Blogs Mind the multiplayer gap

I think the view of being new or one of the Elite is a bit too black and white. You need to consider that there is a degree of middle ground here.

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.

 

Although not a multi player or even online game the website citybuildingcontests.net runs regular contests for games like Caesar 4 and other, surprise, city building games. If you look at the results its very obvious where who the experts, middle ground and newbies are. Every so often a team game is organised with the teams decided by the organiser so they are as balanced by game competence as possible.

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.

 

All of you are doing it wrong if you try to learn entirely by yourself. That is the hardest way to do it. Then when you have learned something it can't be unlearned.

 

I am fully in the pit with the author. Every now and then, I'll get up the nerve to try jumping into an online multiplayer, but I always have very similar experiences to the article and end up giving up in disappointment and frustration.
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?

 

Not wanting to be that guy - but typo, you had WSAD and not WASD - maybe that is why you don't have 1337-haxx000r skilz!!!1111

 

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 think there will always be plenty of MP games as much as there will be SP games. I love BF3 and don't think it needed single player at all (or deserved what little single player it had to actually be called a single player game)

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

 

I don't play multiplayer games, there are a couple of reasons.

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.

 

im sure alot of those ESRB ratings on games state that experience will differ with online play ;-)

 

I think i love you reservedly of course as man-friend-love could go