Yahtzee and Multiplayer

[Nooners]

TLDR, Yahtzee, you charismatic stallion! What makes a multiplayer game good?

LONG VERSION: Yahtzee, you ordinary person! You claim to not like multiplayer all that much, but you've cited times when you like multiplayer (TF2, Assassin's Creed Brotherhood, Modern Warfare 2 Spec Ops, Guitar Hero/Rock Band/ kinda-sorta the Old Republic?). So my question to you is this: what makes for a good multiplayer experience? What gameplay elements/mechanics/whatevers make you admit that the multiplayer facet of a game is good? I'm hoping to see an Extra Punctuation on the topic someday...

For everyone else, reply so that the Trilby-wearing man sees it!

 

[Fappy]

I have never seen him post in these forums before. He is scared of social interaction.

 

[Terminate421]

He doesn't like losing

 

[Skin]

He never says multiplayer is bad, he merely states that a game has to stand up on its single player feet and thus is only reviewed by that standard.

 

[GonzoGamer]

He never says multiplayer is bad, he merely states that a game has to stand up on its single player feet and thus is only reviewed by that standard.

That's what it is. And I think he's right.
Even with online pass and live fees, these online servers don't stay up forever: remember the last poor folks clinging to the Halo 2 servers?
Think about it, I can still pop Caslevania in my NES and play everything in it, there are going to be very few games from this generation that will be just as good when we pop it in for a nostalgia trip years down the road or next week if the network goes down.
A game shouldn't have to depend on online to be good because that option wont be around forever, some people don't play online, and let's face it, the value of the online is also largely dependent on the community which for some games, consists of obnoxious pricks who are way too proud of their "skills."
There are too many factors that can render the online (more or less) useless.

 

[Zhukov]

If you're trying to get in touch with the guy directly you could just send him an email.

 

[Epona]

I have never seen him post in these forums before. He is scared of social interaction.

...or he just doesn't post under an ID that you recognize as his.

 

[Mike Fang]

Part of the reason Yahtzee doesn't review multiplayer modes in a game is because it's difficult to evaluate a game experience what a lot of it is reliant on an elements outside of the developer's control, namely the other players. The behavior of other players contributes heavily to an experience with a multiplayer game or a game's multiplayer mode, so playing with obnoxious jerks can make a game seem bad when it's mechanics, graphics, sound effects and other elements are fine. There's also a problem that any game mechanic that requires cooperation can't be evaluated unless others on your team are willing to work together; this can handicap a review of a multiplayer game or mode if in the time allotted to evaluate a game you can't find any decent team mates.

I think Yahtzee could solve this problem if he could find a dedicated group of friends or gaming partners who would be willing to play a game with him and he knows he can trust them to be good sports. Of course that would be tough for large multiplayer games like TF2 or Brink. One possibility, I suppose, would be for video game reviewers from multiple publications and websites to form a gaming group of their own and hold regular playing sessions so all the reviewers could get a chance to evaluate the game. Of course there's no guarantee that some of those reviewers won't turn out to be mic-spamming, porn-spraying trolls, but the odds are better they won't be. There's also the danger that the reviewers could start influencing each others' reviews, too, I guess. At any rate, it's an idea.

 

[Epona]

He never says multiplayer is bad, he merely states that a game has to stand up on its single player feet and thus is only reviewed by that standard.

That's what it is. And I think he's right.
Even with online pass and live fees, these online servers don't stay up forever: remember the last poor folks clinging to the Halo 2 servers?
Think about it, I can still pop Caslevania in my NES and play everything in it, there are going to be very few games from this generation that will be just as good when we pop it in for a nostalgia trip years down the road or next week if the network goes down.
A game shouldn't have to depend on online to be good because that option wont be around forever, some people don't play online, and let's face it, the value of the online is also largely dependent on the community which for some games, consists of obnoxious pricks who are way too proud of their "skills."
There are too many factors that can render the online (more or less) useless.

Todays games will be worthless in the future because of online passes, DLC and pre-order bonuses that won't be available for download in 10-20 years time.

You talk about playing an NES game today. You could even extend that up to the last generation. You will still be able to play PS2 games in 10 years and you won't need to worry about downloading or activating anything. You also won't need to worry about the multiplayer servers.

 

[Fappy]

I have never seen him post in these forums before. He is scared of social interaction.

...or he just doesn't post under an ID that you recognize as his.

That's a possibility, but I very much doubt that he actually posts on these forums on a regular basis. He's a pretty busy guy.

 

[Erttheking]

From what I can gather he seems to hate interacting with people that aren't in the same room as him while playing and he hates playing the same game over and over...the thing that makes multiplayer so appealing to everyone else.

 

[GonzoGamer]

He never says multiplayer is bad, he merely states that a game has to stand up on its single player feet and thus is only reviewed by that standard.

That's what it is. And I think he's right.
Even with online pass and live fees, these online servers don't stay up forever: remember the last poor folks clinging to the Halo 2 servers?
Think about it, I can still pop Caslevania in my NES and play everything in it, there are going to be very few games from this generation that will be just as good when we pop it in for a nostalgia trip years down the road or next week if the network goes down.
A game shouldn't have to depend on online to be good because that option wont be around forever, some people don't play online, and let's face it, the value of the online is also largely dependent on the community which for some games, consists of obnoxious pricks who are way too proud of their "skills."
There are too many factors that can render the online (more or less) useless.

Todays games will be worthless in the future because of online passes, DLC and pre-order bonuses that won't be available for download in 10-20 years time.

You talk about playing an NES game today. You could even extend that up to the last generation. You will still be able to play PS2 games in 10 years and you won't need to worry about downloading or activating anything. You also won't need to worry about the multiplayer servers.

That's very true. I just don't think my ps2 will actually still be working in another 20 years. If it does, I'll be able to show my son some of the finer points of San Andreas and why Burnout used to be the greatest driving series of all time.

 

[Epona]

He never says multiplayer is bad, he merely states that a game has to stand up on its single player feet and thus is only reviewed by that standard.

That's what it is. And I think he's right.
Even with online pass and live fees, these online servers don't stay up forever: remember the last poor folks clinging to the Halo 2 servers?
Think about it, I can still pop Caslevania in my NES and play everything in it, there are going to be very few games from this generation that will be just as good when we pop it in for a nostalgia trip years down the road or next week if the network goes down.
A game shouldn't have to depend on online to be good because that option wont be around forever, some people don't play online, and let's face it, the value of the online is also largely dependent on the community which for some games, consists of obnoxious pricks who are way too proud of their "skills."
There are too many factors that can render the online (more or less) useless.

Todays games will be worthless in the future because of online passes, DLC and pre-order bonuses that won't be available for download in 10-20 years time.

You talk about playing an NES game today. You could even extend that up to the last generation. You will still be able to play PS2 games in 10 years and you won't need to worry about downloading or activating anything. You also won't need to worry about the multiplayer servers.

That's very true. I just don't think my ps2 will actually still be working in another 20 years. If it does, I'll be able to show my son some of the finer points of San Andreas and why Burnout used to be the greatest driving series of all time.

I still have a working NES, SNES, and PS1. I think there will still be working PS2's in 10-20 years. I think they are still in production too.

 

[Sirron Kcuch]

He never says multiplayer is bad, he merely states that a game has to stand up on its single player feet and thus is only reviewed by that standard.

That's what it is. And I think he's right.
Even with online pass and live fees, these online servers don't stay up forever: remember the last poor folks clinging to the Halo 2 servers?
Think about it, I can still pop Caslevania in my NES and play everything in it, there are going to be very few games from this generation that will be just as good when we pop it in for a nostalgia trip years down the road or next week if the network goes down.
A game shouldn't have to depend on online to be good because that option wont be around forever, some people don't play online, and let's face it, the value of the online is also largely dependent on the community which for some games, consists of obnoxious pricks who are way too proud of their "skills."
There are too many factors that can render the online (more or less) useless.

Todays games will be worthless in the future because of online passes, DLC and pre-order bonuses that won't be available for download in 10-20 years time.

You talk about playing an NES game today. You could even extend that up to the last generation. You will still be able to play PS2 games in 10 years and you won't need to worry about downloading or activating anything. You also won't need to worry about the multiplayer servers.

That's very true. I just don't think my ps2 will actually still be working in another 20 years. If it does, I'll be able to show my son some of the finer points of San Andreas and why Burnout used to be the greatest driving series of all time.

Ah, burnout, I'd pay 60 ? for a B3 remake (just for the online)

 

[GonzoGamer]

He never says multiplayer is bad, he merely states that a game has to stand up on its single player feet and thus is only reviewed by that standard.

That's what it is. And I think he's right.
Even with online pass and live fees, these online servers don't stay up forever: remember the last poor folks clinging to the Halo 2 servers?
Think about it, I can still pop Caslevania in my NES and play everything in it, there are going to be very few games from this generation that will be just as good when we pop it in for a nostalgia trip years down the road or next week if the network goes down.
A game shouldn't have to depend on online to be good because that option wont be around forever, some people don't play online, and let's face it, the value of the online is also largely dependent on the community which for some games, consists of obnoxious pricks who are way too proud of their "skills."
There are too many factors that can render the online (more or less) useless.

Todays games will be worthless in the future because of online passes, DLC and pre-order bonuses that won't be available for download in 10-20 years time.

You talk about playing an NES game today. You could even extend that up to the last generation. You will still be able to play PS2 games in 10 years and you won't need to worry about downloading or activating anything. You also won't need to worry about the multiplayer servers.

That's very true. I just don't think my ps2 will actually still be working in another 20 years. If it does, I'll be able to show my son some of the finer points of San Andreas and why Burnout used to be the greatest driving series of all time.

I still have a working NES, SNES, and PS1. I think there will still be working PS2's in 10-20 years. I think they are still in production too.

Good point.
A friend of mine just replaced his PS2 rather than getting a ps3 or 360.
They sell machines that play NES SNES SMS & Genesis games; all in one now.

 

[GonzoGamer]

He never says multiplayer is bad, he merely states that a game has to stand up on its single player feet and thus is only reviewed by that standard.

That's what it is. And I think he's right.
Even with online pass and live fees, these online servers don't stay up forever: remember the last poor folks clinging to the Halo 2 servers?
Think about it, I can still pop Caslevania in my NES and play everything in it, there are going to be very few games from this generation that will be just as good when we pop it in for a nostalgia trip years down the road or next week if the network goes down.
A game shouldn't have to depend on online to be good because that option wont be around forever, some people don't play online, and let's face it, the value of the online is also largely dependent on the community which for some games, consists of obnoxious pricks who are way too proud of their "skills."
There are too many factors that can render the online (more or less) useless.

Todays games will be worthless in the future because of online passes, DLC and pre-order bonuses that won't be available for download in 10-20 years time.

You talk about playing an NES game today. You could even extend that up to the last generation. You will still be able to play PS2 games in 10 years and you won't need to worry about downloading or activating anything. You also won't need to worry about the multiplayer servers.

That's very true. I just don't think my ps2 will actually still be working in another 20 years. If it does, I'll be able to show my son some of the finer points of San Andreas and why Burnout used to be the greatest driving series of all time.

Ah, burnout, I'd pay 60 ? for a B3 remake (just for the online)

That would be cool but I don't even care about online.
What I would love to see are the crash junctions from last generation but with more cars and bigger explosions using the current gen tech.
But instead, criterion decided to crash the brand into the mountain this gen with 2 really disappointing titles.

 

[remnant_phoenix]

From what I can gather he seems to hate interacting with people that aren't in the same room as him while playing and he hates playing the same game over and over...the thing that makes multiplayer so appealing to everyone else.

Yep. I don't see why some people have hard time accepting this basic idea: to some people, Yahtazee and myself included, playing multiplayer matches with strangers, round after round and day after day, is repetitive and boring.

I'm not saying it's BAD by any means. Millions of people who bought Modern Warfare 3 and play hours of repeating matches daily certainly think its good, but that doesn't mean that EVERYONE enjoys it.

I had to explain this simple concept to my secondary students 3-4 times because they were beside themselves in misunderstanding as to why I wasn't interested in MW3 multiplayer.

 

[dexxyoto]

Same reason lots of us dislike multiplayer. It's often more fun with friends (And easier to smack them upside the head) and because as penny arcade pointed out in the greater internet f*ckwad theory people tend to be massive jerks online especially in multiplayer.

 

[ToastiestZombie]

He won't post here. Yahtzee may be funny, but he really is terrible at joining in with the community. He probably just comes here to post his videos then leave, I don't think he has ever commented on anything.

 

[Grouchy Imp_v1legacy]

Same reason lots of us dislike multiplayer. It's often more fun with friends (And easier to smack them upside the head) and because as penny arcade pointed out in the greater internet f*ckwad theory people tend to be massive jerks online especially in multiplayer.

Which is why you organise your mates so you're all online at the same time, join the same lobby, completely lock out one team, and have you and your mates vs the Internet f*cknuggets. I really enjoy online competitive multiplayer, but enough of my friends must be online to at least take up 2/3 of one team for me to consider it. Otherwise it's off to Tamriel or the Mojave - I can fully understand why one person on their own wouldn't want to jump into online MP.