I’m probably using “cardinal sin” wrong here, but it’s certainly the highest issue on my list.
I mainly buy videogames for multiplayer, which is one of the main reasons that I love the Wii so much. I’m sure the PS3 and Xbox 360 will have some good multiplayer titles, but I know I’m not going to enjoy them nearly as much as having a group of friends spin wiimotes around their head at high speed. I’m also going to go out on a limb and say that the only worthwhile multiplayer games on the other systems will be FPS’s… and really, I only need one of those. It may be a broad generality, but as an owner of both a PS2 and an Xbox, the only games I played multiplayer were Halo 1&2. Oh, and DDR, but I prefer to play that on my computer.
Anyway, the Wii seems built for people like me who want videogames, like my beloved boardgames, to be a social activity. So why, oh why, do so many games make it so that I can’t play multiplayer at its fullest until I’ve played through the single player?
I am reminded of this because I recently received Rayman’s Raving Rabbids. Since my brother tends to take a wait and see approach to new games, I started playing through the single player game. It’s a fun little game, if a bit repetitious. Play through 3-4 minigames, play a “boss level” (which is either a shooter ala Time Crisis or a race), repeat until done. You need to play at least 3 to advance, but if you beat all 4, you are awarded either a new costume to customize Rayman or some music or other unlockable features. Unlike certain other games, however, nearly all the games work and have understandable instructions.
Before too long, my brother wanted to try the multiplayer, and I obliged. I entered my initials, the same as I used for the single player game, and found that all the costumes I had unlocked were there. It would have been nice to select any costume in the game for multiplayer- you’re not given many options in the beginning, and each player can’t select the same costume pieces, so if we were playing with 4 it would have made it difficult. It wasn’t a huge deal however.
That should have been a tipoff that Rayman’s Raving Rabbids commits my Cardinal Sin of Multiplayer Video Games: you have to unlock the games via the single player mode. So we’re given an incomplete list of games to play with each other. Not only that, but there’s an entire multiplayer mode that cannot be accessed until the game is beaten. It turns out that mode is one of the best ways to play multiplayer! The basic multiplayer (and in some cases it’s hard to call it that since one person plays the minigame, and then the other, so you’re not really playing with the other person, but just trying to get a higher score) is that you select one minigame, play it, and then select another minigame. No running totals are kept, you just both get a score, then pick something else. HOWEVER, the mode you unlock after you beat the game allows you to play a series of minigames, and you’re going for the best total.
Here’s the worst part about it: there are a variety of these “challenges” that consist of a minigame series. Unfortunately, you have to further unlock different ones through, you guessed it, the single player game! I mean, WTF? “Hey guys, I just got this new game, come over and play. Oh wait, gimme a few hours first while I beat the single player game, and I hope my arms aren’t too tired so that I get to play after that!”
The worst part is that many of them have to be unlocked through achieving high scores in various games or combinations of games. Not only are you stuck playing single player for a while to even access multiplayer, you have to play a LOT of single player to get the good multiplayer modes, and a variety of them.
(Sorry, this has turned into a review of Rayman, hasn’t it? Well, I still think there’s a lot of fun games in there, and the different ways they use the Wii are unique and well programmed. I give the game a 7, but if they had thought about this, it could have been a 9 or 10.)
Other games commit this to varying degrees, though not as bad. The Mario Party series have had GREAT ways to use the minigames, in addition to the main “board game.” In Mario Party 5, my favorite of the series, they feature a strategic square capture game, a race game, and a raw “play a bunch of minigames” game. I don’t remember if you have to unlock those modes, but I know they were pretty easy to get. The bad part was that if you didn’t play the individual games in the main game, they were inaccessible in the side games. And you had no control over what you played in the main game: everything was random. So you could be missing one game and have to play through hours of the main game to get what you were missing. This lead, of course, to a “cheat” to get everything that I did when I got the game: play the main game, but set all the players to computer, and set the number of rounds to maximum. Leave it overnight. Voia, the computer has unlocked everything for you. But you still shouldn’t have to do it this way. Both this and Rayman just need cheat codes to unlock everything. Whatever happened to cheat codes? I should research that…
Anyway, the Wario Ware for Gamecube may have succumbed to the same things, but at least the action is so crazy in that it doesn’t matter too much. I know you got to play a very good, straight elimination style minigame fest in multiplayer right out of the box. Still not the best solution, but at least it’s something.
(Hey, maybe I ought to rethink not buying a PS3 or Xbox 360… I’m pretty sure you could play everything multiplayer right out of the box on Halo!)
So listen up, video game makers: there are some of us who play video games just for the multiplayer. Let us play the multiplayer right away without having to jump through hoops. You can keep sidequests and other unlockable content in the game as long as it stays in the single player. I don’t care if Hello Kitty Island Adventures has hidden bikinis for Missy the Mole, or that there’s a hidden area that only shows up if Link catches a white whale on his fishing line while wearing the jaunty hat. That stuff adds replay value and content. Making it bleed into multiplayer just adds frustration. (Content that you unlock via multiplayer is a gray area. Don’t do it in a minigame collection, but a cooperative questing game should be fine.)
If you can’t figure this out, feel free to hire me. I work cheap.
Bartoneus says
From what I understand this is mostly just a tactic to prolong the lifetime of the game after purchase, if you -force- the player to get through as much of the single player as possible, then theoretically they’re playing the game for longer and hopefully enjoying more of your content.
A question I have is, would it be possible to provide you with enough content out of the box that these feelings go away, yet still allow for multiplayer content to be unlocked during single player mode? Then the people who take the time (and hopefully pleasure) to go through and beat the single player are rewarded with more options in multiplayer, but without it you’re not penalized by having crappy selection?
Or is this a simple case of: if the content exists I want it? Is there a middle ground here?
The Game says
Stuff that doesn’t affect gameplay- like costumes, music, etc- is fine to be unlockable. But even then I don’t think it’s necessary. If you need to cripple the multiplayer to extend the life of the single player, you have a bigger problem: your single player isn’t good. It should be able to have plenty of replay value on its own.
Now as I said, being able to unlock multiplayer content by playing multiplayer isn’t nearly as bad. Still annoying, but you’re not forcing us to play a single player game we don’t want to play.
Original Sultan says
I don’t know if I fully agree with The Game here as he seems to be taking a fairly extreme position. I think that unlockable multiplayer content – even ‘core’ stuff like levels or characters – is o.k. as long as most of what makes the multiplayer good is there.
A game that I thought did a good job of this was Goldeneye (for the N64). If I remember correctly, the multiplayer had like 12 levels in it, but 9 of them were available from the beginning, and 1 of the unlockable levels was 2-player only and was therefore useless. There were lots of unlockable characters but mostly they were all the same. But the game gave you all the weapon sets to start, and all of the various modes (License to Kill, Capture the Flag, Team games, etc), and that was really the ‘core’ of the multiplayer mode.
So I think that it all depends on the execution in finding that balance between enough stuff to establish a fun, core multiplayer, while at the same time having a few unlockable goodies to encourage you to play more.
The Game says
Ah, see, I remember that what happened with Goldeneye (and Smash Brothers, now that I think about it) is that one person would unlock everything and then everyone else would copy from his memory pack. Again, we wanted to play multiplayer, why did we have to play single player in order to get all the levels?
Unlocking the different characters in Goldeneye was fine, but the level thing was annoying, especially since some of the challenges were really difficult to pull off.
However, I would have been ok with it if we had been able to unlock levels by playing multiplayer…
The Game says
Grr… just had to play through two hours of single player on Wario Ware: Smooth Moves to unlock multiplayer at all. And after getting all the multiplayer modes, there isn’t nearly as much fun variety as the Gamecube version…
Why Nintendo? WHY?