On Multiplayer
- Thread starter Yahtzee Croshaw
- Start date
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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 ...
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.Doug said:
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.
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.fluffybean4 said:
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.TempestZ said:
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.
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.
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.
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?
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?
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.Caliostro said:
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 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.
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.littlerudi08107 said:
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.
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.
I feel exactly like this! Mind you, I can appreaciate how exercise makes you feel great and excited about a particular sport. But I digress.Gildan Bladeborn said:
I have no problem with the fact that some people enjoy games that are multiplayer only. Getting something like Modern Warfare 2 and expecting single player focus after all the reviews and comments that have stated its focus is on multiplayer is like buying bread when you want milk.