Black Ops II Designer Thinks Gamers "Should All Play Multiplayer"
- Thread starter Sarah LeBoeuf
- Start date
I really used to like CoD back in the day. Cod/United Offensive was amazing and no matter how many times I play it, the mission in CoD 2 when the orchestral music starts and a massive wave of germans start screaming and charging, it always gives me goosebumps. I also enjoyed the multiplayer because it was simple.
Wait what? Simple multiplayer? this must be some kind of heresy. But nope, the reason I dont play modern shooters online anymore is that I dont want a grind in order to be on equal footing with everyone else. I miss when everyone started out with the same options of weapons and everything was based on skill. Now its just whoever has the most time to sit around unlocking ****.
Wait what? Simple multiplayer? this must be some kind of heresy. But nope, the reason I dont play modern shooters online anymore is that I dont want a grind in order to be on equal footing with everyone else. I miss when everyone started out with the same options of weapons and everything was based on skill. Now its just whoever has the most time to sit around unlocking ****.
This would bother me intensely if it weren't for the fact that I was never buying a Call of Duty game in the first place, but the sheer stupidity of this has left one way to summarize my reaction to the stupidity of this:
Vondehaar fails to realize that there's always going to be a place for single-player content. Not everything needs to have a competitive edge thrown in, because games are primarily designed to be a distraction. Leisure.
If you're competing, it's not leisure anymore. It's a task. Not necessarily a job unless you're in the MLG circuit, but a task. Something that needs doing.
Not everyone wants to consider their gaming hours as something that requires precision, focus and dedication. A lot of us just want to goof off on our own to relieve the pressure of Real Life stuff.
CoD can be fun - as long as you've found a group of friends that don't take it seriously in the slightest. Approach BlOps like it's Team Fortress 2, have a chuckle with close buds who aren't playing it for the sake of racking up their player levels, and you just might have some fun.
Problem is, it feels like the stereotypical modern gamer, as designed by companies by Activision, is a person who's so consumed by productivity that another guy being a little more casual about it is grounds for an immediate barrage of swear words.
If you're competing, it's not leisure anymore. It's a task. Not necessarily a job unless you're in the MLG circuit, but a task. Something that needs doing.
Not everyone wants to consider their gaming hours as something that requires precision, focus and dedication. A lot of us just want to goof off on our own to relieve the pressure of Real Life stuff.
CoD can be fun - as long as you've found a group of friends that don't take it seriously in the slightest. Approach BlOps like it's Team Fortress 2, have a chuckle with close buds who aren't playing it for the sake of racking up their player levels, and you just might have some fun.
Problem is, it feels like the stereotypical modern gamer, as designed by companies by Activision, is a person who's so consumed by productivity that another guy being a little more casual about it is grounds for an immediate barrage of swear words.
Well, I'd imagine the bottom line is that single player games take more effort, as opposed to creating and (maybe) testing multi-player maps. You could spend millions of dollars producing a few hours of single player gameplay that's entertaining, but in comparison multiplayer content you can sell for $15 a pop can be produced for a fraction of that.
It doesn't surprise me that the guys doing shooters kind of wish they could just skip over the single player (although he's not coming out and saying that) which would mean less work for as much or more money.
That said, not everyone who plays video games has a game playing peer group, all stereotypes aside, a lot of gamers are very solitary. What's more breaking into the needed social infrastructure to do well in multiplayer is not easy due to the elitism and people preferring to stay with their own closed little groups. Then of course you have all the so called "trash talkers" and little kids who get into these games and act obnoxiously.
See, the "human factor" which is the appeal for some people, is also a turn off for others. No amount of training or tutorial practice is going to deal with the negative aspects of dealing with other people.
To be honest it's been my experience that with the way how games have been catering to the lowest human denominatory and the casual audience, that those who are into multiplayer games tend to play them with other people they already know IRL. The whole "Bro Pack" and associated jokes in coming strips and such exists for a reason, and really not everyone wants to deal with that to begin with, and isn't going to insinuate themselves into a peer group to begin with.
Keep in mind that being a lonely, basement dwelling nerd is NOT the only reason to be solitary, though I fit that description nowadays. Back when I was working casino security I had little in the way of a social life because working a real job meant that I wasn't there for just 8 hours guaranteed (I couldn't leave until relieved, if there was nobody to relieve me due to shorts on another shift or special assignments... well), travel time, and then of course exhaustian and stress. I sat down then, especially then, to get the heck away from people, that was kind of the point of gaming. I don't mind multiplayer games (I'm big into MMOs, and was even when I was working to an extent) but that's not something I want all the bloody time.... the guys doing "Black Ops" aren't the first to talk about wanting "multi-player all the time" to be the future of gaming, and really I just hope that whole idea dies. I get concerned that if enough developers/publishers go on about it, they will convince themselves it's what everyone wants, and then make it happen despite what the reality might be.
It doesn't surprise me that the guys doing shooters kind of wish they could just skip over the single player (although he's not coming out and saying that) which would mean less work for as much or more money.
That said, not everyone who plays video games has a game playing peer group, all stereotypes aside, a lot of gamers are very solitary. What's more breaking into the needed social infrastructure to do well in multiplayer is not easy due to the elitism and people preferring to stay with their own closed little groups. Then of course you have all the so called "trash talkers" and little kids who get into these games and act obnoxiously.
See, the "human factor" which is the appeal for some people, is also a turn off for others. No amount of training or tutorial practice is going to deal with the negative aspects of dealing with other people.
To be honest it's been my experience that with the way how games have been catering to the lowest human denominatory and the casual audience, that those who are into multiplayer games tend to play them with other people they already know IRL. The whole "Bro Pack" and associated jokes in coming strips and such exists for a reason, and really not everyone wants to deal with that to begin with, and isn't going to insinuate themselves into a peer group to begin with.
Keep in mind that being a lonely, basement dwelling nerd is NOT the only reason to be solitary, though I fit that description nowadays. Back when I was working casino security I had little in the way of a social life because working a real job meant that I wasn't there for just 8 hours guaranteed (I couldn't leave until relieved, if there was nobody to relieve me due to shorts on another shift or special assignments... well), travel time, and then of course exhaustian and stress. I sat down then, especially then, to get the heck away from people, that was kind of the point of gaming. I don't mind multiplayer games (I'm big into MMOs, and was even when I was working to an extent) but that's not something I want all the bloody time.... the guys doing "Black Ops" aren't the first to talk about wanting "multi-player all the time" to be the future of gaming, and really I just hope that whole idea dies. I get concerned that if enough developers/publishers go on about it, they will convince themselves it's what everyone wants, and then make it happen despite what the reality might be.
What? Did you even read it? Lemme run it by you again: "As popular as Call of Duty is, there are a lot of people who don't play multiplayer. And quite frankly, this bugs the shit out of us. They should all play multiplayer. And Combat Training helps us get there."Frostbite3789 said:
There's not much ambiguity there. The exact words are "they should all play multiplayer". Maybe other people will agree to quit putting words into others' mouths if you'll knock off the witch hunt.
As for me, I imagine a lot of people find it hard to play the game online when a massive portion of the player base is a bunch of asshole teenagers that decide the best place to deal with their inferiority complexes is to be a prick in a video game.
That and I fucking hate snipers.
Well, Vogon Borg Director David Vonderhaar, get this:
Some people really enjoy single player, and they want to buy your titles to experience a rich single player experience, and then sell the game on with not intent of ever taking it online.
Oh, I see.
Well, that explains a lot, I guess.
I also think that online multiplayer is what keeps me busy and entertained for most of the time, but if you keep crapping on the single player part of the deal, deal's eventually off, y'know?
Some people really enjoy single player, and they want to buy your titles to experience a rich single player experience, and then sell the game on with not intent of ever taking it online.
Oh, I see.
Well, that explains a lot, I guess.
I also think that online multiplayer is what keeps me busy and entertained for most of the time, but if you keep crapping on the single player part of the deal, deal's eventually off, y'know?
Wow... all the rage against this guy in the first few comments. Why the hate?
I can totally understand that as a developer if you put a ton of effort and time in to a certain aspect of a game you want people to experience it.
He in no way says that people should just always play online (a la EA) and yet the first few comments make it out to be that this guy is telling non-multiplayer gamers to play all games online.
He just wishes people would play his game online and that's totally understandable.
A lot of work is put in to the single player but just as much effort is probably put in to the multiplayer, so to him as a developer if you're not experiencing either side, it's "time wasted" from their perspective.
People need to chill a little.
I can totally understand that as a developer if you put a ton of effort and time in to a certain aspect of a game you want people to experience it.
He in no way says that people should just always play online (a la EA) and yet the first few comments make it out to be that this guy is telling non-multiplayer gamers to play all games online.
He just wishes people would play his game online and that's totally understandable.
A lot of work is put in to the single player but just as much effort is probably put in to the multiplayer, so to him as a developer if you're not experiencing either side, it's "time wasted" from their perspective.
People need to chill a little.
His attitude seems to be more: "We want people to play our multiplayer, cause you're missing out." Not, "You suck if you play single player."
He has, however, not accounted for the vast capacity and eagerness of gamers to take offense at things.
He has, however, not accounted for the vast capacity and eagerness of gamers to take offense at things.
I think all he's trying to say is that his particular game has a large quantity of its content tied in a particular section (multiplayer) which is getting ignored by a substantial number of players. He's not saying that single player is inferior, or that all games should be about multiplayer, but, rather, that by not playing the multiplayer in his particular game, some people are not seeing the full scope of what the game has to offer. In the end, all he's trying to say is that the dev team is working on ways to get people to experience everything the game has to offer.
I'm not a multiplayer kind of guy myself, and I've never owned a COD game, but from my perspective, the man has a point. He may not be saying it in the best way (and the title for the article is a bit misleading), but most people agree that COD is mostly a multiplayer game. I understand the backlash against his remarks considering the recent statements by EA about moving from single player, but he's not making vast, sweeping generalizations about the direction of the industry. He's trying to think of ways to improve this one game.
I'm not a multiplayer kind of guy myself, and I've never owned a COD game, but from my perspective, the man has a point. He may not be saying it in the best way (and the title for the article is a bit misleading), but most people agree that COD is mostly a multiplayer game. I understand the backlash against his remarks considering the recent statements by EA about moving from single player, but he's not making vast, sweeping generalizations about the direction of the industry. He's trying to think of ways to improve this one game.
And Black Ops II Player thinks everyone should pelt people who say this kind of thing with oranges, but that's not likely to happen either. In fact, in light of this quote, I shall make a point of NOT playing the multiplayer. Har har har.