"Online" is still pretty much like "the cloud." People still look at it and go "omg so cool."
Even in instances where it does make no difference.
Even in instances where it does make no difference.
Does Online Multiplayer Always Make Sense?
- Thread starter Yahtzee Croshaw
- Start date
It's a bad article and Yahztee is indeed shockingly ignorant on the topic. Sure, you might get away with switching in an AI for one session, but extensive play would make the change very obvious. You'd figure out highly effective tactics and wonder why no-one else ever used them, or why no-one ever seemed to have a counter, even when you knew they were counterable. You'd wonder why no-one else ever seemed to have any new ideas. You'd figure out really nasty counters to certain tactics and wonder why your opponents continued to use those tactics and never seemed to learn. Then you'd realise they weren't learning, because they weren't human.godgravity said:Wait, what? What's so offensive about asking for feedback or differing opinions? If you're offended, calm down, take a deep breath, and provide the opposing perspective in a calm, rational manner.kagecrush said:
And a large part of the attraction of playing humans instead of bots is that humans learn and don't keep falling for the same tricks, make up their own tricks to surprise you, don't inevitably act stupid in certain situations etc. It makes the game interesting. Switch in bots and you lose that.
And no, there aren't AIs that have the sort of learning ability humans do. There are AIs that learn certain kinds of things. There are AIs which can theoretically learn anything but take forever to learn simple concepts that would be obvious to a 5 year old. There are AIs that mimic humans, but have no real grasp of what thet are trying to do. None of these will be convincing in the long run.
The mistake a lot of non-fighting-game-players make is thinking the games are about reaction, when they're about prediction. Scissor-paper-rock with unequal pay-offs. That makes an interesting game. Though, yes, lag renders it kinda moot if it's even noticeable.
Also:
"How long before some slightly unscrupulous developer working on the latest needlessly four-player co-op shooter realises that his connection functionality is completely fucked, and rather than letting the game screech to a halt every time a player drops out, adds a feature that secretly replaces the lost human player with a bot bearing the same name?"
Super Smash Bros. Brawl
Also:
"How long before some slightly unscrupulous developer working on the latest needlessly four-player co-op shooter realises that his connection functionality is completely fucked, and rather than letting the game screech to a halt every time a player drops out, adds a feature that secretly replaces the lost human player with a bot bearing the same name?"
Super Smash Bros. Brawl
In regards to fighting games, the AI has never been up to snuff. Often, the strategy of any fighting game in 1P is to be continuously aggressive until you win. Certain bosses etc can bypass this with un-blockable attacks and perfect block/counters/combos, but even they can be patterned down to "rush them until you win."
Players, however, evolve significantly over time. It isn't long in a Fighting game's lifespan that you play against the same 2-5 in-game characters and must take all of their exploits to mind. Constantly ensuring you play to avoid those 100% death combos that were discovered after a couple of people learned that if they prepare a set-up just right, they'd ensure that you'd never be able to retaliate after getting launched in just the right way.
A fighting game, is a game to be fully mastered. Getting the best set-ups, follow-ups, and back-up plans that ensure the highest chance of success while playing against erratic opponents that respond to you in a split-second, altering their strategy to fit your character or play style. Unfortunately, there are no other games that are one-on-one against the world.
They're tournament games and are best appreciated as a battle of whits between one person and another like chess, checkers, or cards. Certainly you can get an AI to be great at board games with such simple rules, but unless the developer is willing to engage in a sophisticated study, the AI will always be predictable or so good that the average player will find them as frustrating as playing an overqualified genius.
Every person is a new pattern, and hence a unique AI. As such, little needs to be done to make the CPU competitive in arcade or story mode. Therefore, development can be focused on creating a more diverse roster of characters and balancing the existing mechanics to ensure that as many match-ups as possible are both interesting and fun.
Perhaps, Yahtzee, fighting games are too simple? If so, I don't see the issue of demanding that they take strategy to much further levels and add more variety to each character's repertoire at the loss of a large roster. Moves are currently very pre-set and are unfortunately too focused on arcade cabinet controls. Perhaps, as on-line connections get smoother and arcades finally become archaic, fighting games will see an evolution that'll -by contrast- turn the idea of having a squad of on-line shooters into a "Barbaric clashing of indecency and tastelessness."
EDIT: This is the era of Facebook and having multiple jobs to pay the bills. You can't always rely on someone always being there to play a video game with you when you're bored and have no time to finish a lengthy campaign. Online certainly fills those 2 hours of lethargy that are between job 1 and job 2 while the girlfriend is still working her nursing job..
EDIT 2: There are lots of non-competitive fighting games that are just there for huge rosters and stupidly balance-free console-only offline gameplay. As such, I'm particularly excited about Cyberconnect 2's Jojo's Bizarre Adventure: All-star Battle. THAT would be a funny ZP.
Players, however, evolve significantly over time. It isn't long in a Fighting game's lifespan that you play against the same 2-5 in-game characters and must take all of their exploits to mind. Constantly ensuring you play to avoid those 100% death combos that were discovered after a couple of people learned that if they prepare a set-up just right, they'd ensure that you'd never be able to retaliate after getting launched in just the right way.
A fighting game, is a game to be fully mastered. Getting the best set-ups, follow-ups, and back-up plans that ensure the highest chance of success while playing against erratic opponents that respond to you in a split-second, altering their strategy to fit your character or play style. Unfortunately, there are no other games that are one-on-one against the world.
They're tournament games and are best appreciated as a battle of whits between one person and another like chess, checkers, or cards. Certainly you can get an AI to be great at board games with such simple rules, but unless the developer is willing to engage in a sophisticated study, the AI will always be predictable or so good that the average player will find them as frustrating as playing an overqualified genius.
Every person is a new pattern, and hence a unique AI. As such, little needs to be done to make the CPU competitive in arcade or story mode. Therefore, development can be focused on creating a more diverse roster of characters and balancing the existing mechanics to ensure that as many match-ups as possible are both interesting and fun.
Perhaps, Yahtzee, fighting games are too simple? If so, I don't see the issue of demanding that they take strategy to much further levels and add more variety to each character's repertoire at the loss of a large roster. Moves are currently very pre-set and are unfortunately too focused on arcade cabinet controls. Perhaps, as on-line connections get smoother and arcades finally become archaic, fighting games will see an evolution that'll -by contrast- turn the idea of having a squad of on-line shooters into a "Barbaric clashing of indecency and tastelessness."
EDIT: This is the era of Facebook and having multiple jobs to pay the bills. You can't always rely on someone always being there to play a video game with you when you're bored and have no time to finish a lengthy campaign. Online certainly fills those 2 hours of lethargy that are between job 1 and job 2 while the girlfriend is still working her nursing job..
EDIT 2: There are lots of non-competitive fighting games that are just there for huge rosters and stupidly balance-free console-only offline gameplay. As such, I'm particularly excited about Cyberconnect 2's Jojo's Bizarre Adventure: All-star Battle. THAT would be a funny ZP.
The tears of people who can't understand context in an article are so delicious =P
Guys, chill, I don't fully agree with it, but I understand the point of this article, the part I agree with is that brawlers online, skill is not what measures your worth as a player, I had peaks of latency that get me arse handed on a silver plate on MvC3, and locally I tend to kick ass, except my rival is using amaterasu, but I digress. The thing is, I agree partially with it, but I the part I don't agree with is that latency or any other online shenanigan influences more than actual skill. I agree with having my mateys on me couch next to me is more fun than having an unknown face on, but sometimes, they live in the other side of the Atlantic.
Again, I understand what's the question this ZP is trying to convey, but it all end on personal preferences, I played brawlers online and I don't find them as fun as with me mates on the couch, but I have a hell of a good time with Random coop on BF3, or competitive shooters, and I can't wait to have a zombie game like L4D but playing with a zombie, not an special infected, just a Zombie.
Ha ha this reminds me of Movie Bob's Big Picture about Mass Effect 3 ending, with bunch of bumhurts crying Bob was an ignorant fool... this is just as priceless.
Guys, chill, I don't fully agree with it, but I understand the point of this article, the part I agree with is that brawlers online, skill is not what measures your worth as a player, I had peaks of latency that get me arse handed on a silver plate on MvC3, and locally I tend to kick ass, except my rival is using amaterasu, but I digress. The thing is, I agree partially with it, but I the part I don't agree with is that latency or any other online shenanigan influences more than actual skill. I agree with having my mateys on me couch next to me is more fun than having an unknown face on, but sometimes, they live in the other side of the Atlantic.
Again, I understand what's the question this ZP is trying to convey, but it all end on personal preferences, I played brawlers online and I don't find them as fun as with me mates on the couch, but I have a hell of a good time with Random coop on BF3, or competitive shooters, and I can't wait to have a zombie game like L4D but playing with a zombie, not an special infected, just a Zombie.
Ha ha this reminds me of Movie Bob's Big Picture about Mass Effect 3 ending, with bunch of bumhurts crying Bob was an ignorant fool... this is just as priceless.
Put 50 top SF players against the best IA you can code, and I guarantee you they will win 90% of the matches.
Fighting games are not only about knowing the counters, but at the top and most important level they are about mindgames and metagame.
And that's not something you can learn by playing against an AI.
Yet.
Fighting games are not only about knowing the counters, but at the top and most important level they are about mindgames and metagame.
And that's not something you can learn by playing against an AI.
Yet.
I'd go further than that, and ask why AI can't be offered as a valid alternative to any multiplayer mode.
I'm sick and tired of people declaring that AI can never be as good as humans. I've seen it. Unreal Tournament and Perfect Dark pulled it off in complex, 3 dimensional space. If AI can beat world leading chess champions, it can beat you at your piddly little game if given the R&D required. Just because YOU haven't seen it yet doesn't mean it can't be done. Remember that guy in 1870 or whenever who declared 'everything that can be invented has been invented? Yeah. You all sound just like that idiot.
Completely agree, especially in regards to being able to play the game as long as YOU want to, not as long as the online community wants to/developer the supports online portion of.Kenjitsuka said:
This also gives me the perfect opportunity to wheel out this old tireade:
*Humans can be better, but humans also tend to whine, abuse, teamkill, camp, steal vehicles, go lone wolf in a team game, spam chat, go AFK, ragequit, obstruct people, ignore special server rules/limitations etc etc etc. Bots always play properly, without complaint, whenever you want and HOW you want.
*Not everyone has fast internet, and telling them to just get it is pretty narrow minded. Even many that DO have internet prefer bots for the above reason alone.
*5 years down the line most people will move on from a game, and if you really like the game and can't find a group of similar minded people, bots allow you to keep playing for as long as you want. Forever, if you so wish. Personally I look forward to enjoying that luxury with Perfect Dark and Timesplitters.
*Split screen or LAN matches with just a handful of players take on the size of a full server when bots are included. Even if they're lousy bots, theres more action and you're friends take on the role of 'bosses'.
For some modern games like Bad Company 2, bots are a missed opportunity for people to learn how to best use vehicles and weapons in a combat situation. Since there is no offline mode for such games, people are forced to do their experimenting online, causing much frustration to the players around them- especially those that could use the vehicles to much better effect.
Bots allow you to explore an arena at your own pace, checking out the scenery or map layout and shortcuts without getting killed by people out for stat-boosting. In most bot supported games you can even walk around an arena alone, having a look at the architecture you'd otherwise be too busy to notice.
Even if you don't ever use bots, there will always be players that do. There's no excuse to keep them out. Games are full of features some use more than others, and bots are no different.
Let's face it though, of all the multiplayer games, fighting games would be the easiest to disguise AI as a good->expert human player.
But now that I think about it...sports games would probably be easier to do.
It may be the eisiest, but that's all relative... I love playing against other people. Not because I know them (I usually don't), and I don't want to listen to them either.
Against people you bested an actual intelligence, not an artificial one, not what someone programmed as an input-> output months or even years ago. Mind games, anticipation, revenge, unorthodox plays/tactics and you best them because you were better, not because the AI *ahem* artificially *ahem* limited it's reaction time or because it simply didn't have sufficient programming for a particular situation.
But now that I think about it...sports games would probably be easier to do.
It may be the eisiest, but that's all relative... I love playing against other people. Not because I know them (I usually don't), and I don't want to listen to them either.
Against people you bested an actual intelligence, not an artificial one, not what someone programmed as an input-> output months or even years ago. Mind games, anticipation, revenge, unorthodox plays/tactics and you best them because you were better, not because the AI *ahem* artificially *ahem* limited it's reaction time or because it simply didn't have sufficient programming for a particular situation.
No, it doesn't always make sense and in many cases jamming it into a game that shouldn't have it makes for bad multi-player. Then in the sequel they make it all about the multi-player and ruin the single player (I'm looking at YOU Halo and every fps since.)
All I can say is that any game with ANY multiplayer element should have Local Multiplayer... Well, maybe not PC games, since the Keyboard gets crowded easily. Anyone every try to play old DOS games with 2 people?
Also, some sort of Player Vs. AI is good for multiplayer, local or otherwise. It's one of the reasons I liked Perfect Dark more than Goldeneye. 1v1, 2v1, and 1v1v1 weren't as fun as Player vs. AI, or Player+3 AI Vs. Player+3 AI Vs. Player+3 AI (or however many you could have on the N64).
Also, take LoL and DotA. Trying out a "joke" build or an alternate build, or even just trying a champion out in a PvP match could lose the game for your whole team. Having the PvAI allows players to experiment without the fear of losing. That is unless it's 2v5 because some players can't handle a death in a bot game... but I digress.
Also, some sort of Player Vs. AI is good for multiplayer, local or otherwise. It's one of the reasons I liked Perfect Dark more than Goldeneye. 1v1, 2v1, and 1v1v1 weren't as fun as Player vs. AI, or Player+3 AI Vs. Player+3 AI Vs. Player+3 AI (or however many you could have on the N64).
Also, take LoL and DotA. Trying out a "joke" build or an alternate build, or even just trying a champion out in a PvP match could lose the game for your whole team. Having the PvAI allows players to experiment without the fear of losing. That is unless it's 2v5 because some players can't handle a death in a bot game... but I digress.
Doesn't Smash Bros Brawl replace a player with an AI if a friend is disconnected? IT'S HAPPENING ALREADY!!!!
And yeah, Yahtzee knows he's not an expert in this field. I once got beaten by a person in Smash Bros Brawl when they used Zero Suit Samus's down-a attack twice in a row to do extra damage. AI would probably not use exploit or glitches that the developers didn't intend. Also, AI can't do stupid things like ducking multiple times or other random movements to be funny.
Also I thought people would want to do away with certain maturities like disconnecting the real person's controller.
(Welcome to all the new members who were knee-jerked into making a new account to argue with Yahtzee. Push the red button to get a badge... at a price.)
And yeah, Yahtzee knows he's not an expert in this field. I once got beaten by a person in Smash Bros Brawl when they used Zero Suit Samus's down-a attack twice in a row to do extra damage. AI would probably not use exploit or glitches that the developers didn't intend. Also, AI can't do stupid things like ducking multiple times or other random movements to be funny.
Also I thought people would want to do away with certain maturities like disconnecting the real person's controller.
(Welcome to all the new members who were knee-jerked into making a new account to argue with Yahtzee. Push the red button to get a badge... at a price.)
At least with Dragons Dogma, your followers make a great conversation piece when a friend uses them and then gripes about how they power loot in the middle of combat *whistles innocently*.
Also, with Dark Souls I love the randomness of pvp battles or even co-op players. I never know what they're going to do. Conversely the AI characters are pretty uninteresting and not very challenging. Maybe you're right though and in a few years AI will have developed to the point of being indistinguishable from live players.
Also, and more importantly, I just don't want to play alone. For the same reason I'll leave AIM open on my PC even if I'm not feeling chatty.
Also, with Dark Souls I love the randomness of pvp battles or even co-op players. I never know what they're going to do. Conversely the AI characters are pretty uninteresting and not very challenging. Maybe you're right though and in a few years AI will have developed to the point of being indistinguishable from live players.
Also, and more importantly, I just don't want to play alone. For the same reason I'll leave AIM open on my PC even if I'm not feeling chatty.
I would say that I'd wish for the days with bots in multiplayer games to return, but I'd be careful with what would I wish, see Brink, for example.
I can see the point Yhatzee was trying to make, with strategy games and shooters, it's perfectly understandable and okay to have online modes, but with fighting games, it kinda makes less sense seen by the perspective of an old schooler SNES era gamer, we've moved from an era of partying with our buddies mashing buttons and making silly tournaments to beating strangers online.
It's pretty much the logic with almost any online game, the human element that those online games can offer, and yes, fighting games are pretty complex in that regard that they're not just button mashers, there's actual thought with every move, not just "the highest number of efficient button mashes".
I can see the point Yhatzee was trying to make, with strategy games and shooters, it's perfectly understandable and okay to have online modes, but with fighting games, it kinda makes less sense seen by the perspective of an old schooler SNES era gamer, we've moved from an era of partying with our buddies mashing buttons and making silly tournaments to beating strangers online.
It's pretty much the logic with almost any online game, the human element that those online games can offer, and yes, fighting games are pretty complex in that regard that they're not just button mashers, there's actual thought with every move, not just "the highest number of efficient button mashes".
If I couldn't play Street Fighter 3: Third Strike online, I couldn't play it at all. Arcades barely exist in the states, and I only know 2 people around here who play it.
I love multiplayer, but I hate online communities. Yatzee why don't u try to think a little more outside of your world. Did u asked yourself why there are much more boys than girls into games? The answer its pretty simple. Boys are genetically programmed to fight each others. Most of us like to challenge each others. So games are more about challenge than creativity. I'm not saying that games with good story, writing should not exist, quite the contrary, there is a lack of them, but u (and your colleges) praise them to much. I know you are a writer so your brain is more inclined for creativity but that's not the majority.
U outlined some good points in this article. Btw I am really stupefied why AI evolved so little in the last decade. The best shooter AI I experienced in my life was Unreal(1st one), Halflife (1st one). And that's one motive why u don't fight bots and most of the people think the bots cant simulate online people. Right now AI is utterly poor and so developers don't even bother to make them commit human like errors, they would become even dumber.
And about online communities. There a lots of kids there, but given the fact that they spent 10x more time with the game and learned some tricks from others (copy) they act all might and most of the time even will criticize your decision (good ones) because they can't think really for themselves. And that's really ruining your experience.
U outlined some good points in this article. Btw I am really stupefied why AI evolved so little in the last decade. The best shooter AI I experienced in my life was Unreal(1st one), Halflife (1st one). And that's one motive why u don't fight bots and most of the people think the bots cant simulate online people. Right now AI is utterly poor and so developers don't even bother to make them commit human like errors, they would become even dumber.
And about online communities. There a lots of kids there, but given the fact that they spent 10x more time with the game and learned some tricks from others (copy) they act all might and most of the time even will criticize your decision (good ones) because they can't think really for themselves. And that's really ruining your experience.
Hahaha, that's a good one.vezon said:
I think the essential question in Yahtzee's piece was what makes playing against other people fun? He argues that social interaction is key, especially in games like fighting games, and therefore states that if you're not at least talking to the people you're playing against, what's the point? You can't share the experience properly if you're not physically close-by, or at least have a developed non-gaming relationship with the persons you're playing against. If you have no friends, or none that can be physically present, I imagine the notion that you're not alone is comforting, but the party's really happening only in your mind, and the intensity of some people's responses here make me think not everyone here has made peace with that idea.
And I agree with Yahtzee on the hypothetical: if we can make bots that are sufficiently believable, the nature of online play can change drastically. Honestly, if 70% of players on Halo turned out to be Bots I wouldn't be surprised; there's too much going to take notice of the actions of all those faceless, voiceless foes...
Cheers.
The only MMOs I play are RPGs, but I've heard talk of shooter MMOs. Either there are a few good ones that have or a lot of people are insisting upon segregating players according to level.
I think they should go a step further & segregate low level alts from actual noobs, like the system would check to see if the player has another higher level character & force them into an area with only other alts so the noobs won't be picked off by skilled players before they can actually learn anything. RPGs with Open PvP should do that as well.
I think they should go a step further & segregate low level alts from actual noobs, like the system would check to see if the player has another higher level character & force them into an area with only other alts so the noobs won't be picked off by skilled players before they can actually learn anything. RPGs with Open PvP should do that as well.
As a fellow Aussie, I can see where Yahtzee is coming from. Our internet is barely worthy of the name. If we enjoyed the level of service as those in South Korea, then multiplayer here would be the greatest thing since sliced bread. Conversely, not every game needs multiplayer. You can tell which ones don't by the hack job effort the devs put in to it.