On Multiplayer

 Pages 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 NEXT
 

On Multiplayer

Yahtzee explains why multiplayer isn't the most important part of a game.

Read Full Article

Ha, I don't play online in such games for the same reasons.

P.S. And I agree about Fat Princess.

Article:
5. Because people are shit.

When you play online with someone, you're not a human being to them. You're just another little mewling voice in the magic box of secrets. If you're not in the same actual room, poised to punch them in the face, only their entertainment matters. You might as well just be an AI bot that swears. Surely playing against an actual AI bot would be preferable. They might not speak and get stuck in corners a lot, but at least they'll never ragequit, and you can program them not to shoot you, and you don't have to pay broadband internet fees for the privilege.

I'm a believer of Penny Arcade's Greater Internet Fuckwad Theory: "Ordinary person + audience + anonymity = fuckwad." I would suggest a few alterations, though, such as removing the "+ anonymity" part. And the "+ audience" part. The default state of all human beings is fuckwad. The only reason they don't always act like fuckwads is because they're afraid of getting punched. So they're not just fuckwads, they're cowardly fuckwads.

This bit is so true. This was a great read because multiplayer should never be the first priority.

I like multiplayer but only on PC because [insert elitism here] and thats why mormons are the worst Tkers.

But seriously, be careful with multiplayer and it's fun. Be random with your selections, and you get turned of it for life.

It is worryingly true that last bit. The only real way about it is to just ignore what everyone says. Simple.

Behold the truth in all its shining glory! Games whose major selling point is the multiplayer can go die in a ditch!

From $60, single player is $10. What about the people that haven't got a Internet connection (they still exist). Why the heck didn't they release the game in 2 versions. I only play multi player on LAN or at least I need to communicate through a voice program.

100% agree: People are shit.

Yahtzee,

Ok so I'm going into this fully expecting to get ignored, but what the hell, it's worth a shot.

As a side project/night job sort of thing, I've started up a website dedicated to gaming, reviews and features mostly. So far so good, but here's the rub, I hate multiplayer in games as a rule. For alot of the reasons you've already stated, I dislike playing games online.

So now when I publish a review of Halo 3: ODST or Call of Duty and I get flack for not going into the multiplayer, what do I tell people when I'm accused of critical unfairness? So far it's been mostly, "Fuck you, I don't like multiplayer and I made no pretense otherwise" but I admit it's probably worth trying to flesh out that logic to be fair to readers who may expect a more comprehensive review.

Any thoughts from a professional like yourself are welcome here. ( But yeah, I'm not holding my breath. ) Either way, thanks for the article, entertaining as always.

Not true. People are lovely. I'm the asshole. I don't play much multiplayer because being surrounded by nicey-nice people who are better than me at games annoys me.

Well truth but it's kind of obvious...I mean who doesn't know that...anyway I would like to see an assassin's creed 2 review

I am in two minds about whether to disagree with you or not.

On the one hand I LOVE RPGs, Dragon Age, Mass Effect, Fallout 3, KOTOR, fantastic games all of them. And I double love the Half Life series and I've never even been on the multiplayer part.

But then I love Team Fortress 2, my staple in times of gaming drought. No single player at all, basic story, but pure unadultered fun. And Left 4 Dead 2 is a blast as well, espically leaving people behind to die while you escape on the boat, helicopter, whatever.

And as for your final point about all people being f*ckwads, yes I agree, only I call it sin.

Aura Guardian:
snip

Huh. I thought that was perhaps the weakest of the five points he provided. I've met seriously decent people online. Yahtzee's cynicism seems to extend far beyond my own. I can't really say I'm surprised though.

And was it just me or was the article conspicuously lacking in any discussion of non-online multiplayer?

And yet. I come back to Team Fortress 2. The greatest multiplayer game ever created. Because no matter what your skill level. You'll never be left out of the fun. ""

latenightapplepie:

Aura Guardian:
snip

Huh. I thought that was perhaps the weakest of the five points he provided. I've met seriously decent people online. Yahtzee's cynicism seems to extend far beyond my own. I can't really say I'm surprised though.

And was it just me or was the article conspicuously lacking in any discussion of non-online multiplayer?

Lucky you. I haven't met a decent/nice person online. Just people yelling [add any "insult"]

Offline multiplayer > Online multiplayer, for sure. However, nothing is wrong with having multiplayer being the main draw of the game, for the same reasons that movies are better to watch as a group than by yourself. If you make some good friends with a sense of humor, it's incredibly easy to find fun multiplayer games to play. That's why Smash Bros. is still so fun despite being played a million billion hours for us; because it's a chance for us to just screw around and have fun. Yeah, scheduling can be hard sometimes, but if you know a lot of people, you're sure to find friends. Hell, I've already scheduled some time with my friends to play New Super Mario Bros. Wii together, and it was incredibly easy, despite it being finals time and we all have classes and work and whatever. Simply put, we just tried to do it, and it worked.

I agree so much on World of Warcraft. This happens to me in every single RPG (or game where you level up) I play; the climb is the best part, not the summit. And his point about every minute you waste grinding away at the endgame depriving you from another good game is so very true.

jtesauro:
Yahtzee,

Ok so I'm going into this fully expecting to get ignored, but what the hell, it's worth a shot.

As a side project/night job sort of thing, I've started up a website dedicated to gaming, reviews and features mostly. So far so good, but here's the rub, I hate multiplayer in games as a rule. For alot of the reasons you've already stated, I dislike playing games online.

So now when I publish a review of Halo 3: ODST or Call of Duty and I get flack for not going into the multiplayer, what do I tell people when I'm accused of critical unfairness? So far it's been mostly, "Fuck you, I don't like multiplayer and I made no pretense otherwise" but I admit it's probably worth trying to flesh out that logic to be fair to readers who may expect a more comprehensive review.

Any thoughts from a professional like yourself are welcome here. ( But yeah, I'm not holding my breath. ) Either way, thanks for the article, entertaining as always.

He's already told you what he'd say to those people - it's all there in the article. Just link them to it.

Oh please don't tell me we've gone down that "People are STUPID!" Road again. I hate when people seriously believe that. Human beings as a species don't just fall into these good/bad corridors that we try and force ourselves into. I can't believe I'm saying this but at least try and give people a chance.

Aura Guardian:
Just people yelling [add any "insult"]

Noob, I tottaly would have killed you if I hadn't uh... Been Drinking coke!

latenightapplepie:

Aura Guardian:
snip

Huh. I thought that was perhaps the weakest of the five points he provided. I've met seriously decent people online. Yahtzee's cynicism seems to extend far beyond my own. I can't really say I'm surprised though.

And was it just me or was the article conspicuously lacking in any discussion of non-online multiplayer?

The split-screen LAN section about switching over to Tekken was about just that, so yeah it was you.

About the "people are shit", I agree completely. I never play a game online unless there is at least one of my friends already playing it. Not just people on my "friends" list, I mean people I have actually met and hang out with on the weekends. The average person is not someone I want to play a video game with.

Eh. I play online multiplayer because it adds replayability. Plus I have a lot of friends who are generally fun to play with. Sure there's a lot of fuckwads but the mute buttons an incredibly handy tool.

Yahtzee, I see where your comming from and it's admirable that you stick by your values. Can't wait for your next review!

Sonicron:
Behold the truth in all its shining glory! Games whose major selling point is the multiplayer can go die in a ditch!

But then we wouldn't have games like Unreal Tournament, Battlefield, Borderlands, Team Fortress 2 and Left 4 Dead, all of which are remarkably well designed and deliver fantastic experiences across the board.

Granted, most of my experience has been on the PC versions of all those as I've found the PC community to be more mature than on consoles.

I would say that with this article you're doing the Lord's work Mr. Croshaw, but neither you nor I believe in him so I'll just cut it down to thank you.

I think me makes allot of good points but also some poor ones.

The Unreal Tournament era was awesome. I loved that game, not every game ever has to be single player focused. I don't hate multiplayer, i just don't like the current development we are seeing were single player campaigns are getting awfully short.

obliterate:
Well truth but it's kind of obvious...I mean who doesn't know that...anyway I would like to see an assassin's creed 2 review

I think its funny how after reading this, I though, "hmmm... AC2 online multiplayer..."

I was just saying earlier today, its more fun to play single player. I grew tired of the internet a few years ago, and multiplayer was one that helped that along. Everyone has their goals and their goals might not be the same as YOURS.

*Guild Wars; picking up teams to go on quests either happened or... Didn't. When you did, you had one mission together and you'd part never to see each other again. One of you got ahead in chapters or the other quit.

*Savage; my teammates didn't understand I'm only good at being a healer so while they had the big guns out and not a care to get the healers going I was useless. They get the healers going and suddenly, bingo, everyone's a healer and no one's a fighter. As for why I was the best, I was the only one who'd actaully go into the fight and TRY to heal the fighters that decided to stay fighters. I was also a good stragiest, not anyone ever listened to me. I sat there and worked out that things like "Oh look, the back doors wide open, why are we attacking the frotn again?" Why? Because they only wanted to listen to the fighters and not the healers.

*Diablo 2: BAck to mr. "I've got my own goals who cares on yours", couldn't get a team that flowed well. Beat Baal and scramble for the loot. Necromancers take all and barbarians cry if they don't get their own WAY.

And the others I played. It all came down to the same problems.

Before anyone bothers, yeah, I'm aware he won't read or care, but these are online forums. It's all ultimately a waste of time anyways.

Yahtzee Croshaw:
Article

Let me open by saying you're wrong.

OH SHI-... "My opinion can't be wrong!". Yes it can. If it's your opinion water in it's liquid natural state is dry, then you're wrong.

You're not ENTIRELY wrong however, mostly just the 4th point... Ok, mostly half of the 4th point.

The point you're wrong in is that EVERY game MUST necessarily have a single player or whatnot. You're wrong, as evidenced (for instances) by a game you claimed to be quite the good experience, Left4Dead. Saying every game MUST necessarily have a single player mode that MUST stand by itself is like saying every movie needs to end with the good guy smiling happily into the sunset. Different games are marketed towards different gamers.

This is equally the part where you're only half-wrong. Games that are marketed on their single player experience NEED a single player campaign that can stand by itself, and it's ultimately the reason games like Halo, Gears of War or CoD shouldn't get the "free ride" they expect.

As for online games ultimately being circumstantial or accomplishing nothing... Like any other game? Even by completing a beautifully tailored story mode what do you accomplish?

Yes, online games rely on more variables than single player games, but they're a different bread entirely. For instances every time you play the game, with a different set of people, the game itself changes. Behaviors change, skill levels change, things change, for you to adapt. Online gaming is not perfect by any means, not necessarily better or worse than single player gaming, it's different. Different people look for different things in different games.

As for your last point, I entirely agree, generally speaking people are absolute idiots. I wonder how most of them manage to do basic functions and breath at the same time. Which raises the question: Why do you care what they think? You often put a lot of emphasis in not being mocked, which quite honestly leads me to think the whole thing just scares you. Guessing you were bullied a lot when you were younger or something. This is a personal recommendation more than anything, but, it doesn't really matter what other people think.

And yes, I would say this to your face.

I'm glad someone else is saying this too.
Developers (for years) have been relying too much on online multiplayer to extend the life of a game. I too like a game that has a strong single player option.

That said, the games I usually play online are games that were made to be played online: UT, Warhawk and the like. However my absolute favorite games of all time don't usually have multiplayer at all: San Andreas, Fallout 3, Katamari Damacy.

The biggest problem i have with online multiplayer is the people I'm playing against. When i'm playing split-screen multiplayer with buddies were always cussing and poking fun at each other. It's part of the experience. but then you go online, the cusses and insults aren't made in a jovial matter, but with an intent to send you to hell. I have been called every racial epithet on the planet (despite being latino) and i have seen many instances were the insults have gotten to the point were someone quits (including me). I agree with your wish in your Modern Warfare 2 review, the ability to reach over the screen and smack someone for their stupidity. May I also recommend a good strangling?

latenightapplepie:
And was it just me or was the article conspicuously lacking in any discussion of non-online multiplayer?

Just you.

Above Article:
And if you try to get your friends around to play LAN or splitscreen, you have to make sure everyone's schedules sync up, and there's a strong possibility that most of your guests will vote to switch over to Tekken half an hour in.

I find most of Yahtzee's reasons quite understandable myself, although truthfully none of them have ever stopped me from wanting to play multiplayer for an extended period of time. If I like a game enough, I will eventually find myself testing my mettle online. At the moment, my game of choice is Halo 2 for Vista (trying to conserve money, slow computer, far away from civilization, don't judge me), which actually has a fairly strong single-player mode - stronger than its sequel, I should think; but I still enjoy playing online now that the entertainment value of the story has worn thin. Yes, the online gaming community has more than its share of fuckwads; but I find that all you really need to do is find the dipwads, morons, jackasses, and actually quite okay ordinary people in the game (which seems to be easier to do when playing PC), and hang out with them to the exclusion of aforementioned fuckwads. Once you do that, there can be a lot of fun to be had.

Yahtzee doesn't seem to like most of the games that actually do have a solid multiplayer experience, though (TF2 being a possible exception), so personally I wouldn't be too miffed if he ignored the multiplayer mode on games unless they happen to do something exceptionally innovative and interesting.

Which - MW2 didn't. So I think it's understandable.

Multiplayer lasts for fun for a few days if that. CS:S is the only thing I return to often.

CoD 4 was nothing special in terms of Multiplayer, and the stupid price, short campaign and total "fuck you" attitude to my platform is why it's a no purchase.

Single player is still king to me.

The last point smells a bit misanthropic.

But what if the game is 100% multiplayer? It should be good, then. For instance, judging Neverwinter Nights by single-player, without the multiplayer, the editor, the mods... it would get 6.5/10 at most. But add multiplayer and it gets a high 9, 9.5.

...Also, because Modern Warfare 2 lasts for 6 or 7 hours?

Ah, the wonders of an opinion. And the wonders of being able to disagree completely with them.

I'm going to have to turn away on this one and say that you really shouldn't play certain games since you're really expecting something quite different. I see this almost all the time in your reviews about games where its obvious that the multiplayer is the most imporant part of the game.

I really can't bother with this though, since it won't be read anyway. This post is kind of like all of your single player games...nobody is going to know, or care that you've spent a lot of time on a certain game. At least in the online part of it, people know that you've wasted a lot of time with ranks/gear.

JeanLuc761:

Sonicron:
Behold the truth in all its shining glory! Games whose major selling point is the multiplayer can go die in a ditch!

But then we wouldn't have games like Unreal Tournament, Battlefield, Borderlands, Team Fortress 2 and Left 4 Dead, all of which are remarkably well designed and deliver fantastic experiences across the board.

Granted, most of my experience has been on the PC versions of all those as I've found the PC community to be more mature than on consoles.

Well, UT was fun and Borderlands was ok, but I don't give a toss about the rest of those. Don't get me wrong, all those games have the potential for tons of fun, but the premise is let down by what Yahtzee mentions in his final point. The notion that other players are paradoxically the factor that most detracts from the fun in multiplayer games is one I grasped years ago and as such can't be bothered to give games whose major selling point is the multiplayer a chance. I blame the developers - not because of the way the multiplayer is designed (in many cases, as stated, it is excellently put together) but because they didn't make the singleplayer their priority.

"You didn't try the online multiplayer portion of modern warfare 2????? Seriously????? THAT'S LIKE TRYING ORANGE BOX AND SKIPPING OVER THE SILLY PORTAL GAME."
-Matt, via email

Give me this mans address.

I don't care how many times I have to do something unspeakable to Yahtzee to get it, I just want to choke the stupid out of this guy.

Thankyou for confirming my dislike of online gamers and their general insanity, deluded nature and racism.

 Pages 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 NEXT

Reply to Thread

Log in or Register to Comment
Have an account? Login below:
With Facebook:Login With Facebook
or
Username:  
Password:  
  
Not registered? To sign up for an account with The Escapist:
Register With Facebook
Register With Facebook
or
Registered for a free account here