Multiplayer gaming

[andrewducker]

Having now played a fair number of games both multiplayer and single playaer, I can happily say that multiplayer is the way of the future. rahaeli has been saying that three person gaming sessions are great and she's got a very good point, it turns gaming from a lonesome (if frequently fantastic) experience, into a shared experience, whereby not only do are you enjoying the game more because you're kicking the ass of someone you know (or possibly having your ass kicked, should you be a wuss), but it gives you experiences in common with the other person and it's something to bond over.

Two examples that spring quickly to mind are Mario Kart (which was kinda fun single player, but an absolute riot with 4 of us clustered around the N64) and Serious Sam, which was an ok diversion by itself, but massively good fun when played by me and Joe (although we didn't play it more than a few times, so it obviously didn't have much replayability).

I've also been a lot of Counter-Strike which is massively enhanced by the fact that you're shooting real people, who do real, unpredictable, things and learn from mistakes (your and theirs) and yesterday I played Wolfenstein online for the first time, which was a pretty fantastic experience. I can happily say that I've now learnt two important tips for World War 2 combat:
1) Don't set someone on fire with your flamethrower and then walk into them.
2) Rocket launchers are not close quarter weapons.

Comments

Erin says:

[(Anonymous)]

WEll, duh!

[rahaeli.livejournal.com]

Actually, I was referring to "three-person" as "three people in the apartment, one person with controller in front of single-player game, the other two providing extra sets of eyes, distraction during the endless levelslutting, and snide commentary as appropriate". I have Issues with multiplayer online games, basically in that they're fine if you're just playing with people you know and like, but when you take them to the Massively Multiplayer stage such as Final Fantasy 11 is going to be, you get lamers. Lots of lamers. And really, if I wanted to spend all that time working to build up a character only to get taken down by some player-killing asshole who's been using cheats, I can play on a MUD and do it for free instead of paying $10 a month for the privilege.

The other problem I have with MMORPGs is that they, by nature, have to be more free-form and amorphous with the plot, and I prefer plot over gameplay.

Things like Gauntlet, on the other hand, work best in pairs or threes. :)

Lam3rz

[andrewducker]

Absolutely. All online games involve simplifying the world and putting simple rules into place instead of creating the complex systems that lead to those perceived rules. The problem with this is that if one person can create a rule, another person can find a way to misuse it to their advantage, and some people live to 'win' rather than to enjoy the game. Never mind the fact that with games the process of playing is the whole point of the game.

Basically, in any artificial system that allows anyone is there will be idiots who want to spoil it, and any system of sufficient complexity will be breakable. Put them both together in a MMORPG and you have lamer city.

What you need is responsibility - you need the people running it to be happy to chuck out lamers, and a sufficient group of people who are happy to play games 'properly' that will also watch over the people and make sure they're in genre/character.

I can't see that happening until you've got a large enough user base for the roleplayers to be able to support a server on their own.