Online Multiplayer Sucks

[rock_nog]

Okay, I admit I went for a bit of a sensationalist title there, but there's something that's been seriously bothering me - how common online multiplayer is a selling point in games these days. It's not that I don't enjoy online multiplayer - hell, TF2 is pretty much one of my favorite games of all time, and I can think of few games I've sunk more hours into. However, I feel like TF2 is something of an exception - it's a number of years old, and it's still incredibly popular. Many games, though, sell you on their multiplayer, which may even be great, but then the community dries up after a few months after everyone moves to the next big thing. Worse, give it a couple of years, and most games have their servers just shut down permanently. Then you're stuck with a game that may be only half-functional at best (assuming the singleplayer content was any good). Heck, in the case of MMOs, the entire game goes away and you literally never get to experience it again. I'm still reeling from the shutdown of City of Heroes. I was a huge fan of that game for many years, but then they decided it wasn't profitable anymore and they just shut it down - and bam, it was like all of those wonderful experiences I had were suddenly gone forever.

I certainly understand the reasoning for this - the game industry loves it because it helps keep people buying the latest thing, and besides, there's a limited number of gamers for an ever-increasing number of games, so yeah, online communities will eventually die. However, that's just something I don't like about modern games, the way the focus on multiplayer has almost created an environment of planned obsolescence. I mean, I can pick up a copy of Mario 3, and it works exactly the same as it did the day it came out. There isn't a single aspect of the game that was present in the beginning that has since gone away. However, if, say, I load up the original Halo, for example, there's an entire section of the game which is permanently locked off from me and I will never be able to experience that aspect of the game. Not that I care about Halo, it was just the first example that came to my head. I don't know, maybe I'm weird like that, but it just really bothers me that modern games have come to this point where the fundamental experience gets changed over time.

[mrz84]

You also have to assume those games have single-player content at all. If not, then the entire game is useless.

[CJC]

Heck, in the case of MMOs, the entire game goes away and you literally never get to experience it again. I'm still reeling from the shutdown of City of Heroes.

I agree with this sentiment... when the games have a viable single-player experience and then they just cease to exist when the servers are shut down... it's awful.

If I had creative control of MMOs in general, when time comes where the servers are no longer profitable I'd box the 'single player' experience in a download/disc-based product and sell it. Players could then set up their own 'host' servers with the game (since they would probably be too big to install on a normal computer) and run it privately as a single-player experience (or with a local network connection).
Yes, there's threat of hacking and reverse engineering in such cases, but since the product is getting discontinued anyway what's the harm in a little exit revenue?

[Xyvol]

I agree that it is nice to be nostalgic and replay some older games. Favorites from your childhood and all that. But ya know, the times they are a changin'. As long as I have a good experience with a game, I'm happy. I have been playing Guild Wars 2 for about a year now. Being an MMO, it is of course online only. There may well come a time when it, too, closes down. The good thing about it is it's free to play. The only monetary requirement is the initial software purchase. Since they update with new content every two weeks, I feel it's been well worth the cost. I've enjoyed the game immensely. It will be sad when it goes away, but I won't be angry about it. Besides, it's already a sequel so maybe the company will move on to the next thing. They've already made a game of theirApril Fools Content (https://www.guildwars2.com/en/news/presenting-the-rytlocks-critter-rampage-game/), so it's possible they could start making single player games in the same world.

CJC, your idea is very intriguing. Personal I only end up playing with one or two friends when I do multiplayer. Tyria is gonna feel very empty that way. I do like the idea of "closing" it up and offering it as a single player experience, for those who purchased the game, to run around and check out things they missed or didn't get the chance to play when it was online.

[rock_nog]

Thing is, Xyvol, I'm very much a retro gamer. I live for playing older games, and sometimes older games might have a multiplayer experience not found in newer ones. Besides, even when I do play modern games, I'm rarely ahead of the curve. I very rarely buy a game when it first comes out. It may be a couple of years. Oftentimes, I don't pick up games until they've gone on sale, and so often, it turns out that by that time, the community has moved on to the next big thing. I know it's partly my fault if I miss out, I just think it's a drag that such things are time-limited.

[mrz84]

Thing is, Xyvol, I'm very much a retro gamer. I live for playing older games, and sometimes older games might have a multiplayer experience not found in newer ones. Besides, even when I do play modern games, I'm rarely ahead of the curve. I very rarely buy a game when it first comes out. It may be a couple of years. Oftentimes, I don't pick up games until they've gone on sale, and so often, it turns out that by that time, the community has moved on to the next big thing. I know it's partly my fault if I miss out, I just think it's a drag that such things are time-limited.

This is pretty much me in a nutshell since the 16-bit era. The only time I've bought something at launch was OoT (64), the 3DS, and a few games for it (Kid Icarus Uprising, Animal Crossing New Leaf, Pokemon X, and a few others). Other than that I don't usually get a game until I see it on sale somewhere.

[Jirin]

I generally like older games better than newer games, and I'd be lying if I said there weren't some nostalgia element to it. And I'd also be lying if I said I wasn't just a lot better at 2d platformers than newer genres because I've spent the most time playing them, and games are more fun when you're really good at them.

But I also just like the approach to older games better. I like it how the camera is pulled way back so you can see your whole surroundings rather than having the camera right up your butt so you can't see behind you. I like twitch reactions and simple controls better than memorizing combos and button mashing. Also in RPGs, I like it way better when you can control your whole party and I hate the new trend of only getting to control one character so you have to deal with computer AI for all allies which is usually very bad computer AI. I like it better when you have to solve puzzles and figure out where to go next than when you have a star on the map to move toward all the time and everything is clearly spelled out for you. And I do like games with story, but I think video game stories work best when they are expressed through world design rather than long cutscenes that interrupt your gameplay. And I like games that are difficult to the point where you might not even be able to finish it and you're forced to get really good at the game in order to win, not games where you assume you will just play for ten hours then win with a minimal of dying. So I like older games better in general.

[Xyvol]

Save for the next Zelda title, I’m pretty much the same way regarding purchasing games. I’ll play it if and when I get around to it. I bought FFVII before I had a Playstation to play it on, but those days are long gone. The fact is we are not the target market. Games are a business. Multiplayer is what sells, so that’s what gets focused on. So yeah, if you are picking up titles years later you may be missing out on something. I mean, if you were to just now take up Pogs as a hobby then you’re probably gonna have a hard time finding someone else to play with. The analogy isn’t perfect, you could still give someone half your pogs to play with you, since you have the physical product. Every product has its era, the downside to online content is you don’t get a copy to keep and reuse later. With intangible goods and services they are gone once they are no longer supported. All I’m saying is to enjoy what you can while it’s active, and be thankful for the ones you get to re-experience when it’s not. Life goes on.

[Jirin]

My feeling on multiplayer is that, in general, it's fun with people you know and terrible with random groups of people online. The reason for that is that almost every game has one strategy that trumps all other strategies, usually it is a strategy that is not fun to use, but everybody you meet has gone to web forums and FAQs and learned all about that strategy so it's all they do, so all people do is spam cheap setups they didn't come up with themselves then act like they've somehow earned this victory.

I'm still able to find a few new releases each year that interest me, though you have to look in nichier and nichier places to find them. XCOM, for example, is wonderful. Shin Megami Tensei IV was a huge disappointment. Shin Megami Tensei used to be a series for hardcore dungeon crawling and now it's joined the ranks of coddly handholdy dumbed down fetch-questy crap. Tales games are still improving their combat, and there are a bunch of cool indie puzzle platformers coming out.

But as you said, they've been making games for 30 years and you can get the vast majority of the best ones for cheap or free, so there's no reason to worry too much about following the current popular ones.