Complaining: Misbegotten Multiplayer Mode

I'm not sure how else to describe this page other than Multiplayer Modes Tropers Don't like. Almost all the examples read like Audience reactions.

I think "multiplayer mode is bad compared to singleplayer" is a better description, there. Not sure what to do here beyond a YMMV banner.

I find that the trope is supposed to be about games designed as single player that don't really work (well) in multiplayer.

Having a multiplayer mode that just works less well than single player in a game that's designed with multiplayer in mind wouldn't count for that.

"Bad multiplayer mode" isn't a trope. "Multiplayer feature tacked onto a single player game" is a trope.

I think we obviously can't just trust troper judgment to determine which games had a multiplayer mode tacked on, and which just got bad ones. Should we require some kind of Word of God cited?

Well especially in recent years there has been online multiplayer modes put into games that are far removed from the gameplay of the single player game, which highlights the fact the modes were probably made just to cash in on the multiplayer craze. In contrast, Halo plays pretty much the same when moving between the two, just with a different layout and much more difficult enemies.

It's a complex idea, but is simple enough to spot. Especially with games that have pure single player story campaigns, not even co-op. Batman: Arkham Origins is one that comes to mind, as well as Ninja Gaiden III. Neither were very well received because the controls were shoddy and game across as more of a bargain-bin cash-in than an extension of the main game. In fact, story campaign and multiplayer tend to be treated as separate games altogether because of the different mechanics involved.

They aren't all bad, though. The multi-player mode for Mass Effect 3 streamlines the powers and abilities used in the main campaign (instead of 8 different powers to choose from you get 3, the game also doesn't pause for you to command your teammates and select your next move), but was overall very well received for a solid gameplay structure and mechanics and providing fans a chance to play as different alien species.

This. It's a recent trend of tacking multiplayer onto single player games that has little to do with the main game. Quality doesn't matter. It's generally viewed as a negative thing but there are a few examples that are well received. The issue is that the page was built as complaining about a trope rather than about the trope.

edited 24th Oct '14 6:59:25 AM by shimaspawn

I remember doing something similar with what is now Paintball Episode, where the original name was "paintball error" and was exclusively about how people get the proper rules of paintball wrong. The current list of bulletpoints on that page came from me trying to explain why "a list of mistakes" is not a trope while "the characters play paintball" is. There is a solid trope underneath this one, but would require a rename and a better description to explain things.

Should we do it all from here or go to ykttw?

I think we can manage most of it here. The bones are there, but it desperately needs a rename and the complaining stripped. If it's low on examples after, we can gather them in YKTTW.

Tacked On Multiplayer still YMMV I think.

"Standalone Multiplayer Mode included in a single player game" however is not, this does not include things like Halo or Ratchet Deadlocked which have a Couch Co Op Campaign but things like Ratchet And Clank Up Your Arsenal, Mass Effect 3, Uncharted 3, Batman Arkham Origins. It would also include Kingdom Hearts Birth By Sleep which has a standalone multiplayer arena and such but the only real variance is XP carries over.

Wow that is a serious trend of Third Game Gets Multiplayer games.

edited 24th Oct '14 6:48:37 PM by Memers

An accurate but still negative name would be Mandatory Multiplayer Mode, if we want to keep alliteration. Possibly Gameplay Shifted Multiplayer, or Multiplayer Gameplay Shift.

I think mandatory implies it's something you have to play to complete the game or something like that, rather than it's a mandatory inclusion on the creators' behalf. A shift would to me imply it's a game that used to be single player but has been shifted to multiplayer (like Final Fantasy XI).

edited 25th Oct '14 1:25:17 AM by AnotherDuck

'Mandatory'? That certainly not this, only a few of them are truly mandatory.

Mandatory in that game developers think every game needs a multiplayer mode, not mandatory in order to complete the game.

Cause that is really the reason why many of these games have multiplayer, they are trying to extend the lifespan of the game and, hopefully, players will buy more DLC when it comes out. Like I said, the game development between single player and multiplayer might as well be two separate games, to the point it has been admitted that multiplayer was actually farmed out to another company to make. Titanfall was multiplayer only for that reason.

That is just going to lead to MASSIVE misuse, most are not 'mandatory to play'. I for one never touched the Ratchet And Clank Up Your Arsenal multiplayer and never touched the HD version because it freezes all PS 3's that try. It's not mandatory for all developers as well, quite a few do not have them including Bioshock Infinite.

They are just Standalone Multiplayer Modes, they just arnt integrated with the main game or are just token integrated such as Mass Effect 3's galactic readiness.

edited 25th Oct '14 12:14:31 AM by Memers

It was a suggestion, one I did not particular like to begin with (hence why I spitballed a few other names). Really, the best possible title would be something like Campaign Multiplayer Divergence, possibly even a sliding scale to it because, to be honest, the Mass Effect 3 MP is far more subtle in the gameplay changes than something like Batman: Arkham Origins.

edited 25th Oct '14 2:47:25 AM by KJMackley

Enforced Multiplayer Mode may be slightly closer to what 10 was going for.

As the troper responsible for creating this five years ago, I should point out that I never intended this to be an objective trope, and certainly wasn't thinking about the trope people in this thread seem to want to replace it with. I now wonder why it never was tagged as YMMV. That Audience Reactions aren't tropes doesn't necessarily mean they should be cut or redefined as objective.

edited 26th Oct '14 9:36:34 PM by Prfnoff

What we are talking about is exactly what the trope says, just removing unnecessary subjectivity to it. That's the important part, don't let any PC remarks fool you but objective tropes are always the priority.

If it's just about games with multiplayer modes that some tropers don't like, it's just complaining. We don't want that. Any trope that's Trope Done Badly is complaining (with some exceptions such as if it's based on actual success or other objective measure).

"What we are talking about is exactly what the trope says"

It's funny you should say that, because I don't think there's agreement about what the (objective) definition should be yet. "Gameplay Shifted Multiplayer" may be a trope (and I agree that "objective tropes are always the priority"), but it's definitely not what I had in mind.

As for not wanting tropes that are "just complaining," that would be an argument for cutting Disappointing Last Level and many other Audience Reactions.

Other tropes aren't an argument for or against an action of that nature. If you want to bring up other tropes, bring them to TRS. Just because it exists doesn't mean it's something that shouldn't be fixed. Nor does it necessarily mean it's actually the same problem even if it seems like it on the surface.

This is the entirety of the description: "There are video games designed primarily or exclusively for two or more players, ranging from Co-Op Multiplayer to Competitive Multiplayer. Many video games, however, are really designed for a single player, and become painful with more than one player; other games may merely treat their multiplayer mode as nothing more than an afterthought."

The only word that is subjective is "painful," but the rest of it is something with tangible elements that doesn't need to be subjective and attract complaining. What we are talking about is making it actually a useful trope with a rich variety of examples, you're not creating a strong trope by making it based on opinion. Most examples would probably still fit after we refine the description.

YMMV tropes should either be commenting on audience reaction (Like They Changed It, Now It Sucks!) or objectively defined tropes that contain examples that depend on opinion (Like Complete Monster), not be "Let's list examples of things that suck."

I think the problem is that there are two different tropes going on here: games which are mainly single-player games, with not much effort put into the multiplayer mode, and games where the game just doesn't work as well in multiplayer even though the designers put equal care into both. These are very different (and IMO only the first is tropable).

If we go with that, sounds like we'll need Word of God and not just someone assuming that the multiplayer mode must've been stapled on because it sucks so much.

As it's impossible to tell how much work actually went into the multiplayer mode, the two scenarios are functionally interchangeable.