When Did We Become Obsessed with Multiplayer?

Recommended Videos

fat american

New member
Apr 2, 2008
250
0
0
Multiplayer is hailed so well because you can have a lot more people that are real than you could ever hope to fit on a single television screen. Games like Resistance 2 couldn't pull off 60 person multiplayer if it didn't have online play.

But I agree that a game that has bad multiplayer or no multiplayer at all shouldn't be docked for it. But I guess people think that if a game can be bumped up for multiplayer why can't it be bumped down?
 

Credge

New member
Apr 12, 2008
1,042
0
0
I became obsessed with multiplayer around the Secret of Mana came out. COOP is, easily, the greatest thing to ever grace gaming.

Sadly, games that revolve around COOP gameplay (Army of Two) is terrible. A game needs a solid core in order to have solid COOP. Most single player games would do nothing but benefit from COOP, and those that have it usually do benefit by having increased sales.

A game like Oblivion would be considered the greatest game of all time if it included multiplayer as, most certainly, someone could create mods for any sort of game modes. COOP, deathmatch, arena deathmatch, capture the flag, etc. Just like games like TQ and D2, you would need the same mods others had.

Since this would mainly effect PC sales of the game, and only those who are seeking an online experience with the game, it wouldn't be a big deal. Hell, even the inclusion of a simple LAN feature would make the game flawless thanks to programs like Hamachi.

Also, there are tons of Mario games that would be knocked down for not having multiplayer. Brawl, Kart, Party, Tennis, Etc.
 

qbert4ever

New member
Dec 14, 2007
798
0
0
Seldon2639 said:
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...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?
Even though it is not the point of this thread, it still needs commenting. Go to any game magazine that uses a number or star system (1-10/1-5/1-5 stars, etc), and every few months you will see this question pop up, "If a game is not perfect, why does it get a perfect score?". And the reply is always the same, "10 out of 10 is not a perfect score, it is simply as close to perfect as we feel that particular game can get. It is the highest praise that we can give to a game". In fact, that's one of the reasons I like the official X-Box magazine (aside from agreeing with about 99.9 percent of their reviews), they have descriptions for their ratings, 1 through 10, and include an 11 score with the description being "Mecha-Godzillas choice, the unicorn, will never happen. Ever."

As to the part about there being no difference between 9.8 and 9.9, well there is one. It's just very small. The best way I can explain it is, take a pen and paper, and make a shape. Something simple, like a figure eight. Now, make another one right next to it. See a difference? Odds are yes, but it is a very small one. Now pick the one that you feel is better looking then the other. Get it? The two are near identical, but one is just a wee bit better then the other. That's the difference between a "9.8" and "9.9".
 

Fire Daemon

Quoth the Daemon
Dec 18, 2007
3,204
0
0
I always take the review as an indication of how much time the reviewer spent enjoying the game. If they give the game a score of 7.5 then they enjoyed 75% of the game. If they give it a 10 then they enjoyed 100% of the game.

Multiplayer is always seen as half (maybe more) of a game. Therefore if a game has bad multiplayer then that means the reviewer on enjoyed 50% (if the Single Player is perfect).

Why is Multi Player so popular? Well because its fun. Can you blame people for wanting to do fun things?

I don't think that Developers that focus their games on Multiplayer are lazy. If a company wants to focus a game on Multiplayer then thats what they want to do with THEIR game. and you don't really have any right to say that they can't. Saying that a developer is lazy for wanted to make a multiplayer based game is like saying an artist is lazy for not using large amounts of your favourite colour.
 

neems

New member
Jan 4, 2008
176
0
0
I think developers sometimes need to gauge their product / market more accurately. Will this be single player, multiplayer, or both? I love Stalker, but why does it have a multiplayer mode? Is it really necessary for a free form fps set in a nuclear wasteland to have a half arsed online shooter bolted on? Does Unreal Tournament 3 really need a hugely contrived and ultimately pointless single player campaign?

Most single player games (at least in the realm of fps) should stay that way, unless you are prepared to put huge amounts of money and time into developing both sides of the equation - CoD4 would be the most obvious current example.

I like the way Valve does it - have single and multiplayer games that are based on the same engine, but which are distinct from each other. So you have HL2 and episodes for single player, and CSS and TF2 for online.

As an aside, as far as I am aware Valve did not develop either the original Counter Strike or Team Fortress.
 

esposch

New member
Dec 19, 2007
15
0
0
I believe that you should choose one or the other. Look at Metroid Prime 3. Single player was godly, but no multiplayer. Now look at TF2. No single player, but a godly multiplayer. In fact, most of the great games focused on just one of these aspects, rather than having a half arsed attempt at both. Bioshock, Galaxy, Starcraft, CS, OoT. All had one or the other.

Also, i just realized that Shigeru Miyamoto doesn't make many multiplayer games. Maybe that has something to do with it. Grrrr. Snarl. Metroid.
 

Credge

New member
Apr 12, 2008
1,042
0
0
neems said:
As an aside, as far as I am aware Valve did not develop either the original Counter Strike or Team Fortress.
You are correct. The original TF was a mod for Quake and CS was simply a mod for HL. TF2 isn't very much like TF at all. The only thing they have in common are the classes =\.
 

ElArabDeMagnifico

New member
Dec 20, 2007
3,775
0
0
Haven't we always been obsessed with multi-player?

Anyway, I think recently though, we've been sacrificing one mode for the other, so, I say you have either one or the other, and if you are gonna do both, then make them BOTH good, don't make the other mode "just an add-on".
 

Relaxos

New member
Apr 15, 2008
10
0
0
Really got into multiplayer somehere around Phantasy Star Universe and the Dreamcast.
Good times.
*sob*
='(
 

Nettacki

New member
Feb 25, 2008
66
0
0
It came to a point where some gamers felt that multiplayer has to be included in EVERY game in EVERY genre no matter what, and that the absence of that feature will bring down the quality of the rest of the game, good or bad. This would be, say, around the time games like Halo became popular and reviewers thought that it's an essential feature in every game, even in those genres that were never a good match for it.

An example of a game that was criticized for lack of multiplayer under a genre not fit for it was Uncharted: Drake's Fortune, a purely story-driven single player action-adventure game with some shooting elements built into it. It was built as a single player game, nothing more nothing less, and is a great one at that, but for some reason, people thought the game's lack of multiplayer is something worth marking down everything else for. Comparatively, neither Ninja Gaiden and its expansions, nor the Devil May Cry series, Tomb Raider, etc. were criticized for this aspect. Make of that what you will, but I think it's a case of expecting too much out of something that it was never made for.
 

Hey Joe

New member
Dec 23, 2007
2,025
0
0
Multiplayer became popular when the big game companies realised that players were willing to pay more than an initial outlay for online gaming. Thus, the PR departments raved about how their game had 'kick ass multiplayer' and then of course we all flocked online to experience this 'kick ass multiplayer' which amounted to 12 year old kids trying to sound 17.
 

JakubK666

New member
Jan 1, 2008
781
0
0
As somebody already said that before, as long as Microsoft's STEREOTYPICAL DEMOGRAPHIC is "retarded 20 somethings with cash.[sic]" we'll always have games with bad SP and mediocre MP(CoD4 was a failure imo, and the only thing that saves Halo is forge) that will still sell millions of copies.And because we have those two bloody shooters dominating XBL, hardly anybody plays other MP games.I guarantee you that there are a lot more people playing Q3/UT/UT2004 on PC than GRAW on 360.

It's quite interesting though.The first Gamer Stereotype was a "Nerd/Dork/Geek" but now it seems to be more like "Da Cool Guy".Talk about evolution of gaming...
 

Voodoo Child

New member
Dec 13, 2007
229
0
0
I don't have enough friends that share my interests to make me care about Multiplayer. Honestly, I use games to escape my life, I don't want a game that's centred around interacting with my peers TYVM.
 

Nettacki

New member
Feb 25, 2008
66
0
0
mccormick said:
its just a corparate thing multiplayer, but it did make me think. halo 3 is hailed for its multiplayer, with magazines saying it had a really bad campaign. so what if halo 3 didnt have a multiplayer, would it have failed completely.
As you said, yes Halo 3 would have failed completely without multiplayer, given that the SP campaign is bad (can't say personally, I've only heard of things), the last 2 games had multiplayer, and the hype train was running faster than a Boeing 747.

Then again, even if it had the best SP campaign to date, fans would STILL ***** for multiplayer because it's pretty much a staple feature in both the series and the genre in general.

But what happens when people clamor for multiplayer in a game where such a feature simply would not fit? Such as action-adventure games that I mentioned above? Is that a sign of too much obsession with it, that the Xbox fanboys clamor for it simply because "no game is complete without multiplayer"?
 

Seldon2639

New member
Feb 21, 2008
1,756
0
0
Nettacki said:
It came to a point where some gamers felt that multiplayer has to be included in EVERY game in EVERY genre no matter what, and that the absence of that feature will bring down the quality of the rest of the game, good or bad. This would be, say, around the time games like Halo became popular and reviewers thought that it's an essential feature in every game, even in those genres that were never a good match for it.

An example of a game that was criticized for lack of multiplayer under a genre not fit for it was Uncharted: Drake's Fortune, a purely story-driven single player action-adventure game with some shooting elements built into it. It was built as a single player game, nothing more nothing less, and is a great one at that, but for some reason, people thought the game's lack of multiplayer is something worth marking down everything else for. Comparatively, neither Ninja Gaiden and its expansions, nor the Devil May Cry series, Tomb Raider, etc. were criticized for this aspect. Make of that what you will, but I think it's a case of expecting too much out of something that it was never made for.
That was the core of my question. Not: why is multiplayer popular, but: why does everything have to have it in order to be considered "good"? If TF2 is your cup of tea, go for it, but why would a good single-player game be docked down (and I have seen this) for not having a multiplayer section, or having a lackluster one? Halo 3 got to be perfect, given a nigh-on-godly multiplayer, with no downgrading for a craptastic single player. The reverse is happening less and less frequently. It seems like for a game (especially an FPS) to get high marks, it needs to have a pretty spiffy online multiplayer.

And sometimes multiplayer kills a game. I loved the first Phantasy Star Online games. I played them on the Dreamcast for hours at a time. But, then, when it went to the Xbox, and went totally online, I didn't buy them. It's an example of a Sega being consistently ahead of its time, but if you lack the ability to play a game like that by yourself, it loses a lot. I don't buy console games to play an MMORPG, if I want that, I'll get Everquest, or WOW, or Star Wars Galaxies, or any of the other clones
 

REDPill357

New member
Jan 5, 2008
393
0
0
Multiplayer became popular when Microsoft realized you could make people spend $5 a month to play online.
 

Logan Westbrook

Transform, Roll Out, Etc
Feb 21, 2008
17,672
0
0
REDPill357 said:
Multiplayer became popular when Microsoft realized you could make people spend $5 a month to play online.
Yes that'll be it. I'm sure that the fact it cost money was what made it popular.

Could it possibly be that Microsoft developed a service that allows people to play over the internet which was easy to set up and didn't require a load of faffing about? Matchmaking? Easy VoIP? Sounds like a pretty good deal to me.