Does Online Multiplayer Always Make Sense?
Yahtzee wonders if we're better off playing offline.
Read Full Article
Yahtzee wonders if we're better off playing offline.
Read Full Article
Does Online Multiplayer Always Make Sense?
- Thread starter Yahtzee Croshaw
- Start date
Recommended Videos
I?m not into fighting games so I can?t really answer but I?m guessing the reason is because it?s simply far too hard too program good AI without just making the AI cheat.
Also the ending was cute you sound like my dad when he?s talking about ufo?s.
Also the ending was cute you sound like my dad when he?s talking about ufo?s.
Eh, not really. There's a certain element in playing against or with other people online that single player can't capture. If you don't like it, fair enough, but saying that online multilayer has no point? Come on Yahtzee.
I mean, try to make a single player game with nothing but bots and one player that can cause something like that massive 3,000 person EVE online battle to happen.
I mean, try to make a single player game with nothing but bots and one player that can cause something like that massive 3,000 person EVE online battle to happen.
You know, your point might have made more sense if people didn't have microphones and a friends list.
If you agree to play with a friend who lives at the other end of the country, you both put the same game in and you play together, and you talk the same way you would if they were sitting next to you. When playing with silent, anonymous randoms then sure, they could easily be replaced by bots, but not every interaction occurs that way.
If you agree to play with a friend who lives at the other end of the country, you both put the same game in and you play together, and you talk the same way you would if they were sitting next to you. When playing with silent, anonymous randoms then sure, they could easily be replaced by bots, but not every interaction occurs that way.
Fighting games have strategy. To imply there is none seems to me to be trolling. And I cannot believe I just signed up to this website (and got my password back in a plaintext email no less, a big security no-no), just to try and address this!
In fighting game's there is mix up. As a player is "waking up" (getting off the ground), they have options; block high, low, try to tech a throw, reversal, back dash, etc. All of which are beaten or lose to another matrix of options (but the player still standing up will have the natural advantage). Playing real people online and you have to adapt to their tendencies in order to win (do they like to do this on my wake up? What are they likely to try next and what is the best option against the two options he is most likely to try?)
You can randomise that with a bot, but it will in no way be the same.
And don't get me started on the AI in fighting games. I have never played a good one! They are all ridiculously easy to read and hence, beat! The only difficult AI's to beat are those where they have an unfair advantage, and that is in no way the same as playing another player using a character of equal (but different) strengths and trying to deconstruct their game to a point where you have them completely read and know what they are going to do before they do (one of the best aspects of fighting games, doing something your opponent thinks is in some way "psychic", when they thought I would never see it coming).
I can use a lot more examples than just wake up options, trying to zone and play footsies with the opponent, etc. etc. But, hopefully the above is enough to shed at least some light on why the entire premise of this article is just flat out wrong!
In fighting game's there is mix up. As a player is "waking up" (getting off the ground), they have options; block high, low, try to tech a throw, reversal, back dash, etc. All of which are beaten or lose to another matrix of options (but the player still standing up will have the natural advantage). Playing real people online and you have to adapt to their tendencies in order to win (do they like to do this on my wake up? What are they likely to try next and what is the best option against the two options he is most likely to try?)
You can randomise that with a bot, but it will in no way be the same.
And don't get me started on the AI in fighting games. I have never played a good one! They are all ridiculously easy to read and hence, beat! The only difficult AI's to beat are those where they have an unfair advantage, and that is in no way the same as playing another player using a character of equal (but different) strengths and trying to deconstruct their game to a point where you have them completely read and know what they are going to do before they do (one of the best aspects of fighting games, doing something your opponent thinks is in some way "psychic", when they thought I would never see it coming).
I can use a lot more examples than just wake up options, trying to zone and play footsies with the opponent, etc. etc. But, hopefully the above is enough to shed at least some light on why the entire premise of this article is just flat out wrong!
1. I can potentially play with a much larger pool of people with online multiplayer. Couch co-op is fine and all, but what if my friends are busy or something?
2. My best friend lives in Washington DC, I live in Texas. How the fuck do you suggest we play Borderlands 2 together if not online?
3. Playing against the AI is vastly different from playing against another person. Especially in fighting games.
2. My best friend lives in Washington DC, I live in Texas. How the fuck do you suggest we play Borderlands 2 together if not online?
3. Playing against the AI is vastly different from playing against another person. Especially in fighting games.
"The best thing to do" isn't easy to figure out, and for every fighting game people are constantly discovering new techniques and new ways to do things. Then people figure out how to recognize and counter those techniques and the cycle continues. Some of these changes can be quite significant. For example, when Ultimate Marvel vs. Capcom 3 was released Morrigan was considered by almost all players to be close to the bottom of the barrel. However, people discovered new ways to use her and now she is considered one of the best characters. For an AI to imitate a human player, it will constantly have to be updated with all the new techniques and technique counters that are discovered. Even then, it can only play catchup while humans are developing new techniques like "Vale of Mist slows throw tech recovery so DHC into safe super, then guard break". Developing these techniques and then using them on other people, then watching as they develop counters, is why playing with humans will always be more refreshing.
Besides, "do the best move" is true for EVERY game. Figuring out the best move is the hard part.
Besides, "do the best move" is true for EVERY game. Figuring out the best move is the hard part.
"It is the duty of the child to point out that the emperor has no clothes," and it is the duty of the banana to point out that non-fattening foods can be tasty, too. Wouldn't you agree, Mr. Yatzee "Banana" Croshaw?
To be honest, understanding something like "fighters involve hitting arrangements of buttons to do certain moves that are good for certain situations" defines that thing enough for you to not say that you are very ignorant. For example, if an alien species were to investigate Earth and find water everywhere, it would not be ignorant for them to guess that the organisms that move, grow, and are filled of liquids on this planet are made of water.
To be honest, understanding something like "fighters involve hitting arrangements of buttons to do certain moves that are good for certain situations" defines that thing enough for you to not say that you are very ignorant. For example, if an alien species were to investigate Earth and find water everywhere, it would not be ignorant for them to guess that the organisms that move, grow, and are filled of liquids on this planet are made of water.
"you're against a complete expert who has memorized the most efficient possible move and counter for every situation"
Again, mix up. There is no right answer for every situation. There are options, and experienced players are more likely to pick options that are more likely to produce more favourable outcomes (like setting up a combo), but there is by no means a "I win" button in fighting games that pro players can constantly press to beat up lesser skilled fighting game players who haven't found that one button yet! There are risks/rewards, and the management of what you use and when (such as super meter, or a reversal dragon punch, which can be hugely punished on the way back down if baited with a block).
OK, seriously, I'm done now! XD
Again, mix up. There is no right answer for every situation. There are options, and experienced players are more likely to pick options that are more likely to produce more favourable outcomes (like setting up a combo), but there is by no means a "I win" button in fighting games that pro players can constantly press to beat up lesser skilled fighting game players who haven't found that one button yet! There are risks/rewards, and the management of what you use and when (such as super meter, or a reversal dragon punch, which can be hugely punished on the way back down if baited with a block).
OK, seriously, I'm done now! XD
Wow. An article where Yahtzee is just plain wrong and uninformed. Usually he has an opinion based on fact but this whole piece is just plain ignorant.
The point is that there is social interaction and creativity in the world of fighting games and co-operative shooters.
Let's start with the fighting game:
The mics and xbox live, psn etc. allow you to have communications with your opponents online. Trash talking is still entertaining (although more risky) when you do so online instead of with your friends locally.
There is also the question of skill and challenge. If I am the best out of my small group of friends (or the only one to like a game) why not have the ability to go online and find a challenge. And no, the AI is useless against skilled players. The AI always falls into a routine and basically can be manipulated into losing. A human being who is skilled will adapt to this.
As for co-op, lets take Left 4 Dead, or Resident Evil 5:
Both games allow you to play alone, split-screen, or online. The problem lies with the bots doing "stupid" things. Sometimes they are as you would call pants-on-head retarded and sometimes they just don't have the ability to follow commands so they waste ammo, get downed/killed or whatnot.
I actually had to get my friend to help with one single checkpoint of Gears of War on Insane. One checkpoint. I had been stuck there for a while and Dom kept getting downed and causing me to die. My friend who had never played a cover shooter, never played an FPS on hard, and didn't really know much about the controls was able to keep Dom from being dumb in one try.
In essence, I don't like shoe-horned competitive multiplayer but co-op is a lot of fun to do with some friends or people who have similar interests.
The point is that there is social interaction and creativity in the world of fighting games and co-operative shooters.
Let's start with the fighting game:
The mics and xbox live, psn etc. allow you to have communications with your opponents online. Trash talking is still entertaining (although more risky) when you do so online instead of with your friends locally.
There is also the question of skill and challenge. If I am the best out of my small group of friends (or the only one to like a game) why not have the ability to go online and find a challenge. And no, the AI is useless against skilled players. The AI always falls into a routine and basically can be manipulated into losing. A human being who is skilled will adapt to this.
As for co-op, lets take Left 4 Dead, or Resident Evil 5:
Both games allow you to play alone, split-screen, or online. The problem lies with the bots doing "stupid" things. Sometimes they are as you would call pants-on-head retarded and sometimes they just don't have the ability to follow commands so they waste ammo, get downed/killed or whatnot.
I actually had to get my friend to help with one single checkpoint of Gears of War on Insane. One checkpoint. I had been stuck there for a while and Dom kept getting downed and causing me to die. My friend who had never played a cover shooter, never played an FPS on hard, and didn't really know much about the controls was able to keep Dom from being dumb in one try.
In essence, I don't like shoe-horned competitive multiplayer but co-op is a lot of fun to do with some friends or people who have similar interests.
There is less pleasure in killing a dumb AI who can't think things through beyond a few algorithms and behaviour patterns. With other people, not only are they more receptive, interesting and unpredictable, but there is also a subtle pleasure in knowing that you have bested another person. In other words, AIs don't really play into our competitive spirit. I don't think there is any difference between playing a strategy game like Chess, or a fighting/fps game in terms of feeling this sense of accomplishment. I'm looking at it in terms of pure gameplay - having inane conversations about my initials being BT or the best kinds of Chinese food are a plus.
One thing I found weird with L4D is the bots are sometimes more sane and play safer than most humans.
I love how people keep bringing up examples of shooters and strategy games when Yahtzee directly stated that those are completely fine.
Still, this article reeks of filler. What's the point of opinionating on something you really have no interest in? Yeah I know, it may puzzle you but really the only response you'll get will be basically "because we find it fun". It's kind of what happened with Limbo, which you said was great, but it lost so much steam past the forest that it wasn't worth it.
I love how people keep bringing up examples of shooters and strategy games when Yahtzee directly stated that those are completely fine.
Still, this article reeks of filler. What's the point of opinionating on something you really have no interest in? Yeah I know, it may puzzle you but really the only response you'll get will be basically "because we find it fun". It's kind of what happened with Limbo, which you said was great, but it lost so much steam past the forest that it wasn't worth it.
On the subject of human-like bots, the botprize AI competition has produced two different computer controlled players that seem more human than actual human players. While they only are for UT 2004, it does mean in the future the option is there.
THIS!sonpansatan said:
What most people don't seem to realise about fighting games is that the developers of fighting games have little real idea of what is good or not until they ship a product and fully test it with a real player base. This is part of the reason why they can't make good AI, and partly why fighting games receive updates past their "vanilla" states, as developers realise that there is a certain combination of moves / strategies in the game that result in certain characters being stronger than intended and having to patch them months or even years after release. The exact same things happen in games like Starcraft when Blizzard realises that a certain build results in a certain push timing that certain races can do little about, so they patch it. However, that tweak affects something not even considered when the first tweak was made and now some other move is overpowered and itself has to be tweaked, and so the cycle continues. Besides which, maybe there is a counter to that strategy, it's just not been worked out yet. Like today, SFxT 2013 was released, and people are calling Guy overpowered. Maybe so. Or maybe players just haven't worked out the counter to his style yet and need to adapt their gameplay. It's this constant evolution in fighting games that keep things interesting, and Fighting game developers would never be able to ship a fighting game with either the "right answer" in any one situation both because they don't know how the game is going to evolve (and probably don't want to spend the time constanltly updating the AI based on where the players take it) , and because there is always a range of options anyway, and not one right answer.
As a quick aside, I know that Capcom did also ship dlc for UMvC3 that had bots that tried to emulate known players playstyles, but i don't know how well these we're received!
This is the WORST article from Yahtzee that I've seen to date. Yahtzee yields that he may be ignorant on the topic, but he is the most ignorant person I've ever heard trying to spew some ridiculous nonsense about something he has no right talking about.
I will never watch or read anything from Yahtzee again because this is about the worst thing I've ever read about video games. This is probably the only thing I've ever read that has actually offended me.
I will never watch or read anything from Yahtzee again because this is about the worst thing I've ever read about video games. This is probably the only thing I've ever read that has actually offended me.
Thujal said:
that was actually one of the points that he was trying to make that if the AI is designed in a good enough way that you can actually make it more difficult then a human. take this for example. If I created a fighting game with a pure learning AI assuming a rule set that only allows for 50 possible moves (yes I know this is a small number)then it is possible for the AI to completely learn each possible action the player can do within approximately 10 fights, and by nature win (no this level of learning is not cheating, but a lot of players think it is) though what actually happens in many fighting games is that they will start to dumb down the learning algorithm, or insert a far higher number of possible outcomes/moves like was done with Dead or Alive they actually introduce a good learning AI, but they dumb it down a bit to make it "fare". what you talk about mostly just boils down to call-response. (yes I know the limitations to an actual learning AI though many people don't) though it is completely possible for an AI to out perform a human, but there have many players would call it unfair. you make some valid points, but you do lack some level of understanding on how AI works, and how AI can mimic a player. in fact Yahtzee is talking about introducing an Alice for a fighting AI which by your attack indicates that you do not understand what that is.Thujal said: