You could get caught up in well crafted worlds, attention grabbing stories, which still get talked about now, and characters that people still want to dress up as. These days it feels like sometimes the story, the characters and worlds, are an after thought. Or the usual stereotypes are pushed into new character models and the same story is given a new art direction. Despite this, people still love these games just because you can level up your multiplayer character and then show it off to people a thousand miles away. The whole experience sometimes makes me feel like a Granddad sitting in a rocking chair smelling of piss muttering, "I remember those days…'".

I still remember being obsessed over Goldeneye with its four-way split screen. That was a good game for a numerous reasons, the single player element was solid and balanced, the multiplayer element of the game offered a small amount, compared to modern day FPS's, though they were thought out and fun. It was after this I was convinced that game designers would never lose sight of the perfect balance between single-player and multi-player experiences. That we would all continue to get together and have a laugh. No insults, no worldwide leader boards. Why can't it be more like that? Why do we have to compete so much?

I believe it all began to change with Counter Strike and Quake, thus began the age of online stats and professional multiplayer games. The whole business became very serious, very quick. The online networks have now become filled with kill death ratios and wins versus losses. Now we have games built and supported like competitive sports. The reason I started playing games was because I was awful at sports. I can't kick, throw or catch - pretty much the fundamentals of sports. So to now experience both the very competitive players and leagues make me have Vietnam-esque flash backs to PE classes and the feeling of hopelessness. The online experience has become PE for the people who couldn't do PE.

Multiplayer may be a product of the growing universal nature of gaming nowadays, although the success of the Wii and the interest and excitement around Xbox's Kinect and Playstation's Move show how many none traditional gamers are now interested in gaming. Experimentation like this gets me excited, I thought the Wii as a concept was awesome but lacked any games that really pushed the newness of the console based motion control. Gone are the stereotypes around gamers, and producers are aware of this. The words 'finicailly viable property' now mean more than 'creative game design'. 

The games market is mirroring Hollywood this way. The idea of genre within film means that the audience knows that if someone goes to see a rom-com they are not going to get a John Woo shoot out. In the same way the modern gamer knows that if they pick up a FPS they know what they will be dealing with even if they don't get Edge every month. The same button will change your weapon, one weapon will be your favourite because it's nigh impossible not to shoot someone in the head with it and at one point you will fight on a team. Sure it's safe, but is it challenging? Hollywood movies do well but they don't stick in the collective memory of the audience. I feel sometimes it's the same with games, safe, predictive and doesn't change the world. I know that First Person Shooters are an easy target in that sense but its also the place where this can be so clearly demonstrated.

The focus seems to be weighted on the collective multiplayer experience, while the single player stays familiar and safe. Sometimes the escape of a single player game is what a brilliant game is about. Something that challenges you, takes you away from what you expect in an engaging way and sometimes the multiplay of this game should be about doing something different with friends. Or maybe I should get back to my rocking chair.