The Great Myth of Multiplayer Gaming
Here's something I've never truly understood about multiplayer gaming. When I'm playing multiplayer games, such as Halo 3 or Call Of Duty 4, I'm basically looking at the same screen as the single player game. I'm performing the same actions (chasing an objective while undoubtedly backed by a bunch of morons whose only plan is to get in my way) as I would in the single player game, and - generally speaking - the only difference is that the AI is a tad less predictable, the difficulty curve is less fair, and my ears ring with the homophobic falsetto insults of a 6 year old child (roll on the clamp-down on game sales to children, I say!).
My point is, I don't feel like I'm playing a multiplayer game, so much as I'm playing a single player game with other people.
Even playing muh-morpuhguhs (thank you Mr. Yahtzee) - the months I lost to World Of CashCow (which I rate in my head alongside the times I was bullied in high school and that summer when my girlfriend left me and I spent all my time drinking as "time I've regrettably lost with nothing to show for it, and will never get back") seemed like I was just playing a really long, dull RPG, only there was a lot of other people playing it, and the game was built in a way that allowed us to talk to each other and share our more-or-less single-player experience.
Okay, so I'm stretching things a bit - there were times when the ironically acronymed WoW was unplayable for me because someone had taken it upon themselves to run rampant around an area that was of utmost importance to me and generally behave like a cunt, and there have been a few occasions where I've somehow managed to find one or two online players with half a brain that I can co-operate with, which made me feel like I was playing a co-operative single player game.
I'm also aware that some of you probably think I'm talking rubbish. You'll want to tell me your weekly clan meetings are truly multiplayer experiences, and that you loce nothing more than the feeling of working as a unit, together, for a common good. But hold you horses, I'm well aware that this is simply my perspective, and that some people can have a thrilling multiplayer experience online.
My point is this: THE THINGS THAT MAKE GAMES TRULY MULTIPLAYER DON'T (seem to) HAPPEN IN THE GAME.
Clans, tactics, organisation, the thrill of congratulations, the shame of a loss ... these are things that happen when you communicate openly with like-minded people, and that happens outside of a gaming environment, in game forums, chat rooms, over messenger. People like myself - who don't like the idea of dedicating time OUTSIDE of games to their in-game experience - get the shitty end of the social gaming stick.
I don't really know what the solution is - or even if one is required, as such. I do quite enjoy dipping in and out of Call Of Duty 4 - its leveling and ranking system has managed to make even the ridiculous spankings you recieve from more advanced players feel rewarding and satisfying. Do I wish for something better? Of course. Could I design something better? You betcha (well, slightly, anyway - and I probably wouldn't have thought of the utterly fantastic and completely radical leveling-up system - in fact, when I heard about it, I thought it sounded really shit). But is the game itself horribly flawed because of this? Not really.
What I'm planning on taking from this observation is that you don't always need to design multiplayer games AS multiplayer games. This is similar to something I've believed for a long time - it shocks me to the core that single player and multiplayer are considered two different entities in every game that comes along.
There's no reason I can see why players of carefully matched skill can't be inserted into other players' "single player" experience in a way that would give the players the benefits of playing against other humans - essentially, the ultimate AI/AS (Artificial Stupidity, from what I hear harder to believable program than intelligence) - but still within the structure of a single-player game (perhaps with a story, for example).
As for how I would make Call Of Duty better?
It's all in the communication. Get in touch if you want to know more - for now, I'm off.
My point is, I don't feel like I'm playing a multiplayer game, so much as I'm playing a single player game with other people.
Even playing muh-morpuhguhs (thank you Mr. Yahtzee) - the months I lost to World Of CashCow (which I rate in my head alongside the times I was bullied in high school and that summer when my girlfriend left me and I spent all my time drinking as "time I've regrettably lost with nothing to show for it, and will never get back") seemed like I was just playing a really long, dull RPG, only there was a lot of other people playing it, and the game was built in a way that allowed us to talk to each other and share our more-or-less single-player experience.
Okay, so I'm stretching things a bit - there were times when the ironically acronymed WoW was unplayable for me because someone had taken it upon themselves to run rampant around an area that was of utmost importance to me and generally behave like a cunt, and there have been a few occasions where I've somehow managed to find one or two online players with half a brain that I can co-operate with, which made me feel like I was playing a co-operative single player game.
I'm also aware that some of you probably think I'm talking rubbish. You'll want to tell me your weekly clan meetings are truly multiplayer experiences, and that you loce nothing more than the feeling of working as a unit, together, for a common good. But hold you horses, I'm well aware that this is simply my perspective, and that some people can have a thrilling multiplayer experience online.
My point is this: THE THINGS THAT MAKE GAMES TRULY MULTIPLAYER DON'T (seem to) HAPPEN IN THE GAME.
Clans, tactics, organisation, the thrill of congratulations, the shame of a loss ... these are things that happen when you communicate openly with like-minded people, and that happens outside of a gaming environment, in game forums, chat rooms, over messenger. People like myself - who don't like the idea of dedicating time OUTSIDE of games to their in-game experience - get the shitty end of the social gaming stick.
I don't really know what the solution is - or even if one is required, as such. I do quite enjoy dipping in and out of Call Of Duty 4 - its leveling and ranking system has managed to make even the ridiculous spankings you recieve from more advanced players feel rewarding and satisfying. Do I wish for something better? Of course. Could I design something better? You betcha (well, slightly, anyway - and I probably wouldn't have thought of the utterly fantastic and completely radical leveling-up system - in fact, when I heard about it, I thought it sounded really shit). But is the game itself horribly flawed because of this? Not really.
What I'm planning on taking from this observation is that you don't always need to design multiplayer games AS multiplayer games. This is similar to something I've believed for a long time - it shocks me to the core that single player and multiplayer are considered two different entities in every game that comes along.
There's no reason I can see why players of carefully matched skill can't be inserted into other players' "single player" experience in a way that would give the players the benefits of playing against other humans - essentially, the ultimate AI/AS (Artificial Stupidity, from what I hear harder to believable program than intelligence) - but still within the structure of a single-player game (perhaps with a story, for example).
As for how I would make Call Of Duty better?
It's all in the communication. Get in touch if you want to know more - for now, I'm off.
Labels: games, gaming, multiplayer, online
posted by The alanjack Experience at
5:18 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home