Mind the multiplayer gap
Posted on 31st Jan 2013 at 07:26 by David Hing with 28 comments
I worry about single player modes disappearing and multiplayer becoming the norm. When Unreal and Quake started releasing multiplayer-only titles I thought that was the end, but thankfully it was a trend that didn’t really catch on. All the same, my fear is still there, lurking away.
Imagine a chasm. A deep, dark, seemingly bottomless canyon, but when viewed from above the sides appear to be quite close together.
On one side of the abyss is a group of gamers so advanced and elite that they can merrily jostle with each other for supremacy, share best practise advice, emergent strategies and scoff at those adopting poor strategy or cheap scorned tactics. These are players of games that have taken a title as far as it can go and optimised its play to the point somewhere between zen-like understanding and outright obsession, peppering the community with code-words like IWAY and 4Gate. These are the people that see the Matrix as code, that can stop time with their minds and turn reality around on a penny to bend to their will when they’re in their game of choice.
This, but much bigger and with more people.
On the other side are new players. These are players of games that have either just started up a title and have clocked the tutorial, or are simply happy to bumble around in easy modes and simple skirmishes. Maybe something didn’t click for them and they couldn’t be bothered to delve further into the game, or maybe they are simply happy to muddle around casually, dropping in and out from time to time. The players on the other side of the chasm might laugh and point at them from time to time, but mostly, the two are separated by the divide and happily ignorant of each others’ wants and struggles.
Then there’s the player that thinks they can perhaps vault over that gorge. Sometimes they will be able to, sometimes they won’t.
You will find me at the bottom of the abyss; a failed jumper of gaps, a bumbling ignoramus of systems that might very well get an A for effort, but generally be a multiplayer failure all the same.
The multiplayer gap is that huge difference between where you can find yourself and any other player in existence. Someone in the comments of one of my previous posts very politely urged me to never get involved in team-based multiplayer games following my expression of how I don’t quite get it. Indeed, I am that player that every Counterstrike team has that frequently muddles the order of “step out of cover, throw flash-bang, duck back into cover” but the thing is, I’m not on that new-player-plateaux. I know enough that playing in those groups makes me feel guilty for wiping the floor with them. I’m just nowhere near approaching the hardcore, or even midcore of each game’s particular player base.
Who hit me? No idea. How did they hit me? No idea.
Being a bit of a jack of all games yet master of none is fine, but it leaves you without much of a group to join in with. You can be a heroic commander of people who haven’t quite figured out WSAD movement yet, or you can be that one guy who drags the whole team down through repeated simple mistakes. Starcraft 2 felt like a winner for a while until I realised it was simply promoting me to the level of my incompetence and the brief glorious jump I made into the gold league was followed by a very long string of humiliating defeats that I haven’t quite been able to get over since.
I know I’m not the only one in scrabbling around down here in the pit. I can hear the others frantically trying to scale the walls with me, but it’s not easy to find them. You’re fine if you’re an in-game deity and you’re fine if you’re new, but the wide variety of abilities in-between means a steep or insurmountable learning curve to enjoy.
A room full of people sat atop that steep learning curve.
I don’t like multiplayer games with strangers because I don’t want to spend my leisure time being shouted at by people too young or fortunate to not need full time jobs and financial responsibilities. I’m also not keen on multiplayer games with my friends because skill mismatches often get a little awkward after a while one way or another.
If I’m not a complete oddity or freak (which is possible), then by my own irritation with multiplayer, I can at least take solace in the fact that the multiplayer gap ensures that single player modes have no fear of disappearing any time soon.
Imagine a chasm. A deep, dark, seemingly bottomless canyon, but when viewed from above the sides appear to be quite close together.
On one side of the abyss is a group of gamers so advanced and elite that they can merrily jostle with each other for supremacy, share best practise advice, emergent strategies and scoff at those adopting poor strategy or cheap scorned tactics. These are players of games that have taken a title as far as it can go and optimised its play to the point somewhere between zen-like understanding and outright obsession, peppering the community with code-words like IWAY and 4Gate. These are the people that see the Matrix as code, that can stop time with their minds and turn reality around on a penny to bend to their will when they’re in their game of choice.
This, but much bigger and with more people.
On the other side are new players. These are players of games that have either just started up a title and have clocked the tutorial, or are simply happy to bumble around in easy modes and simple skirmishes. Maybe something didn’t click for them and they couldn’t be bothered to delve further into the game, or maybe they are simply happy to muddle around casually, dropping in and out from time to time. The players on the other side of the chasm might laugh and point at them from time to time, but mostly, the two are separated by the divide and happily ignorant of each others’ wants and struggles.
Then there’s the player that thinks they can perhaps vault over that gorge. Sometimes they will be able to, sometimes they won’t.
You will find me at the bottom of the abyss; a failed jumper of gaps, a bumbling ignoramus of systems that might very well get an A for effort, but generally be a multiplayer failure all the same.
The multiplayer gap is that huge difference between where you can find yourself and any other player in existence. Someone in the comments of one of my previous posts very politely urged me to never get involved in team-based multiplayer games following my expression of how I don’t quite get it. Indeed, I am that player that every Counterstrike team has that frequently muddles the order of “step out of cover, throw flash-bang, duck back into cover” but the thing is, I’m not on that new-player-plateaux. I know enough that playing in those groups makes me feel guilty for wiping the floor with them. I’m just nowhere near approaching the hardcore, or even midcore of each game’s particular player base.
Who hit me? No idea. How did they hit me? No idea.
Being a bit of a jack of all games yet master of none is fine, but it leaves you without much of a group to join in with. You can be a heroic commander of people who haven’t quite figured out WSAD movement yet, or you can be that one guy who drags the whole team down through repeated simple mistakes. Starcraft 2 felt like a winner for a while until I realised it was simply promoting me to the level of my incompetence and the brief glorious jump I made into the gold league was followed by a very long string of humiliating defeats that I haven’t quite been able to get over since.
I know I’m not the only one in scrabbling around down here in the pit. I can hear the others frantically trying to scale the walls with me, but it’s not easy to find them. You’re fine if you’re an in-game deity and you’re fine if you’re new, but the wide variety of abilities in-between means a steep or insurmountable learning curve to enjoy.
A room full of people sat atop that steep learning curve.
I don’t like multiplayer games with strangers because I don’t want to spend my leisure time being shouted at by people too young or fortunate to not need full time jobs and financial responsibilities. I’m also not keen on multiplayer games with my friends because skill mismatches often get a little awkward after a while one way or another.
If I’m not a complete oddity or freak (which is possible), then by my own irritation with multiplayer, I can at least take solace in the fact that the multiplayer gap ensures that single player modes have no fear of disappearing any time soon.
28 Comments
Discuss in the forums Reply-full time job
-girlfriend
-social life
I was over there once, on it every night, fearsome with my VSS, admining Bit-tech's server. That was when I just got a full time job, didn't have a social life or girlfriend.
Now I have all 3, I am on the casual side of the gap. Don't really want to jump into multiplayer games anymore, knowing I'll have my backside handed to me on a well dressed plate. Single player game and occasional Super Smash Bros / Mario Kart with friends is all I do.
still yet to finish Black Mesa........
Which automatically makes us friends, but friends who will rarely speak to one another or acknowledge the friendship.
On and wuyanxu, one thing trumps all of the above - children. The prospect of regular interruptions day and night makes multiplayer a big no-no.
I know that one. trying to play multiplayer when my nephew and niece are around is a nightmare "Uncle Mark, can you pause that for a minute?, Can you put a dvd on for me?"
Totally agree - I'm in the same position, but I do still make the time for some BF3! Just don't have much time for anything else!
Back to Zelda I guess...
i still play the old school way of arrow keys, num.0 for jump, num1 to crouch, etc.
ironically i need the gaps by my arrow keys keyboard to feel comfortable enough to play so i can try and avoid the the gap from the article. :-)
Oh forgot about Altitude, but the plane_ball maps are just a free for all!
Completely agree. I find it hard to get into more atmospheric games for the same reason. I know I have 30 minutes at best before one of them wakes up. I even build PC's during the night just to avoid my little darlings.
(I love them all really):D
The circle is complete.
Stop thinking FPS or RTS, where you need to invest lots of time to get good at or to train for. There's tons of casual MMORPGs, where you can hop in for an hour or two and just have some fun.
I understand what you mean, no other game has made me want to try and take it more seriously, it's also one of the few multiplayer games I play.
No hackers, no cheaters, no aim bots etc. just pure skill. :)
95% of my games I play in single player.
Personally, I like multiplayer games BUT i don't like it when MP is basically forced on you. I don't want to buy a game with a 5 hour campaign and no other offline mode, not even bots. Not to sound egotistical but most people I play against online aren't worth my time. They're either boringly easy or professional to the point that they've been accused as cheaters. In most online games or even leader board games, i tend to fall in the top 10-15%.
Humans are also surprisingly predictable. I like playing multiplayer matches against bots only because you either need a really good plan or it just takes pure skill to win rather than tactics. Tactics are fine but no plan is good enough if you don't have the skill to carry it out.
My main gripe about the MP games i dislike the most, such as COD or need for speed (the new ones) is they use MP probably because their programmers either suck too much or are too lazy to make a competitive bot. Of course I could be wrong but the short campaign really gives me a "don't care" vibe from the devs.
i usually try and nuke my partner if they cross the crude and rude line and then say sorry before i drop him again. but that usually only happens once in a while when a really rude ass is on.
It's why I don't play anything but the amazing WWII Mod Forgotten Hope 2.
I have been the n00b and also had the pleasure of rubbing shoulders with the Elitists in some games.
I do find my own ground and try to play the game how I want to play it where possible. I am considerate of new players and help them avoid common pitfalls if I can. If I end up going toe to toe with a better, more experienced, even Elitist player then I either accept they are better and try to avoid a direct confrontation or I learn from it and adapt my game play so I can improve and gain the personal achievement and satisfaction from doing so.
In a lot of MP games knowing the maps is a big part of being successful, whether solo or as part of a team. After that find the weapon or skills that suit your play style and if you keep failing change tactics and consider alternative options that overcome your difficulties or failures.
Most of all, play to your strengths.
I would rank myself as a middle ground player and the things I learn in these team games are fantastic. Because you are trying to maximise your teams results and the game takes place over weeks rather than minutes the team forum discussions (which are private to team members for the duration of the contest but opened up for all to see one the contest ends) are a fantastic insight into how tactics and methods are developed and refined during the run of the game. Everybody is helping each other no matter what the skill level and everybody's game improves visibly during the game.
Unfortunately this type of online game would never be commercial but adds massively to the enjoyment of the game. No pressure, real teamwork and even if your team finishes last a sense of achievement and an improvement in your gameplay. A pity other games can't have the same relaxed attitude to online play, everybody would gain.
Back in the day, I ruled. In the N64 days, no one could touch me in Goldeneye or anything else. Or Populous online, that was the best online multiplayer ever. But then, I had no job and all summer to perfect my skills. Now, I only have time to pick up a game once in a while, and I want enjoyment and escape, not frustration and getting yelled at by kids.
So, I guess its okay that only a few good single player games are still made, since I don't have the time to play a lot anyway?
For most of my life I have lacked all 3 of those together at once. Online, I am utterly fearsome, devastating to encounter, frustratingly dominant. Offline, not so much.
I like RTS in single player and multiplayer (men at war series, company of heroes, supcom, dow2 etc) - Having said this I honestly think some games would benefit concentrating on one aspect - DOW2 as an example with the poor SP and last stand (which was ok for a blast) it really need the multiplayer expanding with all the 40k armies. If Relic concentrated on the multiplayer then released a single player separate using the same engine/models etc I think it would have hit the desired markets better.
Crysis SP - rocked
Battlefield MP series - rocked
Just 2 simple examples of how its all sweet and lovely as is
"People who hate people, come together!"
"No!"
- Bill Hicks
As you said in the article, I'm not that good either so I wouldn't be able to keep up with other players and I don't want my sucky skills to bring down other people's enjoyment of the game.
I also don't want my gaming experience to be influenced by other people, I don't want one game with intelligent, respectful people followed by one game where everyone seems to be foulmouthed 14 year olds. I want a consistent experience.
Then there's the lack of a pause facility in multiplayer. This makes multiplayer gaming even more antisocial than single player.
If you are playing a single player game and your wife/girlfriend/child comes up to you for something it's easy to pause and have a chat or deal with a request. If it will take some time you can save the game and come back hours later and resume where you left off.
For the multiplayer there is only one option, either tell your family to go away or abandon your game, let your team down and lose your progress.
It's nice to have the option for those who want it, but the rest of us still want single player.