Blog FeedMultiplayer (R)evolution
Back when I was a young lad I had no computer. I had my Sega Genesis for video games and that was that. I had no real idea that computers played games in a serious sense of the word. The “internet” was unknown to me.
My neighbors across the street were in their 50s or so and were those very “community” kind of neighbors. They had gatherings and such things all the time. These gatherings bored the hell out of me. Largely filled with adults and children I didn’t want to play with (I must have been 10 or so). During one of these gatherings my neighbor must have noticed my overall lack of satisfaction with the whole ordeal. He came over to me and asked me if I wanted to play this new video game he just got. I said “fuck yeah!” in my most respectful tone (yes sir). He showed me how to launch the games he had on his computer (must have been Windows 95 or maybe even 3.1) and let me be.
That was the start. What I was playing was a little title called Doom. After that night I would constantly pester my parents to let me go over and play more Doom. One day I went over and my neighbor’s son was home from college with his computer and there was a chaotic array of sloppy chords all over the den between the two computers. They told me to try it out and I wandered around a level I was familiar with but there was this new monster. “Who’s the guy in green with the funny helmet?”
“That’s me” said my neighbor.
My eyes must have widened or something because they laughed, then I shot my neighbor with a shotgun. My whole “video game” world crumbled that day and was built brand new and more promising than ever. After that came Doom II and eventually Quake. Once Quake hit I could not bear to have to wait to go over there so the “get a computer” crusade started.
My excitement for multiplayer (and countless others’) fueled the popularity of it and it grew. We had Quake 1/2 which demonstrated that not only was multiplayer a purposely included feature but it was a game in and of itself. Then Quake 3 and UT cut the chord between single and multiplayer games. Then massively multiplayer games, vehicles, complex gametypes and more.
Now we are on the dawn of another multiplayer evolution. Something that aims to refine it in its own domain. One may say that UT and Quake 3 were the “refining” of multiplayer since they broke it off from the single-player game. However, I feel they defined multiplayer as a stand alone genre. Ever since then titles have been experimenting in this new genre. Games like Battlefield 1942 and UT2004 are successful experiments in the genre of multiplayer. Now that it works, we shall make it better.
What I am leading to is the new concepts introduced recently. You will find them in the Xbox 360, the new games Battlefield 2 and Unreal Tournament 2007 and I am willing to bet everywhere after tomorrow. What happens tomorrow? The Battlefield 2 demo is released. The gameplay in Battlefield 2 isn’t anything drastically new that we haven’t seen before. However, the multiplayer system is amazingly detailed and complex. It features a stats system that is constant across all servers. A communication set up with multiple tiers and ranks (players are in squads, a commander gives general orders to squad leaders, then squad leaders figure out how to accomplish goal and relay commands to their squad). Most everything you do is logged and compiled into your account. This removes the “anonymity” present in most multiplayer games. You can see everything a player has done and what kind of player they are. Some people fear this but I welcome it with open arms.
Once responsibility for your actions is introduced beyond an immediate effect I think we will see a whole new level of multiplayer; something that game developers have dreamed of but rarely ever bears fruit. The multiplayer of the moment is sort of like a world without consequences. If you break a “law” you suffer no consequences; you can pretty much do anything you want with the biggest threat being a kick from the server. However once a player knows that their actions now will be recorded and matter in their future endeavors they are more likely to play with more than their selves in mind.
The multiplayer games of now are fully featured works of beauty that barely ever get played properly. Not only are there cheaters and jerks but regular players who don’t really know of any ways to play beyond killing the other guy. The way the communication and teams are set up for BF2 it appears that to be successful is going to require a lot more than just shooting at enemies. BF2 wants to remove that “you can only play with strategy in a clan” from the multiplayer genre.
These ideas aren’t “new” in concept. There have been dozens of stat systems on servers from Counter-Strike to BF1942. However, in practice BF2 aims to do everything and broaden the scope. BF2’s ideas are broadened even more by the Xbox 360. With the 360 it isn’t just stats across one game but across all games you play. You become a solid and constant entity on the internet.
UT2007 announced that it will have a community feature like BF2’s but even more advanced and I am betting it will soon become the standard for multiplayer games. So what do you guys think? Is multiplayer set to improve itself and become what it really should be? Or are stats, responsibility and communication just more features that will ultimately be ignored by the gaming populace and we will be stuck.
10th June | Reply
Halo 2, I suppose you’ve not played Halo 2 because a lot of what you suggest is implented and implemented well into Halo 2. For those of you , who don’t play Halo 2 I’ll bring you up to speed on how this works and why it’s so awesome and I’m hoping it’ll work just as well on PCs but I have my doubts as to if it shall.
You sign into Xbox Live with your gamertag and this is what all your stats are stored with. I’d hope that they’d tie your stats to your Cd-key or something that really limits you to having only one of them so that you can’t just get a bad rep and then create a new profile and continue to act like an ass. Then to play a game you’re not given a traditional server broswer but rather you’re asked to choose between a few playlists and the game matches you with players who’re statistically equivilant too you in the way you’ve played in past matches. So it takes choice away from you and replaces it with nearly perfect match making such that you’re always playing against people you want but you can’t easily find the exact map and settings you might want.
And yeah it does make the idiot fact far less of an issue at least on the Team play playlist which focuses on 4v4 team games. I suppose part of it is the smaller scale etc and removed anonymity. Furthermore in a 4 on 4 game it’s really nessecary for everyone to do their part if you’re gonna dvance in level and get to play some decent players. People also start taking real pride in getting that level up. Frankly unless PC games get this right i may never get around to enjoying another multiplayer PC game. I’ve not found any since BF42 that really made me happy while consoles have had 6 or 7 online multiplayer games that have made me a happy gamer.
10th June | Reply
Well I guess it depends on just what these statistics are and how they are used. I don’t actually know what is being recorded by BF2, but let’s say that team kills are. Does this mean people could set up servers which only allow players to join if their number or ratio of team kills is low enough to indicate the person doesn’t do it purposely?
I see potential problems with this. What if all servers quickly made this a standard requirement? If a new player accidentally blows up a group of friendlies, instantly giving him 10 team kills on his first game, would he ever be able to join any server again to redeem himself?
On the other hand, will the recorded stats even be considered to the point where it matters to server admins or potential clanmates at all? If we use the stats, they must be very relevant, and newbie-proof, or they’ll just be ignored.
I really would like it if everyone had a solid online identity which they needed to uphold and be responsible for. Without a unified system like the Xbox360 though, I suppose each developer would only need their own (like how Valve has Steam, Blizzard has Battle.net) and it’d still be almost as good, really.
10th June | Reply
It has to be said that multiplayer gaming really isn’t my bag. The biggest issue that I have with multiplayer games is that there is no plot. I love a good story and therefore like games where there is a real objective and a sense of progression. Most multiplayer games tend to be self-contained scenarios where your team doesn’t steadily progress towards some sort of end-game (probably because the time involvement necessary does not permit it) and so there is no real sense of a larger story being played out. RPGs tend to have great plots and characters but pretty much any type of game can have one (maybe not puzzle games or racing ones). I just kinda like finding out what’s going on and doing something about it.
If single-player games were to disappear then I’d give up gaming. Simple as that.
11th June | Reply
I have to agree with Kelmon. Ive never been big on multi-player, never progressing beyond split screen on my consoles. I would just hate it for people to start thinking of online multi-player becoming a necessity for every game. For example, Zelda games. I like the single player aspect of them. I wouldnt want a MMORPG made out of it, just to sell more copies. It would spoil it in my opinion.
12th June | Reply
I for one would be happy with greater communications being available.
As someone who does not have enough time to join a clan a constantly practice when I do make my (albiet rare) forays into online gaming I do not really get the chance to play a proper team game, with tactics, strategy and so on.
Instead I have to resort to wandering around shooting anything that moves (hoping that it isn’t in my team).
As such I tend to stick to plain old simple deathmatch games.
However if a good quality communications system was in place and it was good enough to offer a chance to drop into team play without the time consuming hassle of constant clan practice then this would be a godsend for me.
Not to mention the benefits of knowing what type of players are on a server and seeing where I can fit in.
However I still think that cheaters and hackers will be a menace that wll constantly irritate or enrage.
But still there are immense benifits to be had.
Roll on the future I say.
12th June | Reply
Just playing the BF2 demo now, I find it very irritating that I need to login to my account (using the internet) before I can even load a singleplayer map. Unless of course I am retarded and I missed out on some the GUI options for going strait to a singleplayer game. I have no intention of playing online any time soon, but having to go through a somwhat slow process to login to something I don’t need seems silly.
Multiplayer and singleplayer aspects of games should be kept separated. Even on games that are almost made purely for MP, like Battlefield is.
14th June | Reply
Just played the Battlefield 2 demo. The new communication and squad features don’t seem to be making as much of a difference in public servers. Over half of the servers I entered featured teams of people running around not using squads. Even when the entire team jumped into squads we all ran around aimlessly following the occasional order from the commander or squad leader. The most fun I had was when I joined a squad that seemed to be thinking the same as me. We’d jump into jeeps ride around and capture points. All in all, good multiplay still depends on whether you’re grouped with similar thinking people. The new teamplay features only make deep teamplay easier, they don’t force it.
15th June | Reply
I like the way things have been implemented in the BF2 communication system (although whoever wrote some of the game code must have been dropped on their head as a child, but that’s another matter). It does open things up a little as far as communication goes and if you can actually get a squad working together the possibilities are quite promising.
15th June | Reply
Well after my crazy computer issues i’ve finally got BF2 working smooth on my system. The engine feels pretty solid however one of my computer issues was a bad memory module so I am down to half my normal memory. I am actually rather impressed it runs so well at medium settings and I can take a few stutters to run it in mostly high. There is really something awesome about seeing the shadow of a jet fly over your head.
Of the pub servers I played the system hasn’t taken hold like I thought. Although stats and the whole ‘responsibility’ aspect are not included in the demo so we’ll still see how that pans out. Squads are a welcome improvement. Even with just one other person in my squad it really increased the fun I had. The latter half of the last game I played really revealed the potential the game has. We had a competent commander and me and my 2 man squad were accomplishing all the objectives he could throw at us.