On Multiplayer
- Thread starter Yahtzee Croshaw
- Start date
Recommended Videos
I strongly believe that if a game relies on its multiplayer then the game isn't worth its salt.Yahtzee Croshaw said:
Glad to see this article because of that. I'm getting tired of "Sure the single player was shit but multiplayer is where it is at."
I dont see the difference between forum talk and online gaming, one meets the same old posing fuckwads, its just they go about their putdowns/tardy/trolling in a more stealth way.
Multi player games could do a better job at protecting people from other people who enjoy annoying others, other than that people are far superior to AI(which still in this day and age is still a mixture of hit and miss and reinventing the wheel many times over) and any way people far more entertaining when things go wrong/right.
After 25 years of gaming single player is getting a bit old(for me), thank god for multi player.
Multi player games could do a better job at protecting people from other people who enjoy annoying others, other than that people are far superior to AI(which still in this day and age is still a mixture of hit and miss and reinventing the wheel many times over) and any way people far more entertaining when things go wrong/right.
After 25 years of gaming single player is getting a bit old(for me), thank god for multi player.
So you're suggesting that shooting mindless NPCs that couldn't care less is more enjoyable than winding up racist homophobic adolescents? Whatever floats you're boat...
Multiplayer can be a mixed bag, but the high points are so much higher. After you've played games for a few years, you can pretty much pull any single player game to bits first time- I've found with most first person shooters that if I'm given so much as a spud gun the only thing left open to debate is whether the trail of corpses will have holes in the front or back of their heads. With multiplayer you can really get a challenge. Its not enough to be able to simply stick the target reticule over your opponent's bonce as quickly as possible, you also have to think about what they're thinking and are going to do next, and second guess accordingly.
You didnt mention the other great thing about multiplayer-you can work with people as well as against them. Again, this can be a fustrating experience, especialy when you find yourself teamed up with some whinging drooling imbecile who labours under the impression that the sniper rifle was placed on the map solely for their benefit. When you do get a tight team together, you get a playing experience you simply can't get on your own. I couldnt stand the multiplayer on GOW2- its was hopelessly inbalanced and clearly designed to fluff the egos of players whos desire to win hopelessly outweighs their abilities as a player. Horde, on the other hand, was a different experience altogether. After a half dozen or so sessions, I'd got enough players on my friends list to reliably get a decent team together any time I played. Being part of a cohesive group where each player has a role to play and look out for each other is very satisfying, and definatly worth the week or to it took me to get enough players (the same goes for CTF and team based games, where you tend to get a better class of player than the piss-ridden paddling pool that is deathmatch)-to suggest there is no merit in the argument that a games gets better over time is utter bollocks-instant gratification can only go so far.
Multiplayer can be a mixed bag, but the high points are so much higher. After you've played games for a few years, you can pretty much pull any single player game to bits first time- I've found with most first person shooters that if I'm given so much as a spud gun the only thing left open to debate is whether the trail of corpses will have holes in the front or back of their heads. With multiplayer you can really get a challenge. Its not enough to be able to simply stick the target reticule over your opponent's bonce as quickly as possible, you also have to think about what they're thinking and are going to do next, and second guess accordingly.
You didnt mention the other great thing about multiplayer-you can work with people as well as against them. Again, this can be a fustrating experience, especialy when you find yourself teamed up with some whinging drooling imbecile who labours under the impression that the sniper rifle was placed on the map solely for their benefit. When you do get a tight team together, you get a playing experience you simply can't get on your own. I couldnt stand the multiplayer on GOW2- its was hopelessly inbalanced and clearly designed to fluff the egos of players whos desire to win hopelessly outweighs their abilities as a player. Horde, on the other hand, was a different experience altogether. After a half dozen or so sessions, I'd got enough players on my friends list to reliably get a decent team together any time I played. Being part of a cohesive group where each player has a role to play and look out for each other is very satisfying, and definatly worth the week or to it took me to get enough players (the same goes for CTF and team based games, where you tend to get a better class of player than the piss-ridden paddling pool that is deathmatch)-to suggest there is no merit in the argument that a games gets better over time is utter bollocks-instant gratification can only go so far.
Tribes single player would hardly stand on it's own. It consisted of a handful of levels where a few atrociously stupid bots ran into your weapons fire as a tutorial. You may be thinking of Tribes Vengeance, which had an entire campaign for single player.Gutterpunk said:
Quake 3 also had a single player component, but it was EXACTLY like the multiplayer, only not as good. Again, I hardly think it would "stand alone" as it were. UT and the rest I mentioned may have come from a series of games with single player, often experiences that were top notch for the time. This does not, however, change the fact that the single player experience packaged in the games was incredibly lacking and represented little more than an extended tutorial.
To claim there is no market for a multiplayer only game is a statement I cannot possibly fathom. Demigod is a game that received absolutely ZERO advertisement from a company (Stardock) nobody has ever heard of. Those that did purchase the game found that the multiplayer experience was all but unplayable. Shadowrun is a game that played exactly like counterstrike with cheats and left most frustrated. Demonstrating that games that had legitimate problems failed proves nothing other than a bad multiplayer product will fail just as readily as a bad single player product.
You really did nothing to address the gist of my quoted point - WHY does a game's single player component have to stand on it's own? Is there some intrinsic value found in single player that cannot be found in multiplayer? If we consider MW2, since it is probably the impetus for this article, I have found that I spent 4 - 5 hours in the single player campaign and more than 20 online. It's obvious where I have found my value. Battlefield Bad Company is another example. A single player game was tacked on to a game that has traditionally been multiplayer only, and from where I stand it actually detracted from the game. The inclusion of a single player element may have helped move more copies of the game, but did this really have as much of an impact as the Battlefield brand?
Yahtzee may have a valid point buried somewhere in point three but there has been no justification from either your post or Yahtzee's article that actually supports the point put forth. Demonstrating failures of multiplayer only games is readily countered by demonstrating the continued success of multiplayer only games (The MMO market for example. Much of the content in these games cannot be played alone).
Although all of the posted reasons to avoid it are true, online gaming still has a draw. When you get the right planetary alignment or whatever and find a game with people who use teamwork, play fair, are reasonably nice to new players, and just generally don't shit on other players' experience, it can be a blast like no other.
As for playing against bots, that's never as satisfying. The thrill of competition is missing, regardless of how good the bot is.
Part of the problem with online communities is that we accept that "that's just how they are" with regard to rudeness, racism, and other assorted asshattery. I know a few friends who turn into dicks when they play online, just because "everybody else does it." It doesn't have to be this way!
As for playing against bots, that's never as satisfying. The thrill of competition is missing, regardless of how good the bot is.
Part of the problem with online communities is that we accept that "that's just how they are" with regard to rudeness, racism, and other assorted asshattery. I know a few friends who turn into dicks when they play online, just because "everybody else does it." It doesn't have to be this way!
The funny thing about the "its all about multiplayer" MW2 defense is that so many people pre-release were saying stuff like, "I don't even care about MP I'm buying it because I know the single player is going to be totally awesome!"
Of course now that everyone knows the single player sucks big fat donkey nuts they've changed their tune, but most people are not fooled. The lesson once again is that fanboys (or viral marketers) are everywhere and will defend a game more hypocritically than a conservative radio nutjob defends Reagan. (Zing! Take that Limbaugh!)
Of course now that everyone knows the single player sucks big fat donkey nuts they've changed their tune, but most people are not fooled. The lesson once again is that fanboys (or viral marketers) are everywhere and will defend a game more hypocritically than a conservative radio nutjob defends Reagan. (Zing! Take that Limbaugh!)
i do really hate some of the ppl i meet in an online game, like the 14 year old douce bags who think they are better than everyone and attempt to insult you, and theres the internet gangsters, the 6 year olds who should not be playing an M rated game at all, for the most part, people online suck ass cuz they just wanna start an internet fight, or they are cockey dildo's. but there are a few really cool ppl to meet, and the actual gaming experience can be rather fun, i love MW2 online, its just the ppl fighting (who i use the nifty MUTE button for) and the insufferable ammount of campers. but really, online is fantastic
Yhatzee, a while back you reviewed Left 4 Dead, which focused entirely on it's multiplayer aspect. Left 4 Dead did have single player, but this was obviously just tacked onto the game. You seem to believe that the single player in Modern Warfare 2 is also just tacked on. If that's the case, then why would you review the multiplayer aspect of Left 4 Dead but completely ignore the multiplayer in Modern Warfare 2? Both games had a single player that was just tacked on. Both games focused far more on the multiplayer. So why did you only try the multiplayer in Left 4 Dead?
Also, who the hell are all of you guys playing with online? I have never had a huge problem with assholes in online multiplayer. Most people just want to enjoy the game. For every asshole I have played with I have encountered numerous people who do nothing to agitate me. This idea that the online communities of video games suck seems to be grossly exaggerated.
Also, who the hell are all of you guys playing with online? I have never had a huge problem with assholes in online multiplayer. Most people just want to enjoy the game. For every asshole I have played with I have encountered numerous people who do nothing to agitate me. This idea that the online communities of video games suck seems to be grossly exaggerated.
He did review Team Fortress 2 in his Orange Box review, albeit it briefly. Speaking of which, why did he bother with Team Fortress 2 of it's purely multiplayer?Jekken6 said: