I just don't care for multiplayer COMPETITIVE games, like most of the ones in this article's example. Division 2 and Borderlands are different 'cause the multiplayer is mostly PvE. I feel like I'm...
I just don't care for multiplayer COMPETITIVE games, like most of the ones in this article's example.
Division 2 and Borderlands are different 'cause the multiplayer is mostly PvE.
I feel like I'm the only one (based on the reaction to Fallout 76) who wouldn't mind a mostly single-player experience, with a small chance of running into other players, like Watchdogs 2 did. Picture playing Skyrim and just, off in the distance, seeing someone else gathering herbs or doing something, and making their way to you. You can then do whatever you'd want to do from there; trade, help them, guide them, talk, team up, etc.., or just leave. And have the same mechanic as Fallout 76 where whoever attacks first has to do a lot of damage to kill you, giving you an opportunity to run away/escape and have nothing to do with them.
I'm just tired of competitive multiplayer games; they seem to draw a very toxic or very unfun-to-play-with player base who just take everything wayyyyy too seriously, and the enemies/people you play against have already somehow mastered things down to a science.
I agree. If I'm going to play a multiplayer game, I want to play a game where competition is optional at best. Coopretive gameplay is really where it's at. And it feels like most of those games...
I agree. If I'm going to play a multiplayer game, I want to play a game where competition is optional at best. Coopretive gameplay is really where it's at. And it feels like most of those games are singleplayer games you play at the same time as another person.
I think the best multiplayer coopritive game I've ever played was Sleep is Death, a game by Jason Rohrer. You had no choice but to play multiplayer, and the game is actually about building a world and a story. Here is a good retrospective on the game (since it's not popular anymore, it's not very easy to start a game).
Multiplayer competitive games require a lot of dedication to become enjoyable. And I’m not willing to put in the hours. PVE is cool though. I had good times with my guild on WOW.
Multiplayer competitive games require a lot of dedication to become enjoyable. And I’m not willing to put in the hours. PVE is cool though. I had good times with my guild on WOW.
I would love this system ! I consider that all toxic behavior are all groups based behavior, and having a system where only two or three player meet while not crossing any other online players for...
Picture playing Skyrim and just, off in the distance, seeing someone else gathering herbs or doing something, and making their way to you. You can then do whatever you'd want to do from there; trade, help them, guide them, talk, team up, etc..,
I would love this system ! I consider that all toxic behavior are all groups based behavior, and having a system where only two or three player meet while not crossing any other online players for maybe an hour is a perfect system to reduce toxicity to some anecdotal level.
I would say there's not a good enough incentive to market such a feature (as I don't think its not what investors, marketing, or even consumers think of such feature), but in the meantime Dark Souls implemented a system of reduced multiplayer sessions that created intersting human behaviors even as opposing sides. I had a good amount of invaders that were genuinely helpful or were more intersted in doing funny things than directly attacking me
More importantly, when there is competition I want it to have a vibe of a game night with friends rather than being thrown into some hyper-competitive battle arena with a bunch of foul-mouthed...
I want to play a game where competition is optional at best. Coopretive gameplay is really where it's at.
More importantly, when there is competition I want it to have a vibe of a game night with friends rather than being thrown into some hyper-competitive battle arena with a bunch of foul-mouthed strangers. The trouble with a lot of these competitive games is that they focus entirely on the competition aspect rather than the social aspect, which is what most of us want in multiplayer in the first place.
A good example of a more social multiplayer environment exists on the Switch where a lot of the first party titles, like Smash Brothers or Arms or Towerfall, design for local multiplayer as a priority. Part of that is the nature of fighting games, but fighting game fans are keen to spend money on tons of stuff and the social aspect is part of that.
One of my big issues with games like Destiny and Anthem is that unless you already have friends playing the game it is a profoundly lonely experience. You can't actually meet people from playing. Even a game like Overwatch I think I managed to chance into 2 cliques of cool people I didn't mind playing in a group with and friended them. This is out of probably hundreds of random matches. This is a big contrast to the days of dedicated servers or even old school Battle.net where a community of online people would build up around a game's multiplayer and chat rooms were built in as part of the multiplayer experience. They were cumbersome, the need to go around hat-in-hand asking for a match, and the lack of real skill based match-making made sure stuff was often heinously unbalanced or frustrating. And the lack of moderation could sometimes make them really miserable places to hang out. But rather than fix these problems they've thrown the baby out with the bathwater.
Multiplayer gaming needs to focus on setting up matchmaking to maximize fun over balance. And I don't just mean game balance, but striving for a perfect 50/50 win-rate as the benchmark for how well it's matching you doesn't make for an engaging experience.
It sure makes me happy to see 'games as a service' suffer as a business model. The issue is that publishers think it's a free ride to release an unfinished sack of crap then nickel and dime their...
It sure makes me happy to see 'games as a service' suffer as a business model.
The issue is that publishers think it's a free ride to release an unfinished sack of crap then nickel and dime their player base for drips of more content through lootboxes and DLC. If anything, Destiny 2, Fallout 76 and Anthem should serve as warning shots to the industry to stop creating wannabe MMO loot shooters with zero content.
I can't wait for the day that governments start regulating the industry and banning some of their more unethical practices like developer crunch and lootboxes, especially when the industry has become lax on regulating itself.
I ended up quiting most online games that I play (mostly competitive shooters) and went back to RPG, Strategy and Sim games partly due to the over-monetization of online (GAAS) games along with...
I ended up quiting most online games that I play (mostly competitive shooters) and went back to RPG, Strategy and Sim games partly due to the over-monetization of online (GAAS) games along with the sheer amount of toxicity and cheating.
I love single player mode. I also love co-op mode. I hate that most people, reviewers and publishers now consider "death match" co-op. It's not. Not even capture the flag, king of the hill, etc....
I love single player mode. I also love co-op mode.
I hate that most people, reviewers and publishers now consider "death match" co-op. It's not. Not even capture the flag, king of the hill, etc. no. no. no. It's death match with objectives.
I don't really play multiplayer anymore. When I was younger I'd play CoD MW2 for days. Most recently I played For Honor long enough to get decent, but dropped it when I realised it was just making...
I don't really play multiplayer anymore. When I was younger I'd play CoD MW2 for days. Most recently I played For Honor long enough to get decent, but dropped it when I realised it was just making me angry most of the time. For Honor fell into the trap of catering to Competitive level 1v1 on a PC when most of their players were casual 4v4 on a console. It's a fighting game that prioritizes fast reactions but a lot of moves are essentially impossible to defend against on a console and so they just get spammed by douches who can't win otherwise. It's the only game that has inspired me to send mean messages to people.
I just can't do it, I don't like being that guy.
I've tried co-op multiplayer games and like those more. I don't even want to consider all the hours I've sunk into ME3 and ME:A multiplayer where you and a team of 3 others defend yourselves from wave after wave of bad guys. DA:I had a similar system that I liked. For games like Borderlands or Ghost Recon: Wildlands I just couldn't get into co-op. My ideal system would match you with people on the same part of the game as you, of similar skill level, but both of these games just flung me into the middle of a mission. Maybe that's fine if you've already played through, but I'd rather start from the beginning.
I just don't care for multiplayer COMPETITIVE games, like most of the ones in this article's example.
Division 2 and Borderlands are different 'cause the multiplayer is mostly PvE.
I feel like I'm the only one (based on the reaction to Fallout 76) who wouldn't mind a mostly single-player experience, with a small chance of running into other players, like Watchdogs 2 did. Picture playing Skyrim and just, off in the distance, seeing someone else gathering herbs or doing something, and making their way to you. You can then do whatever you'd want to do from there; trade, help them, guide them, talk, team up, etc.., or just leave. And have the same mechanic as Fallout 76 where whoever attacks first has to do a lot of damage to kill you, giving you an opportunity to run away/escape and have nothing to do with them.
I'm just tired of competitive multiplayer games; they seem to draw a very toxic or very unfun-to-play-with player base who just take everything wayyyyy too seriously, and the enemies/people you play against have already somehow mastered things down to a science.
I agree. If I'm going to play a multiplayer game, I want to play a game where competition is optional at best. Coopretive gameplay is really where it's at. And it feels like most of those games are singleplayer games you play at the same time as another person.
I think the best multiplayer coopritive game I've ever played was Sleep is Death, a game by Jason Rohrer. You had no choice but to play multiplayer, and the game is actually about building a world and a story. Here is a good retrospective on the game (since it's not popular anymore, it's not very easy to start a game).
Multiplayer competitive games require a lot of dedication to become enjoyable. And I’m not willing to put in the hours. PVE is cool though. I had good times with my guild on WOW.
I would love this system ! I consider that all toxic behavior are all groups based behavior, and having a system where only two or three player meet while not crossing any other online players for maybe an hour is a perfect system to reduce toxicity to some anecdotal level.
I would say there's not a good enough incentive to market such a feature (as I don't think its not what investors, marketing, or even consumers think of such feature), but in the meantime Dark Souls implemented a system of reduced multiplayer sessions that created intersting human behaviors even as opposing sides. I had a good amount of invaders that were genuinely helpful or were more intersted in doing funny things than directly attacking me
More importantly, when there is competition I want it to have a vibe of a game night with friends rather than being thrown into some hyper-competitive battle arena with a bunch of foul-mouthed strangers. The trouble with a lot of these competitive games is that they focus entirely on the competition aspect rather than the social aspect, which is what most of us want in multiplayer in the first place.
A good example of a more social multiplayer environment exists on the Switch where a lot of the first party titles, like Smash Brothers or Arms or Towerfall, design for local multiplayer as a priority. Part of that is the nature of fighting games, but fighting game fans are keen to spend money on tons of stuff and the social aspect is part of that.
One of my big issues with games like Destiny and Anthem is that unless you already have friends playing the game it is a profoundly lonely experience. You can't actually meet people from playing. Even a game like Overwatch I think I managed to chance into 2 cliques of cool people I didn't mind playing in a group with and friended them. This is out of probably hundreds of random matches. This is a big contrast to the days of dedicated servers or even old school Battle.net where a community of online people would build up around a game's multiplayer and chat rooms were built in as part of the multiplayer experience. They were cumbersome, the need to go around hat-in-hand asking for a match, and the lack of real skill based match-making made sure stuff was often heinously unbalanced or frustrating. And the lack of moderation could sometimes make them really miserable places to hang out. But rather than fix these problems they've thrown the baby out with the bathwater.
Multiplayer gaming needs to focus on setting up matchmaking to maximize fun over balance. And I don't just mean game balance, but striving for a perfect 50/50 win-rate as the benchmark for how well it's matching you doesn't make for an engaging experience.
It sure makes me happy to see 'games as a service' suffer as a business model.
The issue is that publishers think it's a free ride to release an unfinished sack of crap then nickel and dime their player base for drips of more content through lootboxes and DLC. If anything, Destiny 2, Fallout 76 and Anthem should serve as warning shots to the industry to stop creating wannabe MMO loot shooters with zero content.
I can't wait for the day that governments start regulating the industry and banning some of their more unethical practices like developer crunch and lootboxes, especially when the industry has become lax on regulating itself.
If a game still has DRM on it, (like steam or worst case: denuvo), then you still have games as a service.
I ended up quiting most online games that I play (mostly competitive shooters) and went back to RPG, Strategy and Sim games partly due to the over-monetization of online (GAAS) games along with the sheer amount of toxicity and cheating.
I love single player mode. I also love co-op mode.
I hate that most people, reviewers and publishers now consider "death match" co-op. It's not. Not even capture the flag, king of the hill, etc. no. no. no. It's death match with objectives.
I don't really play multiplayer anymore. When I was younger I'd play CoD MW2 for days. Most recently I played For Honor long enough to get decent, but dropped it when I realised it was just making me angry most of the time. For Honor fell into the trap of catering to Competitive level 1v1 on a PC when most of their players were casual 4v4 on a console. It's a fighting game that prioritizes fast reactions but a lot of moves are essentially impossible to defend against on a console and so they just get spammed by douches who can't win otherwise. It's the only game that has inspired me to send mean messages to people.
I just can't do it, I don't like being that guy.
I've tried co-op multiplayer games and like those more. I don't even want to consider all the hours I've sunk into ME3 and ME:A multiplayer where you and a team of 3 others defend yourselves from wave after wave of bad guys. DA:I had a similar system that I liked. For games like Borderlands or Ghost Recon: Wildlands I just couldn't get into co-op. My ideal system would match you with people on the same part of the game as you, of similar skill level, but both of these games just flung me into the middle of a mission. Maybe that's fine if you've already played through, but I'd rather start from the beginning.