I agree with you completely. I think that multiplayer games should give the option to smack/throw things at/play drinking games with the people you are playing the game with.ImBigBob said:
On Multiplayer
- Thread starter Yahtzee Croshaw
- Start date
Recommended Videos
It depends on WHERE you go to get your online gaming experience.
Now in FPS territory, I agree with Yahtzee completely. Especially in MW2 - yes, the online portion being flooded with too many experienced players IS a valid reason to dislike the multiplayer. If I want to have my spirit broken, I need look no further than my bank account. And this is something that a lot of critics agree on. It doesn't make the game invalid - I loved the first game just for it's campaign, and it's sequel just as much.
I disagree on one point though. I don't think people would rather you be an AI. I agreed up til that point. People want to at least think you're a real person because they want to believe that getting a killing spree over on you, somehow has affected you in real life. I know people that get on Halo specifically to talk trash and enrage others. I don't know what's more sad - that people really are shit or that these people really do think they're affecting my life. And yes, there are people just like that on MW2.
In the end, to each their own. People will continue to rack up kills in Halo and MW2 in an attempt to somehow prove their self-worth to themselves more than they will for the fun of it.
Now in FPS territory, I agree with Yahtzee completely. Especially in MW2 - yes, the online portion being flooded with too many experienced players IS a valid reason to dislike the multiplayer. If I want to have my spirit broken, I need look no further than my bank account. And this is something that a lot of critics agree on. It doesn't make the game invalid - I loved the first game just for it's campaign, and it's sequel just as much.
I disagree on one point though. I don't think people would rather you be an AI. I agreed up til that point. People want to at least think you're a real person because they want to believe that getting a killing spree over on you, somehow has affected you in real life. I know people that get on Halo specifically to talk trash and enrage others. I don't know what's more sad - that people really are shit or that these people really do think they're affecting my life. And yes, there are people just like that on MW2.
In the end, to each their own. People will continue to rack up kills in Halo and MW2 in an attempt to somehow prove their self-worth to themselves more than they will for the fun of it.
I completely agree with Yahtzee, on the last one especially. Oddly enough the aspect of playing a game with other people is what shys me away from online multiplayer. Only if I have friends who will be willing to take the plunge in the gene cesspool of online gaming with me, will I actually do it. Or, as it has already been summed up, people suck.
As Dostoevsky detailed in the Grand Inquisitor, all people are cowardly fuckwads. They also will bend over for the Inquisition.
Some friends of mine can't quite get my distaste for multiplayer. Thanks for writings this, you have given me a reference to boot them to, and saved me an essay old boy. Usually I sum it up in that it is often a collection of complete wankers. Going from single player to multiplayer for a time and then back, when I return I find the calm and peace of non-raging, non-hate spewing computer opponents delightful. You don't hate me do you generic guard? *neck snaps* There's a good boy.
Let us hope new games do not seek to replicate the inane in game posts of the multiplayer host, in a single player format, that would be horrible.
Some friends of mine can't quite get my distaste for multiplayer. Thanks for writings this, you have given me a reference to boot them to, and saved me an essay old boy. Usually I sum it up in that it is often a collection of complete wankers. Going from single player to multiplayer for a time and then back, when I return I find the calm and peace of non-raging, non-hate spewing computer opponents delightful. You don't hate me do you generic guard? *neck snaps* There's a good boy.
Let us hope new games do not seek to replicate the inane in game posts of the multiplayer host, in a single player format, that would be horrible.
Y'see, what Yahtzee doesn't realise is that he and I are Karmic opposites. Where he is negative, I am positive, and vice versa. I am the yin to his yang. We are the natural and inevitable consequence of Newton's second law.
(Plus, if we ever met, we'd destroy the world, Timecop-style.)
Whereas Yahtzee has fostered the Eeyore-like mentality that the world is composed almost entirely of "f--kwits", I prefer to share my belief that every single person is a unique and beautiful snowflake. One would think that Yahtzee would be perpetually astounded, and myself perpetually disappointed, by the respective highs and lows that humanity can reach.
But NO! A lifetime of looking for the best in people has left me optimistic and happy about human nature in general, no matter how many times individual human beings may fail to live up to such high expectations. For to me, such failure is a simple misstep on the path of life, rectified with relative ease by a simple change of course.
Whereas to Yahtzee, who has spent years ignoring the best achievements of humanity while celebrating in its most depraved and pernicious acts, a life of "realism" has paradoxically left a bitter cold stone in the place of a heart. Having spent a lifetime wilfully blind to man's greatness, he now finds himself unable to take comfort in the simplest of human pleasures - the laughter of a child, the warm glow that surrounds the face of a pretty girl who smiles at him. To him these things - things that would warm the heart of anyone whose very mind and body had not become warped, Gollum-style, through years of neglect of his kin - instead of being the source of a thousand little pleasurable emotions, have rather become daggers through the armour of stunted self-pity that is the mask that Yahtzee wears every day to hide his true, ugly self.
It's an interesting question... can a nature as wholly vile and repulsive as Yahtzee's ever truly redeem itself? And for him to do so, since we are Karmic opposites, would this mean that I would have to fall? I guess time will tell - for in the end, it is time that makes equals of us all, be we kings or beggars.
(Also, if Yahtzee dies, I cease to exist. Yeah, it's the Newtonian thing again.)
Now everyone get on TF2, I want to MURDER me some motherf--kers.
Peace and love!
(PS - Yahtzee - I'm really, really, really, really sorry.)
(Plus, if we ever met, we'd destroy the world, Timecop-style.)
Whereas Yahtzee has fostered the Eeyore-like mentality that the world is composed almost entirely of "f--kwits", I prefer to share my belief that every single person is a unique and beautiful snowflake. One would think that Yahtzee would be perpetually astounded, and myself perpetually disappointed, by the respective highs and lows that humanity can reach.
But NO! A lifetime of looking for the best in people has left me optimistic and happy about human nature in general, no matter how many times individual human beings may fail to live up to such high expectations. For to me, such failure is a simple misstep on the path of life, rectified with relative ease by a simple change of course.
Whereas to Yahtzee, who has spent years ignoring the best achievements of humanity while celebrating in its most depraved and pernicious acts, a life of "realism" has paradoxically left a bitter cold stone in the place of a heart. Having spent a lifetime wilfully blind to man's greatness, he now finds himself unable to take comfort in the simplest of human pleasures - the laughter of a child, the warm glow that surrounds the face of a pretty girl who smiles at him. To him these things - things that would warm the heart of anyone whose very mind and body had not become warped, Gollum-style, through years of neglect of his kin - instead of being the source of a thousand little pleasurable emotions, have rather become daggers through the armour of stunted self-pity that is the mask that Yahtzee wears every day to hide his true, ugly self.
It's an interesting question... can a nature as wholly vile and repulsive as Yahtzee's ever truly redeem itself? And for him to do so, since we are Karmic opposites, would this mean that I would have to fall? I guess time will tell - for in the end, it is time that makes equals of us all, be we kings or beggars.
(Also, if Yahtzee dies, I cease to exist. Yeah, it's the Newtonian thing again.)
Now everyone get on TF2, I want to MURDER me some motherf--kers.
Peace and love!
(PS - Yahtzee - I'm really, really, really, really sorry.)
I remember I played counter strike and what made it most fun was when there was a system for punishing teammates for team killing. I would jump off a building and that would reduce my health to about 5 hp then I would fire one shot at a teammate and they would fire back and I would die and I would get to choose how to punish them, and that is what made it fun. Cause I was a fuckwad. What made it most annoying to these people is when I got a mic they could hear me laughing at them to.
@ #4: you brought up all great games, its just that they can only be played for one half of it.
games not designed with a specific intent of treating the other half of the game like its a 5 year old girl while she is being raped never have the polish on that half when the other half is actually given more then a thought. CoD4? garbage. Battlefield 2. holy fuck this is fun
games not designed with a specific intent of treating the other half of the game like its a 5 year old girl while she is being raped never have the polish on that half when the other half is actually given more then a thought. CoD4? garbage. Battlefield 2. holy fuck this is fun
I once again find it difficult to find any particular reason to disagree with Yahtzee but I am also reluctant to agree. Some of his points I have no ability to counter - for example, I live in the United States and therefore have no problems with lag, timing or communication issues. His last three points however are the ones that I find most intriguing.
In short, the statement generally lacks rigour. If someone is opposed to multiplayer in general as Yahtzee appears to be, then I suppose the statement is self proving. If one finds no worth in multiplayer, then the value MUST be contained in the single player experience or else it doesn't exist in that product as far as the user is concerned. In any other case, I'd hope to see a stronger argument.
That a great many people on XBL (or even PSN, though the relatively low numbers of players with headsets helps ensure you don't have to deal with quite as much silliness) seemingly exist only to drag down the experience for others is not a point I would debate. To regularly avoid an entire mode of play on the assumption that you will never have a good experience however is almost absurd. I hardly expect any attempt to play a game with the unwashed masses will improve Yahtzee's opinion; indeed, it would probably only further erode his opinion.
The part that actually irritates me however is that in ignoring the multiplayer components of games that enjoy commercial and critical success primarily because of multiplayer is tantamount to a music critic presenting reviews based off of the 30 second previews itunes delivers, or perhaps a movie critic writing a review based off a preview for a film. The picture is incomplete. If one truly wants to be a critic, it seems the must be willing to explore all aspects of the medium, even if certain aspects disgust them. Ignoring the existance and importance (in terms of moving copies) of multiplayer when delivering a critique means you have never examined the entire picture.
While I cannot reasonably argue that there anything truly new to be found in multiplayer in your average game, to dismiss something because you have seen it before strikes me as being incredibly cynical. Afterall, I've played dozens (hundreds?) of first person shooters and I can rest soundly knowing that it is a rare entry in the genre that will offer up anything new and surprising.
This is the statement I have the hardest time agreeing with likely because it has the weakest justification. There have been games that have been successful without a significant single player component (Tribes, Quake 3, Team Fortress, Counter Strike, Unreal Tournament and many others) so it would seem that by virtue of the existance of such games market success does not rely on a quality single player experience. For a great many players, the single player campaign in games like Modern Warfare represent only a tiny sliver of the overall experience and as such find most of the value contained in the online component.
In short, the statement generally lacks rigour. If someone is opposed to multiplayer in general as Yahtzee appears to be, then I suppose the statement is self proving. If one finds no worth in multiplayer, then the value MUST be contained in the single player experience or else it doesn't exist in that product as far as the user is concerned. In any other case, I'd hope to see a stronger argument.
I cannot disagree with this statement. My enjoyment in a multiplayer game is based almost entirely upon the other people playing alongside or against me. In some cases, the combination of people and skills produce a great deal of fun. Other times it produces undiluted rage.
That a great many people on XBL (or even PSN, though the relatively low numbers of players with headsets helps ensure you don't have to deal with quite as much silliness) seemingly exist only to drag down the experience for others is not a point I would debate. To regularly avoid an entire mode of play on the assumption that you will never have a good experience however is almost absurd. I hardly expect any attempt to play a game with the unwashed masses will improve Yahtzee's opinion; indeed, it would probably only further erode his opinion.
The part that actually irritates me however is that in ignoring the multiplayer components of games that enjoy commercial and critical success primarily because of multiplayer is tantamount to a music critic presenting reviews based off of the 30 second previews itunes delivers, or perhaps a movie critic writing a review based off a preview for a film. The picture is incomplete. If one truly wants to be a critic, it seems the must be willing to explore all aspects of the medium, even if certain aspects disgust them. Ignoring the existance and importance (in terms of moving copies) of multiplayer when delivering a critique means you have never examined the entire picture.
This doesn't really explain why Multiplayer is less important than Single-player, just why you don't like Multiplayer...but hey, that's fair enough - plenty of perfectly valid arguments, particularly this one:
"...in games like Modern Warfare 2, you join your first game and are immediately flattened by fifty people who have been playing for way longer than you and know every level inside out. It's easy to be discouraged from playing any further."
This is precisely what has happened to me since I got Modern Warfare 2 and today I finally had enough of it, it just is not fun. Only reason I got so involved in Left 4 Dead Versus was because I bought the game on Day 1, so it was much harder to get stamped on; plus Modern Warfare 2 does a poor job of introducing new players, what with overpowered killstreaks and deathstreaks that are useless most of the time.
"...in games like Modern Warfare 2, you join your first game and are immediately flattened by fifty people who have been playing for way longer than you and know every level inside out. It's easy to be discouraged from playing any further."
This is precisely what has happened to me since I got Modern Warfare 2 and today I finally had enough of it, it just is not fun. Only reason I got so involved in Left 4 Dead Versus was because I bought the game on Day 1, so it was much harder to get stamped on; plus Modern Warfare 2 does a poor job of introducing new players, what with overpowered killstreaks and deathstreaks that are useless most of the time.
Yahtzee...
There are alot of people out there that play with friends and do just fine without the fear of being punched. ...People who play to have fun with eachother, for the experience. Sure it seems there's almost none at times, I feel that way while playing S4, but there's alot more out there than you think. They just keep quiet...
I find myself saying "People are shit" sometimes too, usually in public games, or in S4 when some guy calls you a noob for listening to him and sympathy-not-shooting him because he said "don't shoot me I lag" then telling him that lag affects us too... but it takes a good game with people I know or sometimes just one act of compassion in such games (therefore sparking a wave of compassion... this works half the time) to remind me that people aren't shit.
Sure, there's always gonna be fags that make shit smell nice, but not everyone's that fag.
There are alot of people out there that play with friends and do just fine without the fear of being punched. ...People who play to have fun with eachother, for the experience. Sure it seems there's almost none at times, I feel that way while playing S4, but there's alot more out there than you think. They just keep quiet...
I find myself saying "People are shit" sometimes too, usually in public games, or in S4 when some guy calls you a noob for listening to him and sympathy-not-shooting him because he said "don't shoot me I lag" then telling him that lag affects us too... but it takes a good game with people I know or sometimes just one act of compassion in such games (therefore sparking a wave of compassion... this works half the time) to remind me that people aren't shit.
Sure, there's always gonna be fags that make shit smell nice, but not everyone's that fag.
I think he's read my mind and put it into a more understandable context. GET OUT OF MY HEAD YAHTZEE!!!
Tribes had a single player mode, Quake 3 comes from single player roots and MANY complained when Q3 it came out without one (this was before the age of "Lets Boycott Shit" mentality of PC gamers). So did UT... TF and CS started as mods, they wouldn't be what they are today if they had started as new "Multiplayer Only" IPs.Eclectic Dreck said:
I can guarantee that people who play MW4 in multi will never be anywhere near the sales figure we saw that game achieve. Even with STRONG multiplayer elements, a game without a single player mode will never work as well as one that has it.
There is no "market" for new multiplayer only licenses : Shadowrun, Demigod, etc. Demigod is based in DOTA, but looking exactly nothing like WC3/DOTA didn't help. Battle of Newerth will probably work better because players will still associate it with WC3, and most people that buy it will do so because of WC3.
Developers KNOW that, and this is why you see single player modes in new IPs geared for multiplayer (Take L4D for example). As such, Yatzee's point is valid and he isn't the only one in the industry thinking that way.
Also, don't forget that Yatzee mainly review and talk about console games. Multiplayer on consoles is a vastly different beast than on PCs.
I have to disagree on one point,
The thing about games like Counter-Strike, Quake, TF2 and *insert any other player vs player game here* is that it DOES change. Since you are facing off against other players, and often never the same player twice the experience varies greatly from game to game.
Mmm...yup. That's about it. He glamorously praises the games that are competent Multiplayers, but for the ones that are Multiplayers with a puddle of piss of a single player tacked on, I find it interesting how he has nothing but disdain for.
I mostly agree with number 4 and 5. The reason is because I think that a good single-player story is what will keep me playing the game in multiplayer, and also I can get better and learn how to play well enough. As for number 5, I really don't need to elaborate it.
I'm sure this has been said a dozen times by now, but the argument of "Because the single player must stand up by itself" doesn't hold up too well when you consider purely multiplayer games like Team Fortress 2 and Left 4 Dead (2). But this is probably just a case of "exception that proves the rule" seeing as how these games have no real single-player mode and thus all the effort was put into making the multiplayer - the only aspect of the game - as good as possible, rather than splitting the effort between singleplayer and multiplayer and failing both.
I have to completely agree with multiplayer not being the most important part of the game. Part of this is because eventually nobody will play it online ever. What do you do to play it when this happens? You can't do the singleplayer campaign again, you've beat it enough. So what else? Games need to give us a reason to go back and play singleplayer portions over and over again. Multiple endings, challenge modes, gameplay mutators, mods, etc.
Games are art hippies strike again.
Games are art hippies strike again.