Hear, hear. I feel exactly the same way.

The cynic in me just thinks that it saves the game developers from the need to develop good AIs.

Perhaps it's just my style of video gaming... I play games to relax, definitely not to compete. People sometimes get so wound up in these games, it's supposed to be fun!

So, yes, if a game is multiplayer only, it's a reason for me not to play.

> The cynic in me just thinks that it saves the game developers from the need to develop good AIs.

Balancing a multiplayer game is generally much more difficult than doing a single player game with AIs.

I'm pretty much a single player gamer, but lately i've been getting into the multiplayer side of dark souls. Personally, I think it's my new favourite multiplayer system.

It's focused around co op and invasions and is built into the story enough that it just feels like part of the game, while again not being forced in any way.

It's entirely optional to the point where being able to invade more than a limited number of times is locked behind an obscure, difficult route in the game that's missable and entirely unlikely to be discovered the first playthrough.

There's a few different invasion mechanics based around in game covenants that provide different game experiences, both in single and multiplayer that are a lot of fun. Coop's pretty fun too. It's a pretty awesome feeling helping out another player with a boss or area they've been struggling with and I'm not ashamed to say I needed to summon a bit of help for Ornstein and Smough the first time.

But, my favourite thing I think is the asynchronous multiplayer. The notes and specters. You can leave notes with predefined phrases for other players that can be helpful, or not as well as getting small glimpses of other players 'ghosts' as they play the game, or die horribly to something.

There's no other actual interaction between players though. You can't message people, there's no lobbies, it's all very ephemeral and unnoticeable and just feels like part of the game. The only thing it really reminds me of is the counter-op mode from perfect dark, which was a hell of a lot of fun, even if it seemed a bit lacking at times.

Personally I'd love to see this system recreated and improved in other games. It's the first time i've been interested in multiplayer gaming since I was a teenager playing StarCraft and diablo.

I know someone who regularly plays grand theft auto online. Whenever i've watched them play lately I can't help but think how much better it would be if they'd built a similar system. The game would be perfect for it. The online mode it has seems pointless and pretty lazy by comparison.

I exclusively play single-player games (mostly AAA) and I still have more games than time to play. But I remember having your feelings when I only had a PC. Get additionally PlayStation+Switch!

Yeah nah I'm not going to support anyone that encourages exclusives.

Hey, I have a project that might be of interest to you. It is called the StarCraft Human 'N' AI League, and it is a client that lets you play against custom AI written for the game. It is single player, and provides a challenge without the frustration of griefing idiots on the ladder. Here you can check it out(it's free) https://schnail.com/#/home

There are a lot of AAA and indie focused single player experiences, what kind of genres are you into? The recent Tomb Raider titles are pretty good for example.

If you like big single player RPGs then boy are you in for a treat...

Single player gaming is better than ever, and even a lot of the "indie" titles probably have bigger teams and budgets than games from whatever "golden age" you're probably thinking of.

There's plenty of indy games that provide good single player experience.

Got any suggestions?

Minecraft

Terraria

Stardew Valley

Those three are great for relaxing after a long day

FTL: Faster Than Light

Zachtronics games (TIS-100, Shenzhen I/O, Exapunks)

FEZ

Portal / Portal 2

XCOM

Deus Ex (Super old but quite good, I started it recently. I had best results in Proton selecting the software renderer in the first launch dialog instead of DX9)

Grand Theft Auto

Assassins Creed IV (I had trouble running this under Proton though, had to use Windows)

Planetside 2 is MMO but you can play singleplayer. Windows only unfortunately, but there's nothing else like it.

> Deus Ex (Super old but quite good, I started it recently. I had best results in Proton selecting the software renderer in the first launch dialog instead of DX9)

I recommend Deus Exe [0] for playing Deus Ex. And yes, it's still an awesome game.

[0] https://kentie.net/article/dxguide/

Good list. Just for pedantic's sake: only a few of them ary indie games.

Like a book there are so many games it can be difficult to find a starting place for recommendations. What’s a game of two you’ve liked before?

Red Dead Redemption 2 is really good

Personally: Terraria, C&C

Conversely, I can't fathom how people can enjoy long stretches of singleplayer.

I occasionally play a bit of Cities Skylines every few months, but if there isn't another human involved, games just can't hold my interest.

Where's the satisfaction/fun come from if you're just beating some silly algorithm?

For me it is not about competing or beating anything.

I do play alot of simulation games, like Cities Skylines or Stellearis.

When I play first person shooters, I just like to run around and blow things up, I rarely "finish" the campaigns, for example Borderlands, Just like to run around the world and see how much destruction and havoc I can cause before I die, then start over...

I am not a completionist, I have no strong urge to "win" or "finish" the games....

I is just a way for me to turn my brain off for a few hours and escape the real world

Not all games are about "beating" something.

Can you name one game, electronic or otherwise, that doesn't involve "beating" something, whether it's the other player, the rules, or even just random chance (dice rolls)?

I honestly can't think of any. If there are no goals (and goals imply obstacles to be overcome in pursuit of them) then you've got a toy, not a game.

Huge games like Skyrim/Fallout/GTA are less about beating NPCs than experiencing the world, characters and story.

They may not be "games", but titles like Gone Home are still video games, they aren't about "beating" something, and they aren't simply toys either.

>They may not be "games", but titles like Gone Home are still video games

They may not be games, but they're still games? I think whether or not Gone Home can be considered a game is highly debatable. I haven't tried it, but it seems that the elements that make a game a game are missing.

That it's available on Steam is completely orthogonal to whether or not it's a game.

I'd strongly recommend looking into the Aesthetics of Play[1][2]. It's a framework that talks about eight primary reasons why people play video games, and only one of those reasons is "Challenge" (i.e., beating a goal). Games like Gone Home, Animal Crossing, The Sims, Minecraft, etc all reflect different play aesthetics, and are intended for people who enjoy different things than pure Challenge.

[1] https://youtu.be/uepAJ-rqJKA

[2] https://theangrygm.com/gaming-for-fun-part-1-eight-kinds-of-...

The expression "video game" came to be understood as much more than "games played through a video system". Even titles like Skyrim, RDR2 and Uncharted thrive much more on the role playing fantasy or on the narrative than on beating a system. These aren't just dressings anymore, like the medieval motifs on Chess, they are the reason we play those games. So yeah, the word "game" expanded its meaning, this kind of thing happens with language.

I'm curious what you are trying to get out of gatekeeping what a game is? Would you not consider children pretending to be someone else to be playing a game? What bout LARP [0]?

However Gone Home would even satisfy a definition of a "game" that requires there to be challenges. Much of the information is hidden throughout the house, requiring the player to find it and reconstruct the whole story. There are even locked off areas that you need to find keys for.

[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Live_action_role-playing_game

You said yourself, Cities Skylines

I've definitely seen it argued that SimCity-alikes (and The Sims) are not games. Whether nor not this is true is IMHO beyond the scope of HN comments.

Suppose it's a game: Cities Skylines is open-ended and has no formal win condition, but you can certainly lose. Your city can go bankrupt, etc.

You're playing against the simulator algorithms. If you succeed then you've beaten those algorithms.

> Your city can go bankrupt, etc.

I play city skylines (and sim airport) in sandbox mode, money is meaningless. The only way you lose is to define yourself as losing.

you are not playing "against" the simulator. you are playing "with" a simulator.

the definition of game is "an activity that one engages in for amusement or fun." => it does not require win-conditions. i prefer games that allow me to be creative. having lose-conditions interferes with that.

While games like Day of the Tentacle and Monkey Island could be won, they couldn't be lost.

Minecraft creative mode. I love building out huge glass towers full of water, long roads made of sea lanterns just under the ocean connecting the landmasses, hollowing out trees putting beacons in the center, etc. None of that involves scores or defeating opponents and it’s one of my all time favorite gaming experiences.

Minecraft Creative. Lots of people play that without even sharing their works.

See, I think that's more akin to electronic Lego. It's a toy, not a game.

I mean, at this point you're just trying to mess around with definitions. Colloquially, sandbox games like Minecraft are considered video games.

"The Stanley Parable" and even more so its followup, "The Beginner's Guide". Both are technically video games, but actually more like interactive movies.