Multiplayer - Versus
Personally, I love multiplayer versus games. I have been playing video games as far back as I can remember so the concept of play and strategy within a video game are intuitive to me now that I am an adult. However, computer AI, while it does have some variation game to game, is no where near as good as a human opponent and as I grew older I found myself wanting more of a challenge. Multiplayer versus gives you that challenge by pitting you up against other human players. Multiplayer versus is one of, if not the most popular genres in gaming today. Multiplayer versus turned playing video games from an individual experience to a social group experience. This transformation has caused explosive growth for the gaming industry, thus becoming a huge focus on the majority of big-budget games. Multiplayer versus is a wonderful genre as it fosters competitive play among individuals of all backgrounds and ability types. Additionally, the genre helps evolve the industry further by pushing technical and design boundaries for what can be handled on a gaming system through the changes in graphic fidelity, technical standards, server capabilities, and design innovation because so many games include multiplayer versus. This genre is a great vehicle for potential gross income since multiplayer versus, and multiplayer in general, is a social interaction where players can build relationships with fellow players; as well as encouraging their friends to purchase the game so they have someone to play with.
A good multiplayer versus game is one that is inherently balanced and fun. These are the corner stones with which to build any multiplayer experience because player skill level should ultimately determine the outcome of each match. This is not to say that a game is bad if it doesn’t feel balanced, but if top tier players of a game all refuse to use a certain character, weapon, class, or race; the game is not good. Since multiplayer is now almost exclusively done online, servers and match making play a huge part in what makes a good multiplayer versus experience within a game. So, the game must have a solid match making system where players of similar skill level, within a small range, play against each other. Otherwise, you will inevitably end up with first-time players playing with extremely top tier/experienced players. The far better players will of course massacre the new comers; creating a sub-par experience for both sides. The chances that those low level players will come back and play again decreases exponentially each time this happens. When a game has a well thought out and executed match making system, games are much more interesting, intense, and fun for players. A similar effect can be seen in real life sports. If a team is being blown out, fans are more likely to disengage and leave the game because it’s boring and not fun. When a game is close and the teams are more evenly matched, every play is much more exciting and increases fan engagement.
There are so many great examples of multiplayer versus games and when it comes to the best examples, the titles that come to mind are: Team Fortress (Classic and 2), Ultra Street Fighter 4, The Last of US, and a special case can be made for Planetside. These were definitely difficult choices, but I feel like the games I listed are really the best in their class.
The main reason I chose Team Fortress over its contemporaries like Call of Duty, Battlefield, Halo, Counter-Strike, and Left 4 Dead is for a personal reason. Out of the games listed, Team Fortress Classic, and now Team Fortress 2, is[are] the only game[s] I could play for a consistently long period of time without working towards a reward or extrinsic reward. Team Fortress to me is all about the pure joy of multiplayer versus and while you do collect/unlock items, they are either aesthetic only or you receive better items constantly so gameplay isn't effectively one-sided due to unlocked items. While, my main reason for explaining TF as the best example of a FPS multiplayer versus is personal, Team Fortress does so many other things excellently that earn it a top spot. Team Fortress is a class based game and the biggest advantage a team can have over another is having a well balanced team. No single class is absolutely better than another and the variety of level design and game types are so different from each other--even maps within the same game type are surprisingly different--thus, matches are won by the team; not a single player. Of course, if a player is truly good enough they can change the tide of a match, but again, a single player cannot do it all without the help of their teammates. The near perfect balancing is complimented by player run servers, who do a rather good job of policing themselves and unbelievably executed level design. Every level in Team Fortress and all the levels in Team Fortress 2 (as far as I know) all have a relatively simple layout ranging from two to four main paths that then branch and intertwine in key areas of the map. The environment art is detailed enough to make each level exciting and allowing for minimal set design so players have freedom to move around. Lastly, while the set design is minimal for most maps, the designers did a perfect job of placing ammo, health, and cover objects in areas where they are needed. This is seen more-so in Team Fortress 2 as many of the really well done maps are reconstructions of original Team Fortress maps. It's obvious they analyzed how players interacted in the original and tailored the new maps to ensure those great gameplay moments continued.
Ultra Street Fighter 4 was probably the hardest choice to settle on when declaring a best in class for fighting games. Personally, I prefer the Mortal Kombat series of fighters over any other, but from a development standpoint it is definitely not the best fighting franchise. The choice for Street Fighter came down to a simple deciding factor, and that is its impact on the professional gaming scene and the amazing community that has been built around Street Fighter. The mechanics of Ultra Street Fighter 4 are simple enough that players can master individual combos and special moves, but being able to master a character's move list and string combos together is much more complex. Also, a large part of the game is being able to read your opponents next move. Unlike other fighter games, button mashing does not win you matches because some of the more powerful attacks are only successful if your opponent pushes a button when the move is executed. So, experienced players use these kinds of moves and the button mashing newbies lose pretty easily. The design behind Ultra Street Fighter 4 is all about encouraging players to learn and get better at the game. I listed Street Fighter over Marvel vs. Capcom 3 because it is impossible to infinitely juggle in Street Fighter and I personally think that's a broken fighting mechanic which really is the core play-style MvC is based on. I.e. whoever lands the first combo wins.
I wanted to end my list with The Last of Us's multiplayer, but I wanted to mention Planetside because no other game I have ever played has mastered the massive scale, combat, variety of skills, classes, weapons, vehicles, and sense that you are a soldier in a war on a "real" planet like Planetside does. There are even subtle differences in the available weapons and vehicles for each of the game's three races, but they are all balanced in a way that you get a rock-paper-scissors effect -- yet no one race is inherently better than another. Plus, there's a massive and positive community powering Planetside.
The Last of Us is really an achievement in game development. The single player story is compelling, the mechanics are really polished, the level design is bar none. Naughty Dog created immersive environments that really look lived in and apocalyptic which no other game I have ever played, or seen has even come close to. The experience is further taken to another level with its multiplayer. Each level is skillfully crafted and gives off a sense of complexity due to the set design even though underneath, every map is a small box. Of course, some levels contain multi-story buildings or environments, but if you really boil them down each map is a linear box with essentially one way the player can go; and it is fantastic. Since the core game is based around resource management, the versus feeds off of that mechanic creating really exciting and dynamic matches. The final touch that puts The Last of Us multiplayer at the front of the pack is the added management of having survivors follow you. Every gamer I know, including myself gets a sense of responsibility and makes it more important to do well in a match so your survivors get resources and live.
There are several examples of games becoming bad multiplayer games after they have become obsolete or have severe bugs (recent Battlefield games), but I would like to focus on games that are considered complete and polished, yet they are terrible examples of multiplayer versus. While it was hard to come up with any, these titles qualify for being the worst examples: Most sports games, Aliens vs. Predator, and Assassin’s Creed 3. Please, take in mind that all of the poor example games are games that I have personally purchased, played, and have enjoyed on some level. However, this is a critique piece and as such, we will be discussing the aspects of these games that make them poor examples of the multiplayer versus genre.
All modern sports games (e.g. Madden, 2k Anysport, NCAA etc.) now come with an included online multiplayer versus mode where the player creates a team of players and plays head-to-head with another player who is using a team of players they assembled. The problem with these games is that the multiplayer is a tacked-on feature riddled with server unreliability and allows for players to essentially cheat by putting the very best players on their team. Additionally, the match-making systems are generally very poor and it is seemingly random who you will end up playing against since the game does not have an adequate system in place for tracking player skill.
I love the Predator and Aliens vs. Predator universes so I really tried hard to like the AvP game. However, the multiplayer versus mode is extremely lackluster and every match turns into a race for who can be an Alien because they are so incredibly overpowered that playing as one in versus breaks the game. The developers attempted to create a rock-paper-scissors gameplay experience, but given the abilities and stat attributes of each race and class; the game becomes completely one-sided. Adding to the broken mechanics, the level designs are wonderfully done and sadly, every map seemed to have been designed with one race in mind. The layouts are either super cramped with the majority of the level consisting of small ducts which only Aliens can enter, or huge wide-open maps with a maximum of two levels. To be clear, humans have the best chances when they have the auto-targeting machine gun, since movement is super twitchy, and a massive amount of free room. Predators have the best chances when they can get a height advantages and move from one form of cover to the next. Aliens have the best chance in tight areas, or areas with tall ceilings, maps with a lot of cover to hide behind, or huge open areas since they have a lunge attack that sends them flying through the air. Plus, Aliens have "hormone vision" so they can see humans and Predators through objects at all times--rendering the Predator's cloak ability useless. Poor design judgments, lack of servers, and aggravating gameplay causing plays to just quit so even if you find a server you'll be lucky if two other people join, makes Aliens vs. Predator a terrible multiplayer versus game.
Lastly we have Assassin's Creed 3. In a game where players spend most of their time running along rooftops, the entire design of AC3's multiplayer is counter-intuitive to that play style. Players are given a target and an indicator of how close they are to their target. However, sprinting and going up to roof-tops throws up a big red flag of "Hey, I'm a player! Come assassinate me!" because the only way not to be killed instantly is to pretend to be an AI controlled NPC. Guess what NPCs never do? Yep, sprint and run across roof-tops. While it is poor design judgment to penalize players for doing what they normally do in single player, this can be remedied easily by just not doing it. However, like the other "worst example" games, the match-making system doesn't care about player level at all. While this may not be a problem like in CoD games where the weapons a player gains access to at specific levels can be used to kill even the highest level player; it is in Assassin's Creed's multiplayer versus. High level players have access to extremely powerful abilities/weapons, like being able to see your target through Eagle Vision-negating any hiding tactics and silencing players in X range around you so they can't use any abilities. Ubisoft could have made the multiplayer experience much better by not designing the multiplayer levels exactly like the single player, and instead have some NPCs using environmental objects and run on rooftops. After all, in single player when guards are alerted they do chase the player along rooftops so the capabilities are there.
Derek holds a Bachelor's Degree in Game Design and has two and a half years of game development experience. To view other work please visit www.dereksinex.com or his YouTube channel: https://www.youtube.com/user/JDKevlar
No comments:
Post a Comment