First, I’m glad someone said something like this. It’s something I’ve been considering for a long time, all the way back to the summer I spent playing Elder Scrolls 3: Morrowwind. The game is awesome and huge, but much of the content, rather than being strictly unique, is just copied and pasted locations and creatures. It wasn’t uncommon to hike all the way across the huge map to a “new” objective, only to get inside and say, “Oh, okay. This is cave design number three. Big deal.”

Add to that the trend of shorter games becoming fan favorites – Portal, Trine, the Uncharted games, and the Call of Duty Modern Warfare single player campaigns – and it seems as though some players tend to value a short, powerful, and memorable experience over another twenty hours of copy and pasted content. Gamers may indeed want more, but they don’t want more of the same.

If a fifty hour game was released that was full of dramatic set pieces or interesting puzzles all the way through, I’m sure gamers would praise that, but more often than not, all the good ideas are used up in the first ten hours and the other fifty hours are just a rehash. It’s no wonder most gamers only play for five hours before dropping a game. Quality will always trump quantity as long as the quantity is sufficient for an immersive experience. This is where games like Portal excelled and why no one will shut up about, even years after the game came out.

Single player games, if they have a corollary, would be more similar to films. They contain much more interactivity than films, certainly, but the focus should be placed on creating memorable moments and not overstaying their welcome. Even with the recent focus on sandbox games, action nodes (or whatever you want to call them) should be distinct and memorable. If you’ve done one bucket quest, one assassination mission, one steal this macguffin mission, taking those same three missions and multiplying each by ten (to get thirty missions) does not a good game make. I would rather play one awesome mission than five boringly similar missions. I’d rather play through ten unique levels than thirty similar levels. I’m cool with a shorter game if the shorter game is cool.

But this is probably true only of single player games and campaigns, however. Multiplayer games are a different breed, because in the multiplayer paradigm the drama is provided by players interacting with each other, not the game itself. “Did you see that headshot?” or “Man, I got pwned by the early-game rush!” or “Dude, we rocked the Lich King this time!” – these sentiments are something players provide to each other, though the game provides the playing field.

Multiplayer games are similar to professional sports – the rules may change over the years, but the drama of the experience is provided by the player hitting a ball out of the park or catching a Hail Mary pass to win the big game. With that as the focus, multiplayer games should focus on simple to learn, difficult to master ideal that has made things like baseball and football so successful. The focus of the game should be on providing players new and interesting arenas and methods to interact with each other.

There is one other thing I’d like to address – “achievements” and “item collection.” Okay, so that’s two things, but they go hand-in-hand. These two things artificially inflate the content of a single player game and players are wise to it now. They’ve collected items and satisfied achievements in enough games now that it’s seems as though these things are ceasing to the a driving factor in what’s needed to “complete” the game in the mind of the player.

Unfortunately, these things have become standard in most games now, and it seems that if your game does not include them they are missing a critical “content feature.” But really, what do these things add to the player aside from satisfying OCD? Completing an in-game Item collection or jumping 500 times in a row so as to unlock an “achievement” aren’t dramatic experiences. They aren’t memorable even a few months later, at least not as awesome. If anything, if they are remembered, they are remembered with horror.
So that’s that:

Single player games are films – they should focus on a rising learning curve, quality dramatic set pieces with memorable moments, and minimize repetitive action as much as possible in game systems, locations, plot, and locations. They should only be as long as maintaining awesome variety is possible.

Multiplayer games are sports – they should be easy to learn, hard to master, and focus on player interaction. They should allow for advanced strategies and skill, provide an interesting playing field, and support players for long after the game is released.

Still, I try tons of different games. I game on the PC, the PS3, the iPhone, and the Nintendo DS. I like games. I like multiplayer and single player – they both have their merits. So, kind, generous, and slaving developers, please understand that I say this in the highest regard and with the greatest respect: PLEASE STOP PUTTING “QUESTS” IN SINGLE PLAYER GAMES.

Now, I like MMOs. And I understand why quests are necessary in those games. You want players to keep playing and take their time, to go through your content slowly, otherwise players could max out, get bored, and stop paying your subscription fees. More player time means millions of dollars spend on making the grind interesting, and an easy way to do that is through quests. I get that not every quest can be “go kill your arch nemesis who’s been flagging your progress for the fifty levels.” Sometimes it has to be “get me 10 grapefruit” and well you’re at it, “kill me ten bears.” I UNDERSTAND.

But in single player games, the goal should be a focused, tailored experience. Pinpointed, like shark’s teeth honed with freakin’ lasers. Multiplayer games have to be balanced so players have a chance to be equal to each other. But there’s no reason that single player games shouldn’t make the player feel like s/he’s the goddamn HERO, the Kwisatz Haderach, the Messiah, and at least one of the comings (preferably the second) all rolled into one.

The Kwisatz Haderach does not fetch 10 grapefruit or kill ten bears. The HERO pwns everything and doesn’t want to deal with a cumbersome quest log, or journal, or what-have-you that helps her deal with all the fruit fetching and wildlife slaying you’ve bestowed upon her. STOP IT. Write your games so the player is always doing something epic, and preferably isn’t doing more than three epic things at once.

It’s forgivable in a multiplayer game, but stop putting them into single player games. Nothing makes me leave a game faster (or worse yet, watch the review and decide not to buy your game) as quests in single player.

Maybe this is sacrilege, but I like short, linear, single player experiences. I like single player games that are paced by a master of the art to be exciting, heart-pounding, and able to be described with other overzealous adjectives. But once you put lameduck “quests” that make me collect 10 grapefruit and kill ten bears, I think your pacing is poorly thought out. I think your pacing sucks. I think you need better writers. Or designers.

Or maybe, you just need to stop being everything to everyone. Leave the quests for multiplayer. Please. It’s okay. Really, it is.