On Multiplayer

[Giest4life]

I, too, love team driven or co-op multiplayer. I'd much rather assemble a team of humans and pit them against the toughest AI in almost any game. It's just more fun that way, for me, because I'm less focused on winning but more on enjoying and working with my teammates.

Yeah no one is gonna read thread 110, but i agree to the sad bastadarity.


You know that people stop trying when they end their replies with MOO

You count yourself out too early, mate.

 

[Senaro]

It depends on how many people are involved in the competition to me. In a game like Reach, I'm usually fighting alongside 11-23 other people, so I just sit back and blast away whatever gets in my sights. When it gets to be more one on one like Blazblue or Street Fighter online, I'm much more likely to get stressed out.

 

[nipsen]

Mm. I think most online games are utterly pointless. If there's some dynamic in the gameflow that makes them different every time, or allow people to interact in a fictional setting - then they might be interesting.

 

[Something Amyss]

While I feel the same way, how on earth does that reconcile with statements like those regarding Borderlands?

 

[mololabo]

In just a couple of words you summed up, what i hate about competetive multiplayer and why i still love Co-Op.
Thank you for that.

 

[brunothepig]

I do play competitive multiplayer occasionally, but more often I like to play co-op with friends. Even playing competitively, I have a lot more fun with friends, instead of random people. In fact, basically the only reason I play with randoms occasionally, instead of always bots, is just because bots have rather poor tactics... The unpredictability offered by other human players makes for a much better challenge. So I don't play for bragging rights or anything, I'm just not that competitive. I just play for the game experience.
But I do agree, co-op is more fun, and playing with friends is more fun still.

 

[xvNighthawkvx]

Well said Yahtzee! I feel exactly the same way about multiplayer. It was one night that I was playing CoD: MW2 with my mates that I realised everyone is just so up-tight about winning that it's just not worth playing for someone like me who doesn't really care. Although I still hate losing because everyone gives you shit about it...

 

[Ampersand]

Ha, i'm kind of the opposite, I love winning but i don't care if I loose(especially if i loose in a way that is awesome).
The reason i like multi-player though is just that by the time I've finished the campaign or story of a game I've already figured all the tricks or little strategies which are all you need to beet the AI characters, and after that playing the game just feels routine. That's when I appreciate having the option to play against a human who might do something that I don't expect him to do.

 

[Kanatatsu]

I found this article incredibly enlightening (not being sarcastic).

 

[Folio]

I only dislike RTS multiplay. Because your opponent knows how to piss you off with the same cheap, repeated 'tactic' that they just took from the internet.

How do they get the concentration and skill to play from the single player campaign and then get to be a hardcore sandcastle builder and kicking their friends sandcastle at the same time?

I like RTS. sure. But multiplay is full of uptight strategists who quit at the first sign of trouble.

 

[CrawlingPastaHellion]

Nevermind, my bad. That's why taking things out of context always bites you in the arse. Learn well from my mistakes, kids, they are plentiful.

 

[NihilCredo]

Do you know, I timed how long it took between me inserting the installation CD and actually starting playing the game, and between patch installation and queueing it finally came down to around 56 hours.

Was this hyperbole or does it really take this long?

 

[Ashcrexl]

i dunno, yahtzee, have you tried playing competitive multiplayer not to win, but to have fun? it's quite fun really!

 

[8-Bit Grin]

Wanna know what's really fun about multiplayer centric games?

When the developers stop caring and modding sets in.

Anyone play Modern Warfare 2 lately?

Joined a match that allowed everyone to jump 100 feet in the air with infinite ammo and the ability to own a gun that fired nuke-like bullets.

/Sarcasm about the 'fun'

 

[Womplord]

Competitive multiplayer can be very fun if you are playing with someone with a similar level of ability to yourself. I had a lot of great time playing DOTA and fight dueling games with my brother. You think of new strategies as you are playing and test your skills against your opponent. Hating that sort of multiplayer is similar to hating chess.

 

[Emz]

I have to agree with the article completely. I love co-op multiplayer - it is awesome. However playing competitively with people I really dislike. I am too lazy to care about winning but losing can be annoying (if the winner acts like an asshole afterwards.) If I play a competitive game I play the healer e.g. the TF2 medic.

 

[Nojh]

I and several people I know are similar on the multi-player issue. Competitive multi-player has no real appeal. For me personally it is competitive multi-player in a real-time context. I like a lot of turned based strategy games and such. I do have a small competitive streak with fighting games but I generally cloister myself with a character until I understand them before I'm willing to try being competitive, and even then I don't play for very long.

But I'll jump at co-op almost every chance I get. As long as the co-op feels like I'm actually playing with a friend. WoW is better when I can talk via voice with people, but when I'm partying with chat only... often I wonder why I can't just go do something else, and use IM to talk with said person?

Oh yeah cause you can't IM someone inside of WoW.

 

[Misnomer]

Well that is a good reason and there seem to be plenty of people in this thread that agree. I personally don't play RTS multiplayer because of the phenomena that it isn't fun for someone that doesn't deeply care about winning. I like shooter multiplayer games because there is a place in SOME of those games for such a style of play that is about having fun and contributing to the team, but not about always being top dog. So there are lots of us out there.

Why don't you review multiplayer games on how accessible their fun is to players like you that prefer co-op? You already review SP games based on how they fit your idea of choices and open world being superior. Why not review MP games with the fun accessibility as the core of your biting wit? Seems like there are a lot of people that would enjoy watching that kind of video here.

 

[ReiverCorrupter]

Fair enough. That's what I figured Yahtzee's position was. I also thought that he thought that games shouldn't be judged on multiplayer, but single player alone, which is plainly mistaken. But if this is his position, I'm fine with it.

I'm kind of the same way, I like CoD and Halo and all that, but I only play with my friends. I don't really know why, I just don't have fun by myself. It's not because people are jerks, I actually find most jerkiness funny. I guess it's just a social thing for me. (By friends I mean people I know in real life, however, I also have XBL friends as well but I only get on when I know my actual friends are getting on.)

 

[mrnomas]

I have to agree. Maybe it's my age (nearly 40) but when I first got an XBox 360 (my first gaming console since the PlayStation 1), I picked up Halo 2 and had a blast with my friends - for about 2 weeks. Then it was just boring. I discovered co-op games and never went back. I thought that horde mode from Gears 2 was perfect because it was both co-op and competitive (against the computer). I play games to relax and escape reality not to have some 12 year old with 20 hours a day to dedicate to figuring out all the ways to headshot you on every map devolve me into a cursing, sputtering, ball of rage. There are those that like that. I'm just not one of them. Now, if I buy a game it is either single player only, rhythm (Rock Band is great for parties) or online co-op. And usually just the last two.