Multiplayer Has Become An All-Powerful Abomination – And It’s Hurting Gaming

Are bolted-on deathmatch and widespread co-op dumbing-down great games? And are they increasingly used to justify online passes and even DRM? Single-player enthusiast Mark Butler reckons so – and argues that rampant multiplayer is a growing thorn in the side of the medium.

Read Full Story >>
The story is too old to be commented.
Pintheshadows1922d ago

That's what happens when The Chantry and The Templars don't keep a tight enough leash on multiplayer modes.

-Gespenst-1922d ago

I just hate this multiplayer era of videogames because of how fucking hostile and aggressive it is. Most major multiplayer games aren't about having fun, they're just about dominating everyone else and being the best, and most communities for multiplayer games are completely hostile and intolerant.

Multiplayer games bring people together? Well, maybe on the same server but that's about it.

ddurand11922d ago

People play games for different reasons.

I play it as a craft. I work to become better at the game until Im punishing my opponents in any game I play. I am competitive, but its fun for me.

You shouldnt label all of the people that play like this as intolerant and hostile. That is completely untrue and baseless.

I dont know why youd be surprised that there are dickhole people on internet games. There are dickhole people at your work, in your personal life and in the general public. So why woudlnt they be gaming on the internet?

Pintheshadows1922d ago

The technical term is urethra but I agree with you to a certain extent.

You can't tar everyone with the same brush afterall. I tend to find waiting for several months after a title releases will root out the dedicated players that stick around after all the abusive urethras are long gone.

It's makes for a nicer experience.

Shadonic1922d ago

Theres different genres of gameing and haveing a shooter game or something with fighting of course will have something more aggresive and hostile towards another player because there aggresive genres like shooters and fighters or games like assassins creed. Though there is some sense of a push to cooperate with other players in most of these killing orionted games. In my opinion its all in the type of game your playing and whose playing it theres a variety of players who play for the competition and others who play for fun and the experience. If you want something different then look around the console or indie games on the PC theres over 1000 other games out there that points towards something other then dominating the other player. Multiplayer games can bring people together just not all the time when your playing a gmae where your chainsawing or shooting somebody in the face If multplayer games didnt bring people together my 100 friends on live wouldent be there.

-Gespenst-1922d ago

The way I see it, multiplayer games have come to prevalence at the height of capitalism and consumerism, and they're fraught with the impulses implicit in those social, economic phenomena.

Like I said, it's just about being the best and dominating everyone else, creating a competitive environment and atmosphere where you're disdainfully labelled a noob for sucking and are discouraged from playing.

So few mp games are about having a good game, and so few players are good sports. There's such thing as fun competitiveness, it's competitiveness that doesn't take itself and the game so damn seriously, and that makes for a much more pleasant environment and atmosphere. That's not the type of competitiveness that I see in mp games today. Today it just seems actually rather vicious and exclusive.

I'm not necessarily accusing any of you of this attitude, I don't really know how you all behave in an mp situation, but as far as I'm concerned, and as far as I've experienced, there's a greater number of people with this attitude than there isn't.

solid_si1921d ago

without multiplayer, particulary Online multiplayer industry would always be seen as a childish and nerdish thing.

+ Show (1) more replyLast reply 1921d ago
HeavenlySnipes1922d ago (Edited 1922d ago )

Well on the otherhand you'd have to lower your expectations of single player games (or be willing to pay more) if you want an as expansive experience as we had last gen.

People now EXPECT mo-cap, voice acting, and pretty graphics in their campaigns and those things cost massive amounts of money. If you are willing for devs to lay off making their games look nice (recycle assets throughout the game) and use only text, and return to mechanical looking animations then we can have our 20 hour games back.

Or we could allow devs to spend 4 years on games and pay more to fund the extra voice acting fees and shit. MP allows devs to give the players extra playing time and make extra money off map packs and such

EDIT: talking every genre. Last gen almost every game was at least 15 hours long. The Jaks, Sly, Ratchet and clanks, Kingdom Hearts, God Of Wars, Persona etc.. were long ass GREAT GAMES. How many 15+ hour games have you played this gen (tht are legit 15 hours, not 15 hours if you collect the 10000000 flowers hidden in the game -_-)

Its more time consuming and costly to make games this gen so don't expect the same length/quality games as last gen beucase the devs have to do more in the same amount of time

ab5olut10n1922d ago

He's right. CoD doesn't sell a bajillion units because the campaign is boss.

Pintheshadows1922d ago

Are you specifically talking about shooters?

DarkTower8051922d ago

Lol, no GOW game was ever 15 hrs long. 8-9 hrs MAX. Not talking poo, one of my favorite franchises, but it's the truth.

Still, I do see your point.

Pintheshadows1922d ago

I'm thinking RPG's like Dragon Age along with games like Borderlands and Fallout. Open world action titles like GTA and Sleeping Dogs titles as well.

Shadonic1922d ago (Edited 1922d ago )

Borderlands 2,Fable the journeys over 15 hours but thats gonna recive hate cause its kinect and on rails. Theres red dead redemption and skyrim which i belive were over 15. Then theres minecraft which im kind of iffy about theres probably a lot but honestly time shouldent matter that much if your getting a really good story and a great experience from the game. I mean slender is a simple short game that i coulde probably produce with what limited knowledge i have and that games hourse are thrown out of the window when millions of players are playing the game because it delivers a great experience.

JackBNimble1922d ago

I think you guy's are forgetting the most important thing, and that is replay value.
It doesn't matter how long a game is if there is replay value to keep you coming back for more.

+ Show (2) more repliesLast reply 1922d ago
urwifeminder1922d ago

If it wasnt for multi id have quit long ago .

MattyG1922d ago

I don't mind multiplayer when it is well thought out and fits the game. But the you get stuff like Dead Space 2 and I start to change my mind an little.

Shadonic1922d ago

i havent played dead spaces 2 multiplayer but from what ive heard it was terrible. If i was the designer for it i would of went with a sort of co op mission style similar to L4D2's or 1 ( never played those either) but set up with differenct characters and different multipathwayed levels. The enemie players would die as the usual necromorph did but have there health be signified by the way the moved from having there limbs cut off. it would basically be L4D's multiplayer but tweaked towards dead space. Multiplayer can work in virtually any game it just depends on how its done.

MattyG1922d ago

It just didn't fit the tone of the series, and that's exactly why everyone is throwing a hissy fit about Dead Space 3. They're keeping multiplayer AND adding co-op, two things nobody asked for.

Show all comments (21)