When Did We Become Obsessed with Multiplayer?

[irrelevantnugget]

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

Medal of Honor: Allied Assault.

Didn't really find HL that special, actually... it's the mods that made it better, whereas MoH:AA was pretty much great from day one.

Brothers in Arms had a nice twist to it, too bad the AI was subpar at times.

And of course... Unreal 1. My first MP game ever (a bit later, UT took over, of course, but that lacked a good SP).

 

[Darzok]

I think once we moved bast Super mario bro and the AI just became stupid i mean who want's to kill Npc's in a game when there so stupid most of them are no danger or kill them self's.

Only good game i played with a smart AI was Stalker as the AI had a basic knowage of the map and would use cover and the danger's on the map to try and kill you and was not as stupid as to walk in a trap like most AI's.

That and you could never tell what the enemy AI was going to do when you came across it was it going to not bother or attack you or run for help hard to tell.

 

[ingsoc]

Generally, multiplayer has been bad for gaming with few exceptions. Just for clarification, I do not play MMOs. Developers are now using it as an excuse to not over charge customers for their lack luster efforts as evidenced by what has become of Call of Duty and Halo. The first Halo had a lot of promise, but from their, Bungie jumped the shark and decided it was better to spend all their time developing a few multiplayer maps, then charging full price for 1/2 a game with no replay value what so ever. On top of that, the multiplayer is stale. Fortunately for them, there are a lot of sheep out there that purchased Halo 2 and Halo 2.5 for full price.

The same goes for Call of Duty 4. But at least the 1/2 a game they bothered to create was worth playing, the same cannot be said for the latter 2 installments of Halo. The same can not be said for the multiplayer. It was good for all of two days. On the other hand, Valve has once again proven that they are miles ahead of everyone else with Team Fortress 2.

In short, multiplayer has become a crutch for the gaming industries (outside of MMOs) lack of foresight and creativity with two notable exceptions (Valve's and Epic's offerings). These shortcomings by far and large have resulted in the rise of piracy of PC games. Honestly, had I known beforehand that Infinity Ward's or Bungie's latest efforts would have been so lackluster I would have either considered pirating it or waited until the fall (much more likely as I have never pirated anything) when it hits $19.99 because it certainly was not worth full price.

 

[Charley]

I think that the requirement for multiplayer in almost every game released now is purely that it can be done, in one iteration or another. However, the reason that multiplayer's stuck so firmly in gamers' minds is a little different.

Thanks to consoles and PCs alike being networked now, there's no hardware limitation on multiplayer games, and from a business perspective, if you can crowbar a multiplayer option into your game to extend its lifespan/the range of its audience then why shouldn't you? This is what we've come to expect from games - that they'll have their meagre playability extended by the option to play against other human beings.

Alongside this, there's many a time, you'll find that once multiplayer's bitten you, single player just isn't as fun anymore - personally, Guitar Hero III now lacks appeal when I'm not playing pro face-off against someone, and it's because there's someone to beat - a tangible sense of victory and another player who you've beaten, a real person who doesn't just get switched off when you reset the console.

It's this innate sense for competition people have that I think has pushed reviewers and the gaming community to demand multiplayer options from games, by and large, it's more exciting, more emotive and (irrespective of the quality) more popular. Single player games don't offer the option to 'beat your friends' as it were, and now that its so widely available, it's become a necessity for any game in which you *could* compete, to allow you to.

 

[ClassicThunder]

Very true Charley. Unfortunately the Zero Punctuation frat boys can't have any fun if the game looks remotely like any of the other thousands of games made in the last ten years. They are too busy shut in a little room by their misanthropic selves to understand the joy of competing against or even interacting with an intelligent being. They must artfully slaughter hundreds of artificial stupidities to add satisfaction to their lives.

 

[Terramax]

I haven't bought a Burnout game because none are 4-players. Doesn't matter if it gets 11/10, it's got no 4 player so it won't be as enjoyable as other racers I own that do have. So buying a Burnout game to me would be no different to setting fire to my money.

Fair enough, a platform game can get away with it, because it's about the nature of that kind of game, but we're playing 360s and PS3s. There is NO excuse not to have a decent 4-player racing game. They can hack it.

And seeing how developers think it acceptable to throw money paying for famous Hollywood actors to voice over in games (who, for the record, are all terrible actors and voice actors), or for state-of-the-art graphics that add nothing to the gameplay, then expect us to pay £50 for the bog standard game, I think giving an option like this which would make me enjoy it more and play it for longer isn't unreasonable.

Very true Charley. Unfortunately the Zero Punctuation frat boys can't have any fun if the game looks remotely like any of the other thousands of games made in the last ten years. They are too busy shut in a little room by their misanthropic selves to understand the joy of competing against or even interacting with an intelligent being. They must artfully slaughter hundreds of artificial stupidities to add satisfaction to their lives.

Or maybe it's because they aren't 14 year-olds who have their parents buy their games and have to WORK for pleasure, and expect to receive something for their hard work?

 

[Charley]

I'd just like to point out here that no part of my post was a dig at anyone (I happen to laugh my face off at zero punctuation, and I love a good indie game), and that I work for my money/entertainment etcetera.

However, whilst I understand the popular love of multiplayer (it's a lot of fun after all), I realised I didn't actually mention that I agree that cramming a multiplayer in where it doesn't belong (imagine multiplayer Assassin's Creed, or The Witcher - it wouldn't make much sense mechanics-wise) can sabotage the game's credibility.

 

[REDPill357]

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.

When Microsoft realized that people were willing to pay to play multiplayer, that's when games started making a huge fuss over the multiplayer aspects of a game.

 

[Jumplion]

In my opinion, games that have no multiplayer shouldn't be shot down for it (especialy if it is not the type of game for it I.E. Uncharted) but if it does have multiplayer, it should be atleast half-way decent.

Multiplayer is a big concern for me, and if i get a great single-player game with a nice little multiplayer thrown in the side; i'd still buy it, but i won't enjoy it as much.

However, games like the Ratchet&Clank serieses that have no multiplayer (except for i think Up your arsenal, though nobody used it) but offer a GREAT single-player campain then i'm fine with it.

 

[JakubK666]

What was the first online game? Wasn't it worms or something?

Doom

Seriously? Wow.

DN3D was the first one with Mod Support and Custom Maps...I think....

 

[Credge]

Very true Charley. Unfortunately the Zero Punctuation frat boys can't have any fun if the game looks remotely like any of the other thousands of games made in the last ten years. They are too busy shut in a little room by their misanthropic selves to understand the joy of competing against or even interacting with an intelligent being. They must artfully slaughter hundreds of artificial stupidities to add satisfaction to their lives.

Competition is great. My favorite part of competition is how I do it all day every day. Sometimes, though, I don't feel like doing what I just did all day and maybe I'd like to work with somebody, or complete something by myself without having to compete with somebody else. Sometimes I like to read a book. Sometimes I like to play some guitar. Other times I like to play a video game.

It's odd, though, as this is all coming from a guy who plays some games competitively (FPS mainly).

 

[CodeChrono]

Multiplayer, to me, is just a small piece of the reviewing process. If it's part of the game, I think it's fine to review it. I mean, if the purpose of the game is to be a multiplayer (like Super Smash Brothers Brawl), then of course it is necessary to judge the mulitplayer aspects.

 

[Wazzelbe]

But what about campaign-oriented games? On one hand, I wouldn't want someone standing over my shoulder and bitching that I've taken too much loot from a cave somewhere in Cyrodiil... but I also remember times I've played a campaign mode and it was FUN to play through with a friend- if not the same kind of fun I felt while playing single-player.

 

[Lucky_Cosmo]

In a lot of games, multiplayer is all it has going for it, take Halo 3 for example. without multiplayer it would be be just another crappy FPS

 

[RufusMcLaser]

I think mutli clearly has its place. But it shouldn't come at the expense of good single-play *if the game is being marketed for single play*. I can't overstate the importance of this. BF42 is among my all-time faves because it had awesome multiplay. Since it made no bones about being a mostly-multi game, I wasn't disappointed by its single-play.
These days my lifestyle and my tastes don't leave much room for multiplayer (I need to be able to pause my games, for one thing) so I'm not interested in a game whose developers focused on multiplay at the expense of the campaign.
So what I really love is a game like Starcraft (or any given Warcraft) which is fun in both scenarios. Doom, Quake, Duke3D, Descent, Rise of Nations, the Half-Lifes... All walked the line very well.
What I don't have time for any more is a game, such as Halo, which pretends to have a great single-play mode but ends up sucking at everything but multiplay.

 

[ClassicThunder]

Multiplayer, to me, is just a small piece of the reviewing process. If it's part of the game, I think it's fine to review it. I mean, if the purpose of the game is to be a multiplayer (like Super Smash Brothers Brawl), then of course it is necessary to judge the mulitplayer aspects.

In terms of what is played the most, about 50% of the review should be based upon the multiplayer. Many many more hours are logged playing online play than offline play. I personally base games off of the multiplayer. Thats why Halo 3 and COD 4 are the best games out to me. For example I have the orange box. At least 80% of my playtime is in Team Fortress 2 and thats why I bought the whole damn thing (And also to find out that the fuss about Portal was).

Personally I believe that they should be reviewed separately by the two separate types of people. Single by the ZP frat boys. Multi by us foaming console tards. that ways everybodys happy. Except for the ZP minority is going to have to pay more for quality because there is more of us tards willing to pay monthly fees

 

[RufusMcLaser]

... ZP frat boys...

The who?

 

[Anton P. Nym]

What was the first online game? Wasn't it worms or something?

Doom

Not even remotely close. I was playing Attack Sub over 14.4kb modem years before Doom came out.

When did us players become obsessed with multiplayer? Since the start; Pong was multiplayer-capable, and many arcade games had multiplayer modes (co-op or versus) in the '80s.

When the industry become obsessed with multiplayer? When the used game market became big enough to make a dent in their sales... multiplayer gives players a reason to hang onto their cartridge/disc/whatever instead of swapping it for credit on another game, so new players are more likely to buy new instead of used copies.

-- Steve

 

[J-Alfred]

It's simple.

Gamers are quite often socially awkward nerds who don't get out much. therefore the prospect of being able to communicate with others like us without having to leave the house is an appealing one. and what fits that niche? MULTIPLAYER!!!

yeah, i've never seen the point of it all.