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."

Comments

Hardly

[Threni]

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?

Re:Hardly

[Ephemeriis]

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?

You're only thinking of a very narrow subset of games.

Was Myst made more challenging by giving the bad guys more strength/weapons/power than the player? What about The Path? Or Braid? Or Portal?

Lots of games challenge players in different ways - challenge them to think through a situation, rather than relying on quick reflexes or memorizing a map's layout.

But I think you're missing the broader picture... A single-player game does not need to be challenging to be fun. It doesn't actually have to be hard to complete. A single-player game can present an interesting storyline in ways that a multi-player game cannot (or, at least, has not yet).

In a single-player game you can develop characters and settings. You can explore a world. You can show the consequences of your actions. You can have a whole story arc.

A multi-player game is generally about pure competition. Beat the other guy. Score more kills. Get more points.

It's kind of like comparing football to a novel.

Re:Hardly

[Darkness404]

There are some fundamental flaws in multiplayer games that can't be fixed with technology that make things non-fun.

A) Most random people on the internet who play games on Xbox live and the like are complete assholes. Consider the message I got last night while playing some TF2 "Why are you fucking hacking you fucking douchbag" and the reason that was given that I was "hacking" is because I managed to backstab him while he was sniping several times in the row when his back was turned... Enough people like that are out in the world to make playing online against random people a pain.

B) The difficulty. It takes a lot longer to learn how to efficiently play an online game than it is to learn to play a single player game. Even worse is if you are in a team-style game and have to endure abuse about how you aren't as great as they are despite the fact you bought the game yesterday... And difficulty can't be accurately chosen unlike a single player game, yes, there are systems like Halo's matchmaking, but even that doesn't always work.

C) Cheating/Lag, few things are more frustrating than trying to snipe on a laggy connection.

D) Badly managed servers. For example, on Team Fortress 2, you will have people who decide to make everyone be engineers, then suddenly allow for one spy, then make everyone be engineers once someone on their team is the spy...

Re:Hardly

[Monchanger]

Who wants to play quakelive against bots? What would be the point?

I do, especially when I first start out.

Years back I was interested enough to take a look at "America's Army" to see what all the fuss was about and I quit and uninstalled before the first match was even over. It felt complicated, my mission was unknown, and the other players didn't know not to expect anything of a guy who not only just started playing but hasn't been an FPS guy since playing Doom2 over the network in high school.

I got a beta invite to Starcraft2 and ran into the exact same problem. Having never played the original I definitely wanted to give it a test run before purchasing. The beta doesn't include campaign mode, which is understandable, but doesn't have even the first mission of the tutorial where you learn to just move units around and what your resources are. I'm glad for serious players that Blizzard had the wisdom to tier their players so I never play someone who's been playing Starcraft for a decade, but I was still an annoying scrub to another beginning player who could have been just one not-so-god-awful-player- away from the next tier up. Given the awful zerging I got, I've very little interest in buying the game.

Multiplayer is great for going beyond the basics, but there are plenty of players who don't or won't. I've got a life and only play a game for a few dozen hours, so I do want the easy-to-medium level AI.

Re:Hardly

[IrquiM]

Well... I never play multiplayer, so I've just stopped playing all together!

Re:Hardly

[commodore64_love]

>>>A) Most random people on the internet who play games on Xbox live and the like are complete assholes

Precisely. Multiplayer was fun when it was just me and some friends with connected modems. 1-on-1 Populous or Firepower was a blast. Tradewars was a blast. And if some asshole showed up, the word quickly went out and the asshole was ganged-up on & exterminated. Then the "Eternal September" happened sometime around 2002, and a bunch of idiots showed up. Goodbye fun.

Another reason I don't like multiplayer is there's no

.

Yesterday Amiga celebrated its birthday. Today /. is plagued with Guru Mediation errors. Coincidence? I think not. (BTW a new Amiga is arriving in August and will have the approximate power of a PowerMac G5.) :-)

Re:Hardly

[Mad Merlin]

There's different kinds of multiplayer too. In an (RT)S like Civilization or Starcraft, you're pretty much bound to have a number of peers which can either be human or computer controlled, and this pretty much obviates multiplayer. In a lot of MMORPGs like Game! or WoW, you can arguably play them as "single player" games, without really interacting with other humans at all, but few people do that. On the other hand, the number of ways you can interact with other humans in an MMORPG is much broader than that which you'd normally find in an (RT)S game.

Then there's a whole different class of games where multiplayer isn't really an obvious addition. Consider something like Resident Evil, adding multiplayer to that would be quite unusual (which is probably why it was purely single player). The most obvious way to add multiplayer would be to have a co-op mode, but it seems that co-ops modes are pretty rare these days (I'm not entirely sure why), and it would totally throw a wrench into just about everything else in the game, from camera angles to difficulty, not to mention the impact to the story.

Really, I don't think anybody is complaining about multiplayer in the first two types of games, they're a welcome addition there. The problem is in the last class of games where multiplayer isn't an obvious addition. Certainly, multiplayer can be a brilliant addition if done properly, but if it's just tacked on, it'll probably be wasted effort aside from being able to check that invisible checkbox in some executive's mind.

Re:Hardly

[CannonballHead]

I disagree. A lot of RPG's have had extremely successful single-player campaigns, but the graphics were not all that great, even when the game first came out ... and many continue replaying it. Why? Not graphics or challenge, but story. "Hey, what happens to the story if I do it this way instead" or "use this character" or "how does this class follow the story path" ... etc.

Or, say, Oblivion. Not a hard game. Not amazing graphics (at least, anymore), but generically nice. Not multiplayer at all. It was pretty successful. It had a more or less simple and somewhat interesting main storyline, but what made it fun was the rather free world it presented.

Your example of "Tom Clancy: Press A" with moving dialogues (basically, a book) is a bit oversimplified. When the GP was talking about "story," I'm pretty sure he's talking about story interaction, not just the flat linear telling of a story. It's the placing of the game player into the story that people like, not simply being told the story itself. It's BEING the protagonist - or someone in the story, anyways - that's fun.

Just like actually controlling the exploration of a world is a lot different than having a guided tour of the world. Who would want a guided tour of Oblivion, a hands-off experience? That'd be boring.

Many non-RPG games appear to be putting RPG elements in, as well. FPS's with a lot of storyline (e.g., Half-Life). FPS's with characters gaining levels/experience ("Action-RPG"). Heavy story RTS games with small "experience"-based leveling type things, such as World in Conflict.

Re:Hardly

[Hatta]

Go play nethack and get back to me. Yeah, that horde of 'q' is stronger than you are. But who's smarter? (judging from your post, I'm betting on the 'q' actually)

Re:Hardly

[getNewNickName]

Most of the responses so far have equated multiplayer with death-match style gameplay. What people seem to be neglecting is coop campaign style multiplayer. I don't much care for death-match with random online players, but instead it's fun to get together with friends to play through story mode. This is what I would like to see more of in upcoming games.

Re:Hardly

[modecx]

D) Badly managed servers. For example, on Team Fortress 2, you will have people who decide to make everyone be engineers, then suddenly allow for one spy, then make everyone be engineers once someone on their team is the spy...

That's not a badly managed server. That's a server with a custom game mode that you don't happen to like. A few multiplayer games have had something of a "cooties" mode, where you either A) avoid getting killed by the cooties monster, B) become the cooties monster and have to kill someone else. As for me, I sometimes find that kind of game an interesting distraction. Sometimes the modder comes up with something *GOOD*, or at least something original.

Here's badly managed servers for you: every singular MW2 PC server. Due to the idiotic idea that is iwNET, you will be paired you will be paired with a given 'server' if they have an open slot and you have a decent ping. That 'server' is some other schmuck playing in your game. A good 50+% of connections are bad, very bad, or horrible, I'm sure due to any number of faults. Further, the server 'admin' either doesn't know how to correct issies, or is apathetic to the fact that some turd is running a wall-hack or aim-bot.

If that wasn't bad enough, the kids have found ways of creating servers with their own rules: and here's the rub: you're still connecting to them regardless of any want or desire on your behalf... And you have no idea that you're connecting to a hacked server before you're in it. Example: A few weeks ago, I joined up on a server that instantly leveled me to level 70, and gave me darn near *every* achievement. Every unlock for every gun, every logo...You know... it sucks royal.

Maybe I'm the only guy who likes playing to accomplish achievements. It forces me to break the mold, try guns and stuff that I might not have liked at first--and learn to dominate people with them. Now, I have every achievement, and can't get rid of them. Can't bring myself to play it anymore.

At least the modded servers in TF2 tend to advertise that fact--giving you the opportunity to decide if you want to join or not.

Re:Hardly

[Mirage of Deceit]

A single-player game does not need to be challenging to be fun. It doesn't actually have to be hard to complete. A single-player game can present an interesting storyline in ways that a multi-player game cannot (or, at least, has not yet).

In a single-player game you can develop characters and settings. You can explore a world. You can show the consequences of your actions. You can have a whole story arc.

My thoughts exactly. Pretty much every BioWare game ever (especially Dragon Age or the Mass Effect games) is about story and consequences; the gameplay is not terribly difficult, even on the highest difficulty settings. Same thing can be said for Bethesda games, like Fallout 3 or Oblivion; not 'impossible' to beat by any stretch, and far more about exploring interesting new worlds. All of these examples are games that did extremely well without ANY multiplayer 'tacked on', as it were

Multiplayer has its place, certainly. Every now and then I just need to put in Left 4 Dead and massacre some zombies with a couple of friends. But it's nice to separate myself from that sometimes and dig into a truly engrossing story.

I think the main point here is that nobody has found a good way to merge the two, so we are all stuck with either: a) single-player-focused games with deep and moving storylines / settings and a forced, artificial multiplayer tacked on or b) multiplayer-focused games with forced, artificial story / characters tacked on.

Re:Hardly

[Urza9814]

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).

That's exactly why I very rarely play games in online multiplayer. Some games are better than others - Call of Duty has a somewhat decent system that tries to balance teams a bit. Halo, if I remember correctly, basically just throws you together with whoever. Personally, I can't spend more than a few hours a week playing a game, _especially_ if it's multiplayer (no pause button). I'm not a huge fan of getting killed 20 times with headshots by people I never even saw. As I said, Call of Duty is one of the better games in this respect, as after a particularly lazy couple months playing 20+ hours a week I finally managed to get 2-3 kills per round (and 15-20 deaths), but I can remember playing the original Halo damn near nonstop for a month or two (probably 10 hours a day at least) and still being lucky if I got a single kill, or even managed to stay alive for more than 5 minutes, in a multiplayer match. I love offline multiplayer, but when a game throws a first time player in with people who play for 10 hours a day for months or even years on end, it generally doesn't work.

Sure, if you're a hardcore gamer who spends a couple hours every day playing FPS games, then yea, you want multiplayer. But those of us who can only squeeze in a couple hours on the weekends would really prefer a longer campaign mode. And I hardly think that they have to cheat to make the computer better - they just have to cheat less in favor of the player. I mean why is it that on _every single FPS I've ever played_, I can kill them in one shot, but if they shoot me once with the same weapon, at worst I have very low health - more than likely I can stand several shots before I die.

Re:Hardly

[Chyeld]

If it were anything like the coop Alien Swarm or Left 4 Dead, you'd have lots of fun once you found a core group to play with, and lots of misery till then as you got stuck with asshole after asshole who found it more fun to fuck the team over than actually play the game. Can you imagine the sort of pain you'd get into when griefers can make portals?

Don't get me wrong, I love the L4D series and so far have enjoyed my brief forays into Alien Swarm, but every time I launch the game and see none of my core group online to play with, I cringe a little over what the next pug I'll be stuck with will be like.

Re:Hardly

[Moryath]

What's really pissy is where it's a "multiplayer" mode that's completely limited to only one player per box.

If I can't do 4-player, head-to-head at home, then I can't gather friends and have it as a party game. And therefore it's pointless, because I don't want to spend that much time online with random people.

Completely agreed on Bioshock 2. All the time they wasted on multiplayer mode could have been spent making the single-player game that much stronger.

Re:Hardly

[subanark]

How do you play World of Warcraft as a single player game?

Simple, you play though to max level, takes about 250 hours depending on how efficient you are. That is a lot more than most RPGs offer, yes it is a lot slower going, but for 15$ per month its a lot of bang for your buck. At the end of that stretch, you might feel like trying some of the competitive or co-op the game has to offer, or you do the game over again with a different character. There are 2 sides with about 2/3 in common for single player content, and 10 classes for different ways to play.

Re:Hardly

[Yosho]

FWIW, if you had never played the original... then beta-testing the sequel seems pretty silly. What use woould you be as a beta-tester of the game?

Maybe you would have been a great candidate for beta-testing the tutorials. Or beta-testing the campaign mode.

Maybe I'm just being grumpy... but for you to complain, never having played the original, that the beta-test of a sequel was not noob-friendly... well, it just seems like you're barking up the wrong tree.

As a software developer, I have to say that the best kinds of beta testers are the ones who go in with no expectations and no prior knowledge of the subject.

Experienced users/players already know how everything works, so they all click on things the same way, interact with things the same way, and use the same general set of features. Inexperienced users/players will click on random things, try unusual combinations of actions, and, in general, do things that no old timer would ever consider.

Heck, the entire point of a public beta test is to find problems that you didn't find in your internal testing.

Re:Hardly

[Anachragnome]

"And therefore it's pointless, because I don't want to spend that much time online with random people."

Then do it with people you know.

A friend, my wife and myself play "Baldur's Gate 2:Throne of Bhaal" together using Hamachi2(free!) to create a virtual network. It "just fucking works", as advertised, and took the headache out of playing LAN/WAN enabled games over the Internet. Instant connection between 3 computers (two in the same room and one in Alaska, 3000 miles away). We could have 6 different people all playing in one group, if we wished. It may be an old game, but it beats a lot of newer ones in terms of content. Even replayability is there--try playing the game with an entirely Chaotic Evil party. Lots of fun. The difference is that it is cooperative play, not competitive (although it is entirely possible to duel to the death, but this isn't very helpful as a group).

Do I mind not playing competitively? Nope. It is worth not having to deal with all the dicks common to MMOs.

It is also the closest I get to PnP Dungeons and Dragons these days. Combined with my Ventrilo server, it feels like those old D&D parties, intoxicants and swearing not only allowed, but encouraged.

Considering the Microtransactioning/Data-mining ways of the current MMO scene, I can honestly say I was better off regressing in my gaming, as opposed to progressing to some new product.

(Hint: Never throw old game discs away!)

Re:Hardly

[Rogue974]

I generally really like to play the multi-player of games and endure through the issues you mentioned, which are all very good issues and at times will make me lot out of a server and look for another one. It is unfortunate, but I like playing the multi-player enough, and many of the games I play lend themselves to multi-player competition, so I endure it. There are nights I just am not mentally up to it and just play a solo game on my PC.

I felt like telling a story about this and it related to A), so bear with me. I was playing Mechwarrior mercenaries and logged into a server that was active. It had the last spot open up and there was only 30 seconds left in the game, but I wanted in the next one. I logged into the server and 20 seconds later (before I even got into battle), the game ended and we all ended up out in the chat room while the server reset.

As soon as we ended up in the chat room, someone started cussing me out for gimping him and being dishonorable. In mechwarrior, you could rip a mechs arms off and then destroy one leg and he was left with almost no weapons and could barely move, but was still alive. Many people got into being an "honorable pilot" and this was just disgraceful that you would do this and not finish them off. Pilots could self destruct, but that was a negative points for the battle. I didn't gimp people because I liked to get the kill, so I would just center torso them as much as I could until they were dead.

I explained I just got in the last 20 seconds of the battle and he had the wrong person. He just kept cussing me out saying I was lying. Finally when it was time to jump on teams, I went opposite him intentionally. As soon as it started, in team chat I told them, the guy was nuts and I didn't do it and I was go after him for being such a jerk. Many laughed and said he deserved it and to get him.

I was VERY good at that game and so found him on radar, I went radar silent, came up behind him and ripped off both arms and a leg and then turned on my radar and sat there behind him. Gimped you can't turn fast so he would try and turn and I would move so he never got a shot off. He would self destruct and then I waited for him to spawn, saw where he was and then go radar quiet, sneak in again on him and do the same thing. Did it to him about 4 times and he proceeded to go nuts in chat and then finally logged off!

I was dying and my team was cheering me on because he was an total idiot! Just something you have to endure at times and if you can and still enjoy the game, ot be better then the idiots and go after them, the game can be fun.

Re:Hardly

[benhattman]

I got a beta invite to Starcraft2 and ran into the exact same problem. Having never played the original I definitely wanted to give it a test run before purchasing. The beta doesn't include campaign mode, which is understandable, but doesn't have even the first mission of the tutorial where you learn to just move units around and what your resources are. I'm glad for serious players that Blizzard had the wisdom to tier their players so I never play someone who's been playing Starcraft for a decade, but I was still an annoying scrub to another beginning player who could have been just one not-so-god-awful-player- away from the next tier up. Given the awful zerging I got, I've very little interest in buying the game.

If it makes you feel any better, getting reamed on SC2 isn't just for total noobs like yourself. I last played a lot of SC about 8 years ago, and I got owned pretty seriously by all comers. What seems to be ignored is that, when the challenge of a game is too great, why even play. I mean, it took 5 games on the beta to get ranked, and even once ranked the system often couldn't find an appropriate match (beta was smaller after all).

I absolutely loved SC, but I'm a busy guy. Why should I play that 7th game if I didn't last five minutes the first 6? Where's the fun in that? As someone who enjoys video games, but doesn't live for them, I am only interested in multiplayer if the people I am playing with are in the same room as me. Otherwise, to me they are just bots who I don't have a difficulty knob for.

Re:Hardly

[Rakshasa Taisab]

That is a problem with current matchmaking tech, not an inherent flaw in coop gameplay.

There should be no problem creating a system where you can rank each player you try out. With time those rankings will create a social group of people who enjoy the same kind of coop play, and the assholes will remain outside. Enough friends in that group like a particular player then it's probably ok to invite him to your team.

Re:Hardly

[MetalAngel]

One major improvement of SC2 over SC1 is that Noobs (like 90% of the people playing SC2) will get a better introduction to MP. (Challenge Mode)
Furthermore, the game matching is way better than the one in War3.
The Win/Loss ratio that I saw on most players was usually between 40% and 60% which is pretty good.

Re:Hardly

[paganizer]

...Which is why Sim City, Civilization, X-COM, Master of Magic, Mass effect, and nearly any RPG have been such total flops.

I've been Computer Gaming since the 80's. The only games I've ever played multi-player are MOO2, Age of Empires, Earth and Beyond and Empire Earth.

As TFA points out, the problem is that very few studios are making adequate effort to make quality single player games these days.

Short lifespan

[Darkness404]

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.

Re:Short lifespan

[Anonymous Coward]

So what if you had great time playing them then? I mean, you probably aren't spending quality time with your old girlfriends anymore, and the pizza you ate yesterday is gone already. Other items and your car wears off too, and new interesting products come. Hell, when you die your life is gone. Nothing lasts forever, so why would games be different? The important thing is that you have or had great time.

It makes no sense not to enjoy about products (or girls) just because you might not be able to do so forever.

Re:Short lifespan

[ALeavitt]

But you also rely on other people playing those games as well. What if I find a niche game now that allows players to run dedicated servers, but at the game's peak there are only 150 people playing online at any given time? You can bet that no matter how much I love the multiplayer, I just won't be able to get the same satisfying experience five years down the line when most of the playerbase has moved on. I could either spend a good deal of time and effort trying to keep a multiplayer community alive or I could just accept that all multiplayer games have a lifespan limited by player interest. There is no similar limit to the lifespan of a single-player game.

Re:Short lifespan

[Locke2005]

A valid point, but LAN parties are now playing free games using local servers which not only eliminate lag, but also will be available long after the profit motive is gone. Buying into an online service whose business model depends on having 100,000 subscribers is as naive as buying into those health clubs that sell "lifetime" memberships -- don't be surprised when you come in one day only to find the doors permanently locked.

Re:Short lifespan

[Loconut1389]

Just an aside, but I found Duck Hunt on the original SMB cartridge to be unplayable on my HDTV, presumably due to the lag in video processing/display.

Re:Short lifespan

[Purity Of Essence]

No, the problem with multiplayer is it is designed to solve a different problem than single player.

Think of single player as a film. You can enjoy it by yourself. You can start and stop it whenever you want.

Think of multiplayer as a board game. You aim to do it with multiple people. It's hard (or impossible) to do it by yourself.

You're right that it is designed to solve a different problem, but you are wrong about the problem it is solving.

Today the real drive behind competitive multiplayer is maximizing profits. It's a multipronged stategy.

First, at all costs, keep people playing. The longer people continue to play, the more new people will buy the game. Regularly release downloadable content to hold the player's interest. Give games some form of persistence through experience systems, trophies, achievements, or other rewards, and people will keep coming back as long as there is something new to collect. Encourage communities, modding, guilds, and anything else that give people a sense of belonging.

Second, understand that multiplayer usually means people constantly replaying the same small environments. Players love doing the same things over and over if it allows them to gain a sense of mastery. That's what pwning n00bs is all about. These competitive arenas cost relatively little to produce compared to linear single player games, and judging on the basis of the amount of time spent playing them, multiplayer maps are incredibly profitable. Since the players themselves are providing the primary stimulus, it also means not having to worry about: programming scripted events; tuning AI; managing sequence enforcement; doing heavy localization; producing costly music, voice recording, and writing.

Third, tie the game to subscription models and micro-transactions. World of Warcraft is obviously hugely successful here, but even free-to-play multiplayer games can earn incredible sums with optional purchases, as long as it gives one player a competitive edge over another. If a player can pay $1 for the pleasure of rubbing his friend's face into the dirt, watch that credit card fly from his wallet, especially if there is a public billboard to prove it. Then watch his friend pay $2 to settle the score.

Fourth, make sure you run the multiplayer servers. Force people to maintain accounts keyed to installations and remove the incentive to pirate the game. If you want to play, you have to pay. And if you screw up bad enough, you have to pay again. Use licensing tricks to circumvent first-sale doctrine, and watch the used game market shrivel and die while you laugh all the way to the bank.

Re:Short lifespan

[jythie]

I think you highlight part of the development problem. Many game developers are like what you describe, they have a core group of friends that all game together. So when they design a game they think in terms of what they and their friends do. Last time I looked at stats, only about 10% of people who buy a game actually play it in that mode though,.... yet the development pendulum has swung strongly in that direction.

It has gotten to the point where if I see 'multiplayer' on a box, I will probably ignore it since I know they have probably dumped most of their resources into the MP aspects and that it will be a rather poor SP game.

As for what the point is? Because they are fun. I am currently going through Mercenaries 1 (not 2, which was bleh, partly because of how they crippled SP to make MP work) for probably the 10th time.

More decent gameplay, less multiplayer

[Totenglocke]

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.

Re:More decent gameplay, less multiplayer

[Jimmy King]

I'm in the same boat. Online multiplayer against strangers is fun for the first month or two a game is out for me. After that, most of the regular people and average skilled gamers have left and all you've got are people that are some combination of so much better than me (and better than I have the time and patience or natural talent to be) that I might as well just set the controller down and let them kill me and assholes. If all it has going for it is multiplayer, I'll probably stop there and not buy any expansions or sequels.

Good single player game? I'll buy it, I'll probably buy most of the expansions that get released, and I'll buy the sequels. That's held true to Fable (I also re-bought the whole game just for the lost chapters version), Fable 2, Fallout 3, Dragon Age, Oblivion, Rock Band, and so on with a continually growing list of games that include, and are frequently solely based on, a solid single player experience

Re:More decent gameplay, less multiplayer

[phantomfive]

I think the second one can actually be fixed, and Nintendo is doing a great job of it in Mario Kart. First they don't let you talk to other players (which has benefits and drawbacks), and second they have a rating system, so when you log in the game automatically pairs you with people close to your level. This is great because you don't need to be awesome at the game to have a chance to win (and lets face it, human opponents are much more interesting than computer opponents), and all the cheaters move to the top ratings: which means the average player doesn't have to deal with cheaters. It's a different system from a lot of online FPSs where everyone randomly congregates in a room.

As I've grown older I've found I've become more of a social gamer, I don't really care about playing through games anymore unless someone I know is also playing through it. I probably play games more than most people, but if someone I know isn't playing so we can talk about it, then it's just not as interesting. Unless there is truly something special about the game, I won't play it alone.

Re:More decent gameplay, less multiplayer

[JanneM]

"My cousin (a total noob at any kind of gaming ... or PCs) was like one of those target dummies in Oblivion, and my brother and I chased him all over the map blowing him up, mowing him down and generally turning him into dog food. Fun!"

How much fun did your cousin have?

Re:More decent gameplay, less multiplayer

[Saithe]

I would actually have loved a co-op mode for both Fallout 3 and Dragon Age... personally I think that would have made those games a lot more fun than they already are.

Publishers, publishers, publishers

[gravos]

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.

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.

little kid brother modes

[Speare]

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.

I think gamer interest largely drove the shift

[Trepidity]

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.

Re:I think gamer interest largely drove the shift

[grumbel]

The trouble aren't really the games that focus completly on multiplayer, but the games that do it as a lackluster sideshow. So instead of focusing all their development power on the singleplayer, they waste time on a second rate multiplayer mode that nobody is going to play anyway.

See Brütal Legend as a horrible example, instead of doing the proper singleplayer game that people wanted, they have created this hybrid of a ultra short singleplayer campaign combined with a lame multiplayer mode. It kind of boggles my mind how anybody could look at that concept and consider it a good idea. But there are of cause plenty of other games where the multilpayer mode is basically just there so that they can say "Hey, we have multiplayer to!".

If developers don't care enough about multiplayer to make it really good, they just should give up on it and focus on singleplayer, as a multiplayer that nobody plays is basically less then worthless. It is kind of the same with MMORPGs, you have to be really really good if you want to compete against WoW, if that is to much, then there is little point in even trying.

both are good

[headonfire]

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.

Demon's Souls is very well balanced

[F34nor]

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.

Re:Demon's Souls is very well balanced

[F34nor]

Just play offline if you are trying to control world tendency. I am always in soul mode as I am trying to stay pure white for my first game, if you want to be black then dying is great for your black progression. If you are in coop three guys should whoop ass on any invader. But yeah the OCD draw of this game is creepy. The illusion of a perfectly played game is there but wholly evilly unattainable.

Re:Demon's Souls is very well balanced

[Quiet_Desperation]

Did you ever go to some of the message boards for the game? Cripes, if you dared suggest maybe the box art could have been better you are verbally drawn and quartered and called a coward in life and, geez, all sorts of non sequiturs. I didn't dare post a thing.

Someone did a great parody of a review for Demon's Souls where the guy raves on endlessly about how wonderful it was that it took him 50 hours to get past the first level, and how the game has the best "You Died" screen ever in the history of gaming. :)

Don't multiplay much

[BlueBat]

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.

Time sink

[Bruinwar]

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.

As long as I can opt out

[FlyByPC]

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.")

Re:As long as I can opt out

[Tacvek]

I firmly belive that I am among the very few people who have played the entire half-life series, and yet have spent less than 10 minutes playing any source or goldsource multiplayer game.

I play RTS games solely for the single player campaigns. I would get bored with the skirmish mode very quickly, and have zero interest in the multiplayer mode.

Playing local multiplayer with friends is indeed fun, but I don't have any friends over (pretty much ever), so I generally find that pretty worthless.

Re:As long as I can opt out

[Z8]

I firmly belive that I am among the very few people who have played the entire half-life series, and yet have spent less than 10 minutes playing any source or goldsource multiplayer game.

Nah, I bet your preferences are really common. I've also played all of half-life but never touched multiplayer. My guess is we're the silent majority that you never hear about because game reviewers necessarily like all or most game types, including multiplayer.

They don't have a choice now.

[Shados]

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)

Local multiplayer

[tepples]

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.

Re:Local multiplayer

[Cwix]

It seems (to me at least) that its getting difficult to find games that allow you to share a screen with someone. When Im looking at the PS3 games and most of them say Players: 1 Online Multiplayer: 2- 8. I dont particularly like it. I remember playing two player games at my friends house or with my brothers and sharing the screen. Im not going to buy a second PS3 and television just so I can play two player games with my friends. Split that screen up.

Single Player is key

[ceraphis]

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 = Longer game lifespan

[Caerdwyn]

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.

Re:I wouldn't say the problem is with multiplayer

[demonbug]

I'd say the problem is the preponderance of squeaky-voiced racist children. Multiplayer games need better filters to keep out the riff-raff.

That's one of the things that is driving me away from multiplayer games. This problem used to be more or less solved; I'd only play on servers with active admins that would kick/ban people like that. Sadly the major developers/publishers seem to have decided that this is somehow bad, and instead like to match me up with random fuckwads with no way of getting rid of them or choosing a specific server to play on. They all seem to be taking a step backwards in this respect, apparently thinking that a server list is way too complicated for us "consumers", allowing people to set up their own dedicated hosts is evil, and generally sacrificing my ability to play where and how I see fit in the name of idiocies such as global "accomplishments" and stat tracking (seriously? Does anyone actually care about that crap?).

I gravitate toward multiplayer nowadays

[Jay Tarbox]

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.

Re:I gravitate toward multiplayer nowadays

[Kjella]

I find that depends entirely on the game. Some have entirely too few good strategies and MP becomes more about knowing the "right" way of doing stuff than the fun of trying different things. Humans have unfortunately a very good ability to min-max on a few "best" strategies, while AIs can by programming have different behavior as long as it doesn't end up being pure stupid behavior. I prefer that at least.

Mario GP

[tepples]

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.

Re:Mario GP

[bigstrat2003]

As did the GameCube version.

EverQuest.

[tepples]

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.

Re:EverQuest.

[Jubedgy]

Ancient history...there were two services that allowed quasi-battle.net like games: Kali and Kahn. I believe Kali was the original. IIRC, it was written by Jay Cotton, and you could get a registration number for $15. You would dial into one of their servers and it offered chat services and you could organize games. Kahn was something similar. It was similar to dialing into Prodigy or AOL (or Compuserve, etc...). I believe it was just an IPX-TCP/IP wrapper. Blizzard eventually released a WC2 version called War2 Battlenet Edition which brought it into a more "modern" age and allowed playing over the internet as we know it.

WarioWare

[tepples]

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.

Re:If it's a FPS

[Colonel Korn]

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.

Similarly, I wish SHODAN had been played by a random other person selected via a matchmaking service. And Doctor Breen would have been cooler if he were voiced by a kid on XBox Live. How great would Pripyat have been if the monolith were controlled by a Ukrainian connected through Gamespy?

I gravitate toward single player nowadays

[Yosho]

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.

I agree with this. Case in point:

[Beelzebud]

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.

And to think that six years ago...

[reybrujo]

...I I mentioned in a forum that "Multiplayer is actually the best way of not programming a good AI."

Not sure where you got that idea

[Moraelin]

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