8 replies to this topic

[Frostblade]

Multiplayer games are becoming more and more popular, both within the GMC and elsewhere. Games without some form of multiplayer gameplay are rapidly becoming the exception rather than the rule- and why not, after all? Playing with others brings in attractions that single-player gameplay cannot match: AI is no longer an issue, teamwork becomes a treat instead of a chore, and the fun, social side of gaming can be enhanced.

However, many multiplayer games- particularly RPGs, such as World of Warcraft- are falling into the same problems. Emergent strategy is discouraged in favour of robot-like efficiency; roles become set and predictable instead of interesting and adaptable; and in general, multiplayer games are failing to consider what average, casual gamers want. This applies to both traditional group play, and single-player gameplay in a multiplayer world.

On that note, I've created this topic to discuss the general design philosophy and methods of multiplayer gaming: where existing games execute it badly, how theoretical games could make it better, and what constitutes "good" and "bad" multiplayer. Any thoughts on the matter are welcome.

[Sven]

I completely agree, I feel that most games such as WOW, Ever Quest, Vanguard to name a few are falling into that sort of category as you described.

I do think that there is almost nothing that can be done to the current game design to prevent that from happening though. Although slightly unfounded and generalized, There are a large number of people on these online RPG games that care little for the Multi-player aspect, and greatly for there own profit and in game advancement. This is always going to be a drawback to the online gaming world.

Now onto the aspect of Good and Bad.
To put it simply, I am a fan of cooperative. I feel that almost every game is fantastic as a cooperative game, and I like it even better when you can play the game in single player style with your friend/s. To use a somewhat Cliche example: Halo. Sadly not cooperative for the PC version, the Xbox version executed this fantastically.
Another good example is SvenCoop for Halflife, or even OpenCoop for Doom III.
These are not "Official" but they still add a good element of gameplay, and I would like to see more games with this feature.

Edited by Sven, 20 June 2009 - 11:19 AM.

[LarsonCreativity]

A lot of games throw in multiplayer in as a extra feature. That's all well and good, but in reality the multiplayer is usaully poor, at least compared to the rest of the game. It's sometimes a nice touch to add in, but I would like to see developers spend more time developing the multilplayer aspect, or omit it completely.

~LC~

[Shadow Link]

Multiplayer, as a whole, is a relative debate. There are, however, general principles to keep in mind. The first and foremost is that there has to be a balance between the players. Although, this completely depends on the type of game. Some games like Mario Party break that balance with 3 vs 1 minigames, but the lone player usually has an upper advantage, while the 3 opposing are slowed down or weaker. Also, in shooting games like Halo, it depends on who picks up which weapons.

Online multiplayer games can be taken into a whole other thread, but from experience, I would have to say that character balance is most important. in an environment where "advancement" has to be shown, most developers pick the popular "Level up" system. That said, there shouldn't be any classes, races, or genders that level up faster than everyone else (unless intended story-wise). Also, the game must enable cooperation, else it'd be boring. There will always be people who would love to solo from 0 to 100 and be the best, but what's that leave for everyone else? Less hunting partners. A system where every class must come into play would be nice. Likewise, no class should be stronger than other ones, or else that's what people would predominantly play. Like I said, this could be taken into another discussion, and I could post a book on it (given motivation), so I've tried to keep this paragraph short, highlighting the major details.

Offline multiplayers are a little different. In co-op mode, there also has to be a balance with the players. Games like Super Mario Galaxy fell flat with this one. The second player is nearly useless, given the fact that the game is generally easy. Part of me wants to say that this was intended for parents to help their (much younger) kids, while not having to remember a lot of controls. The best co-op games I've played were Halo and Resident Evil: Umbrella Chronicles. In RE co-op, both players are equal in power (only they share one very large combined health bar). In single player, it's hard to find secrets, and if you want 100% completion, you'll want to find them all. However, picking off zombies is hard, as the secrets are contained inside breakable objects, which also deplete your ammo. For this reason, you have to be wary about where you use your ammo, when to reload, and have to train yourself to kill zombies fast (which can be done in 1 shot on their critical point - mainly their heads). During co-op, a good strategy would be 1 player playing the game normally, shooting zombies, while the second player shoots every obstacle in the background - or vice versa.

That said, there's a multitude of ways to achieve "multiplayer". Co-op is nice and popular, and gets the two people really involved, communicating what to do. Perhaps this topic could also serve as a way to discuss other methods of multiplayer?

EDIT: While submitting my post, I also remembered PvP games. Stuff like Yu-Gi-Oh, Pokemon Stadium, etc. It branches out to many more categories, but I'd like to see some discussion on that. It's getting late for me, so I haven't the time.

Edited by Shadow Link, 21 June 2009 - 07:49 AM.

[Frostblade]

Multiplayer, as a whole, is a relative debate. There are, however, general principles to keep in mind. The first and foremost is that there has to be a balance between the players. Although, this completely depends on the type of game. Some games like Mario Party break that balance with 3 vs 1 minigames, but the lone player usually has an upper advantage, while the 3 opposing are slowed down or weaker. Also, in shooting games like Halo, it depends on who picks up which weapons.

I think being too focused on balance can actually harm a multiplayer game. If the game's fun to play, entertaining and fair, does it really matter if it's unbalanced? I wouldn't focus too much on balancing how well each player does something; problems only start to creep in if a particular player can't contribute, or if the lack of balance is making the game less fun.

Of course, the problem with this is that many players equate "fun gameplay" with "my team is winning". I think this can only be solved with a shift in the player's attitude; is there any way we can encourage people to play the game for fun, instead of playing it for victory? The most obvious route would be to eliminate competitive mechanics such as ranking and achievements, but there has to be some way to preserve competition while keeping the gameplay friendly and casual.

[Shadow Link]

I think being too focused on balance can actually harm a multiplayer game. If the game's fun to play, entertaining and fair, does it really matter if it's unbalanced? I wouldn't focus too much on balancing how well each player does something; problems only start to creep in if a particular player can't contribute, or if the lack of balance is making the game less fun.

Well, it depends on what kind of balance you're talking about. The part after the semi-colon leaned more on what I was thinking. If additional players are having a hard time contributing to the game, or ruin the "fun" value of it, then there's a problem. I was more aiming for balancing each player's abilities. A la Super Smash Brothers (N64 or Melee, not Brawl), each player has advantages and weaknesses, but each character in the right hands can be just as powerful as any other character. Games like Super Mario Galaxy on the other hand, severely restrict Player 2's abilities, though like I mentioned, this may have been done on purpose. With the case of RE, Player 2 is equal to Player 1.

Of course, the problem with this is that many players equate "fun gameplay" with "my team is winning". I think this can only be solved with a shift in the player's attitude; is there any way we can encourage people to play the game for fun, instead of playing it for victory? The most obvious route would be to eliminate competitive mechanics such as ranking and achievements, but there has to be some way to preserve competition while keeping the gameplay friendly and casual.

Yes, the easiest way would be to eliminate ranking systems. I don't think "competition" and "playing for fun" can coexist in a came, at least peacefully. The one game I've ever played that almost achieves it would be S4 League. It does have a ranking system, win/loss percentages, and all that, but the game is excruciatingly painful to even care about rank. Most players toss that competitive feeling aside, but there's still the few that like to try. People just concentrate on winning a match, so their ranks don't go down, instead of winning to raise it. It's a more pessimistic outlook on it, but the gameplay makes up for it, and actually renders it fun in the end. To get an idea of how long it takes to level up from 0 - 100, on another forum, someone did the math. If you were to sit at the computer 24/7, and won every match, with the most possible exp earned, it would take somewhere in the ballpark of 5 years. The thing about S4 though, is that it's a casual game like Halo played online, so you wouldn't be playing it for that long. No story/quests to keep up with, you just miss out on events and people leveling up while you're gone.

[Tahnok]

As far as the whole balancing thing, I agree that balance is extremely important. In my game The Havoc Agency servers can modify the weapon settings. One of the things I noticed is that right away most peoples' first impulse is to make a super weapon that is stronger than all the other weapons (which have been carefully balanced). It's fun for about 1 minute, until you realize that trying to use any weapon other than the super weapon is pointless. Only being able to use one weapon gets rid of all strategy, and turns it into simply running around and shooting like mad (which some people like, granted).

Likewise with classes or whatever thing in your game that is unbalanced people will quickly realize that its the most powerful, leaving all other classes to sit on the shelf collecting dust. Balance encourages different strategies. Unbalance encourages people to look at things in only one way, the one that will help them win all the time.

[masterofhisowndomain]

Of course, the problem with this is that many players equate "fun gameplay" with "my team is winning". I think this can only be solved with a shift in the player's attitude; is there any way we can encourage people to play the game for fun, instead of playing it for victory? The most obvious route would be to eliminate competitive mechanics such as ranking and achievements, but there has to be some way to preserve competition while keeping the gameplay friendly and casual.

That's taking the discussion down a whole nother (though admittedly interesting) route; partly to be covered by my article on grinding in MMORPGs that I will release next week. Since grinding is repetitive and/or non-entertaining gameplay to achieve ranks and distinctions the article will cover some of the issues you raise. I don't think there is any easy way of achieving both casual and competitive, they're appealing to two very different types of players and playing styles.

[C-c-JEC-c-C]

POST REMOVED BY AUTHOR

Edited by C-c-JEC-c-C, 28 September 2009 - 07:50 PM.