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
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.
- 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.
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."
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/
It's more like, "I don't like coffee, so stop charging me for coffee I don't want, delaying my breakfast until the coffee is ready, and telling me coffee is the drink of the future."
What sound do people on rollercoasters make? Hint: it's not Xbox 360.
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.
"16MB (fuck off, MiB fascists)" - The Mighty Buzzard
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.
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.
Your jibe would make sense if the article was about single-player vs. multiplayer. It wasn't. His main focus was on Mario Kart 64 (recently released on Wii's Virtual Console). The core gameplay in MK64 was local multiplayer, and the author explicitly said that he'd rather play local multiplayer with friends than online multiplayer with random people (or even friends, for that matter).
That said, you don't always need awesome AI to have a fun experience. For example, there's the obvious example of puzzle games. Do you enjoy Tetris less when playing single player? However, there are also less obvious examples. For instance, look at racing games. In particular, let's compare the Gran Turismo series (GT4) and Forza Motorsport. GT4 has no online multiplayer and has horribly bad AI (bumper car, stick-to-the-line-at-all-costs AI). Forza has much better AI (they'll brake and adjust lines to avoid hitting you or other AI cars), but it also has online multiplayer. Guess what? Real people play Forza online just like GT's inferior AI plays -- first-turn pile-ups, bumping and crashing, using other drivers as turning aids, etc. Forza's AI plays more like an ideal driver, even though it's nowhere near perfect. Is GT's terrible AI better than Forza's because it (accidentally) plays more like a real person? Unless I'm racing with a group of people I know, I'd much rather prefer to play against Forza's AI instead, warts and all.
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!
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 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.
The author also completely ignores that online multiplayer is popular is because it's better than the alternatives.
Single player is far less compelling, as AI opponents get stale much faster. Local multiplayer is simply not practical in most situations.
Until my console fits on my keychain or IBM invests some serious effort into FPS bots (Deep Pwn, anyone?), I'll be resorting to playing online...not because it's perfect, but because it's more fun.
My experience with the jerks on Xbox Live has been mixed, but there are ways to reduce the number of idiots in a game. First- get good at the game. Call of Duty 2 or Halo are good examples. If you rank low, you will play against other people who rank low. These people are not very serious about playing the game, and therefore spend more time screwing around and causing people problems. I encouraged my friends to play COD2...and they initially told me that everyone they played against was a freakin' idiot. I played on their accounts a few times, and I would agree...75% of the players were morons, and would prove thier stupidity very enthusastically. But, after playing for a bit, and ranking up (takes a few days/week) you can move above the cesspool and into an area where people WANT to play the game, and they are serious enough to use tactics. AND, because you have ranked up through your own skill, you can be an asset to the team, therefore they won't give you a hard time. On the other hand, some people don't want to spend the time, or they don't have the skillz to rank up. In that case, I would recommend only playing player matches where one of their friends is the host...and therefore can boot jackasses. I've played a LOT of games that way, and it doesn't take long to get a good room with people who are interested in playing. And once they know you'll boot out the assholes, the good players are more likely to stay.
No reason to lie.