How about a system where players are given incentive to play 'the bad guy' (to step into the shoes of enemy AI) in the form of XP or even keys to unlock later stages of the story? Ie, you can't get to the third act until you've cut your teeth in multiple roles in the first 2 acts.
270: Crossplayer Is the Future
- Thread starter N. Evan Van Zelfden
- Start date
Recommended Videos
Can we please not call this crossplaying if it's not already too late? Anyway yeah I would LOVE some games that I can play seemlessly with close friends but also play while they are not there.
Most MMO single player experiences are lacking, but they do allow for people to just drop in to a seemless world.
Most MMO single player experiences are lacking, but they do allow for people to just drop in to a seemless world.
ya pretty much. I don't play online because I can't, but I don't miss it. I only like multiplayer when it's with people I know, and not everyone has a bunch of nerdy friends ready to play at the drop of a hat. I know I don't.Dusk17 said:
Especially because I don't buy into hype and usually don't play games until they've been out for months, even years. Now imagine this: I start playing a cool online game with my friends. I then discover it's a mod for another crossplay[footnote]it's not that bad of a term, guys, get your minds off the gutter. Though 'mingleplayer' is pretty ingenious.[/footnote] game. Oh cool. I happened to have the game with me so I could play the multiplayer mod and I try to sink my teeth into the crossplay mode.
OH SHIT. Now I walked into this place where everyone who is playing has played the game for five years and I know nothing about it. So every time I try to do something I get berated because I'm doing it wrong. And it's not like a regular multiplayer game in which I'm just one guy in a 10+ player team. I'm screwing everyone over.
Now, if you were to waltz into the servers for an old classic multiplayer game, you'd be blown to shreds anyway. But there's a couple of differences. One, you'd be blown to shreds in several different levels, so you could figure out how the game feels as a whole. Even if you're losing, the experience feels new for long enough that you don't suck that hard by the time it wears out, and then you can make an informed decision about whether or not you'll grit your teeth and try to learn the ropes of the game. But in a crossplay game I'll be stuck in the same first level forever, screwing everyone up repeatedly and everyone will keep quitting on me because they're doing their achievement/speed/standing on their heads singing O Canada run. Two, there are only two outcomes to a multiplayer match you enter completely green, unless you are the god of digital adaptitude: either you lose, or your team wins through no effort of your own. So even if what I just described didn't happen I still wouldn't enjoy the game because I'd be sitting back watching others beat it. If I wanted to do that I'd watch a Let's Play.
Do notice that 'finding about a game five years after it was launched because you were introduced to a mod' is exactly how I found Half-Life, so it's not some crazy event I dreamed up.
I guess there are some ways in which it can work. Honestly, from this little castle I stand upon not playing it, L4D isn't much different from your average multiplayer shooter, especially since players can play the infected as well. Not different enough to warrant a new name anyway. If you want to create a story, you're still going to go single player.
You know, just today I read an interview with a guy who said books were bound to change drastically, and become interactive, with the authour dialoguing with the readers and people subscribing to books instead of buying them... I read the interview and was like, what the fuck is this guy talking about? Then I realized he was talking about nonfiction, while when I hear 'book' I think of fiction. So yeah, it would be nice to reply and see the replies others left if I was reading a theoretical book about, say, multiplayer environments in games. But if I was reading the story of a guy who plays teh vydia gems I wouldn't want other people's fan fictions and literary analysis to creep into my reading. I wouldn't want a dialogue with the writer, I'd just want to hear it. This is kind of what's going on here - if what you want to deliver is a meaningful story experience, you need as much authorial control as you can, and that means not letting your PC be accompanied by teabagging teenagers.
Glad to see I wasn't the only one ^^; And you forgot to mention girls dressed as bishonen.DojiStar said:
Well it could be seen as focused multiplayer. MMOs offer the chance for players to meet and work togheter, but it's seen as only part of the experience. Besides, having to build massive dynamic worlds spreads the design work so thin that everything starts feeling samey.
I don't see how much further than what L4D did can they go without stepping over MMO's boundaries.
Hmm come think of it. Would I like to play a Fallout FPSRPG with other players in a single instanced world like Diablo 2 did? I sure would!
I'm joining the "crossplay is taken" camp, as someone used to girls dressing up as male anime and videogame characters (and vice-versa)...
...however, the asymmetric multiplayer discussed by the article sounds fascinating, worth investigating further, and will raise some fascinating design questions in the near future. Good article, just a shame about the choice of terminology!
...however, the asymmetric multiplayer discussed by the article sounds fascinating, worth investigating further, and will raise some fascinating design questions in the near future. Good article, just a shame about the choice of terminology!
It sounds like fun in theory, though not without the issues brought up by other users... It brings to mind that mode in Left 4 Dead where some players can play as zombies. However, I still prefer the traditional idea of multiplayer. Personally, I like multiplayer games better when they don't try to integrate themselves into a campaign, like chess or Team Fortress 2. Also, I have definitely heard the word "crossplay" used before to signify crossdressing cosplay. I second/third/whatever the "Mingleplayer" name... simply brilliant.
Addendum/rant:
I always get depressed when reading articles about the future of gaming, because they always seem to predict that the public wants the industry to move in the opposite direction I want it to. This is especially troubling as I am an aspiring game designer: If I make the kind of games I want to play (which I think any designer should for themselves), will there be anyone left to buy them? Hopefully I can settle for at least perma-indie status.
I'm not saying the future looks bleak for people like me just because of this one example, though.. I've been really worried about the predicted death of the console and rise of digital distribution... I am a stalwart in the console camp when it comes to console vs. PC debates. Consoles provide a more level playing field in online play, as everyone has equal processing power and it is much harder to cheat. Many digitally-distributed games can be taken away or modified without your permission by the distributor. A physical copy is simply more secure (that is, less susceptible to loss) than a digital copy. Since computers are multi-purpose machines, your decisions that have nothing to do with gaming can affect your gaming, and vice versa. When your computer becomes obsolete for gaming, do you upgrade it (which is time-consuming and difficult), or buy a new one (which is usually more expensive than a new console and unnecessary if your computer works fine for other needs)? The only advantages PCs have are modding and an easier distribution method for indie and amateur developers.
I bet I've already gone too far off-topic, so I'll just briefly hit the rest of the topics to finish my lament: The trend toward real-time RPGs and strategy games and away from turn-based (which rewards faster decisions over smarter decisions), toward realism and away from stylized aesthetics/simplistic gameplay mechanics (which just plain takes away some of the fun), the rise of low-commitment casual/social gaming (which attracts new developers away from the greater depth of "core" games, thus diminishing the gaming options for this audience), and the general abandonment of local multiplayer (it's more fun/less intimidating to play with people you know, and it doesn't have to be mutually exclusive from online play).
Yeah, only the first two paragraphs of that rant have anything to do with the OP, but I've been bottling this up for a long time, and the rest does logically follow as a train of thought. Does anybody out there feel the same way as I do?
Addendum/rant:
I always get depressed when reading articles about the future of gaming, because they always seem to predict that the public wants the industry to move in the opposite direction I want it to. This is especially troubling as I am an aspiring game designer: If I make the kind of games I want to play (which I think any designer should for themselves), will there be anyone left to buy them? Hopefully I can settle for at least perma-indie status.
Take this quote from the article. I have always preferred competitive gameplay to cooperative, to the point that I will choose a free-for-all game mode over even a competitive team-based game mode, should I be given the choice. This is because I find that competitive team games and co-op games require each team member to be closer to each other in skill than the overall skill level balancing of a free-for-all game. If I'm less experienced than the majority of the team, I feel like a liability; that is, intimidated and judged. And yes, there is just as much intimidation (if not more) inherent in being the noob of a free-for-all crowd, but there's no ANGER directed at you (only laughter), and with every failure comes something to aspire to. Moving up just one rank feels like a victory, and doing so is easier and much more tangible than, say, going from a liability to a useful team contributor. And then there are situations when you're more experienced than most people in your team/match... in competitive team games and co-op games, you can easily feel frustrated, like the rest of the team is bringing you down, and even fail despite your own capabilities, but in free-for-all games, there's only the visceral pleasure of owning everyone around you.N. Evan Van Zelfden said:
I'm not saying the future looks bleak for people like me just because of this one example, though.. I've been really worried about the predicted death of the console and rise of digital distribution... I am a stalwart in the console camp when it comes to console vs. PC debates. Consoles provide a more level playing field in online play, as everyone has equal processing power and it is much harder to cheat. Many digitally-distributed games can be taken away or modified without your permission by the distributor. A physical copy is simply more secure (that is, less susceptible to loss) than a digital copy. Since computers are multi-purpose machines, your decisions that have nothing to do with gaming can affect your gaming, and vice versa. When your computer becomes obsolete for gaming, do you upgrade it (which is time-consuming and difficult), or buy a new one (which is usually more expensive than a new console and unnecessary if your computer works fine for other needs)? The only advantages PCs have are modding and an easier distribution method for indie and amateur developers.
I bet I've already gone too far off-topic, so I'll just briefly hit the rest of the topics to finish my lament: The trend toward real-time RPGs and strategy games and away from turn-based (which rewards faster decisions over smarter decisions), toward realism and away from stylized aesthetics/simplistic gameplay mechanics (which just plain takes away some of the fun), the rise of low-commitment casual/social gaming (which attracts new developers away from the greater depth of "core" games, thus diminishing the gaming options for this audience), and the general abandonment of local multiplayer (it's more fun/less intimidating to play with people you know, and it doesn't have to be mutually exclusive from online play).
Yeah, only the first two paragraphs of that rant have anything to do with the OP, but I've been bottling this up for a long time, and the rest does logically follow as a train of thought. Does anybody out there feel the same way as I do?
I think what needs to happen is more CO-op games, because I still play the hell out of old FPS that have them (Duke3d, ROTT, Doom, ETC, even System Shock 2!)
But honestly, having players take the role of AI in SP(or Coop) is no different than having direct competitive MP with handicaps to try to rail a certain outcome. And there's an even bigger problem, how do you control the difficulty curve? Even more handicaps? Or it's just random how hard the game is?
Unless there's some "skill rating" system that sorts out which players play which enemies, at which point, the entire thing seems like a mess that can't offer the depth (And control) that SP modes have, nor the rush a balanced MP encounter has. It's easy to see how this can also lead to abuse. You have to restrict the opposition side in SP to the point they can't do practically anything, if you want depth in your SP campaign. The more you want an elaborate SP campaign, the more control you need. Human players are not AI you can give commands to, etc, it breaks the entire premise if your opponents can deliberately troll you out of playing the storymode, or simply be much better than you at playing the game (again, unless handicaps are in place. But then what's the point to the MP players if they'll always lose due to design???)
After all, if it's just going to be a MP gameplay storymode-thing, that's like having quake 3 arena's pseudo-SP mode but controlled by human opponents. Doesn't sound good.
I don't have much faith in the whole thing until I see some answers to the above problems.
But honestly, having players take the role of AI in SP(or Coop) is no different than having direct competitive MP with handicaps to try to rail a certain outcome. And there's an even bigger problem, how do you control the difficulty curve? Even more handicaps? Or it's just random how hard the game is?
Unless there's some "skill rating" system that sorts out which players play which enemies, at which point, the entire thing seems like a mess that can't offer the depth (And control) that SP modes have, nor the rush a balanced MP encounter has. It's easy to see how this can also lead to abuse. You have to restrict the opposition side in SP to the point they can't do practically anything, if you want depth in your SP campaign. The more you want an elaborate SP campaign, the more control you need. Human players are not AI you can give commands to, etc, it breaks the entire premise if your opponents can deliberately troll you out of playing the storymode, or simply be much better than you at playing the game (again, unless handicaps are in place. But then what's the point to the MP players if they'll always lose due to design???)
After all, if it's just going to be a MP gameplay storymode-thing, that's like having quake 3 arena's pseudo-SP mode but controlled by human opponents. Doesn't sound good.
I don't have much faith in the whole thing until I see some answers to the above problems.
I agree with you on a lot of that, the number of times we've had to return to the lobby after the first map of L4D2 because the whole opposition has quit after an early tank or sometimes just losing a player to a well timed charge out of a window... well it's a lot. There are a lot of pricks out there who forget to put playing ahead of winning, but if you can spend the time trawling through them you do meet good, friendly, tolerant people to play with. I like to think of it as a transitionary period in mingleplayer (yes I'm coining it and I'm gonna keep using it till people are so annoyed they resign and start doing it to...) where the adjustment to how we game are held back by the old habitual ways we're used to. Sure there will always be ragers and griefers, but I like to think that given time there will be an increased pressure, not just on players to change their attitudes once mingleplayer becomes more mainstream, because co-operative play rests so much more on your behaviour than it used to, but also on games developers to make the most out of their play mechanics by placing the emphasis on rewarding co-operation with game goals and making it impossible to succeed without. I know I'm beginning to sound like some bleeding heart liberal politician, but the more mingleplayer develops the more I hope at least the ratio of grief to good nature improves.The Random One said:
I think the players playing the infected in L4D is exactly what mingleplayer requires. If you take them out you have co-op stand alone, it's you and your mates versus the AI on a linear map. Once you team the AI with the opposition in a very symbiotic relationship (boomers call AI hordes, spitters use AI hordes to keep the player from escaping the spit pool etc.) you really create a different game style.
Am i the only one who doesn't enjoy co-op games? It seems to have found a big rise in popularity recently in the gaming industry, but i just don't like it. I hate relying on others. I'm a lone wolf and i'd rather any failures be my own. I don't want to have to rely on others. I want my accomplishments to be my own. This is my challenge and no-one else's. I know it sounds a little selfish and perhaps downright misanthropic, but that's just how i feel. If i wanted to play with other people i'd go online for some comeptitive multiplayer, though even then, i don't go on multiplayer all that often. I tend to have a preconception that most people are douchebags, which leads me to favour the single player portion of games more often. But i think the key reason i have a bit of animosity towards multiplayer component of games these days is twofold:
1) Local co-op. What the hell happened to that? I used to play co-op games but with mates and even my dad now and then when i was a kid on the N64 on the couch. Why is it suddenly un-cool to include splitscreen? I can't put a game on to play with friends unless they're outside of my house with their own xbox and xbox live? Sometimes that just isn't an option. Some games still allow for this (Halo etc) but some games that are just begging for it (Why the fuck was this omitted in Transformers for example?) just don't have it and that really grinds my gears.
2) Single player content is gimped or reduced to make room for the multiplayer aspect. Back in the day the average length of a game was 10-15 hours or sometimes longer. Now they get around with about six hours for the campaign and everything else is spent doing the multiplayer. When i enjoy the single player aspect the most i don't expect to be given half-baked content in favour of something else. I have always felt multiplayer is the bit on the side for you to mess around with after the single player is over, not the other way around. I'd rather they just focus on an epic single player experience with the multiplayer aspect not being the focus or overshadowing it. Exceptions to this are when the game is explicitly designed for multiplayer. Battlefield: Bad Company 2 is a good example of this.
Lastly the biggest issue of crossplaying is the tendency to come across people with 'bad sportsmanship.' Anyone who's played Crackdown 2 and had some twat join the match just to kill you and throw quackers everywhere and then leave knows what i'm talking about. The kind of pricks that ruin a mission for you just because they can drop in and out with little to no consequences. It's a little known fact that mischief tends to be more fun than playing by the rules, so temptation for people to act like imps in others' games is very high. It's those kinds of people i try my damnedest to avoid and why i truly dislike co-op in lieu of a solid single player experience. Why do i like local co-op you ask? Because i am right beside my comrades, i can see them and they can see me. We're human beings. We're not a pair of avatars on the TV screen. I can't put my faith in someone i can't see to not screw it up for their own personal amusement.
1) Local co-op. What the hell happened to that? I used to play co-op games but with mates and even my dad now and then when i was a kid on the N64 on the couch. Why is it suddenly un-cool to include splitscreen? I can't put a game on to play with friends unless they're outside of my house with their own xbox and xbox live? Sometimes that just isn't an option. Some games still allow for this (Halo etc) but some games that are just begging for it (Why the fuck was this omitted in Transformers for example?) just don't have it and that really grinds my gears.
2) Single player content is gimped or reduced to make room for the multiplayer aspect. Back in the day the average length of a game was 10-15 hours or sometimes longer. Now they get around with about six hours for the campaign and everything else is spent doing the multiplayer. When i enjoy the single player aspect the most i don't expect to be given half-baked content in favour of something else. I have always felt multiplayer is the bit on the side for you to mess around with after the single player is over, not the other way around. I'd rather they just focus on an epic single player experience with the multiplayer aspect not being the focus or overshadowing it. Exceptions to this are when the game is explicitly designed for multiplayer. Battlefield: Bad Company 2 is a good example of this.
Lastly the biggest issue of crossplaying is the tendency to come across people with 'bad sportsmanship.' Anyone who's played Crackdown 2 and had some twat join the match just to kill you and throw quackers everywhere and then leave knows what i'm talking about. The kind of pricks that ruin a mission for you just because they can drop in and out with little to no consequences. It's a little known fact that mischief tends to be more fun than playing by the rules, so temptation for people to act like imps in others' games is very high. It's those kinds of people i try my damnedest to avoid and why i truly dislike co-op in lieu of a solid single player experience. Why do i like local co-op you ask? Because i am right beside my comrades, i can see them and they can see me. We're human beings. We're not a pair of avatars on the TV screen. I can't put my faith in someone i can't see to not screw it up for their own personal amusement.
Oh great, this isn't good. I mean I love coop, but only if you get the right people to play with, and considering none of my RL friends have computers that have any sort of gaming power, I'm stuck with random people. Plus the huge problem with coop games is whores. In L4D, you get medpack whores. I can't count how many games I've had 10-15 health left at the end of the map, when they next loads, someone who had 60+ took a medkit, used it, then stole mine. So they all had plenty of health and I started out dead. Then in Borderlands, you get loot whores. Again, half the time I see people run past all the enemies and even bosses to go take all the loot. There was even on time I was playing as a siren with a hunter and a siren artifact was dropped, the hunter went and took it before I could pick it up so he could go sell it...
I think the opposing co-op campaigns idea is a cool one. I believe Brink is doing that and it seemed like a cool system.
I also love co-op vs AI in games. I played through all of Borderlands with a buddy and it was great fun, and much more rewarding than playing the game alone.
That being said though single player can never be eliminated. Sometimes I just want to sit down by myself and go through a game at my own pace. If I want to play a turn based strategy game while eating dinner, moving my characters at my leisure, then I'm going to do it.
I also love co-op vs AI in games. I played through all of Borderlands with a buddy and it was great fun, and much more rewarding than playing the game alone.
That being said though single player can never be eliminated. Sometimes I just want to sit down by myself and go through a game at my own pace. If I want to play a turn based strategy game while eating dinner, moving my characters at my leisure, then I'm going to do it.
THIS, THIS, and MORE THIS, Co-op is fine and all, but like the above post, I don't want co-op to be forced upon me. In a group of random people, it works out sometimes, but most of the time you're either stuck with noobs who wont listen, dicks, or people just fucking around, and that really, really draws away from the experience. Take Alien Swarm, whose sole purpose is co-op gameplay, and for that matter L4D, (I've played both extensively) there was usually 2 of us who knew what we were doing, the aforementioned noob who would run away from the group and get owned, and then the 4th person would either know whats up, be a loot/health whore, or on more then one occasion in each game joined, teamkilled us, and left. Done. End of story. I only play co-op with friends now, and, in the risk of sounding snobbish, Starcraft 2 I can only play with friends now because theirs so many people that don't know how to play, yeah it takes time and all of that, but worse off they wouldn't listen.Gralian said:
Basically my point is, Singleplayer is SINGLE for a reason, it only relies on YOU and your skill to get through the story, and then multiplayer is there to do whatever with whomever you want, like Counter-Strike and CSS, when you try and blend the two, you'll just end up diluting both experiences. I disagree with Yahtzee that a game should stand on Singleplayer alone, I'm fine with multiplayer-oriented games, but don't try and create one experience out of two distinct experiences.
Also WHERE THE HELL IS LOCAL CO-OP lol, I know its still around, (Looking forward to dead rising 2), but almost every game of the last generation of consoles, mainly because online wasn't as prevalent, you could get 3 friends together and play bond on the ps2, which resulted in hilarity and awesomeness, but now most of the time its either not there or limited somehow, and that makes me sad.
Co-op is great. I hope this is a new era for it.
(I always thought Battlefield 2 should of been co-op)
(I always thought Battlefield 2 should of been co-op)
I'm not sure on this, i'm really not.
I want Single Player left alone. I prefer to play by myself in games, not some guy coming along and fucking it up.
I want Single Player left alone. I prefer to play by myself in games, not some guy coming along and fucking it up.