Slashdot Mirror
Too Much Multiplayer In Today's Games?
hornedrat writes "Gamepro discusses the idea that modern games put too much emphasis on multiplayer, and that players aren't as concerned about it as developers think. 'The current environment encourages developers to unnecessarily toss multiplayer into their games without caring about it — or even considering whether anyone will bother playing it. It’s like they're checking an invisible quota box that demands multiplayer's inclusion.' Personally I agree that too much emphasis is placed on competitive multiplayer. I play online, but only with my brother in games that allow co-operative modes, like Rainbow Six: Vegas and ARMA 2. 'My point isn't that developers shouldn't try and conquer Halo or Call of Duty. We'd never have any progress in this industry if developers didn't compete. Game companies, however, should think carefully about what they want their games to be, and more important, gamers should consider what they want. If a developer wants to eclipse Halo, then by all means, pour that effort into a multiplayer mode that's different.' I would be interested to know how many gamers really care about the multiplayer components of the games they buy."
I exclusively play multiplayer games, except on my phone when I want a quick game of Vexed or something to pass the time. Other than that, single player games are a little sad, and never as challenging as multiplayer. The way single player games are made challenging are to have bad guys with more strength/weapons/power than you, and/or cheating. Whereas QuakeLive is as good as the guys you're playing against, and given that it's full of clan players and people who've been playing quake for perhaps longer than they should have, it means that you're competing on level ground when it comes to player specs/weapons, but against people who know every last trick available (which you can learn should you be arsed). Who wants to play quakelive against bots? What would be the point?
The problem with multi-player is that it depends on an online server today which will shut down in time. Consider Super Mario Bros. a game made what? Nearly 30 years ago? It is still as playable today as is was in the 80s. Now consider Halo 2 made in 2004 which is now crippled in 2010 because Xbox live for the Xbox has been discontinued.
Taxation is legalized theft, no more, no less.
I virtually never play multiplayer online (I'll play multiplayer console games with friends, but virtually never with random people). Why? Two reasons. First, multiplayer is horribly repetitive and lacks originality. Secondly, when doing random matches online, the overwhelming majority of people are total asshats (see John Gabriel's Greater Internet Fuckwad Theory) that completely ruin any fun.
Companies need to focus on having original gameplay and an involving story that keeps you wanting to play, not just repetitive multiplayer.
"The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants." ~Thomas Jefferson
Developers? No. The checking-off box mentality is created by the execs who look at past performance, market research, and all that boring stuff to come up with very specific ideas about what they want in a game. The developers usually have to build what the publisher asks for if they want to get paid.
Of course if you as a developer think you know better you can always strike out on your own, but most that do don't end up making much money. Thems the breaks.
This game will waste your life. Don't clicky!
The two Super Mario Galaxy games have this "sidekick" feature that lets your little brother have fun while you're playing. You achieve all the tough stuff in the level, while any toddler who wants to sit next to you can wave the wand and collect extra stars that may help you out in some way. I'd love to see more games have a sidekick feature, or a mode which is way easier and open-ended than the beat-a-boss-find-a-bigger-boss treadmill. Say, for each major area in the game, just let somebody putz around and explore, push buttons, be congratulated for finding stuff and reset things so they can "find" them again and again. We don't all start out as an obsessed 14-year-old ready to frag everybody in sight.
[
Around the late 1990s and early 2000s, there were a number of games with both single-player and multiplayer components, where basically nobody cared about the single-player components, and companies increasingly decided that, as a result, it was hardly worth bothering with them. Starcraft wasn't a success because of its single-player missions, the new single-player missions weren't what sold most copies of the Starcraft: Brood War expansion. Counterstrike was a huge success despite not even having a single-player component. Same with Quake 3 Arena: just ditched the single-player entirely, and did very well.
10 PRINT CHR$(205.5+RND(1)); : GOTO 10
I'm looking for games that I can play with friends and family in my home. Who plays D&D by themselves? Games are more enjoyable when it is a shared experience. I'm not the "average" gamer, but I know a lot of families that would love a LOCAL 4 player Lego Star Wars or a LOCAL 4 player RPG. I think this is why some of the Wii games are so popular, it allows multiple people to play simultaneously.
Not for the competitive aspect of multi-player, but for the cooperative aspect. If I can't enjoy a game with my family or friends, it's little more than an intriguing version of solitaire. I read books for self-enjoyment. For games, I want other people.
What's up with this box everyone has to think inside of or outside of? Why does there have to be a box?
I think multiplayer modes are often overlooked, and thrown in as an afterthought with most developers, But I think attention to them should be increased, not eliminated. I have never had a game where I said "Darn, there is multiplayer". It's true that many games just aren't suited to multiplayer, like story-heavy RPG's (Except Diablo) and Civilization multiplayers (Besides people who have a few days to finish a game). But, Multiplayer is like the un-programmable level. Once you have mastered the single-player aspect of a game, what is there left? It is a great boon to the re-playability of a game to be able to go on and face human opponents. It almost seems like a necessity on some games, so much so that the fans go on to write it themselves (Such as the case with multi-theft auto for GTA3, Vice City, And San Andreas). I don't think there has been any significant percentage of games with a properly implemented multiplayer system that went mostly un-used.
Personally I like both qualities, depending on the game. A game that I can pick up any time and play solo is probably going to get more attention from me in general, but having the option of multiplayer is good, too. It really depends on the game - it definitely shouldn't be shoehorned in, but at the same time, it can be a fun bonus feature in an otherwise solo game.
Prototype comes to mind - a primarily solo game that game would've been a riot if i could bring in a buddy or two with all that superpowered and disembowel-ly fun to spread some chaos on the unsuspecting city, but it did hold up well as single player only - all the focus was on the solo campaign with no distractions of deathmatches or arenas or any junk like that shoehorned in. It just comes down to making a decision on the type of game you want to produce and to make sure that you do it right all around. I play Borderlands solo pretty regularly, for example, but I could be playing with friends any time and it would be a relatively seamless experience. Putting multiplayer into Bioshock 2, however, I thought was a horrific waste - it just doesn't "fit" the game, the environment, the atmosphere. It seems like it cheapens the experience. Gamers aren't right about what they want all the time, and this was one of those times. (I don't know what invisible horde it was that was clamoring for multi in bioshock 2, but thanks a lot guys. that's time and money they could've put into making the single player game actually better than the first.)
What more can be said? Multiplayer and single player both have their places. I played Fallout 3 and loved it, very much a solo game. On the other hand I play Team Fortress 2 like a maniac, and conceptually it's the very core of multiplayer.
I hate online games or should I say online gamers. I don't get to pay that often so when I do play I don't want a bunch people that have nothing better to than play games all day giving me crap for it. I think we need to focus on single player games more instead. I can't tell how many times you watch a review on a game just to hear that the single player sux and the multiplayer is great. I didn't become a geek to meet people.
This game rocks BTW. On one level if you attempt to get multi-player coop help you are abducted by the level end boss and become his unwitting proxy. You must fight another person playing the game. This makes that level very hard as equipment, tactics, and skill are all essentially random. This is really just the cream on the top of the almost transparent but pervasive and enticing multi-player world. Demon's Souls is the shit.
I rarely ever use the multiplayer parts of the games that I own. I don't like griefers and the such. I just want to play the game and complete the quests and such. I don't need the harassment and bother that these jerks bring to the games. I buy games to have fun, not be frustrated.
I have become less and less interested in multiplayer because of the increasing number of people who can't seem to just sit down and enjoy the game for what it is. They're so busy trying to get their experience points and their multiplayer bonuses (not to mention just being overall rude) that the fun is no longer there for them. I've restricted myself almost exclusively to single player games or PC multiplayer games that still allow bots so that friends and I can log onto my server and we go against the bots in co-op mode. Fortunately, there are still games that don't have a useless multiplayer mode wedged in, such as Pandemic's swan song, "The Saboteur" or games that have a very satisfying single-player mode, like "Red Dead Redemption".
But for the most part if my PC gaming buddies and I don't have bots that we can go against together, we'll just stick with older games like R6V, R6V2, Ghost Recon, and the Unreal Tournament line.
For me, multiplayer games require time to learn to be functional in it. Maybe too much time. Time to learn the maps, the strats, to not be a noob. It's not fun to be frag meat.
With all the extra time I put in these days at work, not to mention stress, my gaming time is more limited.
I prefer single player more now. Single player means just moving along at my own pace. No pressure, no matches, no expectations.
SLOWER TRAFFIC KEEP RIGHT
Why, whatever do you mean? Multiplayer hasn't been in most games for ages.
It is all "ONLINE ONLINE ONLINE" these days. If anything, there is a lack of ACTUAL multiplayer, not online..
People want to play multiplayer with friends at house quite often.
Not everyone has a decent connection for online play, nowhere near even half of them do. (via several reports from the actual companies themselves!)
Online is, quite literally, the lazy multiplayer, but significantly more expensive in the long run unless you are running advertising in-game, which very little companies do surprisingly. (especially on PS3 and Wii where it could actually be used with the web browser)
I'm not trying to say that online is shit, it isn't, i play it every so often as well, hell Lead & Gold was a favorite of mines for a while to kill some time.
But developers rarely focus on multiplayer these days.
Also, i wish people would stop grouping online and multiplayer, it is annoying.
Multiplayer is offline, "console connect" and LAN, online [word] is WAN / internet.
In before the dictionary Nazis come flying in on their blimps, neither of them have been grouped together until online play started becoming the norm in console games, now every idiot mixes up multiplayer and online.
Online is only multiplayer with respect to remote play. It is not multiplayer within the scope of the gaming unit.
Yes, i do hate MMO and MMOG terms too. Most annoying gaming terminology EVER.
I'd say the problem is the preponderance of squeaky-voiced racist children. Multiplayer games need better filters to keep out the riff-raff.
I go for single-player games. For me, gaming is about escapism -- and the story / plot. This is why I love playing Oblivion but won't touch WoW or other MMORPGs. Sartre said it best: "L'enfer, c'est les autres." ("Hell is other people.")
Paleotechnologist and connoisseur of pretty shiny things.
I enjoy multiplayer games, but it needs to be a cooperative mode play, i.e. "together against the AI". I tend to play with the same people, my RL friends, and usually we have a few people which are very good at one game, while the others are less awesome. Competitive games tend to be quite boring when you have always the same people winning. A cooperative game on the other hand allows everybody to enjoy the game, because you work together in a team, and it does not really matter that much if one player has more skill than the others. That's why we like games like the Diablo series, the Baldur's Gate series, Command&Conquer, shooters like the old Battlefield ones which allowed you to play cooperatively against a computer-controlled enemy team and so on. But for some reason many game companies think it is totally awesome to publish games in which you can play multiplayer, but only AGAINST each other, and not together against the computer.
I don't think multiplayer matters. Whether it be multiplayer or single player, as long as the game can deliver an enjoyable gaming experience then I think it is a success.
I do feel that there is too much focus on multiplayer. When will the powers-that-be figure out that a good game is still a good game, whether it has multiplayer or not?
Making a big part of the game online is the only way publishers (developers tend not to care as much) can ensure they can have some sort of effective copy protection (since DRMs don't work because they don't control the client...but they sure as hell can control the servers).
Obviously that doesn't apply to peer-to-peer multiplayers that don't require any interaction with a central server. Sure, you can have an independent server to bypass the need of the main one, but then you lose a big chunk of the community. Not 100% effective, but sure as hell more effective than 99.9999% of DRM out there, so publishers go that route.
How many time do you hear hardcore pirates going "Bah, im gonna buy this game, I want to play online". I know I do almost daily... (yes, daily)
The problem with multi-player is that it depends on an online server today which will shut down in time.
Not if it's local multiplayer with one machine and two to four gamepads, like Bomberman series or Smash Bros. series or Tetris Party. Not all multiplayer games have to be FPS or RTS. With the rise of HDTV, it's even practical for PC games to get in on this act.
When it comes to FPS games I play thru single player once then I only use multiplayer. When it comes to strategy games I never use multiplayer because it's always boiled down to a rush for resources - which is boring.
but I know a lot of families that would love a LOCAL 4 player Lego Star Wars or a LOCAL 4 player RPG.
I'll help you if you can help me solve this: Local multiplayer game development still appears to be a very closed environment where indies can't thrive. An indie local multiplayer game can work with four USB gamepads plugged into a hub, but it needs a PC within a cable's reach of an HDTV. But a lot of families still use a standard-definition TV, and even those that have an HDTV with HDMI and VGA inputs usually don't have a spare PC with non-Intel graphics to put next to the TV. One Slashdot user has recommended making the game for the PC not with the intention of selling copies for the PC but instead as a "pilot" to get picked up by a major publisher who will fund a console port. What publisher takes such games?
Once you have mastered the single-player aspect of a game, what is there left?
Play through again with a different character class. Publishers assume that once you finish that, you'll have earned enough at your day job to buy expansion packs and sequels.
I've played a lot of games on consoles, PC's, handhelds, and in the arcade.
I keep seeing the same problems with multiplayer: they often ARE added in as an afterthought, and on too many games, the multi-player play is missing some vital element of the single-player mode. A big problem for me is when a game doesn't have a co-op mode, or when co-op is somehow gimped.
For example, Doom was probably the first effect multi-player game with deathmatch and co-op play, but co-op mode would suffer when you ran out of ammo: you'd spawn at the start point and try to take down massive monsters with the shotgun. Despite that, my friends and I loved playing through the game in co-op.
On the Playstation, I loved the Need for Speed series, but I got frustrated by the fact that I had to play through and unlock tracks in single-player mode before I could compete on them in multi-player mode. Mario Kart on the Wii is the same way. Why is there no multi-player quest mode that lets my kid and I unlock new tracks by playing together?
On the other hand, when you get in to MMO's, they tend to require multiple users in order to complete objectives. You can't do everything there is to do in most MMO's if you're not part of a regular group.
I think there are places for both styles of play, and they often overlap. Diablo is a good example of a game that handles both MP and solo play well: you can play co-op, PVP, or solo and have a good experience in any of the three modes. It could be better (I can think of better ways to scale difficulty than the way Diablo does it, for example), but it may be the only game I can think of that has balanced game play in any mode.
I'd like to see more developers follow this example.
It is possible to use some single-player game design techniques, and possibly even the game's existing single-player scenario, for cooperative multiplayer. If the players don't stray too far apart, or the game takes the Super Mario Galaxy approach of having player 1 do all the work and player 2 do minor things, you don't even have to split the screen.
Devs need to have multiplayer be an afterthought after designing a core, solid single player experience. Either that or have an established user base or famous IP behind the multiplayer.
Take Halo for example, it started as a great single player story with a great combat system (and a second buddy allowed to bum around with you but not shown on cutscenes), and local multiplayer that became extremely popular.
Halo 2 followed the story (but was considered a story flop compared to the first) but turned the multiplayer into quite possibly one of the most thriving multiplayer systems in at least console history. Halo 3 comes around and incorporates even more multiplayer into the campaign, and again continues the multiplayer. It all started with a core single player experience.
COD4, that started the whole FPS as RPG experience, had a comparatively short story mode, but, what a surprise, they started the franchise with COD that was primarily a top notch single player experience. So again, they built upon a successful single player franchise to create a very popular multiplayer experience.
Starcraft, just to point out this isn't limited to FPS, built upon a solid single player experience and was also the first of the craft games to have multiplayer, unsurprisingly it became a crazy hit. Everyone who is interested in Dragon Age has probably mused about how fun multiplayer could be if it was done right. GTA followed this to the T as well, and unsurprisingly most fans liked the multiplayer. Portal was a primarily single player experience that was lauded like crazy. If they come out with a great multiplayer mode in part deux it will possibly be the next big thing. Plan multiplayer for the sequel seems to be the most direct way to make cash moneys. Or at least focus on the single player first.
The only thing is, there do seem to be some exceptions. Counter Strike, Team Fortress 1+2 for example, but those could be attributed as the "real" multiplayer modes of half life and HL2. Shadowrun was completely multiplayer and was a hilarious flop (even though the gameplay wasn't bad).
Are there any extremely successful multiplayer games that either didn't have a extremely successful single player experience that preceded it, a strong pedigree or were popular PC mods?
Multiplayer mode is one of those features that relatively few players use, but almost everyone surveyed say they will use. Go figure.
However, one conclusion is very clear (as seen at various discussions on Gamasutra and at GDC Austin): multiplayer is seen by developers as an excellent way to extend the lifespan of a game. Multiplayer is essentially free content. The idea is that a player will keep coming back for multiplayer, thus keeping the title fresh in their minds, and making it more likely they will buy expansions or sequels. Is this true? Case-by-case basis.
I suspect that until multiplayer gaming is cleaned up (something done to lock out griefers and cheaters, and deal with bad behavior generically), many people will quickly find that multiplayer play loses its sparkle. As the industry is starting to realize, if a game is associated with nothing but a bad experience due to a cretinous few, it won't matter that it's not the publisher's fault. A player will say "Crysis, yeah, that's where the aimbots are at, and that's where I get called a fag every five seconds", then go off to TF2 (which enjoys a better reputation for being more supportive towards n00bs like me). In a situation like that, someone will be more likely to buy TF3 than Crysis 2, because of the negativity surrounding the one and the positivity surrounding the other. Fair or otherwise, that's reality.
Everybody gets what the majority deserves.
It better have good multiplayer. I haven't even touched the single player campaign of MW2 but I play online daily. Play the Medal of Honor beta that's out right now and then say multiplayer doesn't matter. DICE doesn't seem to think so with the crap job they did on MoH's multiplayer.
I totally agree with the OP. I almost never play multi-player and games which feature a multi-player only demo get promptly ignored. I feel that there has been very little added to multi-player games since the early days. Almost everything (with the exception of RTS) is just a rehash of capture the flag, [team]deathmatch, guy with the ball, guard the base, attack the base, etc... You get the idea. After 7 years of UT, CoD, Halo, MGS4 online, etc... it all just feels the same. I want games with a plot, with engaging concepts and visuals, bring on the action (but lets make it some bitchin AI, not some 12yo douche).
I no longer enjoy playing against 1's and 0's once I've played against humans. It's much more challenging and satisfying as well. Nothing beats making a headshot across the map and just KNOWING that someone is pissed off. When hit by said shot, I'm both pissed and admiring the shot as well.
The real reason for writing multiplayer games is that you can force people to pay every month to have access to your server.
Frankly, every game developer knows that doing a multiplayer game takes a lot more time than doing a single player game, and also it's pretty boring to code (yes, I wrote several multiplayer games several years ago).
But when you realize that the most successful games are multiplayer because of the subscriptions, it would be dumb to miss this opportunity.
I'll always gravitate toward multiplayer games for both the social aspect and the higher level of difficulty that comes with dealing with a human opponent.
[In Quake III Arena,] There were multiple tiers, each with a couple levels in them that you had to beat all of before moving on to the next tier
Which is different from online matchmaking systems using an Elo-style ranking how?
Why is there no multi-player quest mode [in Mario Kart Wii] that lets my kid and I unlock new tracks by playing together?
Worse yet, the Super NES and Nintendo 64 versions had a 2-player quest mode.
Starcraft, just to point out this isn't limited to FPS, built upon a solid single player experience and was also the first of the craft games to have multiplayer
Warcraft II had LAN play.
Are there any extremely successful multiplayer games that either didn't have a extremely successful single player experience that preceded it, a strong pedigree or were popular PC mods?
EverQuest. Unlike UO, FFXI, and WOW, it wasn't an extension of an existing single-player RPG franchise.
single player only -- 'cause it's all story. and it'll be amazing.
If a game is multiplayer only, I usually avoid it.
Furthermore sometimes it seems companies just want to avoid the cost and effort to develop a good AI and then sell this as a feature.
What you're describing is QuickTimeEvents and they are one of the worst things about games but still seem to be getting more common.
Fans of WarioWare, a whole franchise built around sequences of four-second QTEs, would disagree with that.
Multiplayer Solitaire!
Any insufficiently advanced magic is indistinguishable from technology.
I am 30. I have a full time job. I am married. My wife and I have a son.
I still love gaming. I love both single and multiplayer games but as an adult I rarely have time to spend sitting in front of a multiplayer game I can't pause.
Here are some of my main concerns in no particular order:
Most of these half-assed multiplayer modes get played for a few weeks then get abandoned by people. So even if I wanted to play the multiplayer, by the time i get to... or if i don't buy the game on release day for $60, there is almost no one online playing anymore. this leads me to...
Too many multiplayer games dilute the player base for all multiplayer games. The player base gets split every time another multiplayer game comes out since time gets devoted to these new games (for at least a little while anyway)
I need something I can pause so I more often than not stick to single player games or co-op games with friends who don't mind if I (or any one of us) need to step away for a few minutes.
I do play the COD games, that is in part because I like the frantic action. (I don't have much time to play so when I do play I want non-stop action for that hour or two i get to play... i don't want to run across a 5 mile map or wait at respawn screens for long periods of time). Plus, there is a large active user base so I know I can jump in any time over the course of a 2 - 3 year period and get to play the game I spent $60 bucks on.
Online trophies/achievements ensure that people only play for the trophies. Once the trophies have been gotten... they move on. COD games don't have multiplayer trophies... people play them because they are good.
I love both multiplayer and single player games, but yes... there are too many multiplayer games and it is a problem. I would prefer a great single player game over multiplayer any day. I don't need more than 1 or 2 good multiplayer games.... the other multiplayer modes for all these games just adding to the bullet point on the box... i just don't play them.
I just want to mention the fact that Nintendo has been doing everything in its power to ruin multiplayer for its games (friend codes).
Friend codes all but guarantee that you will never run into a griefer.
If people put 1000's of hours into a good multiplayer game, they won't need to buy any other games.
Then why did Nintendo release Animal Crossing series, which requires the player to play for hundreds of hours over the course of a calendar year to complete some objectives?
I've very surprised by this post and the replies. Multiplayer is way more important than single player.
Single player sucks on replay value. Even games that are single player only and provide 50+ hours of gameplay, like oblivion, bioshock and fallout 3, suck on replay value vs a multiplayer game.
AI can only do so much, and scripted events are only awesome on the first play through.
But for multiplayer games, each match is an awesome and different experience (if the game is good obviously.) There is nothing like a game of strategy vs a human mind, AI just can't provide that experience.
I bought CoD1 the day it came out, since then I played the single player 3 times, once after I installed it, once again when the expansion came out, then once again with mods, thats it. I've played the multiplayer almost every day after I bought it.
And even when I do a match today, its still amazing, there's no way the game would be installed on my computer if all it had was singleplayer.
Even with amazing singleplayer, a game wont last long if it doesn't have good multiplayer. Half life 1 and 2 have amazing singleplayer, but even with mods, the multiplayer isn't very good (IMO) and for that reason I don't have it installed, even great single player gets boring after a while. Great multiplayer doesn't.
I completely agree that multiplayer games have a higher replay value.
And multiplayer does not necessarily mean a central server, it could be a LAN mode.
But it really depends on how well the matchmaking is being done.
For example, in Ensemble Studios' Age of Mythology, I have fun while I have average rating.
However in Blizzards Warcraft III TFT, either people resign immediately because a map came up that they don't know by heart, or they usually beat me after 20 minutes or so. Both isn't fun.
Blizzards Starcraft was even worse, with people thinking it was fun to defect to the other team, making it a 5v3.
Also, Ensemble Studios really has a random map generator in contrast to Blizzard.
Hey don't blame me, IANAB
Game Informer sends their magazine to my house, and I used to read it. Now I can't read them without cringing, because it seems like every other review complains about a lack of online multiplayer. If online multiplayer is present, they complain about a lack of LAN multiplayer. It doesn't seem to matter what type of game they're talking about. Like a specification that has to be addressed, multiplayer is mentioned, and a lack of multiplayer always turns out to be some kind of failure. I agree that with most games, I really don't care about multiplayer. However, when I read these articles by people who sit around previewing games and cranking out articles, it gives me nightmares about some asshole lacking enough imagination to write about something other than the multiplayer condition of the game.
I haven't done online multiplayer since the original Unreal Tournament, and Quake 3 Arena. I've bought a lot of games since then, not once checking out the online play. I really only care about the single player experience.
I tend to play mostly single player games, outside of the specific genres such as MMO's. But I don't tend to by competitive type multiplayer games (FPS's and such) anymore at all. Now that I've got kids and work and all the rest of that "real life" stuff, as do most of my friends, it's near impossible to schedule time for those kinds of games, and as others have said playing random people on the Internet generally means running into just a lot of asshats. What I would -love- though is more games with really good co-op. Games that I can play -with- my wife, kids, or friends tend to quickly find room on the shelf. Not surprisingly this is someplace that Nintendo -still- shines compared to the other console manufactures. And outside of MMO's there seem to be no decent co-op games anymore on computers.
If on the box a game makes a point of bragging about its multiplayer capability... i dont buy it.
I dont think i've ever encountered a multiplayer game that was actually -fun- to play.
single player is too predictable and boring
playing online increases the variables 100 fold...more then any AI could produce...eg. playing against someone drunk etc..
I was pretty damn good at Quake and Unreal Tournament back in the day, but I no longer enjoy playing against humans as much as I used to. I don't have the time necessary to play games and study strategy eight hours a day any more, which means that I always lose against the people who do, and quite frequently they're immature, vulgar winners. I could go hang out at the local middle school if I wanted to hear a thirteen-year-old call me a fag.
So now I play single player games almost exclusively, because I can relax and take them at my own pace.
Karma: Terrifying (mostly affected by atrocities you've committed)
Who thinks this question is not a complete jerk off waste of time?... Wait this is the net... people like to come here to jerk off and waste time.
Bioshock 2. The first one had no multiplayer and was a fairly solid single player game. For the sequel they decided it needed multiplayer, even though not many people were asking for it. The result? A watered down single player campaign, and a watered down multiplayer game that a tiny amount of people play online.
You fucking hacking douchbag, try beating me without your N00b H@x, faggot!
The free patch that came out for Red Dead Redemption was a shitload of fun because my friends and I got to play together as a team. What we need is more, deeper co-op in our games and less of the deathmatch bullshit that everyone tacks on to their dogshit. If Bioshock2 allowed co-op all the way through (think about it, you're playing a big daddy, why not have your partner play the little sister?), I would have been interested. I bought Crackdown 2 to play with friends, playing it alone just leaves a lot to be desired.
Co-op lets me and my friends play a game TOGETHER; we aim for the achievement of a common goal and work as a team. We share our success, and it's fun. Borderlands single player is lamesauce, Borderlands with 4 people is much fun. The new Transformers game was great with 2 friends to play with... alone, not so much.
PS: Tim Schaeffer owes me $60 for fucking me on Brutal Legend.
...I I mentioned in a forum that "Multiplayer is actually the best way of not programming a good AI."
I LOVE playing online. You have to realise that the "asshole" factor is just part of gaming culture and if you can't deal with that then you have a pretty thin skin: "Mum, the internet was mean to me. I don't want to play with the internet any more :("
That being said, there's nothing like neural network vs neural network gaming for thrills and and entertainment. Find a winning strategy, someone will figure out how to counter it. Think you've mastered the game, someone will pwn you. You must constantly evolve and learn new techniques/strategies. You can't be consistent or your dead. Of course, it has to be a well developed game first.
Until they make artificial neural networks to rival a human brain, online gaming will be the way for those looking to exercise the synapses.
actually so many people prefer to just log in and go about their business playing the game than trying to find people, organize and to 'achieve' doing things with, blizzard had to ease up all kinds of things regarding single player questing. you can do almost all quests alone. even, some group quests can be done alone. they had to ease up on the instances and raids, because it was being way too much hassle to organize and bring 40 players into raids for 3 hours. they dropped maximum hardest raid to 25 man, and majority of raids are 10 man and overwhelming activity in the game goes on in 5 man heroic instances. even for the instances, they had to bring an automatic group creator/finder system that brings players from all servers together (different servers, different realms) and allow them to make instances. this way, the annoying hassle of finding people, organizing and putting up with their issues (doorbell rang, phone, kid wants something and so on) were bypassed - you just que randomly with 5 random ready people instead of waiting for 5 people you can reach to be ready. the problem of creating groups for raids still there, you need to organize the lives of a lot of people to do a raid, and it deters a lot of people.
really, i very much prefer being able to get immersed in the storyline, doing my questing than dealing with random hassles of people that i am forced to do things with. moreover, such forced multiplayer questing and gaming also breaks immersion of the storyline in a game world. imagine - you are doing a quest of importance, there is much lore, there is much content in it, but, someone has to go to wc. leave aside needing to wait for someone else's hassle online, the very fact that knowing 'someone has to go to wc' totally breaks immersion itself.
another result of capitalism. they feel the need to throw in anything that can ramp up profits, even things that are actually not necessary. they are not taking risks with shareholders' profits, but, screwing up the gamer in many ways without knowing.
Read radical news here
Diablo's solution is to scale the opposition to the number of players (but not their levels) in a LAN game: more co-op players -> bigger / stronger monsters.
I still play Diablo II on occasion (not sure if I'll buy Diablo III - I fear it's gone a bit arcade combo), but I play single-player only, because the Battle-Net players remaining are most P-Kers.
I think Half-Life was a superb single-player game whose engine spawned some excellent multiplayer games (Team Fortress 2 and Counter-Strike Source, for example). That's kinda cheating though.
I've never tried multi-player for Crysis or Far Cry, but I never felt the need; those games have really good single-player stories.
There are examples where the single player game is quite forced: Quake Arena, for example.
This is just some PR from game companies that don't like to spend money on the sometimes very expensive multiplayer portion of their games. They want you to buy the game, play it, and be done with it. They don't want to have to have infrastructure, like public servers. They don't want their old game retain players that don't update to their new game. They also don't want used game trade, and hate game rentals. They just want you to keep buying the NewGame+ after NewGame.
Good luck with that, though. Multiplayer makes replayability, community, which helps with the rental "problem".
I pretty much avoid or minimize the multiplayer component of any multiplayer game. Games designed entirely around multiplayer I simply do not purchase at all.
My reasons are:
* Other people online are jerks. I have no time for jerks in any part of my life, especially recreation.
* Multiplayer games are invariably about very confrontational competition (I win, you lose.) I am not big on competition, but I'm fine with it if it's not too confrontational, if it doesn't involve limiting the actions of the loser. Board games have found their way out of those holes, but computer/video games have yet to figure it out.
* Cooperative games expect long play sessions, and involve too much scheduling which is tedious, and requires everyone to purchase the same game.
* Multiplayer games have no opportunity for personal experience with the story, place, setting, etc. Multiplayer, even when grouped with friends, has severe pacing issues, which are difficult to overcome.
-josh
Bunch of carebears in here.
Honestly, people aren't THAT offensive in online games, there's just a vocal minority that's even worse than the "assholes." Why do you let 12 year olds get under your skin? Does it offend you personally when someone says "u mad bro?"
I have never seen a game where you can't mute the other players or otherwise easily ignore them IN MULTIPLAYER.
The only reason people get so upset with multiplayer is because it speaks to their insecurities. They don't want to know how bad they are at basic hand/eye coordination or quick reactions or critical thinking. They don't like getting embarrassed by other people, so they retreat to the Single Player which makes them feel "safe." They can turn the difficulty to a point where they won't lose, and essentially mentally masturbate while the game throws "achievement points" and "You Win!" screens at them.
It's pretty sad, and honestly I think people should focus on seeing themselves more accurately. Ask yourself, why do I enjoy this? Why don't I enjoy that? Be honest.
Multiplayer is great, and the future of great gaming. I don't just include player vs. player in that term, but players vs. environment as well. Humans are social beings, and no one is forcing you to be social with everyone, just the people that you CHOOSE to be social with.
which WarioWare game is built around sequences of four-second QTEs?
(Answer!) All of them. (Transform!) Except they don't call them QTEs; they call them "microgames", which are the same thing.
I was a lonely child, playing lonely games. Games should at least have co-op, if it doesn't have it I lose interest very fast.
The game needs to be good at what it does. Multiplayer and singleplayer are both fun in different ways. So a game needs to decide what it is going to be and be good at that. That can very well mean being one to the exclusion of others. As you mention, Fallout 3 and TF 2. Fallout 3 is ONLY single player, no multiplayer at all, ever. Also TF2 does now technically have a single player practice mode, but it is essentially a multiplayer only game and was completely multiplayer only until recently.
That is what is needed more than anything else. Deciding what is important in a game and focusing on that. Now, should the opportunity present itself to add gameplay, fine. Civ 4 would be an example. The game is, at its core, a single player game. It comes from that lineage and was strongly designed with single player in mind. However, it wasn't that much work to allow for multiplayer. Thus you have a choice of how you want to play it, and that's nice.
It's only bad when one of the kind of game is bolted on as an afterthought and isn't very good. Bad Company 2 is an example. The multiplayer is why that game exists, and it is really good over all. The single player is crap, a completely forgettable game. Shouldn't have been included.
Even then I wouldn't say it is truly problematic. It is only truly problematic when game quality suffers because of the inclusion of the other mode. If a game has poor multi-player because they had to change things for a single player part nobody plays or whatever.
There is room in the world for both kinds of games. Some people want to play alone, some want to play with others, some want to play against others. None of them are wrong in what they want.
The one thing you can't patch in a game is all the assholes online. All the filters and reporting systems won't keep them out. You've got anything from creeps to arrogant jackasses to mentally unstable folks playing every game. So why not eliminate that, make a killer Morrowind style game, and then keep making better sequels. People are still playing Starcraft Original and the servers have to still be up without any money coming in. People dump subscription games faster than they can implement the subscription even so it's either run servers for free for a long time, piss everyone off by closing the servers after like 3 years, or lose all your customers by making them effectively pay like $100 yearly for the game, most of which is going to the server rental company anyway.
With offline only games, you play it, win it, replay it, win it again, sell it and buy the new version and there's very little upkeep expense for the company making the game. It's like planned obsolescence that people actually prefer!
Google's Super Secret Search Algorithm: SELECT @search_results FROM internet WHERE @search_results = 'good'
I don't use multi player in my games because I am purchasing my games to play them alone. I usually wish that the devs would focus more on the single player aspect of the game and remove multi player completely. If I want to play a multi player game I go out and download/purchase one specifically for that purpose.
But this is a problem with almost everything now a days. Every company is trying to make a Swiss Army Knife without focusing on any particular segment so things end up being a pile of crap.
Everyone who buys Wild Hunt will receive 16 specially prepared DLCs absolutely for free, regardless of platform.
An aspect that has bothered me but isn't mentioned here yet is that lots of Linux games are multiplayer (or at least start to be developed that way). This is quite understandable, since it's easier to get the basic game mechanics running if you don't have to care about either AI or write a story. However, I don't like multiplayer that much for reasons already stated here (repetitive gameplay, griefers, time investment to leave noob stage). Alas, very few interesting games remain, if you don't want ancient ones like "Return of the Amazon Queen" or the 100th Sokoban clone. There are some exceptions like rocksndiamonds and Battle of Wesnoth, but most games that at first seem interesting to me turned out to be multiplayer-only. Alas, I mostly don't bother checking the "games" section in the package manager anymore...
I'm not sure where you got any of those ideas actually.
1. While graphics are a big selling point and much talked about, if it were the only one, there'd be no need to get an RPG instead of, dunno, just about anything else. Like an old-school mindless FPS where the whole plot is "kill everyone on the map."
Even for non-RPGs, ever heard of a game called Half Life? Yeah, that's around where having a story started to matter even in FPS.
That the graphics get the most hype is also an issue of it being the easiest to talk about without playing for more than an hour or two, which is what the average reviewer seems to do. Plus you can put a lot of screenshots on a review site, while discussing plot elements is actually frowned upon.
2. Speaking of which: if the story didn't matter, then why are spoilers frowned upon?
3. I'm pretty sure that the expansion of the games market in the last two decades straight was mainly due to making games increasingly _less_ challenging. From such stuff as Max Payne's decreasing the difficulty ever more without even asking if you die too much, to WoW basically increasing the MMO market size by an order of magnitude by being less challenging than any other MMO out there, to RPGs with scaled enemies so you don't end up with challenges above your level, to racing games with rubberband mechanics where essentially everyone drives around your position so you can still win even if you bounce in all the walls, etc, the history of the last decade can be summed up as basically "how can we make our games accessible to everyone short of a paraplegic and not challenge them much?"
The age of the die-hard nerds playing just to prove they can win against stupid odds in a game, has come and gone. It was an age where markets were measured in thousands of units sold, and selling 10,000 copies would make you a cult classic. The mass market just isn't there and never was.
But, heck, even way back, Lucas Arts was more popular than Sierra because their adventures didn't kill your character and make you reload for every mistake, nor let you do something that will make it impossible to win the game later. Lucas adventures literally let you try everything everywhere, with _zero_ repercussions for doing something wrong. So, why did people buy those if everyone wants a challenge?
4. As someone who dabbled into modding, I'm pretty sure that there's a huge number of people out there who'll explicitly look for basically god-mode items. That's not people playing for a challenge, that's people who basically just want to bonk that big-ass dragon on the head _once_ and move on to the next bit of the story. Basically, yes, they just want a "Press A to continue" instead of the whole challenge.
Plus, in the same vein, there's the issue of the thousands of sites dedicated to cheats, or the fact that on consoles there's actually money to be made by selling cheat programs like GameShark, Exploder, and whatever it is they use these days. Or save games that include every item in the game and a hacked character with all skills and 1,000,000 health. Roll that around in your head. There are people willing to actually pay extra money to remove the challenge, and there always were enough to support several vendors on any given console.
5. But to get back to story, funnily enough, your argument sounds to me like a rehash of Nintendo's arguments back in the N64 vs Playstation days. Nintendo was still The Big N, and when everyone who wanted to pack elaborate stories and FMV scenes (not to mention Nintendo's asshole attitude and delusions of being some kind of dictator back in those days) fled to Playstation and it's cheap CDs, Nintendo basically went on to give lots of speeches saying the same: story doesn't matter, people don't want RPGs, some kind of platformer is what everyone plays because gameplay is the only thing that matters. It even went for insulting statements like that those who play RPGs are just a handful of depressed people playing in a dark basement. Yeah, ask them how
A polar bear is a cartesian bear after a coordinate transform.
I may be alone in this, but some of the top games on my list of favorites don't even have a multiplayer mode available. Don't get me wrong, I am not some shut-in that believes human contact would be paramount to signing my soul away. I actually really enjoy mulitplayer when it is done properly and played with people capable of using words of a length greater than 4, but I also really enjoy (and get more into) a single player game with a story that is more than just an after thought.
Although it has been touched already, the key point here is the understanding of the term "multiplayer". Most often it's seen as "player vs. player", but multiplayer may also imply playing "cooperative".
Think of Baldur's Gate, Hexplore, System Shock 2 (after some patching), Ghost Recon, Starcraft, just to name a few (older) games, where you can (also) play cooperatively. Such multiplayer rocks (in my view of the things), but gets less and less implemented (it's either single player or multiplayer PvP).
So, yes, too much multiplayer PvP, too few multiplayer coop. Fix plx kthxbai. ... and oh, I got some parens left: (())))()(((())())). Feel free to pick some.
I have to agree that the game needs its own built in server that can be found over the internet even after the services like Steam or Xbox Live have given up on it. On another note, games like Left 4 Dead would be more interesting (to me and quite a number of others I've talked to) if they had not only a co-op mode, but a Versus mode that doesn't make you take on the likes of a zombie, but rather a team (human) versus or even a human vs bots. Making versus mode a customizable option would have more people playing, in my opinion.
I never play the multiplayer portion of the games I buy, I try it sometimes, but the fun it's not there. The load times are annoying, you have no context or history (you're dropped in the middle of some mess without purpose), and if you die you have to wait to re-spawn. I don't see why anyone would want to spend so much time just waiting.
We just need better multiplayer. People want it, but hate getting "served" by better players. Smart implementations help alleviate this. Class-based multiplayer is one example. Skill-based matchmaking is another. It's too clunky right now, in most cases. Streamline the multiplayer experience and you'll get a lot less moaning about it. Left 4 Dead has one of the best multiplayer implementations I've seen. It's co-op by default, and the vs. multiplayer (zombies vs. survivors) is not apples-to-apples, which encourages people to interest themselves in the *team* goal rather than individual score comparisons.
As a grad student in top program that is challenging and time-consuming, I only have time for work and my girlfriend who is also a graduate student in the same program. Both of us work and spend time together and that's really all there is. I haven't been able to read a novel or play a solo video game since I left undergrad.
Thankfully, she's also a fan of RPG games, so we've been playing a lot of co-op RPGs over the last few years. Thus, basically, I only buy multiplayer games even though I used to only buy single player games. Sadly, there aren't enough of them (made worse by the fact that she's got a Mac and I've got a PC). The original Secret of Mana (SD2) for SNES emulators is fun and was what got us started on this. Next we played Echoes of Time on the DS, followed by the original Crystal Chronicles on the Gamecube. We're almost done with that, so she got us copies of Dragon Quest IX for my birthday. Last night, she fell asleep while we were grinding outside of Brigadoom.
Personally, I don't think there's enough games, particularly RPGs, with co-op! A Pokemon or another monster-catching game (like DWM) with co-op would be freakin' amazing for us to play together.
To be truthful, I wasn't a stranger to co-op RPGs originally. I played Diablo 2 Co-Op and FFCC together with my undergrad friends back in college; it gave us a feeling that was almost but not quite like playing DnD together. There's something fun about being able to play an action RPG together like FFCC given one night and a pizza.
Multiplayer has never been about me and some strangers. Multiplayer is a social experience. Multiplayer is LAN gaming. Multiplayer is why the PS/2 supported 4 controllers.
There is a real dearth of PROPER Multiplayer game titles for the Wii, PS/2 and PC this last decade.
Diablo II - I played with my friends on a LAN, not on Battle.NET. The same for Starcraft II.
Games like counterstrike were big LAN titles. Champions of Norrath and Baldurs Gate were the last proper multiplayer titles on the console and I think theyre 10 years old now.
The modern focus seems to have become PvP focused games played over the internet. Not co-operative titles played with friends, on a couch.
I want multiplayer.
Multiplayer has never brought me more joy than single-player for pure gaming fun. Fable and Dragon Age are just the kind of large-world places that I love to explore and play in - I don't want the experience of mapping out and interacting with the world to be interfered with by other gamers trying to kill me for points or drag me along on crappy side missions I'm not interested in doing. Also, I feel it is unhealthy to be in a MMORPG where you can't just log off when you feel like it or else your team suffers. That changes the mood of the play from gaming to work; I want to be able to stop and save and come back to it later, not have to cross my legs if I need to pee in the middle of a raid, or sit there feeling thirsty but not be able to take my hand off the mouse and keyboard to get a glass of water. Single player all the way.
Any game I buy must have Multiplayer. I have only completed the single player game in one game in the last 10 years and that was the Modern Warfare (the first one). I am actually halfway through the SP mode on Mass Effect (the first one) but I haven't picked it up in the last 6 months. I hardly have time for SP games. If it doesn't have killer multiplayer mode, I will not buy it! I think your conclusion is incorrect. Those manufacturers know what is selling their games.
I support your statements in here. Story is king for me. I barely touch the multiplayer aspect of the games I own. I love going through the singleplayer story of any game, no matter how short it is to experience what the writers and art staff created. Singleplayer is like the modern opera, to enjoy the show played out before you. Yes, you can die, but that is what save points are for.
40+yo gamer here...
Multiplayer games have always been the more interesting games for me. That human factor, in my opinion adds
more unpredictability to a game. The last single player game i played was Prototype.
--- I was far from home, and the spell of the Eastern sea was upon me. -Lovecraft-
StarDock actually had a good piece about this a while back when talking about why GalCiv2 lacked multiplayer. In terms of development time, they discovered that adding multiplayer absorbs around 25%-33% of their resources, but ends up getting used by less then 10% of the actual players.
But going one step further, something I have noticed in games that were single player then sequals were multiplayer, the developers ended up having to change single-player functionality to make things 'smoother' in multiplayer... so beyond development time, multiplayer ends up effecting the depth of single player. You tend to loose things like complex options or menus in favor of 'everything has to be done in real time' access to functionality.
So I strongly agree with the piece.. then again, I have no interest in multiplayer so to me at least multiplayer means degraded single player for no gain.
It's ironic that MMORPGs, which are supposed to be group-based, are more single-player oriented, largely because of the difficulties of finding groups (read: Not enough people *starting* them, though there are often plenty who will join.)
(-1: Post disagrees with my already-settled worldview) is not a valid mod option.
...to keep the disc at home. The publisher doesn't get any cash from used copies being sold. The longer the discs stay in the possession of the original buyer the better. Simple.
With regards to FPS games, I ONLY care about multi-player. Other genres not so much. That said, there are usually only a few FPS games per year that have multi-player worth playing. I generally pick one and stick with it until the next big thing comes along.
At least for me: I only own a video game for the online multi-player experience. If games did not design with multi-player in mind or had no such options... I would not be interested in that sort of solo single player activity (master beta).
I think MAN is our greatest opponent. And so far my XBOX has not been able to duplicate the fair and competitive nature of playing against another human with the same input options as myself. No computer simulation reacts like a real person. Also there is far more satisfaction in dominating an opponent in a game, when you know somewhere in the world there is a person actively being dominated in real time by me. I have no emotions or satisfaction from game simulated opponents.
I also know many people who feel the same or similar to me.
And don't forget: players are paying for the right to play online. If the articles assertion is true, then how would you explain the millions of people who opt to pay this fee?
This article is not well thought out. Or maybe it is well thought out -> it got into slashdot right... that can't be all bad for GamePro... even if it is a bunch of bull.
I'm really shocked that GamePro would make a claim like this. It just seems so out-of-touch for a gaming site.
Except an entirely different development team worked on the multiplayer portion of BioShock 2. I'm not sure if that's the greatest example. I think the watered down campaign was that it wasn't developed by Ken Levine and company.
Reviewing just the first hour of video games.
I don't even look at single-player games now. Playing against incredibly repetitive and predictable bots isn't any fun. Give me an unpredictable human (to play with or against), and that's where the fun is.
Speaking as an Old Fogey,
Use it if the game warrants it.
Netrek is great example of a good, team-based, network game. But that's all it is. Single-player netrek is non-existent. There's no story, and at best you could only play against a few robots
Nethack is an example of a great, story(ish)-oriented, single player game. And that's all it is. It simply wouldn't make a good MUD.
Populous (for those of us who remember!) was actually a decent game on both sides. The computer opponents and the story-line were compelling enough to keep it interesting, but it was great fun to play against a friend over the modem.
Why are there so few co-op games? Too many games focus on the competitive aspect of multi-players games too much. It seems to me that if the single player part of a game is nice, it would be easy to turn it into a great coop game but instead the developers often build a multi-player option that is completely different than the single player option.
Focusing on just multiplayer isn't answer, we can clearly see it with our ARMA 2 and ARMA 2: Operation Arrowhead titles, there is huge single player group of customers who really enjoy the ability to play alone against/with AI. Ofcourse in our case we have COOP and PVP too but that's another story ....
I know I am in the serious minority, but I am one of the few that loved Hellgate: London.
I love that retarded game so much that it's genesis (no multiplayer option after the company went away) has left me despondent about the future of games in general.
I also recently sold two copies of Bad Company 2 (360) because of the recent update in the games multiplayer mode which altered the amount of damage you received, which made the game play more like Modern Warfare 2, let alone increasing the lag on the already broken servers I have been waiting for EA to fix since launch. Both problems are fundamental design and project failures which leave me slacked-jawed.
I am quickly developing this lack of desire to play current and future projects, and I find what little interest I have in video games, exists in the stuff that I pull from my shelf.
I was a multiplayer gamer all the way back to Seaquest on the atari 2600. I owned a vic-20 and was wanting multiplayer so bad i couldn't wait to get my hands on a commodore 64 that had 2 joystick ports. Today, it seems that multiplayer needs multi-computers. I never play FPS. Last one was Doom, or Descent. I got four kids, four connected joysticks on my big screen laptop and I can't find any split-screen games that play on a PC that doesn't involve shooting someone in the head. I must rely on emulation to play old 4-player games from older consoles. I don't own a Wii, PS3 or XBOX360, for the lack of good splitscreen racing titles and the high price of the games leaves me without any interest. My kids play and enjoy Gauntlet, Bomberman, Destruction Derby, Mario Party, and they have a great time playing multiplayer games with theirs Dsi. Last real multiplayer PC game played was StepMania and a rockband clone.