Posted by
timothy
on from the please-give-me-a-driving-simulator dept.
PokeBlor writes: "Arena.net has an article by Patrick Wyatt, a Blizzard ex, that goes into depth about the creation of multiplayer games, ranging from replayability to lag. He uses good examples from Starcraft and Warcraft 2, two games that Wyatt was a designer on."
What about a rating
by
asmithmd1
·
· Score: 5, Interesting
The article doesn't mention cheating or a peer rating system like Ebay. This is something an online gaming community can add so that when you are tring to find a partner you have some idea how he has behaved in the past
Even the basics are hard
by
SilentChris
·
· Score: 4, Interesting
I remember trying to do a simple multiplayer turn-based game in CS class a few years ago (a Risk clone) and even that was hard. Creating the network tools by hand, it was a challenge to get the server to properly handle the back and forth timing required (send move request, wait for request, take in request/send out another one?) I can just imagine a realtime game where every second counts.
Although, I don't think some of the algorhythms in place right now for latency (for example, Quake III Arena) are much better. I don't think it's fair to allow the computer to "judge" modem players' moves, and try to determine "if" the player would have got the hit. Not only is this unfair to the player (when they get to a real LAN tournament they'll be roasted), it's also unfair to the vet with a decent connection, because the newbie in essense gets a free hit. I would propose figuring out better ways to communicate over the network instead of trying to second guess the players' moves with algorhythms.
I think the number one problem with online games is cheating. There have been countless times where I have been totally addicted to a game, and then a cheat ruins all the fun. People play online games because it is so much more exciting to compete against a real person. If the game becomes unbalanced, players will either move on to another game or use the cheat themselves.
Other article
by
delta407
·
· Score: 5, Interesting
It's interesting reading, including "Lesson four: UDP is better than TCP, but it still sucks" and "Lesson five: Whenever you think the Internet can't get any worse, it gets worse". It's good stuff.
Improved graphics spoiled Ultima series
by
October_30th
·
· Score: 5, Interesting
Ultima series was not exactly a multiplayer game, but I think it serves as an excellent example of how a brilliant game is destroyed by demands for "realistic" graphics.
With bare-minimum graphics like Ultima III on C64 all the action took place in your own mind -- the best virtual reality/graphics engine ever developed.
When the series moved onto a sort of 3d graphics in Ultima VI the whole atmosphere changed. Suddenly you had these STUPID, squeaky-clean looking characters on the screen instead of the rough bunch of veterans you always had imagined. All the monsters were pitiful caricatures of the nightmares I had fought in the earlier Ultima episodes. In short, the whole game was fucked up because you were being forcefed the (annoying) vision of the game developers.
game graphics will be indistinguishable from real life
Sigh. And what's the point in that when the purpose of the games is to help you to spend some time away from the reality!?
-- The owls are not what they seem
Re:Oxymoron...social gamers
by
alcmena
·
· Score: 5, Interesting
I used to run my own Counter-Strike server, and I couldn't agree with your post more. It got so bad that I eventually wrote a program that punishes people when they would complain about laggers, campers, cheaters, etc. The punishment was 50% of your health. Do it three times, you're gagged and can only talk to your team. Three more, you're kicked. Three more, you're banned for an hour.
I'm usually one who is strongly against filters, but I have to admit, this one did wonders. People learned to either be civil towards each other, or they learned to be quiet.
I've designed many non-computer games for a few years now, and I see all the same issues discussed in this article that we've seen in face-to-face multi-player games. He covers the basics quite well. There are two aspects that he does not discuss which I believe are important.
First, good games are cohesive. The rules and the plot and the mechanics should flow together. The fundamental structure should dictate the higher behaviors in the game. This creates a game world that makes sense and learning a few basic guidelines are all that you need to get started.
Second, many games with three or more players and player interaction can suffer from petty diplomacy. If someone gets ahead in the game, other players can take time to squash the leader. If bad enough, there is a disincentive to get ahead. Balancing this problem can be quite tricky, and I would like to see more discussion about how designers deal with it on-line. IRL, we use hidden information, randomness, or high complexity to keep petty diplomacy from breaking a game.
Still, a good article, and it distills years of game design experience very well.
Re:My comment..
by
Zathrus
·
· Score: 4, Interesting
And what's wrong with demanding more robustness and graphics from modern games? Oh, that's right, you have fallen into the delusion that text based games are inherently better than their graphical counterparts. The belief that there will never again be as good of an adventure game as Zork (or Dungeon for that matter), that text MUDs were the apex of the ORPG genre, and that first person shooters are inherently sucky.
Of course, we will ignore the thousands upon thousands of MUDs, text-based adventure games, and so forth that outright sucked because they didn't have a cohesive world, storyline, had a broken interface, impossible-to-decipher riddles, broken code, or any one of a number of other issues. Clearly the fact that successful games usually had all of the above in working order doesn't mean anything.
Do you work for Hollywood? You know, that group of "big brains" that thinks the next Big Thing is to make computer generated movies, since Pixar and Dreamworks have been so successful (and thus ignoring that Toy Story, Bug's Life, Shrek, and Monster's, Inc. succeeded due to a combination of script, acting, direction, AND technology; not technology alone).
Yes, I played a text mud long, long ago. And found it boring and uninteresting. I quit after a couple weeks at best. Verant, on the other hand, has commanded $10/mo from me for nearly three years because EverQuest, despite it's flaws, has proved to be enjoyable for the most part. There are tons of things in EQ that annoy me, but the good bits outweigh the bad most of the time (and when they don't, I take a break, as I'm doing currently).
Future MMORPG designers not only have to get the carrot-stick model right (which is pretty much the only thing I think Verant did), but also incorporate a rich world, an intriguing storyline (as much as you can given the MM part), a good interface, and a rich graphical world. Oh, and yes, it'll have to be robust too. Or you'll have to have deep pockets to run in the red until it becomes robust (c.f. Anarchy Online - I hear it doesn't suck rocks now. I don't care to find out.)
And, slightly offtopic, but one of the biggest challenges they'll find is convincing jaded MMORPG players to come to them. I know that after playing EQ I have no desire to play another MMORPG, since I understand exactly how much of a time investment it implies.
Slashdot Mirror
Free cell phone tracking
Although, I don't think some of the algorhythms in place right now for latency (for example, Quake III Arena) are much better. I don't think it's fair to allow the computer to "judge" modem players' moves, and try to determine "if" the player would have got the hit. Not only is this unfair to the player (when they get to a real LAN tournament they'll be roasted), it's also unfair to the vet with a decent connection, because the newbie in essense gets a free hit. I would propose figuring out better ways to communicate over the network instead of trying to second guess the players' moves with algorhythms.
I think the number one problem with online games is cheating. There have been countless times where I have been totally addicted to a game, and then a cheat ruins all the fun. People play online games because it is so much more exciting to compete against a real person. If the game becomes unbalanced, players will either move on to another game or use the cheat themselves.
There's another article that sounds similar about is written by Peter Lincroft entitled The Internet Sucks: Or, What I Learned Coding X-Wing vs. TIE Fighter back when multiplayer games were not plentiful.
It's interesting reading, including "Lesson four: UDP is better than TCP, but it still sucks" and "Lesson five: Whenever you think the Internet can't get any worse, it gets worse". It's good stuff.
With bare-minimum graphics like Ultima III on C64 all the action took place in your own mind -- the best virtual reality/graphics engine ever developed.
When the series moved onto a sort of 3d graphics in Ultima VI the whole atmosphere changed. Suddenly you had these STUPID, squeaky-clean looking characters on the screen instead of the rough bunch of veterans you always had imagined. All the monsters were pitiful caricatures of the nightmares I had fought in the earlier Ultima episodes. In short, the whole game was fucked up because you were being forcefed the (annoying) vision of the game developers.
game graphics will be indistinguishable from real life
Sigh. And what's the point in that when the purpose of the games is to help you to spend some time away from the reality!?
The owls are not what they seem
I used to run my own Counter-Strike server, and I couldn't agree with your post more. It got so bad that I eventually wrote a program that punishes people when they would complain about laggers, campers, cheaters, etc. The punishment was 50% of your health. Do it three times, you're gagged and can only talk to your team. Three more, you're kicked. Three more, you're banned for an hour.
I'm usually one who is strongly against filters, but I have to admit, this one did wonders. People learned to either be civil towards each other, or they learned to be quiet.
I've designed many non-computer games for a few years now, and I see all the same issues discussed in this article that we've seen in face-to-face multi-player games. He covers the basics quite well. There are two aspects that he does not discuss which I believe are important.
First, good games are cohesive. The rules and the plot and the mechanics should flow together. The fundamental structure should dictate the higher behaviors in the game. This creates a game world that makes sense and learning a few basic guidelines are all that you need to get started.
Second, many games with three or more players and player interaction can suffer from petty diplomacy. If someone gets ahead in the game, other players can take time to squash the leader. If bad enough, there is a disincentive to get ahead. Balancing this problem can be quite tricky, and I would like to see more discussion about how designers deal with it on-line. IRL, we use hidden information, randomness, or high complexity to keep petty diplomacy from breaking a game.
Still, a good article, and it distills years of game design experience very well.
And what's wrong with demanding more robustness and graphics from modern games? Oh, that's right, you have fallen into the delusion that text based games are inherently better than their graphical counterparts. The belief that there will never again be as good of an adventure game as Zork (or Dungeon for that matter), that text MUDs were the apex of the ORPG genre, and that first person shooters are inherently sucky.
Of course, we will ignore the thousands upon thousands of MUDs, text-based adventure games, and so forth that outright sucked because they didn't have a cohesive world, storyline, had a broken interface, impossible-to-decipher riddles, broken code, or any one of a number of other issues. Clearly the fact that successful games usually had all of the above in working order doesn't mean anything.
Do you work for Hollywood? You know, that group of "big brains" that thinks the next Big Thing is to make computer generated movies, since Pixar and Dreamworks have been so successful (and thus ignoring that Toy Story, Bug's Life, Shrek, and Monster's, Inc. succeeded due to a combination of script, acting, direction, AND technology; not technology alone).
Yes, I played a text mud long, long ago. And found it boring and uninteresting. I quit after a couple weeks at best. Verant, on the other hand, has commanded $10/mo from me for nearly three years because EverQuest, despite it's flaws, has proved to be enjoyable for the most part. There are tons of things in EQ that annoy me, but the good bits outweigh the bad most of the time (and when they don't, I take a break, as I'm doing currently).
Future MMORPG designers not only have to get the carrot-stick model right (which is pretty much the only thing I think Verant did), but also incorporate a rich world, an intriguing storyline (as much as you can given the MM part), a good interface, and a rich graphical world. Oh, and yes, it'll have to be robust too. Or you'll have to have deep pockets to run in the red until it becomes robust (c.f. Anarchy Online - I hear it doesn't suck rocks now. I don't care to find out.)
And, slightly offtopic, but one of the biggest challenges they'll find is convincing jaded MMORPG players to come to them. I know that after playing EQ I have no desire to play another MMORPG, since I understand exactly how much of a time investment it implies.