Why do you play multiplayer?

[dpodblood]

For the most part I have been the type of person who focuses mostly on the Single player campaign up until the last couple of years. I like the idea of a campaign because you know there is a definitive goal you are working towards, and an eventual ending you will reach. Recently though I have been getting more into multiplayer games playing a bit of MW2 and BLOPS over the past couple years, and most recently bought BF3. For the most part I have a few goals when it comes to multiplayer (specifically with shooters). Improving my K/D ratio, increasing my W/L ratio, and contributing to my team as much as possible; often times this means accumulating as many points as possible. I've also found that multiplayer has quite a few advantages.

1) Unpredictability. Unlike AI which for the most part is predictable, you just never know what people are going to do. You can play the same map, and the same objective 1000 times, and have completely different things happen.

2) Unlocks. Event though there is no definitive end game in multiplayer there are still things to work towards. Specifically with BF3 I am motivated to rank up to unlock all of the different kits. I particularly like that in order to unlock all the kits, you are forced to play as all of the different class types, which mixes up the gameplay style.

3) Value for money. With a multiplayer game you will basically get endless value for your money. Even if you are paying the full $60 for a game and $30 per year in expansions/maps you are still getting excellent value considering you can get 100's of hours of play out of a given title. Compare that to the average campaign today, most of which clock in at well less than 25 hours. Even extremely long single player games like The Witcher or Dragon Age origins will still last well under 100 hours.

4) Constant improvement. Unlike most SP games where you learn a specific set of skills which serve no purpose once you reach the end game, each round of multiplayer may teach you something new. Some new skill, tactic, or some new spot in the map you didn't notice before. You can use these skills to make yourself into a better player going forward.

5) Community. For every multiplayer game there is a large community of people around it. It's a great way to meet people from all around the world and have a great time. Often times the relationships formed in game grow into lasting friendships. Plus you get the added bonus of being in coordinated teams, and learning from other players.

So what is it that motivates you to play multiplayer games?

 

[RandomSanity]

I've actually found myself losing interest in multiplayer lately due to many of the 'advantages' you mentioned.

Unlocks really bother me, I don't know when this concept started or why it caught on as heavily as it did but unlocks are the main factor why I no longer play FPS' online. I miss the days when you could just buy whatever weapon you wanted to provided you were a good enough player to earn the cash required.

I don't understand why I have to play for 500 hours just to be able to use an MP5. Or play an additional 20 hours to unlock a hat I don't want anyways.

Micro transactions have also ruined a lot of otherwise good mmos. When I was younger I would gladly sink most of my free time into grinding to earn the next level or farming to earn some unique equipment. These days the fact that someone with extra cash to blow can accomplish the same thing in 5 minutes just by opening his wallet really turns me off.

The only multiplayer game I've been playing lately is LoL and I've nearly quit that as well. The community is just so full of immature, whining children that you cannot play a whole public game without someone quitting, griefing or flaming for an entire game.

Sadly I have very few friends who are into online gaming so I never have anyone decent to play with. This may have spoiled the experience for me.

 

[Red Storm]

It's fun to compete against other humans. That basically sums it up for me.

However, I absolutely hate these grind systems that so many multiplayer games are focusing on. I don't want to have to play X number of hours to receive permission to use better stuff. It actually makes no sense in multiplayer, where people should always have access to same content.

 

[lsv]

To crush your enemies, see them driven before you, and to hear the lamentation of their women

 

[Red Storm]

To crush your enemies, see them driven before you, and to hear the lamentation of their women

So... their moms?

 

[dpodblood]

I've actually found myself losing interest in multiplayer lately due to many of the 'advantages' you mentioned.

Unlocks really bother me, I don't know when this concept started or why it caught on as heavily as it did but unlocks are the main factor why I no longer play FPS' online. I miss the days when you could just buy whatever weapon you wanted to provided you were a good enough player to earn the cash required.

I don't understand why I have to play for 500 hours just to be able to use an MP5. Or play an additional 20 hours to unlock a hat I don't want anyways.

Micro transactions have also ruined a lot of otherwise good mmos. When I was younger I would gladly sink most of my free time into grinding to earn the next level or farming to earn some unique equipment. These days the fact that someone with extra cash to blow can accomplish the same thing in 5 minutes just by opening his wallet really turns me off.

The only multiplayer game I've been playing lately is LoL and I've nearly quit that as well. The community is just so full of immature, whining children that you cannot play a whole public game without someone quitting, griefing or flaming for an entire game.

Sadly I have very few friends who are into online gaming so I never have anyone decent to play with. This may have spoiled the experience for me.

I think unlocks started as a way of building a sort of RPG like progression into multiplayer games. It gives the player a sense of progress even when there is no really story line to work through. Personally this was one of my favorite things about MW2. There was a decent blog post about this topic on bit-tech a while back. http://www.bit-tech.net/gaming/pc/2010/04/12/why-everything-is-trying-to-be-an-rpg-now/1

Microtransations have both good and bad points. I think its a great way to bring F2P games to the market that may not otherwise be profitable. Look at World of Tanks or League of Legends for example. Both are good example of Microtransations done right. Make a game available for free. If certain people want to unlock certain things from the start they can choose to pay for it. If you want a completely free game you have it. It will just take a bit longer for you to unlock things. Where mirotransactions fail is when they are shoehorned into already full price games, and give people willing to fork over cash a real gameplay advantage.

 

[FuryofFive]

To crush your enemies, see them driven before you, and to hear the lamentation of their women

what he said

 

[RandomSanity]

I think unlocks started as a way of building a sort of RPG like progression into multiplayer games. It gives the player a sense of progress even when there is no really story line to work through. Personally this was one of my favorite things about MW2. There was a decent blog post about this topic on bit-tech a while back. http://www.bit-tech.net/gaming/pc/2010/04/12/why-everything-is-trying-to-be-an-rpg-now/1

Microtransations have both good and bad points. I think its a great way to bring F2P games to the market that may not otherwise be profitable. Look at World of Tanks or League of Legends for example. Both are good example of Microtransations done right. Make a game available for free. If certain people want to unlock certain things from the start they can choose to pay for it. If you want a completely free game you have it. It will just take a bit longer for you to unlock things. Where mirotransactions fail is when they are shoehorned into already full price games, and give people willing to fork over cash a real gameplay advantage.

I agree with both of those examples but only because you can't buy something that makes you stronger. Lots of games have been ruined due to poor use of microtransactions.

I can't stand playing Call of Duty games since they added this unlock system. It just doesn't make sense to me and takes all the fun out of the game. I don't want to spend hours and hours playing with a weapon I hate just so I can finally start enjoying myself. I should be able to do this from the start, I paid for the game already.

 

[lsv]

So... their moms?

Indeed.

 

[Red Storm]

I think unlocks started as a way of building a sort of RPG like progression into multiplayer games. It gives the player a sense of progress even when there is no really story line to work through. Personally this was one of my favorite things about MW2. There was a decent blog post about this topic on bit-tech a while back. http://www.bit-tech.net/gaming/pc/2010/04/12/why-everything-is-trying-to-be-an-rpg-now/1

Microtransations have both good and bad points. I think its a great way to bring F2P games to the market that may not otherwise be profitable. Look at World of Tanks or League of Legends for example. Both are good example of Microtransations done right. Make a game available for free. If certain people want to unlock certain things from the start they can choose to pay for it. If you want a completely free game you have it. It will just take a bit longer for you to unlock things. Where mirotransactions fail is when they are shoehorned into already full price games, and give people willing to fork over cash a real gameplay advantage.

I disagree about unlocks, I think it's a step back from what we had before. It doesn't feel like anything but an artificial limitation imposed on my game play until I satisfy the required amount of "grind". I'd love if this was kept to MMOs where it belongs.

As for micro transactions, you know what they say... "Free to Play, Pay to Win". I think micro transactions are a great way to introduce content that doesn't give the buyer an inherent advantage in game play. Multiplayer should always be about keeping it fair IMHO. Seems like a lot of these F2P games have given up on balance in favor of paid-for advantages, and any complaints about fairness are answered with "The game is free..."

 

[dpodblood]

I disagree about unlocks, I think it's a step back from what we had before. It doesn't feel like anything but an artificial limitation imposed on my game play until I satisfy the required amount of "grind". I'd love if this was kept to MMOs where it belongs.

I can understand this point of view and I guess we just have different preferences when it comes to that mechanic. I think a lot of people who prefer the old "everything from the start" way of doing things are people who grew up playing games like Quake 3, and Unreal Tournament. Games based completely on skill, the type of games that are perfect for competitive play. For they type of people like me though who don't belong to a specific clan it gives good motivation to continue playing a game even when I'm not achieving anything specific round-by-round.

 

[Arsinek]

Its more challenging and more gratifying and just cooler.

 

[IndyColtsFan]

For me, I used to play multiplayer games a lot more and would have what amounted to LAN parties at my house every weekend for my brothers and friends. I think that's the best setting for multiplayer, as you can turn around and make fun of people when you kill them. Doing the same over Vent isn't quite as much fun.

 

[dpodblood]

Damn I gotta get another LAN party going when Serious Sam 3 comes out!

 

[thespyder]

I largely do not play Multi-player and for the following reasons:

1) Enemies never stay dead The problem with Multi- player, either in PvP or even just in MMOs is that, once you kill your opponent, he just comes back. Mostly there is no consequences. No impact. It is all so sanitized down to the point where life/death/winning/losing has absolutely no meaning. Even bragging about it is shallow and pointless.

2) Unlocking accomplishments this only means that some 12 year old with no job who has 500 hours a week to play is absolutely going to have an edge over me, merely because I have a life and a job and can have sex with women. I would much rather have the sex than the trophy. And so the "Accomplishments" don't amount to much other than in MP game.

3) Little or no story invariably doing the same PvP over and over and over again really gets booring quickly. You either win or you lose, but what have you found or explored? Have you advanced any story? Did you know what was going to end up happening once you entered the arena? Or if you are just "Grinding" to advance to the point where you can PvP, what wonders to you uncover? Or are you just filling time to advance? Mainly it ends up being the first. So Bored already.

4) To beat some other player that you have never seen before and probably never will . Sorry, but my self esteme isn't so low that I need to prove my gaming worth against someone who's opinion I don't value.

 

[sash1]

to play with friends. it's why i play LoL. i like to get on skype with some kids, then just bullshit and laugh while we play.

 

[PowerYoga]

With friends?

To crush your enemies, see them driven before you, and to hear the lamentation of their women

By myself?

To crush your enemies, see them driven before you, and to hear the lamentation of their women

 

[redrider4life4]

The unlocks give bad players a sense of accomplishment, even thought they are bad they are still progressing. If you had nothing to offer bad players they would lose interest and stop playing (paying $60 for games that offer them nothing).

Overall multiplayer offers competition, people that don't like multi-player games just generally aren't competitive by nature. It is quite clear who is playing badly and who is good in an online match.

 

[Red Storm]

The unlocks give bad players a sense of accomplishment, even thought they are bad they are still progressing. If you had nothing to offer bad players they would lose interest and stop playing (paying $60 for games that offer them nothing).

I wish the game would ask upon loading, "Are you teh noobz?" so that both sides could be happy.

 

[The Boston Dangler]

i only play multiplayer shooters now. i dearly loved stalker, but i just can't bring myself to play a shoot 'em up game by myself any more.

also, i really don't like unlocks or achievements. they can really detract from the skill/reward ratio - someone that plays quite a bit should own the battlefield because of skill, not because he unlocked a weapon that's hugely better than the starter weapons. like i said in the other thread, they should spend more time and effort improving the game and not congratulating me for pressing the jump button 100x.

 

[videogames101]

Winning.

/thread

 

[MustangSVT]

zergling rush kekeke

 

[WhipperSnapper]

Reasons for wanting to play online multiplayer may vary depending on the game type.

I agree that for FPS the best games were the older Unreal Tournament/Quake III types. Organized clan matches and pugs for UT99 felt like playing in an actual sport. For FPS, online mutiplayer is much more interesting and intense than shooting bots that travel in straight lines.

For RPG, there's a larger sense of adventure and you can interact with other people. Neverwinter Nights was all about playing online at persistent world servers where people designed custom content.

For RTS games, it's about being able to play against human opponents capable of real strategy as opposed to retarded AIs.

 

[IGemini]

Some of my arguments are more relevant to console multiplayer, but it's included since I played those more recently. I don't get into it much anymore because:

1) Long enjoyment curve: I get the most out of multiplayer games playing with people I know, even through regular online exposure. I dumped hundreds of hours into CS 1.6 because I found a server cluster I enjoyed that actually had some code for respecting players. The last FPS I got any MP enjoyment from was BC2 on 360, and attrition set in after only 60 hours. If I can't break 100 it's not worth the cost.

2) Superficiality: This is why I think matchmaking is the worst multiplayer concept in recent history. With the CS example I mentioned, I got to know people and eventually ended up getting some privileges. I'm used to an environment where the level of trash talk usually heard would get the person evicted from the server. You could also consider this as "undermanagement."

3) Favoritism to early adopters: This is pretty much the same camp as the unlocks/achievements. I'm not alone in thinking a release game usually isn't worth $60. The grinding factor already mentioned makes it exponentially harder to justify buying a game later on. EVE (circa Tyrannis) was the last PC multiplayer game I liked, because even though training is based entirely on time spent, there's a much greater emphasis on strategy and the vulnerability factor is even wider.

4) Strong SP roots: It's how I started playing games--to get away from people's elitism, not revel in it. Yes, I'm more cooperative than competitive by nature, but sportsmanship wins more points than kills. I'd rather have my butt handed to me several times on a bad day by someone who says nothing than someone gloating over one kill. I'm not the best player out there but I'm farther from the worst. You may think you're better, you may even be, it's boring if I have to hear about it (even if the superiority is directed to someone else). People who illegitimately cheat the game are worse.

 

[dpodblood]

3) Favoritism to early adopters: This is pretty much the same camp as the unlocks/achievements. I'm not alone in thinking a release game usually isn't worth $60. The grinding factor already mentioned makes it exponentially harder to justify buying a game later on. EVE (circa Tyrannis) was the last PC multiplayer game I liked, because even though training is based entirely on time spent, there's a much greater emphasis on strategy and the vulnerability factor is even wider.

Just to speak to your third point specifically, I think the whole issue is overblown a bit. Yes there are progressive unlocks, but #1 They aren't awarded purely for time spent. They are accumulated by scoring points, as well as concentrating on using a specific weapon. #2 It's not as if a level 1 player is unable to compete with a level 50 player. The level 50 may have an advantage, but it's not as if it's completely unbalanced either.