Do We Really Need Multiplayer?

[evilcat]

Not all games need multiplayer, and to some degree focusing on MP means less devhours on SP -> worse game overall.

Active pause mechanic is not MP friendly.

Turn based, action, shooter are more friendly.

 

MP + mod support can result in long life to the game, and some people having more fun out of it.

But personally i just play game and move to another.

[SonicMage117]

I've played alot of mp games but never played one that can match the experince I've gained from a single player game. Everyone has different tastes. Some of my Facebook friends who don't who outside get all their socialization from mp games. I guess it makes sense when you look at it.

[evilcat]

Even if all mainstream games will be MP shooters, there will be enought space for SP games.

Some SP games make really good sales, you would not gues which one (Life is Strange, CIties Skylines).

Edited November 7, 2017 by evilcat

[Humanoid]

I reckon Cities Skylines would make for a fun multiplayer experience. Whether co-op using the same resource pool, or as competing mayors in the same gamespace, it'd be a hoot. I mean, Theme Hospital had some entertaining (and trollish) multiplayer and that was 20 years ago.

[Katphood]

Do I want a single-player campaign in Wolfenstein 2? Yes

Do I want multiplayer in Wolfenstein 2? Absolutely not.

 

Do I want a single-player campaign in the next Battlefield game? ....not really.

Do I want multiplayer in the next Battlefield game? Definitely 

 

 

It depends on what the game is aiming for in the first place. 

[Humanoid]

Every single player shooter could do with a buddy just jumping around you helping you out, in the style of Saints Row's multiplayer. I mean Mass Effect has two virtual buddies tagging along with you at all times anyway, I never saw why multiplayer turned out to be some weird standalone arena thing instead of having friends in their stead. All the Mass Effect games would be a blast with drop-in Saints Row-style multiplayer. So would Bethesda games and just about every single-player shooter campaign out there.

 

And RTwP is no limitation, any such game worth its salt has enough difficulty customisation so that it could viably be played without pause, and there's plenty of prior art in this regard. If you can do Baldur's Gate or Crusader Kings multiplayer, there's no reason something like FTL wouldn't work.

[Gizmo]

... making Overwatch shine on like a crazy diamond.

Floydian slip?

[Katphood]

Every single player shooter could do with a buddy just jumping around you helping you out

 

 

True, most of them can but not all of them. Here are a few games that are a whole lot more fun if you play on your own: 

 

The Darkness

Singularity

BioShock

Call of Juarez

Condemned(not really a shooter but it is in first person, it has mostly melee weapons but also a few guns every once in a while)

 

...and then there is one game I have absolutely no idea what to make of:  the original F.E.A.R

 

I need some expert help with this one. *summons Fenixp*

[Mamoulian War]

Every single player shooter could do with a buddy just jumping around you helping you out, in the style of Saints Row's multiplayer. I mean Mass Effect has two virtual buddies tagging along with you at all times anyway, I never saw why multiplayer turned out to be some weird standalone arena thing instead of having friends in their stead. All the Mass Effect games would be a blast with drop-in Saints Row-style multiplayer. So would Bethesda games and just about every single-player shooter campaign out there.

 

And RTwP is no limitation, any such game worth its salt has enough difficulty customisation so that it could viably be played without pause, and there's plenty of prior art in this regard. If you can do Baldur's Gate or Crusader Kings multiplayer, there's no reason something like FTL wouldn't work.

In the case that game is offered as coop and SP experience in one, the issue is most of the time balance. It's either too hard to play alone or to easy to play in a group. The Mass Effect AI was completely useless on their own. 90% of work was made by the player. For three players, it would be a breeze through. Most of the shooters I've played before they became "cinematic experience" were already too easy for me alone on hardest difficulties. I would be bored to death plating them coop.

[Humanoid]

Adding the multiplayer functionality would imply some sort of attempt at balancing I would hope. But even without any changes, I reckon I'd have fun just fooling around anyway, perhaps with some self-imposed challenge (or intentional sabotage).

 

That said, given how some multiplayer sessions go, the addition of teammates might already have made it harder (looking at you, Magicka).

Edited November 7, 2017 by Humanoid

[evilcat]

I reckon Cities Skylines would make for a fun multiplayer experience. Whether co-op using the same resource pool, or as competing mayors in the same gamespace, it'd be a hoot. I mean, Theme Hospital had some entertaining (and trollish) multiplayer and that was 20 years ago.

I suppose it could be done. With ability to search for job in other city, and comute there. Having some resources market. Competing with fellow players on who has more happy citizens (and stealing their citzens). Building giant Gundam and sending it against enemy Godzila (ok, that was one step to far).

There is an issue, that CS games generally take a while. So it could be hard to have coherent session with that.

That seems to be power of all this MP games, that typical MP match takes just 20min, which encourages one-more-time effect, and is easy to access and plan.

 

 

There is a game Offworld Trade Company which is also economical, but very MP focused, and with short matches. Generally it is possible to make fastpacing city building game, it will just need to be a bit simplier than CS.

[Katphood]

I wish MGSV had an option for a co-op campaign, just like MGS: Peace Walker. It would be pretty fun to infiltrate a camp together with a buddy.

[Nail]

I feel like MP part is great, but only when it's optional.
Wouldn't mind any pvp arena to test out my character build.

GM party dungeons or raids would be great too.

Same physics, same world but just an optional part of the game.

[SonicMage117]

I think character based single player games are awfully awkward when tacking on co-op features. For example, Halo... when characters acknowledge only one Master Chief and such, making the other player feel like a third wheel rather than a partner. I find that when devs tack on the multiplayer like that, it isn't exactly fair.

 

Maybe people are okay with this but they shouldn't be. Then again, I'm quite used to people settling for dumbed down game development and quality control in content and interaction for the sake of "more" features.

 

In the end, you will always have yourself to play with if you're feeling sad and lonely. However, there is no guarantee that you will "always" have people to play with or that your Internet won't for some reason crap out some day.

[redneckdevil]

I have my own take on multiplayer bit my best friend loves multiplayer in any form because he needs that interaction because he's stay at home

[Katphood]

 

So you want to have "continued success", eh? Similar to...let's say, GTA V?!

 

Dear CDPR: please don't.

[Belle Sorciere]

 

A lot of multiplayer only games today have very simplified and streamlined designs that can be understood and tweaked in spreadsheets. They also rely on various addictive techniques such as what some call "loot chests" which are essentially virtual slot machines. Those are problems that need not apply to a role play game.

If you mean like the pinatas in games such as Fortnite, this is almost strictly for free-2-play games that happen to be multiplayer. Either way, it's a horrible gambling systems that people sink money into to get a 0 return 90% of the time. It's worse than paying for cosmetic dlc's.

 

 

 

Ah, the halcyon days of last August.

[PathofStars]

OFC we need Multiplayer. Do you remember playing HOMM III in Hot Seat mode? Now you do not have to leave the house and you can play with your friends. After HoMM I do not know any other game that I could play in singleplayer. Thanks to multiplayer I can play RL and PoE, and this is my favorite game

[Gizmo]

The only kind of multiplayer that I would want, is the clever use of another (network) player, by the server, to aid the NPC AI.

 

Imagine two or more players, playing their own instances of a game, where the server pits them against each other—unbeknownst to either.

 

Each person might be playing the hero & co, but the server presents each player to the other as the opposing army—(of goblins & wargs & trolls, and such); making allowances for unit special abilities.  In effect, adding a human component to the AI.  The first hero sees their opponents dividing and flanking—and reacts. The second hero (different game) is doing the divide & flank, and sees them react.

 

**Of course it should be tempered by a competent local AI that gambles on user advice—but not blindly; and preferably one that switches to some other player for hints, if the last one kept causing costly losses.

Edited November 19, 2017 by Gizmo

[Mamoulian War]

OFC we need Multiplayer. Do you remember playing HOMM III in Hot Seat mode? Now you do not have to leave the house and you can play with your friends. After HoMM I do not know any other game that I could play in singleplayer. Thanks to multiplayer I can play RL and PoE, and this is my favorite game

 

Well, the leaving house to meet your friends at their place was the biggest draw in of multiplayer. Taking Hot Seat and Local LAN multiplayer away from games, turned me into single player gamer, and coop tabletop player.

[213374U]

So you want to have "continued success", eh? Similar to...let's say, GTA V?!

 

Dear CDPR: please don't.

 

 

It's got to be the worst possible time to let it be known that they may be considering even a slight shift to the games-as-a-service approach.

 

The cheap shot at EA was too easy, though.

[Orogun01]

 

So you want to have "continued success", eh? Similar to...let's say, GTA V?!

 

Dear CDPR: please don't.

 

 

It's got to be the worst possible time to let it be known that they may be considering even a slight shift to the games-as-a-service approach.

 

The cheap shot at EA was too easy, though.

 

Video that they were replying

[SonicMage117]

 

 

A lot of multiplayer only games today have very simplified and streamlined designs that can be understood and tweaked in spreadsheets. They also rely on various addictive techniques such as what some call "loot chests" which are essentially virtual slot machines. Those are problems that need not apply to a role play game.

If you mean like the pinatas in games such as Fortnite, this is almost strictly for free-2-play games that happen to be multiplayer. Either way, it's a horrible gambling systems that people sink money into to get a 0 return 90% of the time. It's worse than paying for cosmetic dlc's.

 

Ah, the halcyon days of last August.

Lol Is it sad that I can't even remember writing that?