Don't Hate the [Single] Playa [Mode]

I've been playing console video games since the late 80's, and the most significant change to the  gaming landscape since then HAS TO BE the complexity of modern multi-player modes.  Multi-player today is, quite literally, a gaming landscape!  When I first started out, "multi-player" meant my friends and I taking turns between playing as Mario and Luigi; today, gamers across the country can race each other as Mario and Luigi in Mario Kart Wii.  In Madden, players can oppose each other as the Seahawks and the Buccaneers...in Seattle and Tampa, respectively.  And in MMORPGs (if you don't know the acronym, look it up, Noob) like World of Warcraft, thousands of players can simultaneously interact with each other and the world of the game.  Because online multi-player modes are based on ever-changing human skill level instead of ever-lasting (and at times, predictable) computer AI, the replay value in such video games has increased exponentially; there are a limitless number of challenges awaiting gamers every time they connect to the online community.  This is the trend towards which the industry has gravitated; a game cannot be considered "cool" unless it has an awesome multi-player mode.  Unfortunately, this trend has been unkind to what should be the foundation of any video game; the single player mode.

A couple of years ago, my brother purchased an Xbox 360.  Naturally, I asked my trusted gamer friends for a short list of can't-live-without games for the system, and there was one title on everyone's list: Gears of War.  I bought the game shortly thereafter, and while I was impressed with how fresh its approach to the "shoot 'em up" genre felt, I felt short-changed by how...short...the game was.  There are only 5 levels in the game, and though each one is stuffed with battles that might kill you 10 or 15 times before you finally break through, the game can be completed in 10 hours. 10 hours!  And that's being generous! That's 5 days if you're playing at 2 hours a day, and what serious gamer only plays for 2 hours a day?  What high school or college kid, who's on winter or summer break, is only playing a game that they're engrossed by for only 2 hours a day?  No serious gamer that I know!

That was the problem with Gears of War.  I loved it, but it was over so fast.  And although I have never played it myself, critics have complained that Call of Duty's single player mode suffers from the same brevity.  Halo 3, another game that's widely accepted as one of the marquee games of the Xbox 360, has been criticized by GameSpot for being too short.  This is a disturbing trend that is poisoning the quality of video gaming, and making people pay more money for less game.  Simply put, it is style over substance.

Game developers and companies know what they're doing, and it doesn't seem as if Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 2 sales will suffer if it has a brief single-player mode.  But it worries me that the gamer who doesn't care about multi-player, who doesn't want to worry about anything else except the controller in his hand and the Doritos by his side, is being left with a one-dimensional afterthought which should be the meat of the game.  Multi-player is now the meat of the most popular games, and that strikes me as being unfair and almost lazy by the game developers.  Hell, the soon-to-be-released Super Mario Bros. Wii is being marketed by Nintendo as the first simultaneous multi-player experience by a Mario adventure game ever.  Well, that's cool, but did we Mario need or ask for that?

To be a serious gamer, a person has to be somewhat of a loner.  This person first started playing video games BECAUSE he fell in love with a game's single player mode.  Sure, they might have also fallen in love with the multi-player action in a game like Goldeneye for Nintendo 64, but what Goldeneye has that the aforementioned games are lacking is a richly rewarding, multi-faceted, and LENGTHY single-player quest.  This is a person who doesn't mind spending the occasional Saturday holed up in his room for a good, solid play-a-thon.  He doesn't know if he his friends will be available to take part in this play-a-thon, nor does he care.  He doesn't want to worry about his Internet connection failing, or if the competition in the gaming community is competent that day.  All he wants to do is to turn on his console and play.

Three Thoughts Of The Day

-What are the odds that the Verizon Fios guy and his portly, out-of-touch adversary star in their own ill-conceived sitcom on NBC?  I'm sure this discussion has happened in some network exec meeting.

-Excited for Super Mario Bros. Wii, although I hope that the game is substantial enough in its single player mode.  Knowing Nintendo, I'm confident it will be.

-My sketch group, Think Pound, is performing at Jackpot on November 24th in the East Village.  That's the Tuesday before Thanksgiving, so it'll be like a Thursday night for most of America.  You come!

The Worst Thing In The World Happened...

The Yankees won the World Series.  For a Yankee-hater such as myself, who was admittedly an obnoxious presence to both the Yankee fans in the bar where I watched the Bombers lose Game 1 and my Yankee fan friends and acquaintances throughout the playoffs, this is the worst thing that could have happened.  

I mention all of this not in attempt to gain your sympathy, but because it's important to note that the rest of this post my be coming from a biased perspective, and probably is.

But the idea that the Yankees are shoving down our throats--that their ailing boss, George Steinbrenner, "deserved" this championship--is utterly ridiculous.  It's news to me that George Steinbrenner deserves anything.  In his prime, he routinely terrorized and bullied his underlings, including successful Yankee managers like Billy Martin and Dick Howser.  It seems like a long time ago, but he ran the Yankees into the ground when he couldn't check his ego at the door, and he was SUSPENDED from baseball for trying to dig up dirt on Dave Winfield.  The fans would boo George, and there were empty seats at the Stadium.

That was his prime.  Now, the image that the Yankees are putting forth is that he's a sweet old grandfatherly type, and maybe that's what he's become as he's aged.  But shouldn't a person be judged during the prime of his or her life, as opposed to their later years when they need help going to the bathroom?

Many fans would respond by citing Steinbrenner's indefatigable efforts to satisfy their desire to win, as if he's some selfless sports philanthropist.  WHAT ELSE COULD HE DO?  That's the business of sports.  If the fans sense you don't care about winning, they are not going to come, especially when it's no secret that the Yankees are the wealthiest team in baseball.  I'm not saying that Steinbrenner doesn't have passion to win--clearly, he does--but the passion is part of an act to get people to buy into his product.

Derek Jeter made it clear that he wanted to "win it for George."  If someone was paying me a 9 figure salary, I'd probably want to make them happy, too.

In the end, the Yankees are his team, and Jeter, Cashman and the rest can dedicate the World Series to whomever they want.  But let's not change history; one of the most odious tyrants in sports history may be succumbing to old age, but he was still an odious tyrant.