Slashdot Mirror
Why Online Multiplayer Isn't That Important
cyrus_zuo writes "GameTunnel has published an article on why they believe online multiplayer is over-rated. Specifically, author Russell Carrol feels that multi-player is only at its best when you have an emotional connection to the people you're playing against. In his words: 'Multiplayer gaming is awesome, don't get me wrong, but I don't think that online multiplayer modes are all that great. Unless I'm playing in the same room as the person I'm playing against, I lose the emotional and physical connection that makes multiplayer games fun. .. It's like going to a party where you drink and dance by yourself in your living room, and connect to everyone else through headsets, video cameras and HD TVs. No matter how you look at it, the end result is a lame party.'"
n00b.
Ripping an new rectum in the fabric of spacetime.
I totally agree with you but that's exactly the reason why most serious gamers will join clans and such so that they can fell some sort of attachment to their opponents, instead of just playing against other usernames.
From personal experience, I'd say that you can have a fantastic time with complete strangers if everyone is playing with the same objective and attitude, and communicating well enough that the team can coordinate its strategy. There's nothing more satisfying (in the game context, of course) than a coordinated and simultaneously executed diversion, attack, and defense to win the game.
Well, that guy is pretty stupid. Multiplayer needs no connection between players themselves, it's the competition that matters and in many cases it is impossible to properly compete against other players using split screen.
I respectfully disagree, along with 7 million WoW players.
The way Vince Vaughn plays against whining kids over the Internet using his XBOX, that's what online gaming is all about.
How we know is more important than what we know.
Myself, I have never been interested in online duels, which is what most people seem to mean when they say "online multiplayer games." Trash-talking, griefing, and players who obviously spend way more time than I have available to play do not make playing against another human more fun than playing against a computer. I do not relish getting mad while I game, nor do I think that being able to make other people mad automatically elevates the quality of a game.
...it's a blog. Opinions should go below the article...not be the article itself. Why should we care if some guy feels lame playing multiplayer with strangers? If that were true for everyone, multiplayer wouldn't exist the way it does right now. He isn't talking about online trends or how to improve anything. He is just whining. What will his next "article" be? Will we find out what he had for lunch or how people picked on him because of his haircut?
Support a great indie game: http://www.abaddon360.com
Doesn't it make you feel good to know that our freedoms are protected by politicans, lawyers and journalists.
I've never been into online games where it's just me in the room.
A group of friends all together is the way to go.
finally a good analogy.
Nothing like playing Duke3d in the University Math computer center, those were real LAN parties. Its many times more fun to play multiplayer when you can physically/verbally assault your enemies..... plus the occasional "let me see where you are hiding" trip to the other teams monitors.
The best test environment is production. - Me
chrome://browser/content/browser.xul
... monolith released the multiplayer segment of F.E.A.R. for free to the community? in all seriousness, how many of us buy an fps for the single player mode, halo, half life, prey, and so on aside. after you play through that once, replay value lies in handing some noob his ass on a platter. or more importantly, console games aside, who buys single player role playing games for their computer, instead of mmo's, outside of monetary restraints? sure theres an impersonal feel, and sometimes i really want to hear my friend cry out in anguish when i slap him stupid in fear, but for a quick pick-up game, online wins hands down. i realize that there are millions of games geared to single player experience, and i love them, but lets not throw multiplayer to the wind just because its not a personal experience all of the time. btw, one of the best multiplayer offline games ive played in a while was burgerking's bumper cart thing. nerdy stupid fun when you cram four guys in a room and hand them controllers, havent seen someone get so worked up when playing with a burgerking toy since i was 5.
Soap box, Ballot box, Jury box, Ammo box. Use in that order.
I can't have an emotional attachment to him when we play games online? So I had no emotional attachment to my wife when she and I were engaged and she lived 1400 miles away? That's a pretty peculiar idea.
Sure, it's often more fun to have a LAN party than to jump on a server together remotely. Just because something's not quite as fun as something else doesn't mean it's not fun. The world, even for computer geeks, is not binary in every respect. There's no switch that flips from "fun" to "not fun".
I guess the author of TFA thinks that playing a game and losing isn't fun because playing an winning is more fun. That winning $10,000 in the lottery isn't a nice surprise because winning $10,000,000 would be nicer... That having sex with one woman isn't fun because it's not a threesome...
What a tool.
Some friends and I had a lan party last week, we rented a church hall. There weren't many of us, but it was good fun. I'd also recommend Xfire, it allows your friends to see when you're online and just join the server. You can even chat to each other in game, but independently of the game, which can be very handy.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
- No virus spreading.
- You can control your noise volume.
- You can select which people attend the party.
- You can override the music selection at the party.
- You can take a break to watch your favorite TV show.
- Everybody can drink, no drunk driving.
- In fact, no driving anywhere at all.
- If you don't want to dress up, you can still just watch and listen.
- ...
I am not even going to mention that he would make friends online and emotionally attach to them even if he never sit in the same room, because that would be obviously lost on the troll who wrote the article.If programs would be read like poetry, most programmers would be Vogons.
This is why EA and other game companies continually puts lackluster support into their online games and get away with it. The percentage of people that play online is at best 10%. When you have 90%+ of your customers buying the game who cares if their are balance issues or you can ruin a game just by pressing alt+F4 (damn you mismatch errors, damn you to hell).
... or play through the single player and shelve it. To each his own.
I can't understand it personally. AI for games are very boring and predictable. The only way game developers make the game harder is by letting the AI cheat. This isn't the AI outsmarting you or being better then you, it's just plain crap. Even then it's usually a moderate challenge at best.
For you people so scared to play online: Go try it out. It's not as bad as you think, especially within the first month that a game has came out. Yes, you will get owned. You will likely be called a n00b. Watch what they are doing though. Learn the tactics that are being used on you and use them to defeat other players. If you want to go the extra mile read forums about tactics in between refreshing slashdot while at home or work if they allow it. You too will see be "pwning" "n00bs" with your "l33tness".
I keep telling myself I'm not the desperate type.
I'm _building_ emotional connections to the people I'm playing with. The reason I'm playing online in the _first_ place, cuz its a PITA to go to a LAN party and stuff 40 people in the same room. MUCH more convenient (time, and moving) wise to just hop online, and play with buddies. LAN parties have their place, but one needs to look at the original problem, not the symptom.
Thank-god for VoIP -- it adds part of the missing dimension from LAN parties.
I'm an MMOG player too and there are lessons learned there, but I'll focus on Starcraft. If you make an online multiplayer "competitive" game, you must make it so there are no win trading abuses. Warcraft 3 had no win trading abuses and was better in that one aspect. If you make an online competive game, you must make sure you squash hackers like you mean buisness. An anti map hack program could have been made in a various number of ways, but they chose not to pursue that route and the game became pointless with hacks and win traders. If you can make your game fair so no hacks and cheaters can prosper, and use a chess rating style of ranking, you can make a very fun game where you compete to be the world's best. To me there's something really exciting about being ranked in a world class system on a game, it makes me want to become better at it and play it more intensely.
God spoke to me.
Why do we care about someone's drunken ramblings on his blog (redundant?)? If we didn't care to make a controversy out of online versus in-person multiplayer ten years ago, why would we care to now?
I fear I'm becoming a typical cranky Slashdot reading.
Property is theft.
Online gaming: you're by yourself, in the dark, getting headshotted, haxed and pwned by every single camping b&# out there. It's like the computer is using god mod against you!
LAN Party: Same premise, but you're with your mates - each shot is lauded, applauded, cheered at.
I know I'm focusing on FPS here, but it applies to any game with multiplayer being enabled. There's just simply no emotional connection to playing online which make the medium stale.
If they could come up with AI that can put up a real challenge I would agree with this guy. If his analogy that multiplayer is like a party by yourself hooked up to other partygoers via technology, then single player is even worse because it's a party where you are by yourself and hooked up to fake partygoers who are all ugly and stupid and don't know how to dance.
Online play is a niche market. For a number of reasons Online gaming appeals mostly to 1337 players. Most people do not want to get pwned or griefed. Most people feel the out of the package AI is challenging enough. That is why MMORPG/FPS aren't devouring the whole console market or the attach rates for the free live service is fairly low and paying members even lower. The online stores have changed this a little, but most people still do not feel a desire to play online. Online play isn't the compelling feature slash gamers think it is. Perhaps the Wii will also bring online play to masses but for now the genres discourage true newbies from entering into that arena and isn't compelling for most console owners. No non-1337 individuals I know play online. None. The ones that do, post here and have been online gamer geeks since doom. We are outlyers. Online isn't that important yet.
"There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio, than are dreamt of in your philosophy."
Under that logic, then no one would communicate via internet to begin with let alone use it as a tool to meet potential partners. I think it's be covered enough that the level of anonymity that internet allows is a double edged sword, reducing inhibitions while also providing a sterile environment capable of deception.
The realm of multiplayer gaming may not fall on the sinister end of the internet (for the most part), but it is not immune to falling victim to sterility and lack of emotional connections. I think it needs to be viewed as an alternative, not as a outright failure. Opening up a venue to meet like minded people is usually a positive step, and given personal circumstances the internet may be the only option available.
Ultimately, computing is a personal experience anyway. It may be more fun to have you buddies over to lan, but you're still all focusing on separate monitors and goals, a level of detachment will always exist in that regard.
I have very little face-to-face empathy, so I don't really care whether people are near or far; it makes little difference to me.
So for me, socials online are about as interesting (or uninteresting, sometimes) as socials offline.
My blog: http://www.seebs.net/log/ --- My iPhone/iPad app: http://www.seebs.net/seebsfrac/
Look, I play multiplayer for a variety of reasons, but the main reason is that other human players enhance the game play beyond what a stupid AI could. Whether I have an emotional connect with the other players is not really important. Yes, sometimes I like to play games with people I know, and people that I can chat with, but that is not the only basis for playing. This isn't a dating service or a "party" as the article likes to suggest. When I'm killing/dying on say CS, I couldn't care less about who the people are. I know that they are better then a bot to play with, and emotional connection or not, it is still better then playing with a bot.
I have to reiterate, there are times that a multiplayer game is better when you know the people you are playing with, however, to use the articles lame analogy, it's sometimes fun to go to a party where you know no body and make new friends, or even drink the night away with then, and never see them again. Need for emotional connection varies greatly on the style of game.
Overrated by who's standards? I acknowledge your opinion, but I must kindly disagree.
"I only know 2 things: The love for me, and the fear of me."
Another example of piss-poor game journalism. I can care less about emotional attachment. When it comes to gaming, artificial intelligence is grossly inferior to human intelligence.
He is right in part. When I'm interested in seriously playing a game, I only go online because bots suck compared to humans, especially in teams. But often-times I'm looking to relax a little and make idle conversation between rounds.
IMO the draw of multiplayer games are primarily the superiority of human intelligence in relation to the artificial intelligence we enjoy in games today. AI continues to be a difficult problem for game developers and no matter how hard they try, they probably won't ever be able to create ingame AI driven opponents with anywhere near the level of creativity/ingenuity the common gamer holds. Who wants to demolish seven computer zerg opponents when you can ambush that dude who keeps zerg rushing the hell out of your siege tanks with a swarm of battlecruisers... as you explain to him how much his life sucks.
I have an emotional connection with the people in my life, but i prefer killing people online. Single player games don't keep my attention for very long.
Is it sad that I am more likely to recognize you and your posts by your sig than your name or UID?
if I go to a party and people are playing video games, thats a pretty lame ass party.
Think about it - a lot of us are "closet nerds" or maybe those who aren't 24/7 all about being a geek. I personally don't have a group of friends (locally) into gaming, its something I pretty much do on my own. So, given that, where's my option to play other people? For a lot of games, the best modes are multiplayer, so for me they need to be online to really be any fun.
The biggest problem today is matchmaking and group cohesion. Cliche as it is, I've had some of the most fun online playing Halo 2 with a group of friends I don't live around anymore. Having the couch system is great, as we are in continuous contact before, during, and after the game, and navigating around is a group experience. Being able to easily play with your friends and keeping you in contact and together throughout the game is a lot of fun. Another, more limited experience I've had is playing multiplayer games with the xbox live 360 chat channel. That lets you play with one other person and stay in constant contact with them. The same goes for playing Battlefield 2 as a squad with teamspeak. I'm not a MMORPGer, but I'd imagine doing dungeons with a party that has voice connect is a comparable experience.
So multiplayer online can suck, but it can also be almost as rich as having someone in the same room playing the game if its done right.
I personally get bored of AI. No matter how advanced or innovative it is it simply is never as entertaining as real humans. Because humans are both random and adaptable. Even stupid ones :)
And it's especially satisfying when you can text/voice chat with the human (stranger or not) as you both laugh/cry/vent over what just transpired in-game.
Oh well, this is an old holy war, no new insights have been uncovered, both sides still firmly believe they a right and the rest of the world just goes on having sex without them.
And me? Well I am commiting on something I don't care about and not getting any. You guys might be losers but I am your KING!
MMO Quests are like orgasms:
You may solo them, I prefer them in a group.
Warcraft 3 never had a fix for maphack, either, and if there is an easy way to prevent map hacking, I'm sure the folks at Blizzard would love to hear it. As long as the game requires that a block of memory be reserved to indicate what is visible on the map, and that block of memory is maintained by the hacker's computer, there will be no way to stop map hacking.
Preventing win trading and ladders are nice, but other than using them for an automatic matchmaking system to give players a chance at having more competitive games, I think that the people who take these things too seriously will always find a way to abuse them.
"I think the real issue here is the AI in most games not acting human enough."
And so, we arrive at the heart of the problem here. Russell Carroll apparently doesn't realize how difficult it is to make realistic AI in the vast majority of modern game styles. His whole argument falls apart when you hit the eighth or ninth paragraph, as he reveals that offline play should just as engaging as playing with strangers if only developers would wake up and put some more effort into the AI. I've got news for you, Russ. It's really, REALLY difficult to make decent AI. No computer in the foreseeable future is going to be able to mimic the skill and adaptability of a human opponent, and especially not in the complicated realm of 3D first-person shooters. Just compare the bots in Counter-Strike: Source with actual players, and you'll see how much better the experience is with human minds at the controls of your enemies. Even if you don't know them, and have no connection to them, there's still a significant challenge and a lot more replayability in online games, than could ever be found in a single-player experience.
He also seems to doubt the effectiveness of communication via technology when it comes to bonding with people. That's another big strike in my book. Granted, I'm biased because I met my girlfriend online and wasn't able to see her in person for two full years, but that experience alone is enough to convince me that webcams, microphones and good ol' emails are a very suitable substitute for real-world interaction when they're all you have. You can become very well acquainted with your online friends and opponents in short order, and it doesn't take a face-to-face meeting to feel emotional about someone you're playing a game with online. After a few dozen rounds of CSS, I feel that I'm genuinely getting to know the other players--at least those who are sensible and provide intelligent conversation between rounds. If I run into the same people a few days later, we become even closer.
This article simply doesn't talk to me at all, and I can't relate to Russell's experiences. I find online games with strangers to be orders of magnitude more fun than offline play with bots, even if both are inferior to LANs with a bunch of friends in the same room. This article seems to imply that if you're physically alone, then online play is no better than single player. That's complete nonsense.
argument against Prey. Online deathmatch, but no split-screen. How does that work? Seriously now, you can't possibly tell me that it's easier to develop a networked 3-d environment rather than 2-4 viewports on one screen. This rather ticked me off.
No one is ever going to play online multiplayer games alone in their room. I expect the genre to die off before it really gets off the ground.
They guy's opinion is just plain 180 degree opposite mine. No AI can be as varied or original as a human opponent.
I stopped going to LAN games years ago, because while the majority of guys I'd game with were awesome, there were a couple of really loud tossers screaming "YEH BITcH!" "I'M GONNA PWN JU BITCH!" It got to the point that every time they opened their mouths or walked past me I wanted to punch them in the face.
I ended up with a headache and the fun factor started dwindling. However, I could happily play a game online in the sublime tranquility of my own house.
That and the fact that I don't have to pack up my whole rig, transport it across the city, unload, and do it all again that evening or the evening after.
The reason girls and Windows users don't understand UNIX is because all the documentation is in Man files.
The author of TFA seems to have never played a game online in co-op. It's a whole different experience. Cooperative play - especially the way that some games are implementing it now with drop-in/drop-out - is incredibly fun, often more fun than playing alone. You're not playing with random strangers usually either.
Just play any PC game that works in a LAN.
You play Online, and you play with your friends.
If you want to chat with them, install Ventrilo too.
We are Turing O-Machines. The Oracle is out there.
They do, it's called a "data-centre" :P
to be fair, xbox live is probably the best example of a crappy online community.
the best example of a good online community? city of heroes.
I've personally never been that interested in the game, but from the trials I've played? the city of heroes community is a great, friendly community. It's just a nice group of people. It's almost completely unexplainable, but it's true.
The key benefit to multiplayer gaming (that is, competitive multiplayer, not MMO*) is that people are better at creating continual challenge than AI, and will remain so for our lifetimes.
there are third party software for starcraft (not sure about wc3) that can detect some hacks. besides competitive starcraft moved onto private servers a while ago (PGT and whatever) where enforcing hacks is easier.
Come on. Competition is competition. If this were true, then regular sports competitions wouldn't be exciting to the competitors. In fact, I think the opposite is true. Playing with people you have no emotional attachment to is much more fun. I commonly play with people I know. However, I found it much more exciting in playing 1 on 1 in the FIOS tournament for HL2 : DM with people I've never met.
He probably never use the "taunt" feature in Quake III Arena :|
multiplayer will never die for many genres because, until there is a major leap forward in computer artificial intelligence, it will always be more engaging, challenging and satisfying to compete against a human controlled avatar than a computer controlled avatar. and in fact, now that I think it about it, it will probably always be that way. why? because when computer AI is worse than human, humans will be more fun. when computer AI is better than humans, it will be impossible to beat and in many cases people will write it off as a sisyphean task.
Don't waste your breath. Hes practically advocating the "solo player game" if you know what I mean.
please type the word in this image: inasmuch
You're right. When I play a game and enjoy it, I think to myself, "Self, what would make this enjoyable experience complete for me? By jove, I've got it! Spending months and months getting my ass handed to me on a platter, game in, game out, until that sweet, miraculous day when I find myself winning almost as many games as I'm losing. Once I've spent thousands of hours honing the sacred craft that is this particular RTS/FSP, learning every technique to gain an edge over some random fifteen year old in Akron, Ohio, then--and only then--can I be happy and satisfied, knowing that I am... well, not the best, exactly, or even in the top twenty thousand, but at least far better than average. Plus it'll get me crazy laid."
Methinks I shouldn't have cranked the sarcasm up to 11. But when you've reached the ripe old age of 30, and the real life responsibilities pile on, you may find that you begin to lose patience with games that expect you to spend lots of time honing your skills. You may also find less and less attraction in subjecting yourself to the abuses of people who spend all their waking hours mastering something that you can only find a few hours a week for. Hell, you might even find that your real life pursuits bring you the sort of lasting satisfaction that makes successful gaming pale in comparison.
My point isn't to disparage your choice of hobbies, but simply to point out that hypercompetitive folks like yourself are something of an anomaly, even among gamers. A lot of us just want to participate in an epic yarn, where we beat the big boss and save the princess, and get a few hours of entertainment that don't seem like work. Multiplayer doesn't have universal appeal, and game publishers forget that fact at their peril.
You want the truthiness? You can't handle the truthiness!
Hmm. What part of this micro-debate isn't linked 100% to what game is in question and who happens to be playing?
Up until about a year and a half ago, I was attached to a moderately active Unreal Tournament 2004 clan, playing about 25-35 hours a week, of which about 4 to 5 were mandatory events of some kind (matches, strategy meetings, etc.). Outside of matches, sometimes I practiced with the clan; sometimes I practiced in private servers (away from 93.44% of the idiots and newbies, two different groups mind you); and sometimes I practiced against bots, forcing myself to bear a handicap (only use a particular gun, don't get the armor, whatever). Now, back in 2000 when I started playing UT classic, the bots were challenging; that lasted for most of a year. Players, however, continued to challenge me until I quit playing in 2006. Now, as a rule in Unreal-style FPS games, the AI has limited appeal; it's not competitive for very long, and it doesn't care when it loses or wins. In that kind of game, the real option is to go find humans to play with, then to play until you find a niche. That doesn't always mean "become the most elite, twitch-trigger, bunny-hopping, crack shot in the world," that means find somewhere you enjoy playing, and find folks who share your preferences. There are always going to be people a bit better than you; I played a variety of team-play modes where the focus was less on perfect fighting skills and more on coordinated action and team instinct. Now, I was a darn solid player in my gametypes, but put me in a one on one deathmatch against a good, sharp fighter and I'd be lucky to get a quarter of the points in the match. At the same time, there were folks who couldn't really hold a candle to me at most games but were the best d*** insta-Bombing Run (think a game like U.S. Football with instant-kill rifles) players around. Could I have practiced up and slaughtered them? Maybe. Probably. But, I wasn't out to kill their fun. I wouldn't give $5 for the single-player game, but I shelled out about $200 for copies of UT, two copies of UT2003, and a couple copies of UT2004 over the years.
Now, everything I've said changes when the game changes. Take Deus Ex, a FPS game built on the Unreal engine. Fine game, top 10 of many people's PC game lists. Some might say it redefined the FPS game. Terrible multiplayer. Awful. The guns weren't balanced, the maps were limited and stank, and the skill point system didn't translate well to multiplayer mode. Rock-solid engine, but a bad game to nail a multiplayer mode onto.
No, it's not anonymity that kills multiplayer implementation. I took a one-year break in between UT and UT2003 to play Everquest. I probably made voice contact with my fellow players all of about three times in that year, but I had a kick playing a bard up to 60 (an adventure in masochism when I was playing; instrument-swapping was still critical at that time). It's all about game style. Most classic console-type games, especially when played casually, don't make good targets for internet multiplayer tack-ons. If lag doesn't kill the experience, communication problems (clunky voice control, mic whores, and more than I want to talk about) do. Further, for genuine novices and casual gamers, it will be hard to find challenging but beatable opponents. Sorry, but it's like going as a novice to a chess club costume party; you don't know the other players, and they don't have a good reason to take it easy on you.
My advice to folks wanting to win at multiplayer games with a minimal time budget is this: focus on one or two enjoyable games, learn the basics, then pick up AT LEAST ONE advanced tactic -- something probably cheap but lethal. Yes, you'll be leaning on it all the time and comments about one-trick ponies will apply, but it WILL let you win some matches. Yes, if it's an open game, someone better WILL eventually come in and plaster you; if they don't move on after doing it a couple times, move on yourself. Now, when your trump card goes flat and stop
But on PC, online MP is one of the most important aspects of the game. PC gaming is all about playing the games online against random people. For the people who regularly play online, it isn't about playing with friends, they only play it because they want to get better and beat everyone else.
Playing with friends sure makes more fun than playing against some stranger, but playing against humans is still more interesting than playing against a computer.
First of all, I completely agree with the other comments regarding this guy's blog. It's not an article. Why do we care about some random guy's comments? If it was some well-known game developer or industry veteran, then maybe that would be Slashdot worthy. But as far as I can tell, he's just some story writer on a game site I haven't heard of. I'm not saying the site or the writer is bad, per say, just that it's not exactly newsworthy ...
But in any case, I think one point he misses out is that some games are better suited than others for the multiplayer experience. I agree that a lot of the multiplayer games on Nintendo platforms (particularly the N64 era), were great experiences. Many of those games, though, were almost party games in a way, as they almost seemed to rely on having that close contact with your friends (high-fiving, smack-talking, controller-trading experience). And he's right, those type of games don't really translate well online.
However, there are many games which do perfectly well through online multiplayer, or are even made better by it. Team-based shooting games, is one great example. I've been playing some Rainbow Six: Vegas with friends, doing both cooperative story missions, and team multiplayer. Having the full screen to myself, as well as voice communication, really adds to the experience (as well as make it quite realistic). This is not something that would translate very well to split-screen action. It would work very well in a LAN environment, but let's be serious. Those are difficult to setup, and certainly not something you can do every day easily, unless you all happen to live in a close environment (college dorms or such).
The other big example is MMORPGs. Obviously having online multiplayer is a necessity. We all know how popular World of Warcraft is.
So in short, saying "Online Multiplayer Isn't That Important" doesn't mean much to me. What type of games is he talking about? It's certainly true in some circumstances, but not in others.
-- jchenx
He's right you know (in a fashion). When I first played Quake online, from an internet cafe, I was ecstatic. Years of playing fairly regularly on servers followed and I thoroughly enjoyed every minute of it. Once I joined a clan the pressure stepped up a little, but I got a lot out of playing with people with which I had more of an emotional connection with than just randoms and half-familiar regulars. Nowadays, I can go and play cs:s on a server where I may know some of the guys vaguely but I actually lose interest very quickly, and do something else until my team start showing up. Its just not the same. If all you know is playing randoms on publics, then you're probably having a fanastic time and good for you! But once you've played in proper teams with people you know well then you're having deeper fun and your previous experiences seem relatively shallow. See also Football teams playing for home crowds, Sex with someone you love, Bands playing for their fan clubs etc
I think it all depends on the person and the platform. I don't like the idea of a lan party, so the PC is great for online connectivity and gaming. PS3 and 360 are obviously geared towards this as well, but honestly I don't have enough time in a day to ignore family and friends and play against someone I don't even know - I'd rather have a few people over and play something like Monkeyball together. (and I get a lot less grief from my wife - she hated when I played Star Wars Galaxies). That's why I think Nintendo shouldn't be under so much fire for their lack of online multiplayer, I think a big part of their market doesn't even care about that - its more of the social experience that makes it fun. And it seems like the games that should be online aren't - for example, I'd love a good 2D online brawler, like SF2 or maybe even ala Final Fight. I am sure there are a few options out there, but I'd love to see a Marvel VS Capcom or Marvel VS SNK or Dragonball online fighter. Just my .02
No, the opposite of n00b is demonstrated by the following code:
He's entitled to his opinion, but IMO he's wrong.
If online multiplayer weren't a 'big' thing, games companies would have stopped bothering to code for it long ago.
Is it MORE fun to play in the same room with someone, or against RL friends? Sure, in most cases. But the level of creativity, irrationality, and downright dogged malice you get having a human opponent(s) rather than an AI? No question whatsoever, the games play 100% differently and (usually) better.
-Styopa
Im right there with you. Usually it takes an amazing game that will get me playing it enough, out of fun, to learn well enough to not lose all the time.
:)
But with that few and far between, another solution to the problem is to play the game right after release. Most games that come out now a days have incredibly similar mechanics to older games, so if you've been gaming a while, chances are you will figure out how to win a lot faster then some of the youngens.
So for a month or two, you get some blissful noob owning and get to play online the way it was meant to be played. And if you had fun doing it that long, you'll already have all the knowledge you need to keep playing the game at an even w/l record when the curve catchs up to you.
I've found that most games are too smiliar to ones I've already enjoyed, with just a few little changes here and there, so nothing has really tweaked my fancy. The last "unique" online game I played was splinter cell, pandora tomorrow, as sneaking past or looking for my buddies was a new experience for me (much more exciting then the wait game that is single player stealth). Otherwise... blah, show me something new to do online!!
He does say it's worthless. He says it's like a lame party where you drink alone and dance alone. He says that local multiplayer is the only good way to play multiplayer. The author is a tool. Go ahead, call me a moron and tell me I don't understand what I just read. You've already done it to someone else.
Guess what? In-person gaming is full of cheaters, too. Sure, you can kick a cheater out of your house, but you can kick a cheater off of a private game server, too. You can complain in a video arcade or casino, and you can complain on any decent multiplayer site online.
Lots of online games have ladder systems. Most MMORPGs have low-level character areas safe from PK. Some games have direct connect multiplayer and some really fun ones have free server software (like Team Fortress Classic). Other people will be less skilled than you. Other people will be more skilled than you. If you don't want to play in a non-handicapped environment, that's fine. Just don't whine about getting beat when you play. It's undignified and juvenile. I like playing poker, but I'm not going to put my mortgage payment up against Chris Moneymaker or Daniel Negreanu. If I did, I wouldn't whine about losing.
When I'm playing Total Annihilation or Mechwarrior 4 against my friend without driving an hour each way, it's a tradeoff. We get to bond a little less, but we get two hours more playing time and I save some gas. How can you or the author of TFA argue that for my life that's a bad deal? I'd rather walk next door and sit down with my friend, but he doesn't live next door. I see that making online multiplayer priceless, because we can still play games together even when we can't make it to see each other. And we've been doing it since we had to dial each other direct on modems to play.
I agree, I think this article was mostly about console on-line gaming, where multiplayer is already supported via 4 console ports. In that scenario, it isn't hard to get some friends over your house, which beats playing against strangers.
On the PC however, where you only have 1 keyboard/mouse, multiplayer is a must. Enhanced AI is never going to be worth a dime in a game like Warcraft III that has hundreds of custom maps that a computer can't learn to play.
...this guy is an idiot. He's an author, huh? Well then, let's hear what William Gibson has to say on the subject.
I share an emotional connection with the people on my computer screen, they are as much a part of my life as anyone else I know, and I've never met most of them. There are plenty of times I'm playing something old-school like Half-Life deathmatch against my local circle of friends, they're still not in the same room as me. (Thank god. Honest-to-goodness physical violence would likely ensue, the way some of us play. Call Jack Thompson!) But just as often, I'm hooking up with the people I hang out with online to squad up and go kick ass in a Battlefield game. (Or 'Ikuzo, doushi! Senjou e!' as is commonly yelled in my IRC channel as a rallying cry...) Long story short? Yeah, this guy is a tool...box. He needs to stop blogging, and go sit on his porch yelling at people to 'get the hell off' his lawn.
The Giant Pachinko Machine of Doom doesn't take kindly to such ignorance.
Friend: "The NIC is misconfigured..." Me: "No prob, I'll just telnet in and fix it." *Silence*
I thought it was because multiplayer games are all the same now and the people who play them are assholes.
The producers of "To Catch A Predator" have proven this.
Of course online gaming is overrated. with the majority of things now having to be basically rented to play, im standing firmly against paid online games. unless of course some one is willing to create something that isnt WoW, and is willing to pay for me to play, and most importantly, pay me TO play
I don't quite understand why this was newsworthy at all. The entire premise of this piece seems to be, "Online multi-player games are over-rated, because they just don't work for me." I don't like sports games, but I don't go around saying they're over-rated, due to some fine-grained analysis of my own personal feelings towards them. Some people like them, some people don't. That doesn't mean they're over-rated. It just means we all like different things.
Online play is a niche market.
Um, no. Counter-Strike. WoW. Everquest. Halo. Hell, just playing poker online is big. You have no idea what you are talking about. Case in point...
6 mil (WOW total users) vs install base of 100 mil (PS2 install base). Even WOW is a "niche" product.
You are comparing games sales to installed base? What a delightfully stupid comparison. No PS2 game is going to come close to selling 100 million units either. Online play ads replay value when a player gets tired of single player. Online play and mods kept Half-Life on store shelves at selling well at $50 five years after a top selling PS2 game would be in the bargin bin.