Top
130°

Competitive Multiplayer: What Is It Good For?

Ever since the first Call of Duty: Modern Warfare game, every single game of the last 5 years has had competitive multiplayer in one form or another. The result is typically, “it’s there, but it doesn’t stand out as anything special.” So wouldn’t this just give negative feedback on the game? Why do developers bother? Not all competitive multiplayer modes that are made for the sake of being there are bad. In fact, some of them have been extremely successful in regards to reception. To name a few: Assassin’s Creed and Uncharted. These games all stand out as some of the most enjoyable multiplayer experiences to date, but why are these games so much more successful than others? The simple answer is: They try to stand out from the oversized crowd.

The story is too old to be commented.
Valenka1304d ago (Edited 1304d ago )

It's because Call of Duty made it as popular as it is today and make millions thanks to it, and everyone wants a slice of that pie, instead of doing something original.

Detoxx1304d ago

Battlefield did it a year before COD

Ducky1304d ago

... might as well credit quake, unreal, goldeneye or halo.

The recent splurge of competitive multiplayer is mostly due to CoD4 though.

Nimblest-Assassin1304d ago (Edited 1304d ago )

No... its because everyone now is obsessed with value, and developers are so afraid that people won't buy their games, they shoe horn some half-assed MP to simply tell people look! We have multiplayer to!

Look at how some people react to a game like uncharted. "oh, I can beat it in 8-10 hours, its not worth 60 bucks, its a rental at best"

There are great single player campaigns, that shoe horn MP in, so people will buy their game instead of rent

Dead Space 2
Spec Ops the Line
Bioshock 2 (shure, it pales in comparision to the original but still it had a good single player)
Far Cry 3
Mass Effect 3
Max Payne 3
The Last of Us (they keep saying they will have an MP component, because they need to)

Face it, we are stuck in this time where people look for value and longevity, and single player games that take 8-10 hours are doomed to that perspective from a consumer

LOGICWINS1304d ago

If a game only offers 8- 10 hours of content, then people SHOULDN'T spend $60 on it. Period.

Dlacy13g1304d ago

@Logicwins, I will disagree slightly. I do get where you are coming from, and I do agree that games with only a handful of hours of gameplay should be heavily scrutinized for their cost. But if a game comes in at 10hrs of play that is AAA top quality...I don't have as big an issue paying $60 for it. At $6 an hour that is about what I pay at the movies these days. So "IF" the gameplay is compelling and the quality is there, I will buy in. Its the same standard I use for movies....I wont pay $12-$15 a ticket to go watch a movie on the big screen that is just average...that can wait for a rent.

Using my reasoning though also means I or anyone else out there needs to find a reliable review source for their games. Reviewers shouldn't just be telling us if a game is 5 out of 5 but they should be telling us is that game worth the retail price asked for. There are plenty of good games...but very few that are worth the actual $60 most are asking for at retail.

LOGICWINS1304d ago

"Reviewers shouldn't just be telling us if a game is5 out of 5 but they should be telling us is that game worth the retail price asked for."

I agree, but many of these critics don't pay for games. Therefore, they can't give an honest opinion on whether or not the game is worth the money.

As far as your other argument is concerned, if a game is 10 hours long but offers compelling gameplay throughout, I will simply wait till the game drops in price to buy it. There are plenty of games out there that offer compelling gameplay with a lengthy story.

Dlacy13g1304d ago (Edited 1304d ago )

First off...not every game in the last 5yrs has had multiplayer. That exaggeration aside, I find it funny that the author sites COD:MW as the game that set this in motion. Halo 2 was the game that set the standard for competitive multiplayer for consoles not COD:MW. Everyone was trying to make a Halo Killer, MLG was running Halo tourneys long before COD:MW. Counter Strike was the game that to this day is the standard on PC. And to be really honest Star Craft was running competitive multiplayer with leagues well before either of these games.

To answer the question of "what is it good for?". Competitive Multiplayer simply put is the gaming worlds version of sports. We play online competitive games and it gives you the same rush / feeling of playing a sport on a field minus the physical exertion. It scratches that itch that most males have (some women too) to compete and dominate others.

Mainsqueeze1304d ago

Glad somebody said it. Nailed it right on the head too.

guitarded771304d ago

Ab-so-lute-ly no-thing... uh huh... uh huhh... say it again y'all...

Sorry, the headline made me do it. Link for the kids.

KangarooSam1304d ago (Edited 1304d ago )

Lolol you beat me to it. The only reason I clicked on this article.

Edit: attaching a pic isn't working so here:
http://www.tumblr.com/tagge...

Dlacy13g1304d ago

Bubbles for not only being funny but for linking to the original artist. Man talk about the early days of music video...that my friend was vintage!

brian1985FM1304d ago

THAT IS WHAT I WANTED WHEN I CAME UP WITH THE TITLE. My job is done here, goodbye N4G. xD jk jk

Hazmat131304d ago

side note the picture they used is the co op feature on farcry 3. yes it is some competitive challenges but mostly co op. i don't like competitive hell im having fun with bots on black ops 2, only reason i hate it is the hardcore people who take way too seriously