even then, the computer age was dawning and many gamers were no longer satisfied with the limited abilities of a platform system. The problem with the games for the computer systems of the mid- to late-80s, was that they were almost exclusively single player experiences. As my list of game titles increased, so my list of friends dwindled. From an old XT machine, through a 286, a 386, a couple of 486 upgrades, and into the Pentium age, my primary motivation in gaming became not “Who am I going to play against,” but “How am I going to afford to upgrade.” About midway through this process something strange began to happen: multi-player games began to emerge on the PC.
Beginning with such BBS favorites as Tradewars and online Chess, “multi-player” began to creep back into my lexicon. Soon, my old XT was hooked up as a dedicated BBS (The Bag End for anyone who is interested) and I learned all about modems and cool programs like Remote Access. But at the same time, better and better single player games were coming out for faster computer systems, and I found myself on a new King’s Quest or exploring the expanses of Britannia more often than not. Then I discovered strategy games, and slowly began to reintegrate myself into the multi-player mainstream.
Now don’t get me wrong. I know there were plenty of great multi-player titles out on computer systems, primarily for the Commodore 64. I spent long nights playing M.U.L.E. and Bungling Bay with friends, but the single player games available to compete against them were just that much better. At least they were at the time; what I wouldn’t give now to have a working copy of M.U.L.E. again! The point is, we had gone from a time where all games were multi-player by default, to a time when they were the exception rather than the rule. Today, the trend appears to be reversing.
So before you go lamenting the late great solo game, remember this: gaming, as with all things, goes in cycles. Three years ago RPGs were dead, until a little game called Diablo came out. Adventure games were all the craze, but how many of them have you seen come out the past year? At least ones that you’d be willing to part with some cash to play? Massively multi-player games like the aforementioned UO and EQ are huge right now, and I fully expect them and similar titles to continue to capture a large percentage of the gaming populace. But single player games, despite the dirges you hear played for them, are not dead. Try your hand at an excellent puzzle game like Pandora’s Box, a strategy title such as Pharaoh, or an excellent RPG like Planescape: Torment to see what I mean. And in five years, who knows? I may be writing a post complaining about the lack of excellent multi-player experiences coming down the pipe.
Thanks for Reading,
o(^_^)o