On Multiplayer

[neurohazzard]

(I'm not reading through 200 replies to see if any of this has been said yet, so I apologize in advance if it has)

I have to say, I completely disagree. Sure, if you prefer single player, then of course the game must focus on a strong single player game with multiplayer as "a nice bonus". However if you enjoy multiplayer games, then whats wrong with wanting a game that has been specifically tailored to multiplayer? A lot of the best multiplayer games don't have single player at all, and they don't need it, they're for people who enjoy multiplayer.

As for this idea that all people are shit, it's simply not true. I've been a multiplayer gamer for a long time, and honestly I meet more decent people then I do douchebags. It's simply the age old problem of the douchiest people also being the loudest, and thus getting severely over represented in peoples perception. Anyone can seem like the majority if they're loud and obnoxious enough while the decent folks are relatively quiet and well mannered. (of course this also depends on which game your playing, as different gamers attract different sorts of gamers)

In conclusion, if you're all about the single player, thats fine. Game are played for enjoyment sake, so if you enjoy it, play it. Just don't go telling those of us who love multiplayer that we shouldn't have games custom tailored to our enjoyment just because they aren't your thing.

 

[Dobrev]

So you sucks at games? Fine by me. One less nub on the Internet.

 

[Tom262]

Not gonna go over the points others have handed out (to which some I agree and others I do not), but I do see where Yahtzee is coming from.

I also play most games Single Player only because I'm much more invested in the story itself rather than the actual "shooting", which is exactly the reason why I didn't care much for MW2.
However, as much as I do appreciate the Story-telling, deep details and rich worlds built to explore, I still find myself from time to time looking for an experience made only on adrenaline rush which I can only get while I play multiplayer games. Of course it means that the game has to be good enough for me to care for our teams advancement and sadly for me the only game where I actually enjoy the multiplayer is Team-Fortress 2 (probably because of the rich diversity in classes, abilities and game types, which I haven't really found to be great in Modern Warfare 2).

So, I understand people that want pure single-player experiences to explore a new world which was created for them to escape the monotonic world (Just like reading books, listening to music or watching movies) and I understand the other kind of people who prefer the multi-player part of the rush that it brings when you get invested in your winning. (to the point of multi-player games being repetitive I can only say that I never had to expriences which were the same playing in the same map with the same group of people (just one round after the other) and that the rush itself from playing gets as boring just as the feeling you get from being drunk, after a couple of times whats the point? it's "the same", right?)

 

[RicoADF]

Part of the reason I prefer the older games like C&C TD/RA1/TS is that their great games in SP alone, the MP is a bonus. Games that can't stand on their own in SP arn't worth having.

 

[batmanhatguy]

In case you read comments:
There are 4 types of gamer:
Spade: likes to explore the game, find easter eggs, uncover every corner
Heart: Likes to chat with other players, is there for the social aspect of the MMORPG
Club: Wants to kill things. Loves farming/grinding.
Diamond: Wants to earn rewards, recognitions, trophies, titles, etc.

 

[Mr. Socky]

I love a good multiplayer game, but singleplayer is much more important to me. It's nice to see that someone else likes singleplayer enough to write an article about it, even if that someone is a foul mouthed, overweight, Australian Ordinary Person (and what does that equal?). Of course, I say that with all of the love and happiness that the internet can give to any one individual.

 

[begone]

Hey jtesauro,

While I'm not the professional you asked for, I would like to give some advice that might help you out.

I saw your post and thought about people's dilemma in dealing with objectivity. Since you are reviewing the game from your perspective, there will be people who will find something to argue against but that is Ok. It was Yahtzee that said, in his Mailbag Showdown episode, that "it's worth remembering that all reviews are subjective, personal opinions." You can't be expected to write a review that will please everyone and their mum since each person will experience a game differently.

Its good to remember that a review is an argument about a game. You are making a specific claim about the game that you want to address, as opposed to reviewing every single detail about them.. Writing the review will not end the conversation but give birth to more arguments as time and people will find new ways to analyze the game.

My advice is to construct strong, valid arguments in your reviews that you are willing to defend. Just like how Yahtzee still encounters opponents to his opinion and addresses them in his Extra Punctuation article, you too will have to deal with the occasional Devil's advocate. Just makes sure your arguments are concise so that your readers know your stance. Remember, you want to convince people that your argument is reliable and that you know what you are talking about. Otherwise, they may pull at your logic if they find any flaws.

Hope this helps.

 

[fluffybean4]

I dont understand why everyone takes the people are shit thing so seriously. Maybe you have to be British and cynical like I am to get it ...

 

[Tel_Windzan]

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.

Is Travain that one with the Romans, Gauls, and ...erm, some other lot? I played that for awhile before getting annoyed as my village was repeatly raped for resources by other players.

Yes it is, and the main reason I stop playing it was what you said. I got raided by some other players that called their town "Peaceful Village" like every single day sense I lose the protection shield.

I suppose I could have still tried and survive where I was but it was just so irritating being surrounding by other people who just saw me as a hot spot for loot.

 

[Sad Robot]

I dont understand why everyone takes the people are shit thing so seriously. Maybe you have to be British and cynical like I am to get it ...

This is sort of what I thought. Well, yeah, internet is srs bznz but come on. This is comedy. It's done in the form of a game review but it's observational humour about games and gaming culture and cultural phenomena related to what ever game is being "reviewed". It's like watching your favourite stand-up comedian or whatever. You watch it because of their take on things, you like the style of humour, the way they perceive things. You may not agree with their views entirely -- surely no one bases their world view entirely on some comedian -- but it's all a bit of a laugh and sometimes, depending on the comedian how often, they make great observations that stick with you. Zero Punctuation is, funny, intelligent, high and low brow and more often hit than miss. It's not really a review although it can give you an idea of whether or not you'd like the game. That's not to say it's any lesser in any way than a review, just that it's function is different; if you want something detailed, methodical and more conclusive, then I suggest you have a look at the real Escapist reviews -- yes they actually have those -- or reviews from some other site or magazine or show.

 

[Something Amyss]

What about the people that haven't got a Internet connection (they still exist).

And while we're at it, what about people with dialup? They're still the majority of internet users in the US, and a significant chunk of gamers, to boot. I confess I don't know about the rest of the world's statistics, but with North America being one of the big markets for gaming, and FPS being largely aimed at the West, it seems important enough.

They're shafted in this, too. And I think all around, the community suffers for it regardless. It's more or less like the whole "User created content" bit. They give us a few tools and say "have fun" and rely on us to make our own entertainment instead of actually filling the game with content. Multiplayer-focused gaming often takes a similar approach, because they can skimp on content, charge us the same amount, and rely on us to keep ourselves entertained with borderline interchangeable gameplay.

 

[Rock 'n' Soul]

How true. I always pick up games for the single player. Like you say, the multiplayer is just a nice bonus if tacked on to something that's good individually.

And, yes, fuckwads abound in every corner, especially within the nooks and crannies of the gaming world. Although they aren't really nooks or crannies, they're big open spaces filled with dicks wearing headsets.

 

[MpSai]

I'm in the same boat. I've tried multiplayer with a friend a few times, but you're right, you come in and before you can even get your bearings 50 people who play that game's multiplayer 5 hours a day slaughter you. And just waiting for the fucking game to load is boring, you're just stuck in a lobby with a bunch of braying morons having a pissing contest about their skillz. It's like, dudes, you don't have to take this shit so seriously. Congratulations, you mastered killing newbies in Halo, what else have you done today?

I also have always thought multiplayer should be a bonus feature, not the main selling point, but I hear so many people perusing the game stores constantly concerned if a game has multiplayer, and if it's anything like Halo's/COD's. Would it really hurt to try something new?

 

[littlerudi08107]

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.

Sigh... Why do I bother.

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.

Wow, you're the coolest guy on the forum.

 

[littlerudi08107]

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.

Sigh... Why do I bother.

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.

Maybe people just don't want to shell out the money for Xbox LIVE but want to try out the game anyway. Besides in every Left 4 Dead game I played, no one ever talked to eachother, that's the reason why the characters had automated responses like, "Pills here!" Besides I find the bots to be way more helpful than my teammates ever were. Just because a game is meant to be played a certain way doesn't mean it should be.

How is my point null? Everyone I've played with online has never been helpful. Only choosing to heal themselves and keeping all the guns to themselves.

 

[ward0630]

I totally agree. When a game's main selling point becomes its multiplayer, it reverts back to shit like those budget titles where the campaign sucks. Oh wait MW2's campaign did suck. Well thats a little unfair. It was good but way too short. I think the only reason IW made the campaign was so they had a legitimate reason to make a MW3, which I predict will suck.

 

[tkioz]

Amen Brother! Sing it! Screw Multiplayer!

 

[Internet Kraken]

Maybe people just don't want to shell out the money for Xbox LIVE but want to try out the game anyway. Besides in every Left 4 Dead game I played, no one ever talked to eachother, that's the reason why the characters had automated responses like, "Pills here!" Besides I find the bots to be way more helpful than my teammates ever were. Just because a game is meant to be played a certain way doesn't mean it should be.

How is my point null? Everyone I've played with online has never been helpful. Only choosing to heal themselves and keeping all the guns to themselves.

I find that people will often remain silent in Left 4 Dead unless someone else is actively using their microphone (which is usually me). Ever since I started constantly using my microphone, I've almost never ended up in a game in which nobody else talked. So if you want people to talk, try talking more often. It worked for me.

 

[Gildan Bladeborn]

I've never been much for multi-player myself, and titles that are nothing but multi-player can go die in a fire for all I care about them, so I echo Yahtzee's sentiments that it's a damn good thing the Quake 3/Unreal Tournament era didn't have all that much influence on future releases in the long term. Many of his complaints are the same ones I have [small](the best part of online gaming (people) is also the single worst part because people suck)[/small], but the real reason I can't get behind anything without even a flimsy pretense at a story is the sheer pointlessness of it.

By that I mean that the only point to the multi-player only game is to (ostensibly) have fun doing [activity] - for all the graphics and added complexity, you might as well be playing multi-player Tetris (with a bunch of ignorant racists who try to spoil your fun whenever possible). I literally can't find titles like online-only shooters to be engrossing because, in my mind, they're just a really advanced version of Pac-Man. Multi-player only titles are high tech throwbacks to the olden days of video games, where titles were defined by their mechanics and everything else was just window dressing.

Obviously games should be fun, but without a narrative framework offering me some semblance of purpose for engaging in those virtual activities, I might as well be playing a game of catch (with mip-mapping and added violence!) - sure it's fun for a while, but it's hardly worth getting obsessed over because it's still a bloody game of catch.

To phrase it another way, multi-player gaming is essentially sports without any of the positive benefits from exercise, and while I might enjoy playing some softball every once in a great while or what have you, I find anything but exceedingly casual interest in sports to be utterly baffling and bizarre (and don't get me started on games that are simulating playing actual sports!), so I understandably feel the same way about their video-game equivalent.

 

[Sidereal]

Except the Battlefield series, which really has no single player component, but is truly an excellent game (built around multiplayer).