This thread is written for the disgruntled 360 LAN Gamer* who has seen too many developers mess up their LAN multiplayer not with the actual multiplayer itself but with, for lack of a better term, the architecture. You'd think that letting people play together on 360s hooked up between each other would be a relatively simple feat after you've gotten the online code to work, but apparently it's a terrible hassle, since even the best of recent games have made a terrible has of it.
Here, this LAN Gamer will make a list of the features that should be present in every game with LAN capabilities; will name and shame the games that trip over these hurdles; and will reward with pleasing words those paragons of LAN excellence.
Do: Allow the maximum number of players per screen.
This goes back to feature 1 of the LAN Gamer. Some of the LAN Gamer's friends don't have a 360, or a copy of the LAN game in question. This inevitably means that any LAN game needs at least two per screen, and preferably four.
There are two exceptions to this Do: the Rule of Cool; and some kind of gameplay limitation.
The Rule of Cool states that if your game does something so different and weird in MP that the same basic experience can't be had with any other game, then you are free to reduce the number of players per screen. If you are, at core, the same FPS MP we've all seen a thousand times you do not qualify for the Rule of Cool, no matter how cool you think your game is.
Gameplay limitations might be that you ask so much of the 360 that multiple players on one box would make it keel over and die (though whether this is ever true I can't say); they could also be things like visibility. Some games require a whole screen or at least a half screen to see what the hell's happening. For example, Conker: Live and Reloaded was quite visually hectic, and it was hard to see where you were aiming even with two on a screen.
Do: Provide gametypes that allow the weaker players to still have fun.
In other words, give us zany gametypes and zany weapons, or team-based games where the noobs can still achieve something. The LAN Gamer enjoys just playing with friends, but he does not like to be shown up all the time - or have his friends shown up either.
Don't: Require all 360s to have the latest Live update of the game to play.
Why is this even necessary? We're not playing online here. This goes back to feature 1 again: some LAN gamers don't have Live (usually most, or they wouldn't be LANning) so they won't have the update, and won't play the game. Others will have Live but may not play this game regularly enough to have the latest update - and so won't play the game either. It's not all that hard to allow each 360 to downgrade to the latest update that everyone has and play with that.
There are more dos and don'ts but I'll leave that for others to post. For now, here are some examples of good and bad LAN systems.
Now please, add to this list of Dos and Don'ts and the Good, Bad and Ugly of LAN games.
*Though feel free to post your own thoughts on other systems.
Here, this LAN Gamer will make a list of the features that should be present in every game with LAN capabilities; will name and shame the games that trip over these hurdles; and will reward with pleasing words those paragons of LAN excellence.
First, what is the LAN Gamer? We can't devise a good list of Dos and Don'ts without knowing what kind of player the LAN gamer is, and thus what he expects. There are a few characteristics that largely explain the LAN Gamer and his concerns. All of the examples of LAN Gamers given here, this LAN Gamer knows from personal experience.
1)The LAN gamer can exist anywhere in a vast continuum of hardcore-ness. This means both how much he spends and owns - from two or more 360s, a Live subscription, and a huge library of games, to no 360 and no games at all - and his skill level - from noob to Live junkie. The repercussions of this will be explained later.
2)The LAN Gamer has LAN Gamer friends. This is obvious, since he couldn't be LANning without them. But this truth has consequences: a LAN Gamer will tend to buy the games his friends have and are evangelising as a Good LAN Game. So if a game breaks any of the following LAN rules it will be denounced as a Bad LAN Game and not be bought by the LAN Gamer's friends. This is key. It's possible many developers don't put too much thought into their LAN architecture because, they reason, there's no point catering to a market that by definition wants to get the most players from the fewest bought copies of the game. This is a mistake. Good games with good LAN capacity sell because the first LAN Gamer in his group to buy a game is the key to selling the next 1-3 copies. If he doesn't like it, those other copies won't be bought.
These pretty well sum up the key features of the LAN Gamer. So without further ado.
1)The LAN gamer can exist anywhere in a vast continuum of hardcore-ness. This means both how much he spends and owns - from two or more 360s, a Live subscription, and a huge library of games, to no 360 and no games at all - and his skill level - from noob to Live junkie. The repercussions of this will be explained later.
2)The LAN Gamer has LAN Gamer friends. This is obvious, since he couldn't be LANning without them. But this truth has consequences: a LAN Gamer will tend to buy the games his friends have and are evangelising as a Good LAN Game. So if a game breaks any of the following LAN rules it will be denounced as a Bad LAN Game and not be bought by the LAN Gamer's friends. This is key. It's possible many developers don't put too much thought into their LAN architecture because, they reason, there's no point catering to a market that by definition wants to get the most players from the fewest bought copies of the game. This is a mistake. Good games with good LAN capacity sell because the first LAN Gamer in his group to buy a game is the key to selling the next 1-3 copies. If he doesn't like it, those other copies won't be bought.
These pretty well sum up the key features of the LAN Gamer. So without further ado.
Do: Allow the maximum number of players per screen.
This goes back to feature 1 of the LAN Gamer. Some of the LAN Gamer's friends don't have a 360, or a copy of the LAN game in question. This inevitably means that any LAN game needs at least two per screen, and preferably four.
There are two exceptions to this Do: the Rule of Cool; and some kind of gameplay limitation.
The Rule of Cool states that if your game does something so different and weird in MP that the same basic experience can't be had with any other game, then you are free to reduce the number of players per screen. If you are, at core, the same FPS MP we've all seen a thousand times you do not qualify for the Rule of Cool, no matter how cool you think your game is.
Gameplay limitations might be that you ask so much of the 360 that multiple players on one box would make it keel over and die (though whether this is ever true I can't say); they could also be things like visibility. Some games require a whole screen or at least a half screen to see what the hell's happening. For example, Conker: Live and Reloaded was quite visually hectic, and it was hard to see where you were aiming even with two on a screen.
Do: Provide gametypes that allow the weaker players to still have fun.
In other words, give us zany gametypes and zany weapons, or team-based games where the noobs can still achieve something. The LAN Gamer enjoys just playing with friends, but he does not like to be shown up all the time - or have his friends shown up either.
Don't: Require all 360s to have the latest Live update of the game to play.
Why is this even necessary? We're not playing online here. This goes back to feature 1 again: some LAN gamers don't have Live (usually most, or they wouldn't be LANning) so they won't have the update, and won't play the game. Others will have Live but may not play this game regularly enough to have the latest update - and so won't play the game either. It's not all that hard to allow each 360 to downgrade to the latest update that everyone has and play with that.
There are more dos and don'ts but I'll leave that for others to post. For now, here are some examples of good and bad LAN systems.
Say what you want about them. Call them names, pretend they don't exist, put your fingers in your ears and scream "Lalalalala I can't hear you!" but the Halos did LANs dead near perfect. They DID allow 4 players to a screen. They DID have zany gametypes and zany weapons that let everyone get a sense of achievement. They DIDN'T require the latest update to play together. If you can't appreciate Halo's brilliant LAN experience you aren't rational.
A bizarre mix of Dids and Didn'ts here.
First, they do require the latest update. This is terribly frustrating for those who don't have the Survival Pack but just want to play Campaign with their Live friends. There's no good reason for this except laziness or oversight - or mercenary dickheadishness.
They gave a maximum of two players per screen. This would be disappointing for a game like Halo, but L4D gets away with it thanks to The Rule of Cool and visual limitations. L4D gives us a co-op shooter. That is awesome. It gives us Survival. Awesome again. It gives us Versus. Awesome beyond words. And it only requires 4 players (so two 360s) for a damned good team game anyway - a feat that most other games don't achieve until 8 players (and again two 360s). On the visual side, L4D is a dark game in which long distance vision is sometimes important (you do not want to shoot that Witch just because you didn't recognise it from those few dozen pixels on screen). 4 players would be chaotic and frustrating as no one could see what they were doing.
First, they do require the latest update. This is terribly frustrating for those who don't have the Survival Pack but just want to play Campaign with their Live friends. There's no good reason for this except laziness or oversight - or mercenary dickheadishness.
They gave a maximum of two players per screen. This would be disappointing for a game like Halo, but L4D gets away with it thanks to The Rule of Cool and visual limitations. L4D gives us a co-op shooter. That is awesome. It gives us Survival. Awesome again. It gives us Versus. Awesome beyond words. And it only requires 4 players (so two 360s) for a damned good team game anyway - a feat that most other games don't achieve until 8 players (and again two 360s). On the visual side, L4D is a dark game in which long distance vision is sometimes important (you do not want to shoot that Witch just because you didn't recognise it from those few dozen pixels on screen). 4 players would be chaotic and frustrating as no one could see what they were doing.
Why oh why?!
I've never seen a more infuriating LAN game. You see, on the back of a 360 box there are several pieces of information that all LAN gamers peruse before considering a game's LANnability: the number of split-screen players; and the number of system link players. For nearly all games, the number of split-screen players multiplied by the number of copies, TVs and 360s you have is how many players you can have playing any single game. Not so for CoD4. It is Split-Screen 1-4 (so 4 people on one screen) and System Link 1-16 BUT the second you go from split-screen to a system link, the number of players per screen drops to one. ONE. This means you need FIVE 360s, FIVE TVs, FIVE ethernet cables and a hub to have ONE more player than you can on a SINGLE 360 and TV screen. This is just dickheadish moneygrubbing in its purest form, and why CoD 4 gets an incredible amount of hate from LAN Gamers.
I've never seen a more infuriating LAN game. You see, on the back of a 360 box there are several pieces of information that all LAN gamers peruse before considering a game's LANnability: the number of split-screen players; and the number of system link players. For nearly all games, the number of split-screen players multiplied by the number of copies, TVs and 360s you have is how many players you can have playing any single game. Not so for CoD4. It is Split-Screen 1-4 (so 4 people on one screen) and System Link 1-16 BUT the second you go from split-screen to a system link, the number of players per screen drops to one. ONE. This means you need FIVE 360s, FIVE TVs, FIVE ethernet cables and a hub to have ONE more player than you can on a SINGLE 360 and TV screen. This is just dickheadish moneygrubbing in its purest form, and why CoD 4 gets an incredible amount of hate from LAN Gamers.
One player per screen. You'd think that would score it an F. But no. This game takes the Rule of Cool, ties it into a knot and makes it COOLER. You can blow buildings up. You can run through walls to get to the people on the other side. You can jetpack. You can kill people with a hammer. You can blow up the roof they're standing on and watch them plummet to their death. I've only played this 1-on-1 but even that has convinced me that this game is a definite LAN game. It takes even small numbers of players and makes epic moments - and that is what the LAN Gamer really wants.
Now please, add to this list of Dos and Don'ts and the Good, Bad and Ugly of LAN games.
*Though feel free to post your own thoughts on other systems.
