Sometimes I feel like such a bad person here, since I'm more likely to post about an article that irritates then one I genuinely like. This is partly because it's a lot easier to flip my rage switch online then it is to flip my gush switch.
Case in point: I saw an article on
Gamasutra that flipped that little rage switch. The article is entitles "Multiplayer Can Hurt You," and talks about how the author talks about how he doesn't like multiplayer modes in games anymore, and wishes that developers would spend more time focusing on a richer single-player experience.
My online experiences have been terrible for many modern games; surrounded by 15 year olds who insist that you follow them despite their insurmountable death rate, and are suffering from an obscene case of turrets. Please don’t let your kids be one of these people. Maybe someone should start a group; GAWK (Gamers against Wayward Kids).
...
I understand that multiplayer is a strong feature to give longer legs to an otherwise 6-10hr game, but I’d rather see multiplayer dropped in favor of a strong story-driven game experience instead of the other way around.
On the one had, I can sympathize him. It's irritating to know that for any given game, the competitive play environment is going to be filled with 15 year old kids who will be far better then I can ever hope to be. On the other hand, I feel like I should post this video in the article's comment thread:
Click to view
Note: Don't feel you like need to watch all ten minute of this.
In all seriousness though, I do feel the author is overreacting just a little bit. Do I own games with online multiplayer that I never use, because I know I'll get schooled six ways til Sunday? Yes. Do I begrudge the developers for spending time on that multiplayer component when they could have made a richer single-player experience? No, and the very idea of it is absurd, and quite a bit pretentious.
So what if I never play, say, Starcraft online? Why should I expect Blizzard to cater to my selfish whims and sell me a version of the game that doesn't have the multiplayer for less?
I agree with the author that developers should not feel obligated to put in a multiplayer mode in their games. After all, no will play a multiplayer mode that's obviously tacked on, and no one will play the single-player mode that's lacking because of diverted resources. However, there are games where the multiplayer mode is an essential part of the experience. Just because I might not play them, doesn't mean I feel I should be able to lobotomize the game of them.
As a finally coda though, I would like to throw my two cents in about the online experience. I've been playing Team Fortress 2 on Steam for over six month now. Prior to playing the game, I had never played an online shooter in my life and was coordinationally challenged with mouse and keyboard controls. On average, I would say that I spend about six hours a week on the game, and that's if I'm lucky. While I have friends who also own the game, I rarely am on the same time as them, so I mostly play with strangers. In spite of all this, I've had a largely positive experience with the game and have never played against a team of hyped-up fifteen year olds.
Inciting Article:
Gamasutra - Multiplayer Can Hurt You