When Did We Become Obsessed with Multiplayer?

[Seldon2639]

I was reading a couple different game reviews, and then a sort of "review of the reviewing process" article, and I was struck by how a lackluster multiplayer section was enough drop a game in the standings. Even for the game that got a 10/10 (I forgot the name, unfortunately, it's the new shump on XBLA), people in the comments were saying "it can't be perfect, since the reviewer mentions problems with online multiplayer. It got me thinking. Even if we ignore that we've made game review numbers almost meaningless, and become fidgety about how we score. People argue that any score about an eight or nine is a "must buy", but that's a cop out. If there's no difference between 9.9 and 9.8, why use numbers at all?

But, I digress. We would never consider grading a Mario game down for not having multiplayer. When Zelda tried it (and largely failed), it was at least hailed as innovative. Is it only the games that make a good attempt at multiplayer, and come up short, that we bemoan, or has it become completely standard to have multiplayer (especially online multiplayer)? Is this a good thing, or should some games be allowed to be without multiplayer, and still be perfect for what they are?

 

[Gigantor]

I've never been much of a multiplayer, over the internet at least, but I think that's because I can't get a decent broadband connection out here in the Dales.

It doesn't seem unreasonable to mark a game down if there was potential for good multiplayer but the devs couldn't be arsed to implement it. The GTA IV multiplayer looks amazing, for instance, but that's because it can work. Mario or Zelda multiplayer seems a less natural development: they're built as single player experiences, and I'm quite happy with them staying single player.

 

[MindBullets]

Multiplayer can extend a game's replayability by an incredible amount, potentially to an infinitessimal degree. People still play Starcraft after 10 years because of its multiplayer.

That said, if it doesn't suit the game or you're not going to put much effort into it (the latter of which, I think, was the case with Meroid Prime 2's multiplayer) then they should definitely not bother with multiplayer at all and and focus on refining the single player experience. Because either of those would just prevent it form being worth it. Bad multiplayer does nothing to extend the lifetime of a game.

 

[sammyfreak]

It's a fad. Pure and simple. If a game has multiplayer at all, it needs to be good. Pure and simple, not just an afterthought.

Truth spoken, truth heard.

I shall strike thou down in GTA IV Gigantor.

 

[Logan Westbrook]

It's a fad. Pure and simple.

I disagree, much of the architecture of the current generation of consoles is geared towards multiplayer. Not only that, multiplayer is popular. Unless there is a significant shift in the tastes of the game buying public, I think multiplayer will be with us for the foreseeable future.

 

[ClassicThunder]

It's a fad. Pure and simple. If a game has multiplayer at all, it needs to be good. Pure and simple, not just an afterthought.

The whole damn game industry obviously dosen't think its a fad. Ever since Microsoft managed to make XBox live nearly cheat free, it has expanded tremendously. Many people such as my self prefer to play humans than predictable and often stupid AI. Humans are much more diverse and more satisfying to kill than AI enemies and repeating scripted sections. Many young gamers, such as my self, play mutiplayer competitively and only play campaign when we have friends over. Kind of ironic isn't it?

 

[Melaisis]

When AI became thick and killing became pleasurable.

 

[propertyofcobra]

I'd say Counterstrike and Halo 2 were the biggies that caused this plague upon FPS gaming.
Counterstrike proved a game need only have multiplayer to be loved by fratboys.
Halo 2 pointed to its multiplayer and said "See? That excuses how much my singleplayer sucks ass!". And people bought it.
Aaaand voila, the multiplayer fad was born.

 

[fix-the-spade]

I think online multiplayer has become a symptom of lazy developers.

Balanced multiplayer was pretty much perfected all the way back in Quake. So all developers have to do is build a bunch of enormous maps with roughly similar layouts either side. Then let people loose in them. No need to write a plot, somehow link all the settings together or give the levels some replayability.
Since humans are inginuitive and unpredictable, there is no need to write complicated AI or scripted events as people will find ways of doing cool things for them.
It also means when people call them out on the crappy/criminally short singleplayer mode (#ahem# Bungie#) the developers can say "but look at this shiny multiplayer set". Even when its still doing exactly the same thing it was doing near fifteen years ago.

 

[Keet]

Multiplayer has never been a fad. Why is it that the console industry only really took off in the early to mid 90's whereas before it was a palpable joke with no required punchline? That's the period where most 2p games first started flooding the market, whereas previously it was thought of as a novelty. To say that something which is almost twenty years old is a fad is borderline ignorant.

Wide multiplayer formats are more popular because as the world grows increasingly connected, it is nice to be able to play with friends which you might otherwise never have contact with. Say, ..if one moves from Chicago to Florida, they can still chat and not feel uncomfortable about it while playing an RTS or whatever it is that PC gamers play these days. You'll find that the best multiplayer games are the ones that involve infinately more complex scenarios that you, yourself build. While an empty, meaningless online multiplayer mode (I'm looking at you, brawl) can actually serve as a detriment to a game, an intuitive coercing one that brings many different people together under the same virtual construct, each actively involved for the group goal, can bring about a sense of comraderie that you simply don't get with lobotomized AI support.

 

[portuga-man]

I think multiplayer has always been on developers minds, but the technology avaliable for, say, the nes generation was far inferior than the one we have this days. Go back to the magnavox odyssey, see the ad. What do you see, a guy playing on his own, or playing with a friend? Do not mistake "multiplayer" with "online multiplayer"

Truth is, games were made for fun before they were even thought to be an art form. And like most pass time activities, it's a lot funner when you're playing with people than on your own.

 

[propertyofcobra]

Keet: This isn't about "when did we start multiplayer?", it's "When did we decide that good multiplayer somehow 'excuses' a games single player for sucking royal amounts of ass, ala the second two Halo games?".

 

[MagnetoHydroDynamics]

Well just one thing: I thought Zelda: Four swords was AWESOME!!!

Well I say: blame counterstrike, team fortress and TFC... VALVe started it...

Anyhow... I don't think it's a bad thing.

 

[stompy]

Multiplayer started excusing bad single-player games when people found out that playing humans was infinitely better than playing against AI.

I myself do enjoy multiplayer, but because I don't want to pay for Xbox Live (I'm cheap, runs in my blood), I need some good singleplayer games. So, I've got slim pickings, and so does everybody else.

To make matters worse, I'm a FPS fan, so... Anyone heard of any good FPS games, with an excellent singleplayer mode (yes, there's HL, but what else?)?

- A procrastinator

 

[Prof. Awesome]

When AI started to become lame and predictable.

 

[Prof. Awesome]

I think online multiplayer has become a symptom of lazy developers.

Balanced multiplayer was pretty much perfected all the way back in Quake. So all developers have to do is build a bunch of enormous maps with roughly similar layouts either side. Then let people loose in them. No need to write a plot, somehow link all the settings together or give the levels some replayability.
Since humans are inginuitive and unpredictable, there is no need to write complicated AI or scripted events as people will find ways of doing cool things for them.
It also means when people call them out on the crappy/criminally short singleplayer mode (#ahem# Bungie#) the developers can say "but look at this shiny multiplayer set". Even when its still doing exactly the same thing it was doing near fifteen years ago.

Most definitely.

 

[zacaron]

Multiplayer started excusing bad single-player games when people found out that playing humans was infinitely better than playing against AI.

I myself do enjoy multiplayer, but because I don't want to pay for Xbox Live (I'm cheap, runs in my blood), I need some good singleplayer games. So, I've got slim pickings, and so does everybody else.

To make matters worse, I'm a FPS fan, so... Anyone heard of any good FPS games, with an excellent singleplayer mode (yes, there's HL, but what else?)?

- A procrastinator

i would recomend Bioshock myself its pretty inovative but it is a tad short

 

[Shamanic Enzan]

Multiplayer became important when it became simple enough to join in, no extra cables or anything, just add a couple bucks (in the 360's case) and BAM1 Multiplayer.

Now should MP be an excuse to get out of a bad Single Player campaign? Not if that campaign is the main selling point.