Comments on: Anti-Social Games

By: Gary160974

Gary160974 — Fri, 25 Jan 2013 07:10:42 +0000

Home started with everything being set up for single players only. Then there was very few multiplayer games or rewards on home. I agree everything should have the ability to complete singularly but i want as much multiplayer as we can get.

By: ted2112

ted2112 — Thu, 24 Jan 2013 14:36:03 +0000

Liked this article. My first six months or so on Home was totally Solo. I played alot of Sodium 2. I think Home is a place that can be fun alone if your a creative person that liked to explore.

Home is a social animal however and I think if you stay on Home long enough, you will end up making friends! Great read!

By: Burbie52

Burbie52 — Thu, 24 Jan 2013 11:15:59 +0000

Mercia is another game you can play and win everything alone and so is Salt Shooter. I haven’t unlocked my Sunset yacht yet with filling it up guests and I have owned it for years now. Sometimes being popular and knowing people isn’t the problem, it can be all about peoples availability when you are in Home.
I agree with your premise that people should be allowed to experience Home any way they like, be it alone of with friends. Nice read Strom.

By: FEMAELSTROM

FEMAELSTROM — Wed, 23 Jan 2013 20:42:37 +0000

Thanks for the response Terra, one thing that I sorely miss as well is the shoulder to shoulder of two player. I raced against a friend in Gran Turismo 5 and it was fun, but with him being in Canada and me in the southwest U.S. there was a lack of fun because there used to be something about playing against someone and seeing their faces as you got your rear handed to you or did the handing, or the fun of distracting your opponent on the sofa with a handful of well tossed potato chips. I do miss split screen two player.

By: Terra_Cide

Terra_Cide — Wed, 23 Jan 2013 18:39:27 +0000

I really think you struck a chord with this article. I’m one of those anti-social gamers; the idea of gaming online -- say like in a COD scenario, for example -- is anathema to me. If I want to play a multiplayer game, I’d rather the person be sitting beside me (something I sorely miss in this console generation). In Home, as in real life, I don’t really see the need to have a gregarious social life, not to mention that when I am on Home, with the lone exception of meetings, I’m not always technically present -- meaning I’m either watching the EOD while I’m doing magazine work, or I’m letting my son have a go driving my car around in Home Tycoon.

I still play games in Home, I still spend (lots of) money in Home, and to a lesser extent, I still socialize in Home -- I just happen to do it on my terms, instead of what is widely considered to be the normal economic model for Home.

Definitely a thought-provoking article.

By: deuce_for2

deuce_for2 — Wed, 23 Jan 2013 04:27:27 +0000

The problem from the developer side is we want to have people play with each other so we have to reward it. But it should not be that one behavior is rewarded to the exclusion of all others.

Specifically I see that the problems is largest when requiring multiple players is a gateway to progressing. I do not think that is good in the general sense.

I am the guy who got blasted for making Solitaire on an online, multiplayer platform. I then went to the other end and made a 24 player game. I think not all achievements are for all people just as all games are not for all people. But I promise that no game we ever do will have a multiplayer gateway to progressing further. Point made. Point taken. Great article!