What makes it work?

[Darth SS]

What makes Multiplayer work?

There are some terrible multiplayer games out there. Some examples would be Medal of Honor, F.E.A.R., HALO 2 in recent years and the Conflict games.

However, there are some downright wonderful multiplayer games. Battlefield 2142 (or any Battlefield) Gears of War, Rainbow Six Vegas, or SOCOM Fireteam Bravo 2.

However, I can't figure out what makes them good.

For you, what makes the ideal multiplayer game?

[Red Fighter 1073]

Well, multiplayer can be considered either good or bad by different people obviously, because I actually have heard that FEAR's multiplayer is fun (havent actually tried it for myself), and I actually really like Halo 2's multiplayer (unless you are talking about less than enjoyable modding, 5 year old teammate experience)

But, back on topic, Here are a few things that I find are staples of a good offline/online multiplayer.

The thing I am very surprised about (especially with Halo 2) is that many games with multiplayer don't have bots (computer players). Halo fans have been clamoring for bots for a LONG time, but Bungie still doesn't seem to want to do budge. I don't see what the big deal is though. There are plenty of people who either can't afford online, don't wanna get online, or like many people, don't/aren't able to have friends over every time they wanna play multiplayer. So, yeah... bots is the way to go.

Many different, fun game types. What makes multiplayer last longer is that they usually have some new twists in the gameplay which is a necessity.

Planned out multiplayer maps are a must, as well, at least in terms of keeping the playing level fair. For example, in Halo 2, that's the reason why for every special weapon (like the sword) there is almost always another special weapon on the map (like the rocket launcher) to level it out.

[h4x.m4g3]

I think one of the things that makes good multiplayer games (in my opinion) is being given task that actually mean something (or at least give the appearances of meaning something). For example in Battlefield 2142, I'm taking over enemy bases for a tactical advantage in battle, I'm contributing to the war effort, not capturing the flag. In Wolfenstein I'm trying to steal/defend gold, or secret plans, or radio equipment, etc. I'm not just doing something random that the game designers thought would be a fun game mode, I'm a member of (insert Faction/army) trying to do something, and my enemy is (insert Faction/army 2) and thier trying to stop me because it would be really bad for their plans if I succeeded. I mean after all isn't that what makes single player games great as well? The sense of purpose.

Another thing I finds makes multiplayer ALOT better is character classes. In Halo/Halo2 everyone has the exact same capabilities, can pick up and use the same weapons, and really are you have is (Model A Color B) and his ally (Model B Color B) fighting (Model A Color A) and (Model B Color A). In Battlefield and Wolfenstein, I have a job to do in order to support my team, that not everyone can do. Wether its my job to revive the main soldiers, or infiltrate enemy ranks, or serve as a sniper, or blow up stuff, etc. I have a specific job that needs to be done, that needs to be fulfilled. You can't win a battle in Wolfenstein if everybody is one class, you need engineers to blow up/fix stuff, medics to revive people, field ops to give ammo and blow up stuff, etc.

[Kenryoku_Maxis]

In my opinion what makes multiplayer work is two things.

1) A lot of people who don't get enough interaction with people looking for it (wither they know it or not) and love games. Put them in a position where they can play games with others who like games...

2) The fact that its a multiplayer game allows people to interact with each other and marketers favorite form of marketing, 'word of mouth', increases exponentially. Now you don't have to wait for someone to buy a console game and tell their friends about it at school/work/over the internet. On a multiplayer game, they tell people about your game and any games you made ON the game. And they talk about other multiplayer games in those games as well. And since you play the game with people, they most likely will invite you into the next game. Chain reaction leads to tons of free marketing and tons of market for more multiplayer games.

However, I don't think you meant the marketing side of it LOL. So I think what makes a good multiplayer game is simply a good engine that involves multiple people. But the game has to allow for each person to either have something the other doesn't or an equal amount of the same things. And then its pretty much down to building an environment that can incorperate a friendly and fun group of people and hoping those people come. And making sure you punish those who try to ruin the game, as there are ALWAYS those people, with no exceptions. Even in multiplayer Tetris, someone tries to find a way to be an ass.

And I'd say finally the best thing is once you find what makes it good, update the game with new contnt but DON'T change the good old stuff. Most popular multiplayer games I know that die is because the team changes what was good about it. Obvious things would be Star Wars Galaxies and Warcraft III but there's others.

However with all this said, they really have yet to make a multiplayer game I find as fun as my favorite single player games... And I have yet to find an MMO that has the good game engine to go along with the multiplayer environment. Also MMOs suffer from the fact that I can't truly feel like I'm playing something different than someone else, since although it SEEMS like there's hundreds of ways to play every class, in all reality there's only 1 or 2 'best' ways and everyone is trying to do that. Going for the same armor, weapons and rings. Learning the same chains of spells and hanging out in the same places.

Meh, that's why I like Magic: The Gathering. Now THERE'S a multiplayer game for the ages. I can do the craziest crap you ever see and with a little skill and using a card one of 10 ways it can be used, I can play the game differently than you've ever seen it played. I think Magic: The Gathering is the example of one of the best multiplayer games that have been made yet. Sadly, its not a video game so I'll move on, heh.

[Mirai Gen]

Originally Posted by Kenryoku_Maxis

Meh, that's why I like Magic: The Gathering. Now THERE'S a multiplayer game for the ages. I can do the craziest crap you ever see and with a little skill and using a card one of 10 ways it can be used, I can play the game differently than you've ever seen it played. I think Magic: The Gathering is the example of one of the best multiplayer games that have been made yet. Sadly, its not a video game so I'll move on, heh.

While normally I'd agree, Magic: The Gathering is also so much more complicated for the same reason.

I mean, you have to decide what rules you're going to play with, especially ban/restricted lists, what Type of play, and even then it becomes a question of money, because if you can drop 500 bucks on a deck you can singlehandedly wipe out any other player who didn't.

I felt that since you'd compliment Magic I'd insult it. Heh.

[WillyFourEyes]

Originally Posted by h4x.m4g3

I think one of the things that makes good multiplayer games (in my opinion) is being given task that actually mean something (or at least give the appearances of meaning something). For example in Battlefield 2142, I'm taking over enemy bases for a tactical advantage in battle, I'm contributing to the war effort, not capturing the flag. In Wolfenstein I'm trying to steal/defend gold, or secret plans, or radio equipment, etc. I'm not just doing something random that the game designers thought would be a fun game mode, I'm a member of (insert Faction/army) trying to do something, and my enemy is (insert Faction/army 2) and thier trying to stop me because it would be really bad for their plans if I succeeded. I mean after all isn't that what makes single player games great as well? The sense of purpose.

Another thing I finds makes multiplayer ALOT better is character classes. In Halo/Halo2 everyone has the exact same capabilities, can pick up and use the same weapons, and really are you have is (Model A Color B) and his ally (Model B Color B) fighting (Model A Color A) and (Model B Color A). In Battlefield and Wolfenstein, I have a job to do in order to support my team, that not everyone can do. Wether its my job to revive the main soldiers, or infiltrate enemy ranks, or serve as a sniper, or blow up stuff, etc. I have a specific job that needs to be done, that needs to be fulfilled. You can't win a battle in Wolfenstein if everybody is one class, you need engineers to blow up/fix stuff, medics to revive people, field ops to give ammo and blow up stuff, etc.

That's one of the reasons I liked playing Wolfenstein: Enemy Territory in college. Not everybody's made to be an übersoldier, so it's nice for the game to have different roles in order to help the team win. That's why I always picked the Medic...I'd be on hand to revive my comrades if they ate one too many bullets.

[Azisien]

I'll try to mention points briefly, because I am a multiplayer JUNKIE and have experienced many, both enjoyable and not:

- Ease of use. It's already losing points if it takes me 15 minutes to find a good game and get into it.

- Efficiency. No lag is better than lots of lag.

- Meaningful Objectives or Game Types. While not the be-all end-all, simple things like Capture The Flag make multiplayer more fun. Why? See next point.

- Real Team Play. What's the point of it all if you can't closely interact with real people? The above point adds a degree of strategy to the game, and the games that do it right absolutely require unit cohesion.

- Balance. A shooter is no fun if there's ONE GUN that just breaks the other guns. Niches are fine. A sniper rifle should own a pistol at distance combat. A shotgun should own a sniper rifle at close-quarters combat. An UBERZOOKA RIFLE that just kills anything from 5 to 500 feet can ruin a potentially great multiplayer game. Balance problems often affect my above points.

- Anti-Cheating Software and Methods. A minor one, but I've found if the game itself can rather easily identify, kick, and ban cheaters, the game becomes more fun all around for us legits. Barring that, things likes spectating and killcams help players identify cheaters and methods to then allow admins and coordinated player efforts to kick and ban cheaters is also good.

- Ranking or Guilding Systems. I've always thought these were neat, especially on a global level. Power to you, BF2.

[Bells]

I'll tell you based on one of my favorite games for multiplayer

Enermy Territory

You see... its multiplayer that solves that hich no game does... it gives you the feeling of a living, breathign party... no AI script does that... no group of npc's does that...

You have missions, goals, objetives... so its not a "Frag-fest" ... frag fests only last for so long...

So the whole deal about multiplayer is that it has a endless amount of challenge

[01d55]

Even matches. Nothing sucks more than getting rolled from the beginning to the end of a game. This is a huge problem in WoW battlegrounds - min/maxxers are constantly trying to ensure that their stacked premade groups only face random pugs, avoiding the other premade groups which might challenge them.

[Azisien]

Originally Posted by 01d55

Even matches. Nothing sucks more than getting rolled from the beginning to the end of a game. This is a huge problem in WoW battlegrounds - min/maxxers are constantly trying to ensure that their stacked premade groups only face random pugs, avoiding the other premade groups which might challenge them.

WoW I can't comment on, but I actually loved this happening in BF2 (where it occurred most frequently for me). I often chose the team that was just getting their ass POUNDED into the floor, and in large BF2 games, one man probably isn't going to turn the whole game around.

SO, you do what you can! And in games like those, every sweet kill you make is worth twenty kills in an even match.