|
Sadly, I just don’t care about multiplayer games the way I used to. Probably the last multiplayer game I was truly frantic about was Quake 3, but for different reasons. I never really played it competitively, but instead cooperatively. You see, when I played Quake 3 it usually meant teaming up with at least one other friend. On the enemy team would be a swarm of 30+ nightmare bots that blanketed the arena; the game mode was typically Capture the Flag.
This meant we were forced to gamble between storming their heavily camped base and defending an impromptu rush of bots breaking in. It was like Left4Dead long before it was ever conceived, except zombies had rocket launchers and BFGs. To me, this was the only way to play Quake 3 and get maximum enjoyment.
Speaking of Left4Dead; it was actually one of those games I never played because it had such a strong focus on multiplayer. I think that if I was 10 years younger I’d be playing it right now. I’m not THAT old =), but many of my friends; the people who’s house/apartment I would crash at for all-night LAN parties have all grown away from games, or at least these kinds of games.
There's also been a strong divide in the console and PC space where some of my friends only own 360s and others own PS3s while some only have a PC. Since the console systems refuse to communicate outside of their bubble, it's hard to put a group together when everyone is playing on different hardware.
Unfortunately, I probably will not play Left4Dead2 for the same reasons. If it had a sizable single-player campaign then it might be something I'd look into.
My online experiences have been terrible for many modern games; surrounded by 15 year olds who insist that you follow them despite their insurmountable death rate, and are suffering from an obscene case of turrets. Please don’t let your kids be one of these people. Maybe someone should start a group; GAWK (Gamers against Wayward Kids).
I played Call of Duty 4 single player, but didn’t even bother going online. Besides the fact that people have reached ungodly skill levels in the game, I’ve been burned too many times by too many games to even care to try it.
Team Fortress 2, never played it. The ever-increasing barrier of entry just makes me want this game less every time a new set of game-changing features is compounded onto the core gameplay.
Halo 3 Multiplayer, briefly, until I was randomly paired with a clan of kiddies and was reminded why I don’t get online.
Gears of War, I thankfully found a friend who was playing Horde for a couple weeks. Dropped it soon after and haven’t looked back. I found the enjoyment to drop significantly when I was roaming around with random strangers.
I understand that multiplayer is a strong feature to give longer legs to an otherwise 6-10hr game, but I’d rather see multiplayer dropped in favor of a strong story-driven game experience instead of the other way around.
There’s been a lot of talk over the last couple of years that games could not succeed unless they shipped with a multiplayer component. I would personally rather see that additional 50-100% effort go towards a stronger single player experience or a $15-20 price cut. I’d rather see a great $40 game instead of a mediocre game for $60 because someone had the bright idea to inject multiplayer into it like some kind of cream filling. Or worse, multiplayer injected for the sake of justifying the higher price for a lesser game.
Then again, I’m probably not the popular opinion…
|
Notice that the games that give a lot of replay value in single player are the open-ended ones such as Civ IV. Not too many people play that online. Some of the same can be said for RTS games as well. Sure, Starcraft online was a big deal - but you could get a lot of mileage out of titles like Empire Earth simply playing against the excellent AI. However, we seem to hit a psychological barrier as an industry when it comes to putting really dynamic AI in FPS/RPG games. We even establish odd little memes like "the players don't want good AI!" Ok... if that is the case, why do they a) bitch about our AI in reviews and blogs, and b) promptly go online for more of a challenge?
Ironically, the AI in online games is actually worse than that of single-player games. That means that PvE is often fairly simplistic - which makes MMOs lean towards PvP for the same reason. CoOp PvE in MMOs therefore is not as intense and rewarding as it could be.
I will be giving a lecture at GDC Austin in September on this very subject. That is, how we can utilize better AI in MMOs to promote better player interaction as a team such as what you find in TF2 or L4D. (Apparently my experience with that differs significantly from yours... You would actually enjoy the relatively mature group that I play TF2 with on a regular basis - complete with strategy and tactics and other nifty stuff! Imagine that!)
Anyway, I do lament the heavy focus on online play on what are ostensibly single-player games. It seems like a lot of focus on the single-player is wasted or is thrown in there as simply a vehicle for the primary focus of the multi-player experience. I agree with you... it is hard to do both well. And I wish developers would stop trying to do both at the expense of either.
Excellent post. Thank you.
Sadly despite people gawking (no relation to GAWK) over the Unreal 3 engine.. does anyone actually play the game? if i judged the game by the number of human players on any given server i'd say the game was a total flop.. i got it for more moding interest / exploration than to really play the game, but tried and found there were either mostly bots.. or guys I had no chance against.. sigh..
A lot of games are at least doing some sort of skill level thing, where it measures your skill at the game and places you in a game with similarly rated people. It'd be nice though if these systems let you approximate where you think you should start, and balance you from there, rather than having to grind your way up against poorer players, or being forced to fight new, but skilled players in the low ranks.
If you have 2 or 3 friends who you play game with even occasionally, I'd say games like L4D are worth the buy. The game isn't really made for single player, but as a strange sort of party game it shines. This is another place where many multiplayer games fall over. I'm going to harp on about CoD4 again (because it's so much fun, but it's so hard to get into). You can play split-screen with 4 people, but if you want to play a LAN (say your group has 6 gamers), you need 1 console, 1 copy of the game and 1 tv each. So to summarise 4 players = 1 console, 4 controllers, 1 game, 5 players = 5 consoles, 5 games, 5 controllers, which I've found makes it quite unpopular at console LANs. It seems totally unreasonable to not make split-screen at least an option.
I'd actually love to see more co-operative games appear. L4D is a great one, a game that is primarily made for multiplayer, but everyone works together (ignoring vs for a moment). Halo 3's 4 player co-op is often overlooked, but can be great fun. The good thing about co-op games is they provide endless entertainment for existing friends, rather than going up against other players which way or may not be fun, I can gather 2-3 of my mates and play together against endless swarms of baddies.
So I say why not do both, make a great single player campaign, then make it's difficulty levels scalable in such a way that it can scale when you add 2-3 other players working together into the mix. Who knows, one day someone might might a decent story driven RPG that actually revolves around the decisions of more than one player =P
I find that in my demographic (college), multiplayer IS the game. I use gamefly for any single player games that I have an urge to play, but ultimately I find that if I am going to buy the game it has to have a multiplayer element that I can sit down on the couch with my roommates and play. Co-op does seem to be the answer to the flood of immaturity that has hit online gaming.
GTA4 is another example. The single player game is great and the open world gives it a ton of replay value. I have personally logged more hours then I would like to share with that game. However, the multiplayer free mode is my favorite part. Rolling around NYC with 4 of my good friends is an absolute blast and I would personally buy the game JUST for the multiplayer.
Having said that, if anyone here does want to get back into multiplayer games I whole-heartedly recommend L4D as the game you should start with. Online games have lost some of their luster for me as well, but I have to admit that I was pleasantly surprised with how well L4D manages to avoid most of the pitfalls associated with the genre. For one, all of your enemies are AI-controlled, which means you don't have to worry about going against uber-skilled players that know every nook and cranny of the level. Moreover, the game mechanics encourage cooperation, so even if you are playing with strangers you'll find people being a lot more amicable than they would be in say, Halo CTF.
Now, on the topic of Multiplayer components to games. I am constantly annoyed with studios that add multiplayer to a game when the game itself is blatantly missing the unique and defining aspects that make multiplayer games work. For instance, Turok should have never had multiplayer or even achievements related to multiplayer (I hate it when they add multiplayer achievements when no one is going to stick with the game long term). FEAR 1 had great multiplayer, but strangely FEAR 2 has a comparatively low population of players on the console versions, that is excusable because the developer expected similar multiplayer success that the first game produced. But then a game like Far Cry 2 just failed to properly develop and support the multiplayer aspect of the game. Multiplayer Patch took so long to come out that almost no one plays the game anymore. Plus letting the host boot any player they wanted for any reason is just absurd.
As far as Co Op, thats a very solid feature. People like to play with each other, especially if the Single player is all that there is to a game. But mistakes like with Fable 2 where one player is forced to play the sidekick are just poor design decisions that undermine the CoOp philosophy. People want to play together and show off their character's progression (at least in an RPG).
My friends don't share my schedule or game tastes so multiplayer is never a factor in my purchases.
Reading the comments, I realised there are two groups in the multiplayer crowd: binge-drinkers and wine-tasters. The problem is that there is no line in the sand to keep these groups apart and the bingers being in the majority, those who appreciate sportsmanship gradually leave the online gaming space.
The industry trend that arbitrarily crams multiplayer in every game is misguided. Successful multiplayer games work because the experience was designed from the ground up around that component. Multiplayer is not a magical moneymaker; it has no place in a traditionally single player game such as Metroid or Resident Evil... or Bioshock for that matter. Can you imagine a multiplayer component to Alone In The Dark?
CoOp is in a gray zone.
And you wanna know why people prefer PvP? It's because there's no satisfaction in insulting an NPC. Since I believe that most human players are no wittier than AIs, the real satisfaction of playing multi is not to overcome challenges per se but to assert your domination over other people. Like an ego trip.
Since I'm a gentle soul, I keep away from those waters. I'm just not equipped to take or administer verbal punishment. And since L4D2 will render L4D1 obsolete, I haven't lost anything in not participating, eh? As with MMOs and many multiplayer focused games, your investment is only worthwhile until a new game comes out and forces you to move with the herd, or find yourself roaming empty battlefields.
I consume games the way I do books and movies: I buy a title, thoroughly enjoy it and then place it on my shelf with the others. I periodically revisit each game like I rewatch an old movie.
As long as there are games for each taste and not games that try and cater to every taste (and fail), we'll be alright, right?
The online ranks and weapons unlocks of later versions of Battlefield and current versions of games like Call of Duty have done a lot to make these games less fun. Sometimes MORE is not BETTER.
I do think that games can absolutely flourish with a strong online component, but I personally would rather not see it happen at the expense of a mediocre solo experience. CoD4 is an example of a solid single player game that I gladly enjoyed despite never going online.
Don't get me wrong. I do feel that there is a place for both game types, but I can't stress enough that it is not something to be taken lightly. If a developer wishes to make an exclusive online game, go for it! If a developer wishes to make an exclusive solo game, go for it! Blending the two requires a strong development studio with a solid background in both areas. I feel that slapping on some half-hearted (or half budget) online play is just going to weaken what could have been an awesome single player experience.
Perhaps blending the two with a seamless co-op would be a nice solution to this. The game difficulty could ramp up with more players, but the experience (the story) is essentially the same for 1 player or 10 players. This could introduce an interesting scalability problem of AI intelligences and other game features.
As primarily a multiplayer gamer I find that quite insulting. Multiplayer gaming has much more to offer than just asserting dominance and it's not what all players are after. MP gaming gives you unpredictability, mind-games, community, and yes challenge. I can barely play single player games anymore due to the monotony I find them to have. Only deeply interesting single player games like Portal, Braid, Cave Story, and Ico (the last 4 games I've played/replayed) can hold my interest anymore.
Calling the motivation the need for dominance is putting your own negative spin on someone's sense of accomplishment. For most, not all but most, single player games there's no accomplishment. You beat an AI that was designed to lose to you. Only in the realm of very difficult challenges like perfect chaining an Ikaruga stage or beating difficult songs on expert in Guitar Hero can you get the same sense of accomplishment you do with MP gaming.
Sure some players express the sense of accomplishment in a way that's egotistical but calling everyone egotistical is quite the stereotype.
On the other hand, the Coop play for CoD4 was pathethic. Basically the same as the single player maps, except that you can bring up to 3 friends along, but the NPCs react to all coop players as if they were the same person - same dialog, same goals, same everything. It would have been better to not include the coop mode at all, I think. A FAR, FAR cry from coop LAN mode in BF1942, which as noted previously, was VERY well done, mostly because of wide open maps and no silly NPC dialog instead of contrived run-on-rails maps in CoD.
I hear complaints about stupid AI walking into walls or a hail of bullets but that doesn't even come close to some of the stupid things I've seen many of the human players I've been up against do. Playing against other people is like going to a concert, if everything comes together just right, it can be great; otherwise it can be a total waste of time. I'd rather buy the CD and know what I'm getting.
That said there is more to multiplayer than game. I know many people who play games just to hang out with friends. When you go to hang out with friends you need something to do even if it is just shoot the breeze, and many mulitplayer games are a convient thing to do.
happy thought for the end is bioware's dragon age should be a sweet single player game for those not into multiplayer.
From the very beginning, electronic games were intended for solo play. Yes, Ralph Baer also saw the invention as a family game tool similar to board games or card games, but notice that electronic games focused on solo play right from the start because, obviously, there are many times when people could not find someone to play with but still wanted to play.
Another point to keep in mind for anyone who wants "challenge" is that many gamers of all types do not play games for challenging experiences. Instead, we play games for enjoyment: story, character, events, settings, art, music, etc. In fact, one sure way to cause us to NOT enjoy a game is to force us to endure "challenge." Such a design decision interferes with story presentation and is thus counterproductive for audiences who wish to enjoy story, character, etc. It's analogous to the difference between someone who joins the National Chess Federation and regularly participates in official chess matches versus all the people who simply enjoy playing chess from time to time as an interesting mental exercise. There are far more of the latter than the former. In fact, the latter group includes individuals who can be as good or better than formal players but simply do not wish to follow formal pursuits of the game for various reasons.
The bottom line is that most people (not all, but the majority) do not have a desire to be with someone else as they experience a story. People usually do not read books together, for example, but they'll certainly talk with each other about their own interpretations about a particular book. Same thing with other media; the majority of people who experience any particular work usually do so on their own rather than as part of a group. For electronic games, requiring a group for a full experience places electronic gaming right back into the same problems as card games, board games, table top RPGs, or other forms of gaming (including activities such as sports) that require two or more people. It would be pretty crazy to undermine one of the medium's biggest benefits for audiences - the ability to fully experience a work independently without attempting to coordinate schedules or resolve other issues with other humans.
There are other practical business points that relate to the need for single player over multiplayer. For one thing, the majority of the population is not online; that's true for America and even more true for various other national populations around the world.
Also, coop multiplayer usually does not require two people to own their own copies of the game; only one copy is required, in most cases. This cuts the sales in half, of course, in much the same way that only one person needs a Monopoly board even if two or more people are playing.
Of course, it is possible to create electronic games that require (or at least are intended to be experienced by) two or more people. However, as I pointed out earlier, such a work undermines one of the greatest strengths of the medium. If we restrict ourselves to consideration of potential market numbers, the potential market appeal for such a work will be smaller just because two or more people are required in order to play rather than each person playing solo on their own. It's analogous to a particular team sport such as baseball or football; even including people who just play for fun on the weekends or whatever, it's pretty clear that the number of people who play (pro or just for fun) is far smaller than the number of people who watch (or perhaps just read about various sports, for that matter). It would seem that the majority of the world's population does not desire challenge in their entertainment even though there is certainly a viable market percentage who do. There's no reason to attempt to force the majority to accept the interests of the minority, though.
If I enjoy a game, I play it repeatedly just like any other media product. Challenge is something that I do not desire in my entertainment. Sure, I'll play a fighting game like Street Fighter II or Dead or Alive, but only for a short time as a diversion from other, more interesting games. Same thing with puzzle games such as Tetris. On the other hand, if I am being well-paid to participate in a competitive event, even something like a spelling bee, I will approach the competition very seriously and accept the challenge of attempting to win against skilled opponents. That's not entertainment, though; I'd be doing it as a job or for some similar reason.
To some extent this statement is true, and to some extent incredibly naive. I cannot recount the number of times when I've played a game and they make enemies "harder" by simply giving them more HP, or making them shoot more accurately, or making them deal more damage. These are the simple answers of course, scalable AI is in no way lightweight to program, and so effective and interesting scalable AI is a rarity and is rarely implemented. Sadly because most NPCs have some form of rock/paper/scissors method for defeating them, so often if your a decent player the "hardcore" difficulties in most games are just as easy as..well...easy mode. Fighting other players is way harder, they're unpredictable and come up with unusual tactics the AI will never come up with. In team based games, they can work together in far more dynamic and spectacular ways.
I'd also have to say I've had much fun insulting NPCs, but it is an ego trip when you win matches online, you got that much right at least.
While I'm at it I might just mention another interesting point and ask some questions. It might be that as consoles have come more and more to the fore, so too has "social" gaming. Consoles encourage multiplayer in a way that PCs never did. Now I'm still fairly young, and to be honest my gaming mostly started on the early consoles, but I want to ask the many others who dislike multiplayer (who again to be frank, seem to be slightly older gamers), how much of a PC gamer are you, is PC gaming where you started? and if so could that at all affect the way you view multiplayer games? I ask this because PC has had little to do with Co-op for the most part, and most of their matchmaking systems are far superior to the lightweight things developers for console build, so that PvP tends to be an easier and more pleasant experience. It's also been around long enough that large clans have developed over time, who play certain games together. Could this be why you have a jaded view (surely a deserved one at times) of console multiplayer? In addition PC games have a long history of rich entertaining single player content, that has always been their forte, does this experience again affect your opinion about console games emphasis on multiplayer over single?
Anyways feel free to answer or reflect on those questions for a while, I'm merely curious to find out if perhaps a yearning for an age somewhat passed has any real affect on many of the people who find they dislike the console multiplayer trend.
@Benjamin Quintero: I understand that the point of your article is more about your lack of desire to play multiplayer games than to argument against them, but a few of the games you mentioned have solved some of the very problems that you are complaining about. I guess I just have such a hard time agreeing with the article because it reminds me of people that say they've never played Portal or Bioshock because "first-person shooters always have bad stories".
@Dave Endresak: Unfortunately, much of your argument is based upon the assumption that I need friends to play multiplayer games with. This just isn't true because nearly every recent online game comes with "quick match" function to find a random opponent. If one of the biggest benefits of electronic gaming is to "fully experience a work independently without attempting to coordinate schedules or resolve other issues with other humans", I'd say that multiplayer games are doing fine.
Peering over the shoulder of a co-working who is mulching an engineer with his heavy is not really the same as doing it myself =). Yet seeing that experience only left me wondering what kind of game TF2 would have been as a single-player (story driven) experience. Of course the name couldn't be the same, but the art style and charisma of those characters in their trailers left me wanting to know more about them. It seemed like much of that charisma is diluted in the frantic multi-player gameplay; something that could have been resolved with single-player pacing of the story and events. Oh well, I'm rambling =).
Thanks for the comments again! Apparently I struck a nerve.
Now the multiplayer game options are only the beginning of infinite ways to simulate/play all kind of experience. But we will always have the arcade games….. It is true current multiplayers are quite primitives and repetitive but time will bring us custom sessions and really singular experiences for each one. And RTS is coming…
That aside, I definitely understand your multiplayer complaints. Perhaps the problem is that we CAN communicate with random people online, who, quite naturally, are sometimes around 12 years old.
But dare I say the words... have you tried World of Warcraft? There's a larger audience of players over 18 within many MMORPGs, but if that's not your style (which I can certainly understand), why not try Nintendo's online offerings (limited as they are)? The company's attempt to sanitize its online gaming has, directly or indirectly, eradicated that whining 12-year-old element. When I connect on Mario Kart or Smash Bros., I don't talk to anyone. I just play. Give it a shot?
So it isn't so much that AI cannot provide as much of a challenge as a human opponent. It is that if that AI were to provide as much of a challenge as a human opponent our perception of what they're really doing is cheating us.
Even some lesser AI that we have today could pass for a human opponent as long as the person playing against it wasn't knowledgeable that it was AI. It would definitely be a fun experiment. Create a bunch of online servers with what look to be real gamertags that even link to real profiles, maybe even some false trash talk in the pre-game lobby, then have people log onto the servers thinking they're humans. I bet, given no obvious glitches occurring in the AI, that the person would not even realize they were playing against AI for an entire night of playing.
Multiplayer isn't about getting a challenge, or trash talking, it is about a fair fight. The only way we can be sure of a fair fight is by facing others like us, with the same tools that we have. Not only are the actions on trial, but the method of reaching those actions is on trial. Since with AI you can't be sure of how the AI reached its decision then it is unfair. With a human you can relate a decision by your opponent to your own experience and thought process as a human and understand how a fellow human reached a certain decision.
So the perception of fairness is present when a person knows or thinks they're facing another human, but when it is known that they're facing AI, the perception of fairness is not there no matter how realistic the AI is.
@Christopher
I must thank you for making me realise how my previous comments sounded troll-like and didn't account at all for the positives in MP experiences. Offending was not my intention and I apologize for having done so.
People are capable of the best and worst and so it necessarily reflects in multiplayer matches. I especially like the concert analogy.
I've greatly enjoyed my (short) time playing Counter Strike on LAN with my co-workers, on lunch time. I was playing with like-minded people (like music fans at a concert?) so that was plus. However, constantly loosing to decidedly superior players soon killed the fun for me. Also, I didn't want to invest more of my personal time "training" just so I could stand equal with the team. I can see how others would pick up the gauntlet, just not me.
I just think that not all games are suitable for an MP mode and that those that do shouldn't underestimate the care it's implementation requires.
while i completely agree with that statement, this article is utterly unremarkable. the author claims to have never played almost half of the games mentioned! i don't mean to be unnecessarily disparaging but i do feel that the gamasutra "featured" or "expert" blogs should be held to a higher standard.
it's not that i'm missing the point or that i don't agree with the article. there wasn't really anything to disagree with in the article - the author isn't interested in some games or have time for them. how can i disagree with that?! it's totally subjective. i also completely agree with the opinion noted in a latter comment (and quoted in my comment above) that if one is going to make a multiplayer game one should find the time to implement it well.
if you feel that developers should spend more time polishing single player experiences, well, that's fine. i just feel that it is not a noteworthy or controversial opinion.