|
[Veteran designer Pascal Luban (Splinter Cell: Chaos Theory) continues
his series on the "megatrends" of the gaming industry, this time tackling multiplayer - from co-op and griefing to addiction. To read
his first article in the series, click here. To read the second article, click
here.]
Introduction
To claim that multiplayer gaming is a major trend of
our industry would be to state the exceedingly obvious. Nevertheless, the
consequences of this trend are deep enough to warrant an analysis of the
phenomenon. As such, let's review the areas affected by the whirlwind that is
multiplayer gaming.
New needs in quality control
In single-player games, progression is linear; the
player "wins" the current level and reaches the next one. Everything
(the scenario, the promise of new weapons, etc.) is set up to encourage him to
continue onward. The player therefore spends little time in each level.
This situation is inverted in multiplayer modes,
wherein the same levels are likely to be played hundreds of times -- often by
the same players! Any bugs and/or weaknesses in level design quickly become
apparent in such a situation.
The need for extensive testing and playtesting will
increase as publishers will be compelled by the market to release impeccable
products. What might be the consequences of this on game design?
Playtests are likely
to have more influence on the design of game than they currently do. Playtests
carried on at early stages of the game development can bring major benefits to
the production of the game. Playtesting not only offers the opportunity to
correct design errors, but also the possibility of giving birth to new design
ideas while there is still time. Playtesting therefore represents an
opportunity for improvement and risk reduction.
Having set up and managed the playtesting cell of the Ubisoft Annecy, France studio for the
development of the multiplayer mode of Splinter Cell: Pandora Tomorrow, I
was able to directly measure the contribution of playtesting to the quality of
the final game. Playtest management is likely to become a specialized function
as it requires specific skills.
Development of cooperative games at the expense of competitive
modes
The first multiplayer games tended to place players in
opposition to one another. True, pretty much all of our card and board games
work that way, after all... but this form of gaming was soon limited largely to
skilled players. A novice or ordinary player generally cannot hold his own
against a seasoned gamer. Constantly losing is surely not the best way to spend
an evening!
Microsoft/Epic's Gears of War
The arrival of cooperative gaming modes has allowed
players of different skill levels to have fun together. I think it is one
of the main reasons for Counter-Strike's success, where
players of any level are playing together as a team. A game like Gears of War owes part of its success to
its option for allowing two players to fight alongside through the single player
adventure.
If a multiplayer game wishes to please the mainstream,
it must definitely support one or more cooperative modes. This is even truer in
certain cultures where cooperation is more valued than competition.
|
If the issue isn't taken seriously it might perhaps result in automatic high age restrictions on the mmo genre.
A good read indeed!
The big problem is the quality of life of a lot of people in general.
http://www.gamblersanonymous.org/qna.html
How would you redesign poker to motivate people to play less? Can you cure gambling addiction by having people gamble with redesigned games? Gamblers Anonymous would disagree.
"The arrival of cooperative gaming modes has allowed players of different skill levels to have fun together. I think it is one of the main reasons for Counter-Strike's success, where players of any level are playing together as a team."
The first sentence in this quote makes perfect sense. The second sentence is...well, have you ever played Counter-Strike? We're talking about the same Counter-Strike, right? The one where new players get killed in under a minute and spend 80% of their time waiting for the round to end so they can killed again really fast - that Counter-Strike?
Hardly the first example that pops to mind of a game that's inviting to players of all skill levels. It's a nitpick, but I couldn't not say it.
I agree, and I see a real opportunity for the industry here. An idea I've been knocking around for a while now (http://flatfingers-theory.blogspot.com/2008/06/living-world-massively-single-pla
yer.html) is the possibility of merging the business model of MMORPGs with the gameplay design of open-world games.
The typical business model for developers of single-player games today is built around making one big, complex game, then dropping that product completely (or with at most a couple of bits of downloadable content) to go make some other different game, and hoping that one of them is a commercial hit before the studio runs out of money. The "Living World" business model would be to create a large gameworld space and then, over months and years, extend that gameworld with high-quality content in the same way that MMORPG operators continuously refresh and expand their content.
This model would appear to offer two advantages over today's usual model of making a series of unrelated single-player games and hoping one of them goes big:
1. It designs in a long-term revenue stream for paying back the usually-steep initial development costs, rather than requiring one-time sales to be strong enough to cover all costs. This reduces investment risk.
2. It minimizes loss of revenue due to piracy by shifting revenue generation from a one-time sale of copyable content to repeated sales of download-only content.
Adopting this model would create a game development studio whose core business process is to fund a mid-sized team to create a large single-player gameworld, then spin off to a smaller external development group the long-term enhancement of that gameworld through high-quality DLC in return for a percentage of the income generated by DLC sales. In effect, this builds the business around monetizing the most capable modders.
We can already see small versions of this starting to appear, as with making DLC production for Little Big Planet part of the business plan. It remains to be seen whether some developers will choose to structure their entire business on this model, but I wouldn't be surprised to learn that someone's already headed down this path.
However, many games tend to reward addiction, or long term play. For instance TF2, when I play a lot my Steam Rating is "10 - EAGLES SCREAM!" Wow, I'm cool! But when I don't play for a couple of weeks it says something like:
"2 - Nearly Lifeless" Wow, I suck.
Now, I know the Steam Rating is pointless, it's not skill level, but how much you have played over the past couple of weeks. Of course it is meant as a purposeful jab to the user to keep them playing.
In the end, the industry has to create addictive games, the user has to want to play it. But it is the user that must be responsible for his or her time and social well being. So supporting and encouraging addiction may be the real problem. Perhaps reminding the player to take a break after playing for long periods.
Maybe the Steam Rating should say:
10- Dude get a life!
or
2 - Thanks for playing!
So I do agree with Bill, addiction usually is a symptom of problem with the user but games that reward addiction also tend to anger those players with less time on their hands and/or work against them being responsible.
So great article and good comment Bill, i agree.
I couldn't agree more!!!
You know, TV has a lot of channels and a lot of shows on each channel. I bet that if I tried to watch every episode of every TV show one time (no reruns), even if I never needed to leave my TV, and I skipped all the commercials, and I were independently wealthy and lonely enough to do it, I would still die before reaching that goal. In fact, the amount of unwatched material would go up the longer I tried it, because they make new episodes and new shows faster and faster, on more and more channels, and I can only watch one thing at a time.
So does my TV set need a warning? No, it absolutely does not. I need to take control of my life. I need to be responsible on a very basic level for my own actions.
good reading! In this case one should mention the phenomenon called eSports (electronic sports), which relies on multiplayer gaming and that has to deal with the problems mentioned by the author:
1. Cheaters who abuse a game's bugs or design errors
2. Bad players or sore losers who log off during a session and leave their team-mates hanging
3. Pro gamers who have mastered a game so thoroughly that their presence leaves no chance of survival to newcomers... or to anyone else!
4. Players who lack the team spirit necessary for tactical play
5. Thugs with rude or even outright xenophobic or racist behavior
The eSports legues have developed solutions to get along with these problems and to ensure a good development of social gaming. Take the ESL for instance, more than 1000 volontary admins keep the system work. Maybe this should be pointed out the next time!
Best regards
Ibo
tory_Virtual_Console__Thinking_of_New_Models_of_Game_Developing_and_Distribution
.php