What is actually so "great" with Multiplayer-Games and why are there people being so "attached" to them?

[ToxicOffender]

Dear readers, don´t take certain things too serious within this article, but on a serious note, it actually does reflect my opinion on the industry, certain kind of gamers and of course our all-time most favorite beloved MULTIPLAYER-GAMES! LOL!


CHAPTER I: Those Great Shiny Multiplayer-Games!
------------------------------------------------
To make long things a little shorter: I tried many of them AAA Multiplayer-Titles, already starting with UNREAL TOURNAMENT back in 1999 over BATTLEFIELD 2 and several other titles like COD to PUBG, but it was practically everywhere and every single time the exact same "drama", which doesn´t mean i didn´t had any fun at all, of course there were some funny moments during my times in those Multiplayer-Games, but in contrast to all those hours in there...it just ain´t really worth it at all.

Now it wasn´t me being frustrated over those "freakz" with almost inhuman-super-reflexes they got from playing PUBG on a 24/7 basis, i also wasn´t rage-quitting because another aim-hack-cheater shot me off my motorcycle with one single headshot while he was riding one himself, over a distance of approx. 65 ft. on bumpy ground.

I practically just got bored after a maximum of 2 months to 2 weeks minimum, coz once that "magic" of "playing against other human things rather than bot-thingies", starts to wear off too quickly, there really ain´t much left, once that magic is gone.

It´s kinda awkward to me, how in gods name there could be people having astronomical +3,000 h on PUBG...while of course still ranting about it in their STEAM user-reviews, how bad it actually is and how full it is with cheaters everywhere and "Waahh! Waahh!" and "Blah Blah!" and so on.

If i have to analyze the typical multiplayer-game, then there is not much left once i subtract that awesome exclusive "playing-against-other-human-beings"-feeling that regular single-player games "lack". So in those multiplayer-games, I am basically just doing the same things over and over again over a short period (gameplay-wise...while it´s interesting how certain "Multiplayer-Fans" claim the same thing about Single-Player Games!) while missing certain (good, better or greater) aspects of certain single-player experiences. So all what´s left of the multiplayer-gaming experience, is way less entertaining than most of the regular single-player-game experiences, in my opinion.

Now a different thing would be multiplayer-games like RAINBOW SIX: SIEGE, but then again sadly i am really not the guy who loves to be dependent on other players when playing a game. With other words I am also not the co-op type of gamer so i am practically not the kind of consumer in general, those multiplayer-only devs/publishers are so happy with or in other words...if it comes to me, each and everyone of them lazy ´n greedy bastards would be "Dead Already!" at release-day of their friggin mp-only games along with their sorry attempts in making as much money as fast, easy and cheap as possible.

CHAPTER II: No Way A Way Out!
--------------------------
Most of the reviews on "A WAY OUT", a Co-Op-Only game (not enough that they give us Multiplayer-ONLY titles, but now it must be Co-Op-ONLY as well???), tend to start with a "Fun with a friend..."- or "Enjoyed it with my brother..."-Kind of review, actually pointing out my major problem with a title like that:

What if i am a shift-worker and friends don´t have the times to join me? What if my brother is a brainless and as a matter of fact i can´t even use the sorry dipsh*t for playing a Co-Op-Only videogame? What if i just don´t feel so well playing a game like this with total strangers?

No clue what´s even worse, the fact they´re forcing me to play with strangers (or my brother) or the fact that i have to pay 60 bucks for that awfully weird "2-strangers-co-op-experience".

So "A WAY OUT" is another one of those drama-titles making me dependent on other people and that is in my opinion, ALWAYS a bad thing when it comes to VIDEOGAMES! But on the other hand i am probably just way too oldschool and still too hooked on a time where all videogames were meant to be played on your own mostly.

Talking about Multiplayer-Titles and "A WAY OUT" in particularly, it´s somehow of a miracle to me how a game like "A WAY OUT" can succeed, a title who makes one player dependent on another one like no other game has done it this hardcore-way before (at least i don´t remember any similar title), meaning...i would have to wait everytime that other guy has to visit the toilet or is getting a call on his cellphone, on the other hand i wouldn´t like the feeling to interrupt the other player by answering a cellphone-call or taking a dump.

So in other words, "A WAY OUT" doesn´t seem like a really "relaxed" game to me and rather forces me into constantly "making it right" for the other player every second, as i am wanting him to make it right for myself, regardless if it´s about taking a dump in the real world or helping him climb a garden-fence virtually within that stupid game.

And well yes, i am kinda pissed at the devs of "A WAY OUT" for not even trying to bother with a single-player part (the same way how i was pissed at the devs of "HOOD", yet another multiplayer-ONLY title who is "dead already" as steam-user-reviews are telling) coz i actually love the graphics and general tone of the game, but there is no way i am going to make myself dependent on another player like with that game, i rather waste my time with RAINBOW SIX: SIEGE then, where i am at least moving in a group of gamers where i can easily blame the other guy for not checking the left corner when the whole team instantly got shot to death while entering a room.


CHAPTER III: What´s Really Up With Those People?
-------------------------------------------------------
There are people enjoying those multiplayer-experiences and there is nothing bad about it at all of course....and some of them obviously enjoy them so much, to the point of actually restricting themselfs to play just those games.

I remember certain guys who claimed "I only play multiplayer!" and totally freaky weird stuff like that. For a gamer as i am, such an "Only-Multiplayer!"-Opinion seems to be rather awkward like an "Only-Singleplayer"-Opinion probably is as weird for those weirdos while i am sure i as well appear like a weirdo to them.

To the question as to why those guys luv those kind of games so much, there could only be one explanation to me, besides them being so hooked on that exclusive "Playing-Against-Other-Human-Beings"-Feeling:

They´re probably those kind of people who generally love to dwell in big crowds and also having no problem with being dependent on other people, while in fact they easily end up being depressed once they start to miss other crowds of people or in other words...are dependent on social communities and social activities or to make long things short....they´re more or less slightly depressed once they´re home alone.

But well, there can be times i am myself getting in the mood of trying my luck with another multiplayer-experience, and as of right now, i am even thinking of giving PUBG another chance....but i know how it will end after 2 weeks or probably just after 3 days....

....that latter was the time i kept up playing PUBG that last time i felt that urge to "try some multiplayer-game".



So in fact, if i just see "PvP", "MMORPG" OR "Multiplayer-Only" with no chance of at least playing "PvE" or against halfway smart bots, i instantly lose my interest and turn away, regardless how interesting the game as a whole seems to be to me. There are even friends who still keep asking me to join them with playing "HUNT: SHOWDOWN" for example, but i still keep telling them numerous times:

"Sorry mate! But you know me, i am just not the guy for those multiplayer-games and besides that, you would hate me for just leaving this game after half an hour coz i rather play the single-player campaign of DOOM ETERNAL again."

So what´s your stories with Multiplayer-Games? You guys avoiding them at all costs or still playing them once a while with probably realizing they´re just not really worth the time at all?

 

[Colif]

Only ones I have played are MMO and by definition they online only. I have only played 2 MMO but it was a 8 year period for both combined. I mainly did PVE that whole time. I played WOW before any expansions were released, and then Age of Conan before it went p2w.

But I prefer single player. Pause and walk away... don't need to explain where you were for x amount of time. Choice of when I play. No required times unless I set them.

I prefer to play against a computer as you don't have to deal with feelings then. they don't go into ideas like revenge

I also don't play shooting games and many you mentioned are those.

 

[Kaamos_Llama]

So what´s your stories with Multiplayer-Games? You guys avoiding them at all costs or still playing them once a while with probably realizing they´re just not really worth the time at all?

Dont play online much. I have a co-op campaign in Divinity Original Sin going on right now which is a lot of fun. I played a few hundred hours of Total War Warhammer1/2 online and was passably good at it over 3 years ago. Played a fair amount of online FPS 10-15 years ago, but never seriously, and these days not at all. Never say never though, dabbled in PUBG when it first came out, and Doom 2016 mp, but only a few hours in each.

Single player is my preference most of the time, I wouldnt really be interested in playing shooters with bots either, much prefer campaigns.

 

[Frag Maniac]

I get the feeling it's mostly the urge to improve on one's Kill Count and brag endlessly about it, which is also the main reason mp matches can be so full of self centered jerks.

 

[Brian Boru]

WTF?

People are different.

people who generally love to dwell in big crowds and also having no problem with being dependent on other people, while in fact they easily end up being depressed once they start to miss other crowds of people or in other words...are dependent on social communites and social activities or to make long things short....they´re more or less slightly depressed once they´re home alone

Yes, good summary of one of the main personality differences. What you describe are primarily called Extraverts, a trait which is recognized as a major human characteristic by most—all?—the main approaches to codifying the differences among people.

So what´s your stories with Multiplayer-Games?

Almost non-existent. I looked into it when I started Command and Conquer in '95, but didn't actually end up in a game—server or lobby problems probably, I don't recall. Then the Skirmish mode proved so much fun that I forgot about MP for a while.

Next 'encounter' was reading about the main problems with MP—connection difficulties, skill mismatches, annoying teens, cheats, etc—which convinced me it was the last thing I needed after a day's work.

I haven't seen anything to change my mind since, and as a wise man said:

Pause and walk away... don't need to explain where you were for x amount of time. Choice of when I play. No required times unless I set them

 

[ZedClampet]

People prefer multiplayer games because humans, generally speaking, like to inflict pain on other humans.

Actually, you get more of a feeling of accomplishment by beating other humans than you get from beating AI. The truth is that AI bots, right now, could be far better than they are, so much better that humans wouldn't have a chance against them, but no one has made that game yet.

 

[Johnway]

i generally don't dabble in Multiplayer games, when i get too involved it usually ends quite poorly and brings a very ugly side out of me that i don't want to see again.

When i stand back and look at things objectively i realize how repetitive it can be to play the same maps endlessly going through the same motions, taking the same routes, it gets a bit samey after a while and then i get bored of it.

unless they offer something significantly different, Path of Exile leagues and updates changed things up substantially that i would go and play it again, burn out and repeat the cycle. The ease of access and pick up and play meant i could ease myself in easily each time. But again i played alone and only "played" with other people just following the leader and gathering exp. These days i don't play that any more.

The other is that it offered a unique experience that went above the fact i was running around in the same world doing the same thing over and over as it was fun and exciting. In fact memorizing the maps made things go smoother. The last time i felt that was in Planetside 2 as it felt like an exciting warzone as 100+ people charged in with combined arms and clashed with equally size numbers. Countless hours claiming territory, glorious last stands and banzai charges that lead to gain vital footholds and slowly capturing a base. It didn't hurt that i was actually wasn't bad at the game, but when the people left, the hackers came and experience disappeared i left.

Another is the amount of time to sink into these games. Too grindy and i lost track of what matters. Too easily or little reward/progression (just play eg UT or Quake 3) and i get bored and leave. i could spend hours mastering one game or i could spend hours seeing/playing other games and experience many things at once. Why settle for one game? As a man with disposable income i don't have to restrict myself to one game. Oh and as i get older i have other commitments and life/survival/work should take precedence over entertainment. i would love to say i could spend hours playing games, but working in IT and money being a factor, you need to keep an eye on studying. it sucks.

lastly people factor. its the reason people play and the reason i hate to play. I get nervous when i start a random session and/or join a server. Its like being the outsider, no idea what to expect. Are they friendly? are the teams balanced? will i have a chance to have fun etc etc. Too many sweaty try hards ruin the game, either being over skilled and not being a friendly game to play. In chivalry 2 i played on beginner mode for a couple of reasons but the difficulty spike and the unfair balancing of teams in the full fat servers was a serious turn off. being a punching bag to so others can have fun feels like a rip off. in begineer there is a fairer game and at least i can earn some exp.

i can go into more details but i've ranted long enough.

 

[WoodenSaucer]

I haven't really played MMOs, so they're probably a different story. But as far as shooters are concerned, they are all the exact same game with a different backdrop. I don't like multiplayer because the game developers don't have to put nearly as much work into them. Why invest in AI and NPC dialog and behavior if you can just have real people pay you to do it for you instead? Level design and game mechanics? We'll just reuse and rehash the same ideas multiplayer games have been using since the mid-90s. Creating story and lore? Who needs them?

Multiplayer games are a cop-out.

 

[Frag Maniac]

People prefer multiplayer games because humans, generally speaking, like to inflict pain on other humans.

Actually, you get more of a feeling of accomplishment by beating other humans than you get from beating AI. The truth is that AI bots, right now, could be far better than they are, so much better that humans wouldn't have a chance against them, but no one has made that game yet.

The only way they seem to be able to make AI competitive with humans, until they get better at programming in tactics and hard to predict behavior, is to make them have super human vision, accuracy, and reaction time. It can make it considerably harder, but a smart player can still find ways around it. Behavioral programming is a very complex thing though.

The first F.E.A.R. game had pretty good AI for it's time. When you enabled it in the game menu, they would knock over objects to take cover. The AI could also hear and react to gunfire in another area, even if you snuck past them then closed doors behind you before going to the next area. They also had several different ways they'd react, but after thoroughly studying the game, I found those several ways would cycle through a predictable loop that repeated. Once I discovered that, I was able to beat it on the hardest mode no scratch. It's hard to imagine AI can ever get to the point where it can come close to thinking like a human. Deep Learning however can someday make it able to better adapt to the player's actions.

The problem with the concept of truly advanced video game AI that are close to human level capability however, is if it were implemented, that could cut your audience down considerably. I mean lets face it, most singleplayer fans get into that type of gaming to be dominant over enemies, not feel crushed by them as if in an mp match. So that begs the question, can developers cost effectively scale the AI ability to difficulty levels to suit everyone's skill level, and if they can, would that cause a feeling of inferiority in many players whom might not be able to beat the game on the harder modes like they used to be able to? These are things AI developers will continue to ponder as DL becomes more accessible.

 

[Brian Boru]

It's hard to imagine AI can ever get to the point where it can come close to thinking like a human

I doubt any smart AI would want such a limitation.

can developers cost effectively scale the AI ability to difficulty levels to suit everyone's skill level

They've been doing this for a long time—eg Civ4 has 9 difficulty levels. The bottom one you can't lose, the top one you can't win—well, 99.9% can't.

 

[ToxicOffender]

People prefer multiplayer games because humans, generally speaking, like to inflict pain on other humans.

You could basically say, those who tend to inflict pain on other human beings, especially on typical "victims" where they think of having better chances with succeeding (like going for players who obviously have less experience in a multiplayer-title), are in most cases people with a low self-esteem, "victims" themself to begin with or do feel victimized on a regular basis after all.

Now with times getting as dark as these days, the economy going downhill, people rather hating things than liking them, cyber-mobbing etc. etc. and lately even more wars again, we have more and more "victims" online and so basically the number of "a-holes" is growing to the point of whole communities being full with them.

But of course, not every "victim" has to instantly turn into a classic villain, and so there are differences as to what a "victim" actually is or how exactly someone becomes an "a-hole", so this is rather more complex and complicated since everything in this world ain´t just "black and white" too, especially when it comes to psychology.

Oh and of course, if you look at my villain homelander-avatar and my nickname, you could tell i am probably more or less having certain issues as well, but then again everyone has, to some point.

 

[ToxicOffender]

I doubt any smart AI would want such a limitation.

If mankind is smart enough, which i kinda doubt, then it will not allow an A.I. to become too smart.

James Cameron already told us what will happen once an A.I. tends to become too much of a "rocketscientist".

 

[COLGeek]

If mankind is smart enough, which i kinda doubt, then it will not allow an A.I. to become too smart.

James Cameron already told us what will happen once an A.I. tends to become too much of a "rocketscientist".

In spite of all the hype, we are very far away from AI that "smart" A very long way. I think humanity will be okay for a while, at least in terms of AI.

 

[Brian Boru]

James Cameron already told us what will happen

But what does he know, since he's not as smart as a future AI?

mankind … will not allow an A.I. to become too smart

So mankind will therefore also try to prevent Humans 2.0 from evolving? Tough job, we're already here…

if you look at my villain homelander-avatar and my nickname

The mod group truly appreciated the double heads up

 

[ZedClampet]

In spite of all the hype, we are very far away from AI that "smart" A very long way. I think humanity will be okay for a while, at least in terms of AI.

But it could get plenty smart enough to beat us in pretty much any video game. We already can no longer beat it in chess.

Personally, I think we're only about 5 years out, or even less, from AI that is indistinguishable from humans when spoken to.

 

[COLGeek]

But it could get plenty smart enough to beat us in pretty much any video game. We already can no longer beat it in chess.

Personally, I think we're only about 5 years out, or even less, from AI that is indistinguishable from humans when spoken to.

Chess is an algorithmic game. Not exactly AI needed to beat a human in that regard.

There are definitely some AI capabilities, but none truly self learning and definitely not aware.

I think 5 years is optimistic (speaking from my professional capacity, not my moderator capacity).

 

[Frag Maniac]

I doubt any smart AI would want such a limitation.

I get the feeling this is another one of those responses that should have been accompanied by a laughing emoji.

They've been doing this for a long time—eg Civ4 has 9 difficulty levels. The bottom one you can't lose, the top one you can't win—well, 99.9% can't.

Not with Deep Learning AI they haven't, which was the whole point.

 

[ZedClampet]

Chess is an algorithmic game. Not exactly AI needed to beat a human in that regard.

There are definitely some AI capabilities, but none truly self learning and definitely not aware.

I think 5 years is optimistic (speaking from my professional capacity, not my moderator capacity).

Well, I guess we'll see. I think we are much closer than you know.

Also, you have a much higher opinion of humans than I do. I would suggest that we have AI right now smarter than the average human. Unfortunately the public doesn't have access to it yet, but researchers will supposedly (per Alphabet Co) have access to it within a relatively short period of time.

Yes, chess is algorithmic, but so is everything else.

 

[Brian Boru]

Not with Deep Learning AI they haven't, which was the whole point.

Oh my bad, I missed that, thought it was AI in general.

I get the feeling this is another one of those responses that should have been accompanied by a laughing emoji

No, that would have been confusing—could've signified I thought current humans were smarter than future AI. We're pretty dumb—evidence = our behavior on planet Earth—merely the first step on the evolutionary ladder of abstract intelligence.

Chess is an algorithmic game. Not exactly AI needed to beat a human

How many spheres must AI outperform in before it gets some respect as an alternative? How about Go? Medical diagnosis?

When Deep Blue beat Gary Kasparov in '97, it "needed to be able to compute the game map and potential future consequences much more accurately than its programmers — or any human opponent — could." [Source] Happily, "its programmers could audit the computer’s decision-making afterward and determine, in retrospect, why it had chosen to act a certain way."

This was not the case with AlphaGo, which 20 years later defeated the Go world champion—for those who don't know, Go is far more difficult than chess, and much less susceptible to an algorithmic approach… it can often even be difficult to tell who's winning. AlphaGo is "a black box system".

This means "it’s nearly impossible for developers or auditors to understand how or why black box algorithms reach their decisions".

I think we are much closer than you know

“Most people overestimate what they can do in one year and underestimate what they can do in ten years.”—Bill Gates.

 

[ZedClampet]

“Most people overestimate what they can do in one year and underestimate what they can do in ten years.”—Bill Gates.

I can tell you exactly what I'll be doing 10 years from this very second. But that's a different sort of thing

 

[ToxicOffender]

But what does he know, since he's not as smart as a future AI?

I am the kind of guy who tends to make "funny remarks" without constantly marking them with funny emotes....in fact i never use emotes at all and just decided to use em here coz you people seem to be what i would call "nice".

In other words, i was making fun of James Cameron, his movies and that whole A.I. topic in general, since mankind is too dumb to live long enough for making anything like a "downright smart A.I." as seen in sci-fi movies just as we are never meant to leave this planet as it´s happening in "INTERSTELLAR".

The mod group truly appreciated the double heads up

I am happy that you guys feel more secure now.

 

[Frag Maniac]

No, that would have been confusing—could've signified I thought current humans were smarter than future AI. We're pretty dumb—evidence = our behavior on planet Earth—merely the first step on the evolutionary ladder of abstract intelligence.

Again, you are taking a far too textbook viewpoint, that totally exaggerates and misses the point. I'm fully aware of the many stupid mistakes humans make. History has shown that we are in fact quite hostile and self destructive as a species, which tends to validate the many books and movies depicting our downfall in an apocalyptic manner. This topic however has zero to do with existential decisions or mistakes, it's purely and simply a matter of comparing a being that can reason in a tactical way, vs a software entity that is programmed to react.

Currently there's no AI that can come close to that. As I said, if game AI becomes Deep Learning, certainly they will be able to adapt better to our tactics, but that is still far from working out an actual strategy of your own. Have you ever even worked with AI in a modding sense in a game? I have, and it's quite complex to even properly plug together AI nodes that have a preprogrammed set of basic skills, let alone design something that can come close to thinking like a human brain can.

This is why I thought perhaps you were joking, because as dumb as humans can be about life choices, the human brain is still FAR more advanced than any game NPCs. I say game NPCs because there's STILL no such thing as actual "Artificial Intelligence". Intelligence is defined as "the ability to acquire and apply knowledge and skills", no game NPCs can really do that. And even if a brilliant programmer were to find a way to make an actual AI, it would be quite a task to keep sp players interested when many of them can suddenly no longer beat the game on the hardest mode.

Don't forget, the first and foremost goal of publishing games is to profit off them. We've seen countless times very creative dev teams fall to the way side because they care more about how advanced the game is, than how many will want to play it. I'd be eager and fully willing to spend months trying to beat a game with Deep Learning AI on the hardest mode. It's kind of like a bucket list of mine before I die, but I also know full well most gamers don't have the patience or time to devote that much effort into beating games.

As far as your "we're pretty dumb" comment though, I know gamers are often stereotyped as being immature and even stupid, and certainly the childish behavior in online gaming feeds that sentiment, but we are talking sp gamers here. SP gamers, avid, experienced ones anyway, are actually quite familiar with how to deal with even advanced enemy NPCs. I never compare myself to the lowest common denominator like you suggest we should, when pondering my tactical capabilities in games, and again, that's all we are talking about here, not human intelligence as a species.

 

[Brian Boru]

that's all we are talking about here

Ack, my bad again, thought it was a more inclusive topic—guess I'm having a really bad thread

If that's all we're talking about, then you are of course correct

 

[ToxicOffender]

Uh-Oh! Look! Ubi-Soft at its best!

• Also announced are two mobile games, a free-to-play open-world adventure called Assassin’s Creed Jade, set in ancient China, and an unspecified AC that will be offered through Netflix’s mobile gaming service.
• A new multiplayer Assassin’s Creed game called Invictus is also coming from Ubisoft developers who’ve worked on multiplayer franchises Rainbow 6 Siege and For Honor.

Quoted from this Article


Thank god there are INDIES still giving us new and classic-style single-player titles with trying to be new, innovative as well as creative, rather than those terribly ugly AAA-Companies trying to rule the industry with an iron-fist among billions of bucks and one and the same formula they´re repeating for dozens of years.

 

[Brian Boru]

Quoted from this Article

Link broken

I wonder are Ubi in negotiations to be bought, with the price dependent on some future financial metric? Companies in such a position often do a revenue pump to max their take.