There seems to be an increasing amount of focus lately on video games that are multiplayer-centric. That is, there’s little to no single-player mode; in order to properly play the game, you must have other human beings controlling other characters (either online, or in person). While these games are certainly fun, I think their growing popularity is a step in the wrong direction.

The biggest problem with games like SOCOM Confrontation, Warhawk, MAG, and so on is that they don’t age well. Upon release, when a shitload of people are playing them, then you’ve got nearly limitless replay value. But once the fervor dies down, and there’s few people left playing…then it’s just not fun anymore. Even games like Call of Duty 4: Modern Warfare, which is still very popular nearly two years after its release, will eventually be rendered obsolete. Do you think Microsoft will still host servers for it decades from now? No way. I can pop in an old Atari 7800 game and still play it to its fullest, but you won’t be able to do that with CoD4 in twenty years. (I made a similar argument in my post about physical versus intangible media.)

There is, of course, an exception to this rule, and that’s in the computer gaming arena. Due to gamers creating mods and hosting their own servers for older games, multiplayer-only games will survive much longer there. But for the console games, which ultimately get a hell of a lot more press, their days are numbered. That’s why it bugs me to see multiplayer-centric games getting jerked off on as “legendary” by the gaming press; they’ll be dead within a generation, while games like The Legend of Zelda still stand the test of time.