Some valid points but not all. It makes sense to have a game which is multiplayer only. Nobody forces you to play such a game if you like single player. MMOs in general are designed for the play-with-many-fuckwads ( aka WoW... World of fuckWads ) principle. They fail at single player since their design doesn't work. But that's for games which are only one or the other: SP or MP. If you are both then SP has to come first, no questions asked. Otherwise MP only is fine if this is the goal.
On Multiplayer
- Thread starter Yahtzee Croshaw
- Start date
Recommended Videos
Hey, being a fuckwad isn't even so bad.
Once you get rid of the cowurdly part, you'll actually have fun getting punched.
And I didin't play the multiplayer. After all that Michael Bayery that SP put me through, I think I had just about enuff.
Once you get rid of the cowurdly part, you'll actually have fun getting punched.
And I didin't play the multiplayer. After all that Michael Bayery that SP put me through, I think I had just about enuff.
For the record I am defending MW2 indirectly, though I will use it as my prime example for why I like online multiplayer since you used it as an example of why you dislike online multiplayer. I do not own a copy of MW2, I have played it and found the multiplayer to be "Compelling" (to quote the robots at IGN) and generally damn good fun.
Also I know that your reviews are pure satire, but since these Extra Punctuation articles are generally more serious in nature I will humor you with a serious response. In doing so, I will touch on points that you yourself raised in your article. And thus without further ado, here is my post?
To be honest I don't really agree with much of what you say Yahtzee, I really enjoy online multiplayer mostly because I'm good at the multiplayer games that I choose to play. Even if I am new to a game and get "flattened" if the experience is good enough and the controls are tight I'll stick it out for several more rounds. Most of the time it gets better, sure you don't know all the maps to start out with but neither does anyone else who comes to the game for the first time.
Also I don't agree with people who place all human beings in the "fuckwad" category offhand. I contend that you are letting your own past negative experiences cloud your otherwise wise judgement. Call me a naive optimist but I believe that some people act kind and loving because they are kind and loving people. Sure there are plenty of ?fuckwads? out there but you don't have to look hard to find some really exceptional people.
I agree with the fact that the single player campaign of MW2 was lacking but,
I disagree with the notion that every game should have a good single player experience and not just jump head first into the multiplayer. There have been some very good games that have extraordinary multiplayer components while having a subpar single player (battlefield, starwars battlefront, unreal tournament, quakewars, etc) I would argue that the multiplayer aspect of MW2 was the reason so many people bought the game, it is also the reason why this game has become so popular.
Multiplayer may not be the most important aspect of a game, but it is a huge reason why I (and many others) will buy a game rather than rent it.
Sincerely
Some ?Fuckwad?
Also I know that your reviews are pure satire, but since these Extra Punctuation articles are generally more serious in nature I will humor you with a serious response. In doing so, I will touch on points that you yourself raised in your article. And thus without further ado, here is my post?
To be honest I don't really agree with much of what you say Yahtzee, I really enjoy online multiplayer mostly because I'm good at the multiplayer games that I choose to play. Even if I am new to a game and get "flattened" if the experience is good enough and the controls are tight I'll stick it out for several more rounds. Most of the time it gets better, sure you don't know all the maps to start out with but neither does anyone else who comes to the game for the first time.
Also I don't agree with people who place all human beings in the "fuckwad" category offhand. I contend that you are letting your own past negative experiences cloud your otherwise wise judgement. Call me a naive optimist but I believe that some people act kind and loving because they are kind and loving people. Sure there are plenty of ?fuckwads? out there but you don't have to look hard to find some really exceptional people.
I agree with the fact that the single player campaign of MW2 was lacking but,
I disagree with the notion that every game should have a good single player experience and not just jump head first into the multiplayer. There have been some very good games that have extraordinary multiplayer components while having a subpar single player (battlefield, starwars battlefront, unreal tournament, quakewars, etc) I would argue that the multiplayer aspect of MW2 was the reason so many people bought the game, it is also the reason why this game has become so popular.
Multiplayer may not be the most important aspect of a game, but it is a huge reason why I (and many others) will buy a game rather than rent it.
Sincerely
Some ?Fuckwad?
Truth be told I could live without online multiplayer. However, offline multiplayer is undervalued I find (because I have real friends in real life, honest). And in MW2 the offline multiplayer is fantastic.
Exactly the points I always bring up when asked to go multiplayer. I plain hate it and want games to have an end.
I understand Yahtzee views on multiplayer. I can't really disagree with most of it. But he keeps saying "No one really cares more about multiplayer than single player." when it is clearly not true. As far as I'm concerned MW2's campaign was just so marketing could have some pretty visuals to air. What Yahtzee should be saying is "No one I know/respect cares about multiplayer." People are surprised when the person they vote for isn't elected because "Everyone they know" voted for the other guy.
1. Because I live in a faraway kingdom of fantasy.
Yahtzee lives in Australia and Australia has shit for internet. It stands to reason that most forms of online multiplayer would have a much less consistently enjoyable experience. Elsewhere however, the pros of online play very much outweigh the cons. Outside Yahtzee's experience, multiplayer is an essential aspect to gaming that cannot be overlooked before judging a game.
2. Because of time restrictions.
Once again, a situational argument. Of course he doesn't have time for multiplayer, but a vast majority (yes, MAJORITY) does. Of course I am speaking purely from my own experience. But, I am certain my experience applies to more of the gaming community than Yahtzee's. This is also a flawed argument because "Everyone I know" prefers multiplayer to single player.
I should point out that I am a primarily single player guy. Like Yahtzee, I don't particularly enjoy starting out and getting wasted by 50 kids better than I am. But when I do get a game with multiplayer, I never back down. Every time I push through the learning curve until I am one of those 50 kids it has always, always been worth it. Getting beaten the first few games is part of the territory. It's just a challenge to overcome.
3. Because there's nothing more to see.
I stoically disagree. Any campaign has a finite experience. Multiplayer has an infinite one. Nothing ever happens the same way twice. WoW shouldn't be used in this argument since other people aren't necessarily essential to the experience. Yahtzee got to level 58 by killing bots, not people.
4. Because the single player must stand up by itself
Yes, and so must the multiplayer. There is no rule that says multiplayer must be a bells-and-wistles component. If a game has shit for single player but a Godly multiplayer then I'm going to play that multiplayer. I see nothing wrong with the single player being secondary to the experience. Yahtzee has to by default but he needs to stop clinging to the idea that focusing on multiplayer is bad game design. A good single player with bad multiplayer is bad design as well. But, if I am able to get a meaningful experience out of either then the game was worth the money. Yahtzee, by fault of living in Austalia and having no time for multiplayer is only able to enjoy half of a game. If he were able to enjoy both sides than the odds of the game being enjoyable go up.
5. Because people are shit.
I don't disagree. But if Yahtzee thinks multiplayer is just like killing AIs who curse at him than he has vastly missed the point. Sure playing online cannot compare to having the person sitting right next to you, ripe for pummeling. But, physically present or not, outsmarting, out maneuvering, and out shooting another human being is infinitely more rewarding than knocking off another NPC. Take meeting a boss in single player for example. With enough repetition, you'll know that boss' attacks and weaknesses inside-out backwards. That's because they will. not. ever. change. There is some comfort in that. You can be a pussy and stay in your comfort zone, or go and and face a living, thinking piece of shit human that takes actual brains to defeat.
So what if you can't punch them? Beat them in the game and embarrass them. If you can't do that, then you're free to not play. But don't go ignoring the fact that you are only able to experience half a game before you judge it.
I could go see a chick-flick and complain that it didn't have any action. That's not because it was a bad movie. It's because I just enjoy action flicks. The same principle applies here.
1. Because I live in a faraway kingdom of fantasy.
Yahtzee lives in Australia and Australia has shit for internet. It stands to reason that most forms of online multiplayer would have a much less consistently enjoyable experience. Elsewhere however, the pros of online play very much outweigh the cons. Outside Yahtzee's experience, multiplayer is an essential aspect to gaming that cannot be overlooked before judging a game.
2. Because of time restrictions.
Once again, a situational argument. Of course he doesn't have time for multiplayer, but a vast majority (yes, MAJORITY) does. Of course I am speaking purely from my own experience. But, I am certain my experience applies to more of the gaming community than Yahtzee's. This is also a flawed argument because "Everyone I know" prefers multiplayer to single player.
I should point out that I am a primarily single player guy. Like Yahtzee, I don't particularly enjoy starting out and getting wasted by 50 kids better than I am. But when I do get a game with multiplayer, I never back down. Every time I push through the learning curve until I am one of those 50 kids it has always, always been worth it. Getting beaten the first few games is part of the territory. It's just a challenge to overcome.
3. Because there's nothing more to see.
I stoically disagree. Any campaign has a finite experience. Multiplayer has an infinite one. Nothing ever happens the same way twice. WoW shouldn't be used in this argument since other people aren't necessarily essential to the experience. Yahtzee got to level 58 by killing bots, not people.
4. Because the single player must stand up by itself
Yes, and so must the multiplayer. There is no rule that says multiplayer must be a bells-and-wistles component. If a game has shit for single player but a Godly multiplayer then I'm going to play that multiplayer. I see nothing wrong with the single player being secondary to the experience. Yahtzee has to by default but he needs to stop clinging to the idea that focusing on multiplayer is bad game design. A good single player with bad multiplayer is bad design as well. But, if I am able to get a meaningful experience out of either then the game was worth the money. Yahtzee, by fault of living in Austalia and having no time for multiplayer is only able to enjoy half of a game. If he were able to enjoy both sides than the odds of the game being enjoyable go up.
5. Because people are shit.
I don't disagree. But if Yahtzee thinks multiplayer is just like killing AIs who curse at him than he has vastly missed the point. Sure playing online cannot compare to having the person sitting right next to you, ripe for pummeling. But, physically present or not, outsmarting, out maneuvering, and out shooting another human being is infinitely more rewarding than knocking off another NPC. Take meeting a boss in single player for example. With enough repetition, you'll know that boss' attacks and weaknesses inside-out backwards. That's because they will. not. ever. change. There is some comfort in that. You can be a pussy and stay in your comfort zone, or go and and face a living, thinking piece of shit human that takes actual brains to defeat.
So what if you can't punch them? Beat them in the game and embarrass them. If you can't do that, then you're free to not play. But don't go ignoring the fact that you are only able to experience half a game before you judge it.
I could go see a chick-flick and complain that it didn't have any action. That's not because it was a bad movie. It's because I just enjoy action flicks. The same principle applies here.
Completely off subject, but I love how I can read the first page yet the second page is blocked by my school filters. Anyway, I don't really care for online multiplayer most of the time either. "It's all about the multiplayer", to me, translates as an excuse for the single player being absolute shit.
MW2 multiplayer is really just one long grind, the inclusion of levels, exp and unlocks means even if you lose your still gaining something which keeps ppl coming back again and again much like a small child following a trail of cookies. Its a lot more like an MMO experience than a true multiplayer player one (by that i mean where there needs to be some sort of teamplay a la L4D or borderlands) just a bunch of ppl in one arena scrambling over each other to get the next ding. Its strangly compelling but ultimately useless. Im sure it would be a lot more fun if you actually had a team made up entirely of your friends and you had some sort of group strat but in %99.99 of MW2 matches this isnt the case.
IMO theres needs to be a clear definition. To me a multiplayer game requires team work and coordination, MW2 doesnt require this. Its more a Group game, a bunch of ppl that just happen to be in the same place all trying to achieve different objectives irrelavant of the other ppl around them.
p.s i always wondered if one of the reasons IW ditched the dedicated servers on PC is to stop ppl creating crazy levels. In the original MW i often came across a 32vs32 map which was a simple square and everyone spawned in the corners, it was complete chaos but you could easily get 50+ kills in the minute or so the level lasted and quickly power through a few levels and achievements/accolades im sure the time spent maxing a char is relative to the time spent before ppl stop playing.
IMO theres needs to be a clear definition. To me a multiplayer game requires team work and coordination, MW2 doesnt require this. Its more a Group game, a bunch of ppl that just happen to be in the same place all trying to achieve different objectives irrelavant of the other ppl around them.
p.s i always wondered if one of the reasons IW ditched the dedicated servers on PC is to stop ppl creating crazy levels. In the original MW i often came across a 32vs32 map which was a simple square and everyone spawned in the corners, it was complete chaos but you could easily get 50+ kills in the minute or so the level lasted and quickly power through a few levels and achievements/accolades im sure the time spent maxing a char is relative to the time spent before ppl stop playing.
If you game on a 360, feel free to look me up (or, since I'll be watching Code Geass for the next week, some of my friends, like Black Lincon or NoMoreSanity). Gaming online is a lot more fun with friends.Aura Guardian said:
The first two points are perfectly valid, and there's some truth to the other ones (people can most definitely be shit), but pretending that multiplayer is an inconsequential addition to games because there is no new content seems arrogant to me. That's like saying you're bored of baseball/football/cricket/etc. because it's always played on the same old field. There doesn't have to be new content to have new experiences. And if you need to feel like you need to achieve some trivial award in order for a game to be worthwhile, then in my opinion, you're gaming for the wrong reasons.
And your 4th point confused me. You're trying to say it's wrong to focus on multiplayer because it can be unreliable? To go back with the sports analogy, that's like saying a baseball bat is a bad investment because you never know when you'll be able to play with someone. Yeah, there are times when finding a game is difficult, but that doesn't mean games shouldn't be allowed to have multiplayer as a main selling point. (And besides, can't single player games be unreliable too? STALKER didn't need to be connected to a server to be buggy as hell.)
I understand that finding servers can be difficult in Australia, but that shouldn't stop you. And I know that people are bastards on the internet, but remember that almost all games today have a mute button for a reason.
And your 4th point confused me. You're trying to say it's wrong to focus on multiplayer because it can be unreliable? To go back with the sports analogy, that's like saying a baseball bat is a bad investment because you never know when you'll be able to play with someone. Yeah, there are times when finding a game is difficult, but that doesn't mean games shouldn't be allowed to have multiplayer as a main selling point. (And besides, can't single player games be unreliable too? STALKER didn't need to be connected to a server to be buggy as hell.)
I understand that finding servers can be difficult in Australia, but that shouldn't stop you. And I know that people are bastards on the internet, but remember that almost all games today have a mute button for a reason.
This is my thoughts exactly on multi-player, however I do have fun online on Modern Warfare 2 I understand that I have to play for myself, or spec ops with my bro(he's in college so it's still internet). I was personally dissapointed in games like Halo3 that might as well scrapped the single player all together. And I always hate multi-players that don't have bots, I miss Timesplitters: Future Perfect.
I thought I liked playing online against other people as I like testing myself, at the same time, it loses its fun after countless times of replay. And nearly all of Yahtzee's points were true. I wouldn't say that people are shit or fuckwads. I'm sure that was just for a laugh or two, but people who play online can tend to be cowardly. When you are losing you can swear and act tough and quit the game because you are so cool. But are you really cool if you do that? To me it shows that you are afraid to lose or to see your stats fall. And I will admit, I have ragequitted. But I try not to. I try to calm myself and rise to the challenge.
Anyways, good article Yahtzee. I agree with most of it.
Anyways, good article Yahtzee. I agree with most of it.
I have to disagree with you on that point. while playing MW1 on the xbox I have gotten kill streaks just by sitting in one place and killing the same bunch of idiots that ran around the same corner. I finally got killed when one of them realized that if they run around the other way they could get me easily.Silk_Sk said:
I have been easily able to kill people with grenades because they always react the same way and follow the near same route as before. I usually feel like I'm playing really bad AI in multi-player games. On the tanker map, I had a shotgun and I just waited in one spot. One guy would run past me, then the others would follow and then I'd kill them all from behind. I did it twice in that game before the match ended.
There is a finite experience to be found in multiplayer games. If there was an infinite one, then we wouldn't have griefers.