Comments on: Online multiplayer is overrated

By: Burton

Burton — Wed, 14 Feb 2007 15:40:02 +0000

I believe that multiplayer games are my favorite kind of game. Like the second or third commenter posted, single player games are made to be beat and I’ve always been the sort of gamer that likes to get the most value out of a game. I formed friendships playing games online with people in Sweden, Canada, and Texas while playing Counter-Strike. With a game like that, you have AI that is constantly changing and evolving based on any habits you’re projecting. To me it is like playing a very visual and interactive chess match. With a single player game, a developer usually just takes off the stupidity modifier for a bot and makes his aim dead on 90% of the time.

Here’s what I propose and you heard it here first (Burton). Take the cross gaming idea this site ran an article on a few weeks back, and log real players information into the data that effects how AI plays. So when a real player logs on, the character can’t tell who he’s playing, a friend or a bot.

By: Stephen

Stephen — Wed, 14 Feb 2007 04:28:29 +0000

I agree with Paul, in that it comes down to how it’s implemented. Don’t get down on online multiplayer based on the games. Imagine the ideal and lament the game that doesn’t live up to its potential.

James gave me the great example of an online multiplayer Resident Evil game where you’re talking with the other players via radios. Your teammate walks into a room full of zombies and you hear them screaming with gunshots ringing out over the radio, and also in-game off in the distance. It could really add to the experience.

Imagine running from room to room, kicking down doors, trying desperately to find them to help out.

By: Ganesh

Ganesh — Wed, 14 Feb 2007 01:03:32 +0000

the really really worst is
when a game has online multiplayer
but not normal multiplayer

By: Bill

Bill — Wed, 14 Feb 2007 00:42:50 +0000

Get in a good game of Rainbow 6 on the 360 with people who know how to play and communicate. It’s not possible to duplicate that experience without being online. I definitely look for good online play. That’s what I pay the Live Gold subscription fee for.

By: Subnet6

Subnet6 — Tue, 13 Feb 2007 20:18:29 +0000

I don’t dig on online multi. I used to love Q3A online for it’s all out intensity. The thing that killed online for me was battle.net and diablo. All the cheater and player killers and item dupers just ruined it. Damn near ruined gaming for me altogether. Now, the only use I have for online is online co-op with a buddy who can’t get to your place for a session. I love co-op. I could care less about CTF/Assault/DM anymore.

By: Paul

Paul — Tue, 13 Feb 2007 19:45:39 +0000

It all depends on how it’s done.

To paraphrase James, great co-op is what the next generation of online play is all about.

By: Cruds

Cruds — Tue, 13 Feb 2007 17:23:21 +0000

Not too keen on online gaming either. I think it can work well for racing games to replace the NPC’ss AI other than that I really don’t care too much about it, rather play some story mode or an one on one fighting game. But I know a fair amount of people that wouldn’t touch a game if there isn’t online mode. For some it’s a very important feature.

By: Nate

Nate — Tue, 13 Feb 2007 16:25:17 +0000

I’ve played online games (or over lan) since back to doom 2 (man, that was a networking nightmare). Yes, it does enhance the experience. Playing games where the AI handles your allies are always miserable, and your allies always die before the end of the first level. Now, as Ai gets better, this won’t be the case, but AI is still not as good as a friend running along with you.

I’ve run dungeons in WOW with complete strangers, and it’s still fun to run those dungeons with actual people who make mistakes and can think on their feet and having to react to those situations. Each time I go through that dungeon with a different group, the game is different. So of course it’s better to play with real people.

Cheaters suck, but if the dev’s make a game that isn’t broken, cheaters won’t be able to cheat for long.

By: Nathan

Nathan — Tue, 13 Feb 2007 15:41:58 +0000

I have criticized online play for a long time. I actually sat down with a free 48-hour trial of Xbox Live and spent a good chunk of time playing all of the games I have for 360 online. The only thing I can say was fun was Gears of War. Most of the games have too many bugs online. I think playing multiplayer online is stupid, unless you have a good game to back it.

First off before a game should even HAVE online play it should have a good single player mode. One that is nearly flawless and fun. How many games like that have we seen in the past year? Next the online play should be fun and not one sided. I’m all for Halo and all that but it gets really annoying when everyone knows where the weapons are but you because you aren’t a lifeless prick playing 8 hours a day. Weapons placements should be random in every game. I mean when a game comes out within a week you get a steep curve starting. Many gamers will sit for hours trying to figure out where everything is. That’s not fun to me, and that’s not playing a game. That’s being a dick just to win, and that’s mostly who you play against online.

That said, I have not once bought a game for multiplayer and never will. I first and foremost expect the game to have a solid single player mode. So far this new generation, everything has pretty much let me down but Zelda.

By: Matthew Mac

Matthew Mac — Tue, 13 Feb 2007 15:39:21 +0000

I totally agree. What really gets me, though, is when so much emphasis is put on MP that SP suffers. I’ve always believed that a game [I]is[/I] SP, and MP is just a nice add on, but some devs seem to think its the other way around. I’m tired of reviews that say,”this game sucked, but MP saved it.” MP shouldn’t even be part of the review, unless gameplay is based around it (UT3). I won’t even play a ranked GoW match, which sucked since Achievements are based around it, as run into enough jerks in payer matched as is.