Shaun Hinklein and Peter Skerritt argue whether or not online gaming spells disaster in our Point / Counterpoint featured article.

Click Read More for the full debate.

Point (Shaun Hinklein, Staff Writer):

Whether it has been an intentional move or not from publishers and developers, the gaming world has shifted its dominant attentiveness to social interaction and internet access. Titles involving just one player undergoing an adventure have drastically decreased in production due to this mutual move by the gaming audience and industries alike—resulting in a new list of priorities introduced to games undergoing development.

At the peak of the PlayStation 2, Sony released its network adapter inadvertently sending the gaming world in a new direction. Titles like Final Fantasy XI and EverQuest achieved densely populated servers on consoles; then, with the increasing numbers of users, monthly fees came about and revenue came pouring in from all directions. PC gaming obviously remained absolute compared with online console gaming, but titles now contained exclusive online content blended with the ability to engage the world in play. First MMORPGs, then a massive jump to sports titles in which Electronic Arts nearly quadrupled their profits, and finally to a barrage of fighters developed by tons of third party developers. The move to online benefited the gamer, the publisher, and the future of the console.

With this said, I admit that wireless networking in gaming is an amazing feature that I enjoy on a daily basis. In basking in its interactive glow, however, I’ve become distraught with my options of games when “put game into system time” rolls around, specifically with my Nintendo Wii as features are already accessible to me without even inserting a disc into the system. Specifically, I’m bound to Dr. Mario RX, an online exclusive for the Nintendo Wii enabling nonstop matches around the globe, when my mind would love to tackle Odin Sphere—an RPG on the PlayStation 2 with no online activity whatsoever. This happened again to me with Eternal Sonata for the Xbox 360. Being accessible to instant game-play via the internet has drastically decreased my patience for an RPG, especially if its interactivity is limited to just the player and the programmed characters it provides. By increasing the replay values enormously with interactivity, the need for new content drastically decreases shortening the lives of fresh content from new developers.

Currently, this is not a problem to gamers. They will always have the option to choose for themselves what they’ll invest their time into. In the upward motion of online releases, not much of a choice is left to the guys in charge who’re desired to make a profit. Just ask Blizzard if you’re skeptical. There will always be avid fans for any type of genre regardless of their online potential. The question is for how long will they hold out?

Counterpoint (Peter Skerritt, Content Editor):

While I do believe that there has been a noticeable shift in focus towards online functionality, I don’t believe that the single-player experience is in too much trouble. The recently released Metal Gear Solid 4 for the PlayStation 3 is a single-player game at its core, and there an online game (Metal Gear Online) that’s an optional extra. The overall package serves both the online enthusiast and the core solo gamer. Super Smash Bros. Brawl for the Wii boasts online play, but its single-player offering (called The Subspace Emissary) is a worthy undertaking and is the best way to unlock a lot of the game’s extras. Both of these games are two examples of highly anticipated software that manages to cater to multiple audiences without sacrificing too much of one experience in order to offer the other.

I do believe that the perceived move to MMORPGs has merely opened the door to additional revenue for publishers and has not corrupted the overall role-playing landscape. We’ve seen the influence of MMORPGs in single-player role-playing games in recent years, such as Bandai Namco’s .hack series and Square-Enix’s Final Fantasy XII, but these games still managed to retain their single-player identities and playability. (And, for the record, I actually enjoyed the .hack games, unlike just about everyone else.) If you look at this from the standpoint of publishers, it makes financial sense to dip into MMORPGs and attempt to cash in on the potential revenue streams that are out there.

As for sports games, implementing online play is a must. All of the artificial intelligence subroutines in the world still cannot emulate the unpredictability of playing against another human being… and since friends and/or family members aren’t always going to be accessible for gameplay sessions, having the ability to find an opponent at any time of the day of night is a big plus for extending the replayability of a game. It’s important to remember that sports games have not dropped any single-player functionality, too. You can still play through seasons and run franchises just as players have been doing for many years now. If anything, publishers and developers have given gamers another gameplay choice, and choice is always a good thing.

Single-player gaming will never go away completely. Shaun is completely correct in his assessment that there has been a focus shift, but that shift is far from absolute. While online play has introduced problems of its own (such as microtransactions… how’s that horse armor treating you?), it’s a welcome addition to the standard options of gameplay that we’ve been seeing for decades. Atari’s Phil Harrison may believe that single-player gaming is on its way out, but he is clearly in the minority… for as many games that seem to rely on online gaming to succeed, we’re still seeing games for solo players in many genres-- from Uncharted and Ratchet & Clank to Lost Odyssey and Final Fantasy IV.