Left 4 dead did have a single player mode with AI bots you idiot. And it was a lot better than playing online with other people.Caliostro said:
On Multiplayer
- Thread starter Yahtzee Croshaw
- Start date
Recommended Videos
reason nr.4 is why i'm not that excited about Bioshock 2. The first Bioshock didn't have multiplayer and it was excellent! The reason I'm not going out of my mind with excitement, is that Í'm worried that Take 2 might have tried to add multiplayer to make up for lack in singleplayer. I'm hoping not, and that Bioshock 2 is even better than the first one. but somehow, unfortunately, I doubt it. (I'll still buy it though when it comes out...)
Pretty good article Yahtzee, your first 3 points are well understood. The fourth is what you have seemed to establish long ago, and I agree. As for your fifth point, I agree and disgree on different points. I agree that MOST players online are absolutely douchebags (I play XBL so you get the idea) but then again you still get a good time playing with people online, and even if you don't play with a group of friends most of the time your team may be decent enough to work with, at least that was the case in Halo 3, in CoD4 no one wanted to talk to each other.
Finally someone with the same general, jaded view of the multiplayer world who actual has enough influence over gamers to get this topic out there. I know a lot of people who agree to this, but a little rant by some nameless guy on a forum in the wasteland of the net does nothing but draw a few small time trolls and flamers. -.-'
And since developers actually know Yahtzee now, who knows, maybe the 2010 gen games will be better for this. If so, you'd have my eternal gratitude, crazy Aussie ranter.
And since developers actually know Yahtzee now, who knows, maybe the 2010 gen games will be better for this. If so, you'd have my eternal gratitude, crazy Aussie ranter.
Sigh... Why do I bother.littlerudi08107 said:
Yes, it has an offline mode with bots. And the bots are stupid as hell. Playing Expert with bots (specially on the second iteration) is about as fun and functional as stabbing yourself in the kidneys with a spoon. The game is clearly meant to be played online with the offline mode being more of a "ok, if you're a socially inept bag of suck or just wanna dick around with sv_cheats, play this". Valve have mentioned that before.
You can play most online games (say, counter strike) and modes offline and with bots alone, thus rendering your entire point null.
that British variation of yo mama (your mum) is, i believe, a one-trick pony.
otherwise nice article, not a complete riot, but nonetheless a good read.
otherwise nice article, not a complete riot, but nonetheless a good read.
He talked about the split screen multiplayer in the episode of ZP - watch it.latenightapplepie said:
http://www.escapistmagazine.com/videos/view/zero-punctuation/1118-Call-of-Duty-Modern-Warfare-2
Most of his points I agree on. But multiplayer-only games need to have a strong multiplayer.
Im mostly a single player person but I will play on LAN or do coop. and some people are actually quite alrite.
Im mostly a single player person but I will play on LAN or do coop. and some people are actually quite alrite.
There are some interesting things you mention that helped put somethings I have thought about in perspective:
2. Because of time restrictions.
A few times I have tried to play Travain, a free-to-play online browser game that's concept always interested me, but I was put off by the time commitment you had for the game. Mostly because the game was an RTS where you gathered and build things in real time and I mean literally REAL time. If you had to wait 3 hours for your resources to build up, you had to wait 3 hours for it to build up.
Anyways, during my second attempt to play the game, I was able to get so far as to eventually get out of the "Newbie Protection Shield", which prevented other players from attacking me for the first few days of playing. However, once that protection is gone, you're on your own! And if you were as unlucky as I was, you would be raided continuously by a "Peaceful Village".
When this first happen, I was irritated and a bit angry. "Well gee, this is a fine greeting!", I would mutter to myself, but then after some time I found out that there are two ways you can interact with other players: trading or raiding. The point of both is to get you the much needed resources a bit faster than the normal in-game regeneration, with the raid option just being a little bit faster than the trading. And consider some of these raiders where probably players that have hung around long enough to become "that guy"s, they were using what was best in the game to get what they need. So I can't really be angry at the player's action so much but that does not mean I should take it! If I am not having any fun with a game, I would walk away from it.
3. Because there's nothing more to see.
I supposed this is what most JRPGs suffer from. After playing Breath of Fire 2 again after however many years, I probably would not play it again not until several more years have based again.
This is something of a discussion between my brother and I where he would like to play a game that has good replay value, like how Diablo plays. But while those games can be good, I also believe you cannot just play one game forever. Sure, you might play a game again and again, but you might have to stop eventually to either go to the bathroom, get something to eat or because you really would like to play the next hot release this month. While we humans might dive for our blankets when something new comes around, we somehow get out long enough to get something new that tickles our interests or when a sequel comes out.
4. Because the single player must stand up by itself.
When it comes to making a game, I would think that the single player or at least the core part of the game is what is made first! Because the idea behind this is that once you have main part done, everything else should fall in place and work from that preset core.
Case in point, in a game development class I have taken it mentions that in puzzle games that you make a construction set, which is composed of the various elements you can find within the levels for the game. Once you have this set done, you can then release this as an addition feature to the complete game for other people to make their own levels and challenges. Little Big Planet is one game that does this and so does a flash game I have played, called Time Fcuk (that's how the game spells it).
5. Because people are shit.
This is something else I think about a lot when playing online games. Although I am a bit too "innocent" to call people poo like Yahtzee, I always felt that other people in online games viewed me as nothing more but a bit more "interactive NPC", who they can ignore when they have nothing to do with but then expect it to miraculously appear when they need it. I guess I could use my Travain example again, but I felt that when I was trying to have friends in Runescape, that this applied a bit more as at least the people in Runescape talked to be before proceeding to murder me.
2. Because of time restrictions.
A few times I have tried to play Travain, a free-to-play online browser game that's concept always interested me, but I was put off by the time commitment you had for the game. Mostly because the game was an RTS where you gathered and build things in real time and I mean literally REAL time. If you had to wait 3 hours for your resources to build up, you had to wait 3 hours for it to build up.
Anyways, during my second attempt to play the game, I was able to get so far as to eventually get out of the "Newbie Protection Shield", which prevented other players from attacking me for the first few days of playing. However, once that protection is gone, you're on your own! And if you were as unlucky as I was, you would be raided continuously by a "Peaceful Village".
When this first happen, I was irritated and a bit angry. "Well gee, this is a fine greeting!", I would mutter to myself, but then after some time I found out that there are two ways you can interact with other players: trading or raiding. The point of both is to get you the much needed resources a bit faster than the normal in-game regeneration, with the raid option just being a little bit faster than the trading. And consider some of these raiders where probably players that have hung around long enough to become "that guy"s, they were using what was best in the game to get what they need. So I can't really be angry at the player's action so much but that does not mean I should take it! If I am not having any fun with a game, I would walk away from it.
3. Because there's nothing more to see.
I supposed this is what most JRPGs suffer from. After playing Breath of Fire 2 again after however many years, I probably would not play it again not until several more years have based again.
This is something of a discussion between my brother and I where he would like to play a game that has good replay value, like how Diablo plays. But while those games can be good, I also believe you cannot just play one game forever. Sure, you might play a game again and again, but you might have to stop eventually to either go to the bathroom, get something to eat or because you really would like to play the next hot release this month. While we humans might dive for our blankets when something new comes around, we somehow get out long enough to get something new that tickles our interests or when a sequel comes out.
4. Because the single player must stand up by itself.
When it comes to making a game, I would think that the single player or at least the core part of the game is what is made first! Because the idea behind this is that once you have main part done, everything else should fall in place and work from that preset core.
Case in point, in a game development class I have taken it mentions that in puzzle games that you make a construction set, which is composed of the various elements you can find within the levels for the game. Once you have this set done, you can then release this as an addition feature to the complete game for other people to make their own levels and challenges. Little Big Planet is one game that does this and so does a flash game I have played, called Time Fcuk (that's how the game spells it).
5. Because people are shit.
This is something else I think about a lot when playing online games. Although I am a bit too "innocent" to call people poo like Yahtzee, I always felt that other people in online games viewed me as nothing more but a bit more "interactive NPC", who they can ignore when they have nothing to do with but then expect it to miraculously appear when they need it. I guess I could use my Travain example again, but I felt that when I was trying to have friends in Runescape, that this applied a bit more as at least the people in Runescape talked to be before proceeding to murder me.
I see a lot of people, including Yahtzee, saying "singleplayer SHOULD be priority", with pretty much "Because I say so" as an argument.
I don't see why can't a game be fully focused for online, how is that a sin? Are team sports also instantly bad because you can't play football on your own? The only difference between football and FIFA10 is essentially just not having to go outside and get all dirty and sweatty and embarrassing yourself.
Also, how the fuck do americans act online? I play my games on european servers, and people rarely use voice coms, and I bet more than 75% of most servers don't even type in the chat. I can't really see how anyone could instantly label a whole server full of cunts, if nobody's even talking.
Then again I've never played online on consoles, dunno how people are like there.
I don't see why can't a game be fully focused for online, how is that a sin? Are team sports also instantly bad because you can't play football on your own? The only difference between football and FIFA10 is essentially just not having to go outside and get all dirty and sweatty and embarrassing yourself.
Also, how the fuck do americans act online? I play my games on european servers, and people rarely use voice coms, and I bet more than 75% of most servers don't even type in the chat. I can't really see how anyone could instantly label a whole server full of cunts, if nobody's even talking.
Then again I've never played online on consoles, dunno how people are like there.
I got very tired of multiplayer in the Unreal, Quake 3 days. Co-op multiplayer is all I like. Left 4 Dead and recently Borderlands are good examples.
All the Horde/Survival/Nazi-Zombies modes are lame to me though. I need something to work towards, not just the next wave.
I totally disagree that Every player is a 'fuckwad', I get along very well with people online. Sure there's plenty of assholes around, but my Steam friendlist is still full of randoms that aren't assholes when I play with them on L4D.
All the Horde/Survival/Nazi-Zombies modes are lame to me though. I need something to work towards, not just the next wave.
I totally disagree that Every player is a 'fuckwad', I get along very well with people online. Sure there's plenty of assholes around, but my Steam friendlist is still full of randoms that aren't assholes when I play with them on L4D.
there is one badsadass thing tomulticentric games: the AI for single. in borderlands you can't have AI companions and in L4D they all lack guts to grab throwable things and they don't do the stuff any real player would do, like react to some more than basic voice commands or use the fucken chainsaw. on the other hand they almoast always go where you are headed(of course).
Also MW2 has .50 sniper and heavily armored enemy in Museum that are not in single ,and i must deduce they are for multiplayer use.
Also MW2 has .50 sniper and heavily armored enemy in Museum that are not in single ,and i must deduce they are for multiplayer use.
Hey Yahtzee,
The one thing you have to remember is that people don't send me free copies of games every week
I have to shell out the dough for each one, so often I don't have something new on the horizon. The best bang for my buck has definitely been Team Fortress 2, which has no single player. I've been picking up a new game each week recently thanks to Steam sales, and after each one I keep going back to TF2 (which allows you to mute annoying people). I much prefer playing against humans than AI, but hey, to each his own.
The one thing you have to remember is that people don't send me free copies of games every week
I have to shell out the dough for each one, so often I don't have something new on the horizon. The best bang for my buck has definitely been Team Fortress 2, which has no single player. I've been picking up a new game each week recently thanks to Steam sales, and after each one I keep going back to TF2 (which allows you to mute annoying people). I much prefer playing against humans than AI, but hey, to each his own.
I'm always surprised by the little (or perhaps not so little?) core of people that agree with Yahtzee regardless of the fact that quite often he is talking nonsense.
He certainly made some interesting points but most can just be brushed off.
1. When I lived in Australia I played many hours of online gaming and never had a problem finding a game (albeit on American servers and with very popular games like Battlefield 2) and don't recall anymore lag than I have now in England (which is very little).
2. Most people aren't a game critic and even most game critics find time to at least get a flavour of the multi player.
3. I see his point to an extent but I think he is probably just ignoring games the fact many games especially arcade ones like Pac Man, Tetris, Space Invaders, Tekken, Guitar Hero etc. all have very limited exploration and most multi players work in a similar way. Also one of things that is interesting about multi player is that people do act differently and try news things which AI never does (especially in things like GTA 4 online and Team Fortress 2).
4. I just disagree here. I see single players as a way to train for multi player. Obviously that only fits for games that have a larger focus on multi player but I'm pretty sure everyone knows if a game is going to be based around multi or single player.
5. People are shit and that's why I like to kill them online. I also rarely have to communicate with them and always have the option of mute.
He certainly made some interesting points but most can just be brushed off.
1. When I lived in Australia I played many hours of online gaming and never had a problem finding a game (albeit on American servers and with very popular games like Battlefield 2) and don't recall anymore lag than I have now in England (which is very little).
2. Most people aren't a game critic and even most game critics find time to at least get a flavour of the multi player.
3. I see his point to an extent but I think he is probably just ignoring games the fact many games especially arcade ones like Pac Man, Tetris, Space Invaders, Tekken, Guitar Hero etc. all have very limited exploration and most multi players work in a similar way. Also one of things that is interesting about multi player is that people do act differently and try news things which AI never does (especially in things like GTA 4 online and Team Fortress 2).
4. I just disagree here. I see single players as a way to train for multi player. Obviously that only fits for games that have a larger focus on multi player but I'm pretty sure everyone knows if a game is going to be based around multi or single player.
5. People are shit and that's why I like to kill them online. I also rarely have to communicate with them and always have the option of mute.
Yahtzee makes some fair points, and I'm with him on that multiplayer should mainly be a bonus feature when you've completed the single player story, not the sole focus of the game.
That said, I must say I did enjoy the original Unreal Tournament, as well as Battlefield Vietnam, Tribes and Left 4 Dead. Quake III was a huge disappointment though.
There are also several games that benefited a lot from their multiplayer components. Codename: Eagle, the original Battlefield game, had horrible single player, but almost perfect multiplayer that set the standard for the Battlefield series. System Shock 2 is also worth mentioning, it was originally single player only, but was patched to include co-op multiplayer early on, and playing System Shock with a friend made it a lot more fascinating, and strange enough, scarier, even though you were not alone on the ship anymore.
Yahtzee makes the point that nobody can disagree with - that everyone on the internets are dickheads, which did become a lot more noticeable in the last decade, when high speed internet became more affordable and voice chat support became more wide spread.
Before voice chat, those trolls had to stop for a moment to pause (unless they had managed to figure out how to bind a key to "SAY 'JAJAJA PUTA MADRE!!!!'", though most weren't bright enough for that), and in that time they couldn't kill their team mates. The first two Quake games were awesome to play online since even though most or all you met on the servers were morons, they had to put some effort into annoying you, not just hold the Voice chat key and scream into their headset.
That said, I must say I did enjoy the original Unreal Tournament, as well as Battlefield Vietnam, Tribes and Left 4 Dead. Quake III was a huge disappointment though.
There are also several games that benefited a lot from their multiplayer components. Codename: Eagle, the original Battlefield game, had horrible single player, but almost perfect multiplayer that set the standard for the Battlefield series. System Shock 2 is also worth mentioning, it was originally single player only, but was patched to include co-op multiplayer early on, and playing System Shock with a friend made it a lot more fascinating, and strange enough, scarier, even though you were not alone on the ship anymore.
Yahtzee makes the point that nobody can disagree with - that everyone on the internets are dickheads, which did become a lot more noticeable in the last decade, when high speed internet became more affordable and voice chat support became more wide spread.
Before voice chat, those trolls had to stop for a moment to pause (unless they had managed to figure out how to bind a key to "SAY 'JAJAJA PUTA MADRE!!!!'", though most weren't bright enough for that), and in that time they couldn't kill their team mates. The first two Quake games were awesome to play online since even though most or all you met on the servers were morons, they had to put some effort into annoying you, not just hold the Voice chat key and scream into their headset.
BULLPIES, I say. Because when I play a game it is to have a good time, and the best way to do that, at least to me anyways, is to play the damned thing right. Now admittedly most people don't think that way, which is the major reason that I agree with every other part of the article, simply not this one.Article said:
Yahtzee, the reason people can play games like counter strike over and over again is the same reason people can play sports or board games over and over again.
You seem to be interested more in the plot though, and the progression of the game, rather than the actual gameplay. I, on the other hand, enjoy games that I can play over and over again, gradually improve at, and then prove my superiority by beating someone else in an online video game.
However, I have a feeling the major reason you dislike online multiplayer is because you live in Australia (hell) and don't understand that the only thing that compensates for being yelled at by a nazely ten year old who thinks he owns the world is cruelly shooting his corpse until he starts to cry. And then you laugh.
Now if you'll excuse me, I need to go back to sticking needles into puppies.
You seem to be interested more in the plot though, and the progression of the game, rather than the actual gameplay. I, on the other hand, enjoy games that I can play over and over again, gradually improve at, and then prove my superiority by beating someone else in an online video game.
However, I have a feeling the major reason you dislike online multiplayer is because you live in Australia (hell) and don't understand that the only thing that compensates for being yelled at by a nazely ten year old who thinks he owns the world is cruelly shooting his corpse until he starts to cry. And then you laugh.
Now if you'll excuse me, I need to go back to sticking needles into puppies.
Excellent article that addresses several of my concerns with multiplayer. I wholeheartedly agree with, feel for, and support all of this except for the fifth point. You almost had me here, except that you moved away from the Greater Internet Fuckwad Theory and more into arrogant misanthropy.
Of course people are going to be jerkfaces online. Most of them are teens who simply haven't grown up, and the adults behaving like that are probably screwed over anyway. But this is not always the case, and room has to be made for more social occurrences in games.
I try to be talkative whenever I see someone else willing to talk on Xbox Live. In Halo 3 it sometimes manages to get guys I've not met with before to work together, and then I have a new addition to the friend list, on top of having an even better time than I would have, since I'm having a sport with friends rather than a competition between myself and people who act like slightly more resourceful bots. With Street Fighter IV, whenever there's someone else with a microphone, I plug mine in too, and I often find myself having constructive and friendly banter with them. The game ceases to become a competition and instead a hearty sport, where he's critiquing my playstyle and I'm offering advice to his. It can be just as hilarious as when playing with a friend I know well - sometimes even more so, because it's with someone I've only just met. (Though you won't find me on Call of Duty online: I come to that series solely for the single player. The multiplayer doesn't interest me in the least.)
Leetkids, ragequitters and genuine pricks will always be the most vocal aspect of online gaming - they are also the aspect which matters the least, and from which we have nothing to see. But the more friendly side, the people who just want to have fun with other people over a game they enjoy, are too good to not hold out for.
Of course people are going to be jerkfaces online. Most of them are teens who simply haven't grown up, and the adults behaving like that are probably screwed over anyway. But this is not always the case, and room has to be made for more social occurrences in games.
I try to be talkative whenever I see someone else willing to talk on Xbox Live. In Halo 3 it sometimes manages to get guys I've not met with before to work together, and then I have a new addition to the friend list, on top of having an even better time than I would have, since I'm having a sport with friends rather than a competition between myself and people who act like slightly more resourceful bots. With Street Fighter IV, whenever there's someone else with a microphone, I plug mine in too, and I often find myself having constructive and friendly banter with them. The game ceases to become a competition and instead a hearty sport, where he's critiquing my playstyle and I'm offering advice to his. It can be just as hilarious as when playing with a friend I know well - sometimes even more so, because it's with someone I've only just met. (Though you won't find me on Call of Duty online: I come to that series solely for the single player. The multiplayer doesn't interest me in the least.)
Leetkids, ragequitters and genuine pricks will always be the most vocal aspect of online gaming - they are also the aspect which matters the least, and from which we have nothing to see. But the more friendly side, the people who just want to have fun with other people over a game they enjoy, are too good to not hold out for.