Multiplayer

[DoctorObviously]

I dislike multiplayer, but I understand why it's there.

In the last fifteen years the only multiplayer games that I really enjoyed were the following: Quake III, RTCW, UT99, UT2k4, the original Call of Duty, CoD 4: Modern Warfare, World of Warcraft and it's expansions, Cabal Online (lol), Resistance: Fall of Man, Tribes: Ascend and Guild Wars 2.

It's as if my brain isn't compatible with Multiplayer as a whole, kinda like Strategy games.

This is how I experience multiplayer in most games: Everything feels as if it goes too quickly or as if the footage is sped up. I get killed in an instant. I'm always capable of killing one guy but another player kills me where I couldn't see him, or those thousands of times where you shoot every bullet in existence at a guy but he doesn't die. Then he sees you, shoots three of four times and bam! you're dead, assh*le!

While I obviously understand that most players don't cheat, it leaves me with a feeling of being cheated and after a while it feels pointless to continue. When you are in this deathstreak, where you die over and over and over and over again and do not contribute anything to the match, I get really frustrated because I feel like I'm more of a detriment to my team that anything else and that I am seriously wasting my time. More than I otherwise would.

It's a crying shame because I love the idea of multiplayer but it just doesn't work out for me. It never did. There are so many well-made and beautiful multiplayer games out there, like StarCraft 2 or Battlefield 3. Multiplayer has never been this important in this day and age.

Now that I look at the titles I've written down maybe it's because I'm literally incompatible with modern multiplayer games, as the majority of the titles consist of shooters with old-school mechanics. However, I still find it strange that I can get to the top three in a match of Tribes: Ascend, but can't for the life of me enjoy my time in Battlefield 3, Counter-Strike, Blacklight: Retribution or the recent Call of Duty games.

I would like to make clear that this is not a hate speech against any game said above, nor against the notion of multiplayer itself. It's just how I experience them as I play.

 

[Able Seacat]

I enjoy multiplayer in waves. I'll play it for a while but it won't take me long to move on and it doesn't captivate me like a single player story does. Though I have really fond memories of playing system link with Halo 2.

I think the key to enjoying multiplayer is to try and not work yourself up about it. After a long break from Halo 4 and then trying to jump back in, I was dying more than super meat boy in a blender but you just gotta stay calm, it don't matter it's just a game with random people who I am likely to never see and then try again. Practice makes perfect. But hey if it's not for you then no worries, just gotta find things more to your liking.

 

[TakeshiLive]

I LOVE multiplayer. I just don't like it when devs sacrifice the single player experience to add an unnecessary multiplayer.

I for one really enjoyed Halo's multiplayer (3 and Reach for the most part) because of how you could "out-skill" an opponent even if they got the drop on you. Everyone was on the same level playing field unlike other FPS Multiplayer oriented games out there.

Also, a little theory on mine. I think why CoD, Halo and BF3 are such popular multiplayer games is because of how they reward the player. The little +100 or medal that pops up when you do something makes us feel rewarded.

snip

Halo 4 was brilliant for me at the beginning. Then there was a phase where I became really frustrated cos of all the power weapons, the DMR and the insta-respawn. I wonder if that's what infuriated you too.

 

[Tahaneira]

Normally, I hate multiplayer as well. But I've found out that I only hate competitive multiplayer; cooperative multiplayer (that is, players vs. A.I.) I like just fine. I loved Gears of War's Horde mode and Beast mode; I played those things for months. I tried to play Halo's attempt to copy the trend, but found it as bland as I do the rest of the games. I think I'd like Assassin's Creed III's Wolf Pack if I tried it, but I can't seem to work up the enthusiasm for it. My favorite MP game on the planet at the moment, however, is still Mass Effect 3. Not a week goes by that I don't log on and play a few games with my friends.

I know some people don't consider co-op MP the same type of game as versus MP, but in my mind, it counts well enough. *shrug*

(Please keep in mind I'm talking about separate gameplay modes and not campaigns with optional co-op. That's a different matter entirely.)

 

[Smooth Operator]

You should try World of Tanks, it's a free to play team tank combat "sim" where the most important thing of every match is engaging the enemy at the right positions.
Being a one of those finger bleeding players in this instance just does you no good, either you work with your team to spot and flank or they will run you down.

That being said tho this game would be even more amazing as a single player campaign.

 

[gmaverick019_v1legacy]

I for one really enjoyed Halo's multiplayer (3 and Reach for the most part) because of how you could "out-skill" an opponent even if they got the drop on you. Everyone was on the same level playing field unlike other FPS Multiplayer oriented games out there.

boom. main reason why i loved/could play halo online for hours upon end, it was quite easy for the skilled to shine as it didn't depend purely on "who saw who first" or camping (which even then, camping is different in halo, hell most of the time you know the person is there with a shotty, you're just trying to find a way to outflank them.)

OT: don't take it too seriously, you'll have a bad time instantly if you do.

I much prefer co-op or work together multiplayers rather than straight up deathmatch, i feel people do anything to win, even if it means using the cheesiest strategies out there to give them even the smallest advantage. (i had friends who wouldn't play COD MW2 with you unless they could use one man army pro with noob tubes and dual shotguns. extremely fucking frustrating.)

 

[TakeshiLive]

I for one really enjoyed Halo's multiplayer (3 and Reach for the most part) because of how you could "out-skill" an opponent even if they got the drop on you. Everyone was on the same level playing field unlike other FPS Multiplayer oriented games out there.

boom. main reason why i loved/could play halo online for hours upon end, it was quite easy for the skilled to shine as it didn't depend purely on "who saw who first" or camping (which even then, camping is different in halo, hell most of the time you know the person is there with a shotty, you're just trying to find a way to outflank them.)

OT: don't take it too seriously, you'll have a bad time instantly if you do.

I much prefer co-op or work together multiplayers rather than straight up deathmatch, i feel people do anything to win, even if it means using the cheesiest strategies out there to give them even the smallest advantage. (i had friends who wouldn't play COD MW2 with you unless they could use one man army pro with noob tubes and dual shotguns. extremely fucking frustrating.)

I find that CoD and BF3 sometimes rewards players for camping. It's the games' design that encourages the player to play in a certain style. As for MW2, I absolutely LOVED it except for one GLARING problem.

One. Fucking. Man. Army. Tubes.

Easily patched so that you would receive only a portion of ammo equal to the amount you had earlier based on a percentage calculation. Could have been my fave CoD game...

 

[Brendan Stepladder]

Multiplayer is the apex of gaming. Just when it's not online. Probably 90% of the times I remember why I game are when I'm laughing about some Smash Bros match with a buddy at my side.

 

[Blunderboy]

Stop sullying my avatar good sir.

OT - I do like multiplayer. It sucks when you meet people better than you but you just try and learn and be a good sport.
Having said that, I much prefer multiplayer with a co op angle. Whether it's Mass Effect 3's group of four players against an onslaught of AI foes, of the huge battles that Battlefield (and CoD if you ever play in a clan) can give you. Where you feel that you and your allies are actually having an effect on the battle, even if you're not the top player.

 

[rob_simple]

Multiplayer is the apex of gaming. Just when it's not online. Probably 90% of the times I remember why I game are when I'm laughing about some Smash Bros match with a buddy at my side.

Agreed, which is why I am seriously mourning the loss of local multiplayer as it becomes more and more rare, even in games with a heavy multiplayer focus.

It sucks, because I've got games like Operation Raccoon City that would be great fun to play with my idiot flatmate, but unless I'm willing to get my first PS3's disc drive repaired, buy another copy of the game and send him to a different room, we can't play it together.

It's ridiculous when something designed to bring people together ends up shutting them out.

 

[Fiz_The_Toaster]

I'm not a fan of multiplayer personally, and not because of the people in it and them being jerks.

It's mainly because I get bored after a while and I stop having fun. I played AC's multiplayer since they started doing it and I think it's fun and interesting, but not enough for me to keep going back and playing. It got old after a while and I stopped caring.

Although, I do like the co-op part of multiplayer as I've done it a few times, and I've had good luck with the few times I've done it with people I barely know or don't know at all. Other than that, it's just not for me.

 

[Brendan Stepladder]

Multiplayer is the apex of gaming. Just when it's not online. Probably 90% of the times I remember why I game are when I'm laughing about some Smash Bros match with a buddy at my side.

Agreed, which is why I am seriously mourning the loss of local multiplayer as it becomes more and more rare, even in games with a heavy multiplayer focus.

It sucks, because I've got games like Operation Raccoon City that would be great fun to play with my idiot flatmate, but unless I'm willing to get my first PS3's disc drive repaired, buy another copy of the game and send him to a different room, we can't play it together.

It's ridiculous when something designed to bring people together ends up shutting them out.

It's annoying to see the direction multiplayer has gone in. The main cause of pretty much every issue in gaming today stems from online multiplayer. That's why I'm ditching my 360 in favor of an N64 when I go to college.

That's what Nintendo has on everybody. People bash Nintendo all of the time, but at least they kept local multiplayer when everybody else ditched it. Halo used to be one of the biggest multiplayer games ever, and while its still jolly good fun locally, the main emphasis is online. Sony never really got into local multiplayer; the PS1 only had room for two.

Nintendo, on the other hand, was pushing local multiplayer more than everybody else since the 90's. The N64 gave us Mario Party, Mario Kart, Goldeneye, Smash Bros, and Pokemon Stadium. The Gamecube has numerous Mario party sequels, the best rendition of Mario Kart ever, Melee, and a disappointingly single-player oriented Pokemon Colosseum (Alas, poor Rare, who could have made a true successor to Goldeneye had they not been bought. Among other things.).

The Wii took local gaming farther than anybody else to this day. While Mario Party has sputtered, Mario kart is roaring on, Brawl is a great game (when not compared to Melee), the co-op platforming returns of DK Country, Kirby, and Mario,and Nintendo gave us Wii Sports. I'm sure that nobody's favorite game on the Escapist is Wii Sports, but I cannot understate its ability to bring people together through gaming. Literally any group of people can play it. It's single-handedly done more for multiplayer than anything else in at least two console generations.

Bear that in mind whenever you laugh at Nintendo's hardware.

 

[Canadamus Prime]

I'm not against multiplayer or even online multiplayer as a concept, what upsets me is when the multiplayer exists at the expense of the single player.

 

[rob_simple]

Snip

It's true, for their many faults, Nintendo has definitely got it right with their stance on multiplayer; almost all my best gaming memories are of 4-player on Goldeneye, Diddy Kong Racing, Smash Bros., Turok 2 and Rage Wars, Jet Force Gemini, Conker's Bad Fur Day...now I've depressed myself.

It's just a shame that Nintendo don't make any games I want to play, anymore.

 

[rob_simple]

The other problem with games that focus on online multiplayer is that they become useless as soon as everyone stops playing and moves on to the next big thing.

Or to put it another way: I'm so glad I only paid £3 for Brink.

 

[Aaron Sylvester]

It takes practice, the more hours you sink in the better you will supposedly get. This is why players clocking 1000+ hours in multiplayer games are seemingly unstoppable, they have no effort topping leaderboards (or coming close to the top) round after round. For example I've played Crysis 2 multiplayer for a long time, the vetereans in that game can single-handedly defeat entire groups of enemy players due to the sheer skill gap.

The other thing you have to make sure is that your hardware is up to the task of multiplayer, the very first step in first person shooters is getting the game to run at no less than 60 fps for maximum smoothness and minimum input lag. A midrange PC can do achieve in most games if you're willing to tweak the settings enough.

After that it's just practice practice practice. Watching videos of good players can be a great help, especially those who do helpful commentary.