Multiplayer in Games

Lately on the net, I've been noticing a large distrust, almost even a Hatedom for multiplayer in games, especially games that involve a multiplayer component that is distinctly separate from the singleplayer portion of the games. I've heard cries that Multiplayer is just tacked-on, that development of multiplayer detracts from the quality of singleplayer, that multiplayer is the evil bride of DLC... the list goes on.

What is your stance or take on multiplayer in games?

It depends on whether or not the multiplayer is, as the redderic goes, tacked on or not. A good multiplayer meaningfully expands on the gameplay and allows to you derive entertainment outside of just the joy of playing with other people. Poor multiplayer feels like singleplayer with multiple people ("tacked on"), and may feel even less enjoyable than the singleplayer. And if it doesn't feel good, why play it? And if no one wants to play it, why bother investing resources in it, when they could ahve gone into making the singleplayer better, or making the game cheaper?

I have mixed feelings. On one hand putting multiplayer in some games just for the heck of it has given us some pretty interesting experiences. Look at Assassins Creed. On the other hand it's definitely hurt some other games, like Spec Ops The Line. And as much fun as Bioshock multiplayer was I'd prefer a few more levels and enemies in the single player instead.

I almost prefer it when games are made "mostly" for one or the other. When I look at my games, I note that most multiplayer games I've got are solely multiplayer-games, with either very simplistic or "tacked-on" single player. But on the other hand, I have caught myself several times thinking that "man, I'd love to play this great single-player game with my friends somehow".

On the other other hand, it can as previously stated hurt a good single-player game to have a bad multi-player. There is a limit to how much one can demand of the game industry considering rising costs and stuff, and I can understand that game developers choose to concentrate on one or the other.

On the other other other hand, I'm not sure if I'm that fond of buying games solely for the multiplayer...

I think the problem with multiplayer is that if it's not tacked on (in other words, if it's the main focus of your game), you run the risk of losing most of your playerbase within the year if you don't constantly update and support your product (unless you're Call Of Duty, of course). Nobody wants to play a game where the main gametype has nothing left for you to do, but at the same time nobody wants to play a gametype that feels like a shoddy last-minute add-on.

Therefore, if you're gonna add multiplayer in your games, you have to be willing to listen to the community and release multiple patches and updates, even months or years after the game's release. This is one of the main reasons why Valve's games, despite most of them being multiplayer-only, continue to have huge active communities even 5+ years after they were released. The devs listen to what the players want and constantly release updates. They don't abandon their games after the big sales period (usually one year) like most devs do. Of course, at the same time, as with any other game you also have to do constant playtesting to make sure everything is balanced and the game is fun to play.

The whole argument about "tacked on multiplayer" seems a little weird. It's happened so many times, yet it often ends up not too bad, like in Uncharted, Assassin's Creed, Mass Effect, Bioshock, and a whole bunch that I probably haven't heard of.

It kinda just seems like people are hating for the sake of hating or it's a case of They Changed It, Now It Sucks!.

edited 11th Dec '12 11:28:42 PM by DocSwiss

From what I've seen on Youtube, the Multiplayer for Just Cause 2 is goddamn hilarious.

I saw a video for that too. Poor, poor Panau.