Without other players to worry about, the cityscape could change.

Simply strip it of its online component and converting the gameplay into the series' signature turn-based combat.

It wouldn't take much at all the push the existing game into a single-player game that mixed the best parts of inFamous and Batman: Arkham City.

There'd be no need for filler quests where you beam down to a planet to scan five rocks.

A single-player sequel to Star Wars: Knights of the Old Republic with a multiplayer option may have done a better job.

Long-time readers of this site know that I love a good MMORPG. Yet when THQ announced last week that Warhammer 40,000: Dark Millennium Online would "shift" from a massively multiplayer online roleplaying game to a single-player game with a multiplayer component, I won't deny that I raised an eyebrow at the possibilities that just opened up. Games like EverQuest and World of Warcraft long ago laid the framework for what works in that genre, and all too frequently innovation is trampled under fear of risk and failure in such expensive projects. But with a single-player game, THQ has the opportunity to make the revamped Dark Millennium something riskier. Something with smoother, more responsive combat and player movement. Something that conveys a story and the sense of having altered the world, without griefers ruining the atmosphere, and an actual. In hindsight, perhaps other MMO developers should have taken the same step. Here are five notable MMOs that might've been better off as primarily single-player games.All Points Bulletin tried to take the open urban world of the Grand Theft Auto IV online back in 2010, and the concept failed so spectacularly that the plug was pulled only three months after release. It now lives on as a free-to-play game called APB Reloaded under a new developer, but many of its core problems remain. Setting aside concerns about lag, poor vehicle handling, and unevenly matched players, APB suffers most from the lack of aabout the chaos. Stripped of the narratives that made us empathize (even a little) with Niko Bellic in 2008, APB devolves into a repetitive bore-fest of dull missions. It's fun when it works, but entertaining for 20 hours at best. That might pass in a multiplayer component for a standard single-player game, but such a low threshold only spells disaster for an MMO.The ghost of a great concept still lurks behind APB. With a little love, the opening cinematic's premise of a struggle for power between the criminals and a vigilante group known as the Enforcers could shine in a single-player setting. Without other players to worry about, the cityscape could change as you helped one side or the other gain ground, and your experience would differ depending on if you sided with the good guys or the bad guys. You could shift allegiances and enlist factions to your cause. But in its current form, nothing ever changes in San Paro. Criminals and vigilantes die by the thousands, and neither sides sees an inch of progress. In such an environment, even the business of dealing death becomes a bore.Once upon a time, Final Fantasy was an actual fantasy series with mages, rogues, and warriors that resembled Carrot Top in plate who were known to cavort about in airships and force their way onto the occasional spacecraft. Today's gamer, on the other hand, is just as likely to associate the name with rusty dystopias and 30-hour tutorials through metal corridors. Final Fantasy XIV's fantasy setting could have signaled a return to form... but instead we got a game that suffered from so many technical and design issues at launch that it's likely required playing for developers who want to learn howto design an MMO.In spite of all that, Final Fantasy XIV still managed to present one of the most beautiful fantasy landscapes in contemporary gaming (especially in the hubs), thanks to the masterful art direction and hints of a promising single-player narrative. It some ways, it already plays like a single-player game since reasons for grouping pop up only sporadically (unlike FFXI, where grouping was a necessity). Simply stripping it of its online component and converting the gameplay into the series' signature turn-based combat might have had a better reception among the fans, especially since it would have ditched the MMO's cumbersome user interface and sidestepped the linearity of Final Fantasy XIII's first few hours. It's too bad that Square Enix plans to rework FFXIV from the ground, up because it's probably too late to save it in light of the blitz of better MMORPGs on the near horizon.After all the praise piled on City of Heroes way back in 2004, creating a MMORPG that let you crack heads alongside superheroes from the entire DC universe must have seemed like a recipe for instant success. Not only could players chew the fat with Lex Luthor and stroll along the shore of Metropolis, but they could also sample action combat that foreshadowed TERA's gamepad friendly acrobatics. Sadly, however, the concept was its own kryptonite. The very thought of kicking butt alongside thousands of players who shared many of Batman or Superman's abilities often lessens the awe associated with those heroes themselves. Players become just another obscure hero among several hundred thousand others. Perhaps Syndrome said it best in The Incredibles: "When everyone's super, no one will be."Played as a single-player game, however, DC Universe Online shows promise: players could see themselves as one of the big guys, and the narrative could allow them to develop as protegees to the iconic hero or villain of their choice (as opposed to sitting in a huge lecture hall), complete with alternate endings and different storylines for separate playthroughs. If they sided with the heroes, they could help Superman and Batman make Gotham or Metropolis a better place for everyone. If they sided with the villains, they could help Lex Luthor or the Joker tighten their grip on power. It wouldn't take much at all the push the existing game into a single-player game that mixed the best parts of inFamous and Batman: Arkham City, and it would likely be the better for it.Just because youboldly go where no Star Trek game has gone before, doesn't mean you should. Even after significant improvements to ground combat and quests over the last year, Cryptic's Star Trek Online still struggles to instill the sense of camaraderie that's a hallmark of the source material. AI crewmembers and instanced gameplay renders leveling a lonely slog, and the focus on action and constant war waters down Roddenberry's nuanced legacy, which usually centered more on peace and diplomacy than phasers and photon torpedoes. That's not to say that there's no fun here, but STO's pleasures have little to do with connecting with other players in a persistent galaxy.As it is, STO already often feels like a decent single-player game, especially now that ground-based missions resemble third-person shooters more than what you'll find in rival MMOs, and the space combat blows Star Wars: The Old Republic's all the way to the Neutral Zone. Playing offline would tighten up the ground combat even further by eliminating that telltale MMO floatiness, there'd be no need for filler quests where you beam down to a planet to scan five rocks, and the lack of necessity for a perpetual endgame would mean that NPC crewmembers wouldn't need to be treated as interchangably as a hull upgrade. They could bewith stories that we actually care about, focusing on the deep rivalries between the empires and races of the galaxies.If MMOs were only about leveling your character to the level cap, Star Wars: The Old Republic would likely be the best game in the genre. Other games' attempts to spice up the grind with scripted events and witty quest text seem backward after experiencing one of SWTOR's choice-based narratives, which result in companion NPCs that you care about and meaningful explanations for killing those 10 Sith and collecting those five blasters. But that's part of the problem.BioWare excels at delivering some of the best stories in the business (if not the best endings), but SWTOR's first months prove that such a story-based approach works best when it's not anchored to an evolving beast like an MMO. Its finest charms harken back to BioWare's previous successes, and it's somewhat telling that, without exception, the most excitement I witness in new players springs from learning the identity of "the Jedi Prisoner" about halfway through the story. Once you've finished your class story and started the dirty business of endgame content, SWTOR's derivative structure and mechanics begin to weigh heavily on its better aspects, and even your beloved companions become little more than glorified versions of World of Warcraft's succubi. SWTOR's survival depends on getting that constant dose of narrative for players who don't care for leveling alts, and a single-player sequel to Star Wars: Knights of the Old Republic with a multiplayer option may have done a better job.: It's easy to turn an MMO into a single-player game: just dress up as a ghost and scare everybody else away! If you want to get away with it, though, you will want to avoid groups of kids with dogs. What MMO would you rather play solo?