Assively Multiplayer - September 30th, 1999 - Drew Cosner
Disclaimer: The opinions expressed within this column are those of the participants and the moderator, and do not neccessarily reflect those of the GIA. There is coarse language and potentially offensive material afoot. I was dreaming when I wrote this, so screw me if it goes too fast. But life is just a party inside of Al Roker's ass. Don't say I didn't warn you.
As any avid PC gamer can tell you, online is the way to go when it comes to competitive games. Sure, titles such as Tekken 3 can learn your fighting patterns and always give you a decent challenge, but it's just not the same. After all, you can trash-talk a Playstation all that you want, and it just sits there taking it, as stoic and copacetic as always. Those damn machines are pretty smug, if you ask me. They aren't so tough when they're hitting the wall at 45 miles per hour.
Anyway, playing against human opponents is just more fun, it's really as simple as that. Trash-talking, whether it be with your buddies in the same room, all huddled around the N64, or whether it be by means of typing "Haha, you suck" after whupping some ass in Starcraft, is one of life's little pleasures. Unfortunately, it has never taken off with the console crowd.
There have been companies which have tried in the past, to be sure. Remember the X-Band? Or what about the Sega Netlink? Those were about as popular as tuna flavored bubble gum. At any rate, it's going to take a little bit of work for console manufacturers to make online gaming the phenomenon that it is with the PC crowd, and that it deserves to be with every gamer. So, I asked you guys what your opinions were. What will it take to accomplish such acceptance with the less technical console group? And guess what? Here come your letters in response.
| The party's over |
|
I have a question. I know I'm off the topic, but I have to ask. For the
past couple weeks I have been entertained by Square's latest
masterpiece, but now it's over with and I don't know where to go.
What I'm asking is "Where do you go, what do you do...THE NIGHT AFTER
YOU BEAT FF8?" It's like a bar closing with the notice "You don't have
to go home but you can't stay here" and you just wander the streets,
looking for another bar, but nothing is the same. The faces, the
memories, the distinct flavor of beer in the ash tray (or I suppose the
Devour command), none of it is the same as your home. So you wander
until you cross the tracks to the bad side of town, forced to play
titles like Wild Arms or Tactics Ogre.
Unfortunetly, the analogy stops here. Day does not break withing a few
hours. The nights between titles are painfully long, lasting years at
times. When I have a new high quality RPG I'm very happy indeed, but
this truly is a rare occasion. It's like an abusive substance. You live
for it, you spend all your money on it and you can't get enough of it.
You live in glorious bliss for 40-50 hours until returning to the long,
painful wait.
I had this glow, this warmth, but it's gone now. I defeated the final
boss and rolled in the glourious ending. But it's over. I have defeated
Final Fantasy 8, and now I have no place to go...
-Austen Lethbridge-Scarl
|
Ah yes, the all-too familiar after-effects of Final Fantasy game. It's a sad day when you finally realize that all other games are merely to tide you over until the day in which the next title in the series is released. You could try striking repeated blows to your head with a ball-peen hammer in hopes of coming under a case of amnesia, so that you can enjoy the game over and over again, but I wouldn't recommend it.
Look on the bright side; Final Fantasy IX should be coming out within a shorter timespan than the wait between VII and VIII. Don't worry, Austen, the day will come when you can once again wrap your filthy mitts about another game in everyone's favorite RPG series.
Warning: Neither The Gaming Intelligence Agency nor Drew Cosner would advise the striking of the cranium with a ball-peen hammer, or any other form of hammer and/or blunt object. However if you are unintelligent enough to take such a comment in a letters column seriously, perhaps you should put yourself down before something dreadful happens. Like passing your genes into the gene pool, for example.
Warning II: Don't hit yourself on the head with a hammer, dumbass.
| Console games are, well, "special" |
|
Lots of people have computers, and lots of people have internet connections already because they are essential nowadays. Everything follows from this. A large proportion of 'online gamers' are college going - people who get free internet connections that blow the brains out of any connection they had at home (unless they were lucky enough to get cheap 2-way cable). College students are big on games in general. How do you wean them away from Quake and Starcraft and Age of Empires/Kings and whatever else they play?
Console gaming is 'special'. But everybody already has a computer. Not everybody has a specific console, and if vendors plan to offer specific types of 'special' internet services to support their games, then it's their fault. The ONLY way console gaming can get ANYWHERE is to try and achieve interoperability with the PC. The 'how' of this is a mystery; I suppose a good starting point is for consoles to use the Internet to their advantage, just like PC multiplayer game manufacturers have. Console games have to merge with that somehow; they are not widespread enough to make the transition without this.
Perhaps a way to start is to make a game that plays on a console AND a PC, and that can be played over the Internet. The catch is that the console has to have the special hardware to make the game extra pretty. This might be one way to 'draw' people into the market; I don't know. I'm simply guessing.
- Leviathan
|
Well, one thing I should point out is that while demographs and polls will show that most American homes have a computer of some sort, what they don't show is that many of those computers are so horrendously outdated that they couldn't push games like SimCity if they tried. Secondly, you seem to be under the impression that college students have the funds to upgrade and maintain a bleeding-edge PC to play today's latest and greatest games online. However, there is one thing different about PC owners as opposed to console owners: most of them have at least some idea of what they're doing.
Many console owners are just your average Joes. They pop the game in, they hit power, badda boom, badda bing; they're ready to go. PC gamers have to have enough knowledge to check out the system requirements and accelerator card compatibilities on the box, and successfully install it on their computer. To sound blunt, it's pretty effective at weeding out the incompetent. Since console games are easy to play, that isn't the case. But I'm getting ahead of myself; read on and I'll come to my main point when I'm good and ready, you demanding whores.
| Fun even for one |
|
Drew,
The best way to make console on-line gaming successful is to not
shove it in players' faces. The way computer games are often successful is
that they offer both great single-player and multi-player games. If Sega
goes with their 'our only strategy is on-line', sure they'll get some
customers, but they're lose their average Joe who just wants to play on-line
once in a while and single-player most of the time. A good example of this
done right is the computer version of StarCraft (and it's expansion pak).
1.) It featured an incredible one-player story line and game.
2.) You
could play non-campaign skirmish games against the computer.
3.) They
provided an easy to use (though somewhat slow) free gaming service with it.
I think that console on-line gaming is where PC on-line gaming was
about five years ago: games with multi-player features are good, but an
on-line only game will most likely fail.
-Mike Drucker
|
I agree completely. People with systems such as the Playstation or Dreamcast are used to single player games; if a developer suddenly makes a title developed exclusively for the Internet, a lot of people aren't going to know what the deal is and just pass on it. There needs to be a transitional period. I think that games such as Sonic Adventure are a good start. While first and foremost a single player experience, Sonic still gives added bonuses to those savvy enough to set up online access for their Dreamcast. It's this type of positive reinforcement that will be key to the success of the cause. The saying goes, "Where the hardcore go, the casual will follow," and there's a lot of truth to that.
| Where's the loving support? |
|
Well, just making a quick note... and probably repeating what other
people will be saying in a few other letters... =P
for on-line gaming to become a successful and integral part of console
gaming, it requires 3 very simply things.
A reliable high-speed network, one that doesn't suffer from lag or other
net-related issues... obviously, nobody wants to play a multiplayer game
where your character is dropped every 3 minutes or so... or acts so
slowly that it's more frustrating than enjoyable (can we say Ultima
On-Line?)
Cheap and easy access... which means something that won't cost us too
much extra on top of our existing Net access... and must be available to
95% of potential customers. This is one of the hardest things... making
it all at consumer-friendly prices... nobody's crazy enough to pay the
charges of a cable modem service (what, $40 bucks a month or so?) just
to play GT2000 on line with live opponents... well, okay, maybe a few
hardcore gamers...
Perhaps more important as an umbrella statement on console gaming
elements of any sort... company support... if the company isn't willing
to support on-line gaming with GOOD net-capable games... well, everyone
knows what will happen. One of the major downfalls with the Sega
Channel and other similar setups. Nothing can survive without good
support... a few examples... Gyro for the NES (anyone still rememebr
that?) the SNES SuperScope, the 32X, Sega CD, the Sega Saturn (Sega's on
a roll with this, it seems)... and many more...
Arguably, a final element can be added to the whole list... which is
that the ability to play on-line must be a part of the standard
package... but then, we have seen many examples of things that weren't
"standard" that became standard... like Force Feedback controllers...
Of course, while in theory these things are simple to identify, putting
it all together in a feasible manner is something else entirely...
making a high-speed and reliable network at consumer friendly prices
will be difficult... makign it widespread and easy access is even more
complex... and costly for those who want to have it all put in.... in
the end, the only thing that is needed for it all to work is
technological innovation that will help bring the cost down... after
that, support will probably trickle in.... =P
Anyways, I've rambled on enough.... =)
-Blademoor
|
Again, I think that Sega has the right idea so far. Making certain that every Dreamcast modem is exctly the same since they're built in to the hardware itself makes it easier to optimize the network for better, more reliable connectivity and speeds. The fact is, most people don't have cable modems or DSL at this point, so modems are still the way to go. And since many people already have their own Internet service provider, it's easy enough just to pop the Dreamcast into the wall and work from there.
With a proprietary network, such as that which Sony is proposing, you begin to run into all sorts of problems. For one thing, not everyone is going to want to shell out the cash just to play PS2 games online. After all, they're already plopping down 20 bucks each month for Internet access, why would they want to be forced into paying that as well? Of course, I have to give credit where it's due; if anybody could pull such a thing off, if would be Sony. The cons are many -- we'll have to see how Sony handles the situation.
And secondly, yes, being an accepted and well-supported standard is a must. After all, if only one or two games offer online support, who wants to pay a monthly fee for that? Gamers need to see that they're going to be missing out with every game that they purchase by not having online access for their console.
| Simple is the key word here, folks |
|
Online Gaming is the future. But before it becomes mainstream, a few
things have to happen. Even now, playing online on the PC is not very
popular. As hard as it may be to believe, only about 20% of those who buy a
game play it online. As such is the case, playing online is not as user
friendly as playing single player. For example, playing Tiberian Sun Online
requires a separate install, a couple of forms to fill out, and having to
search for your game through a list of thousands. Quake II is even worse; a
third-party program is almost necessary to play online; the number of
downloads, configurations, and protocols boggle the mind.
So first and foremost, online console gaming would have to be truly
plug-and-play. Pop in the cd, sign on, and boom! You're in a game.
User-friendliness is the key, especially since consoles are aimed toward a
younger and less "hardcore" audience, although I'm probably sure the
average eleven-year old knows more about TCP/IP than I do. Another key is
stability. PC gamers, after years of suffering server splits, version
errors, and downtime, are used to unstable networks. However, I have a
feeling console gamers would react badly to the Dreamcast Network going
down. And finally, it has to be free. If you're going to have to pay to
play online, a quick demise for such a network is almost certain. (Unless,
of course, they have something mindlessly addicting like Everquest...)
So, for online gaming to work, it has to be free, simple to use, and
perfect. Why? For some reason, console gamers tend to be a lot more
immature than PC gamers. I mean, there are lAmEr L33T FAgZ online, but I
have never seen so much bitching about simple foibles than I have seen in
your column (myself included). I mean, where else can you see gamers scream
for years for a sequel to Chrono Trigger, then the day they announce it,
people are already complaining about the graphics? As for myself, I can't
wait until next year, when the Dreamcast Network gets its first game.
-Morpheus "Play me online? You know that I'll beat you. If I ever meet you,
I'll Ctrl-Alt-Delete you!"
|
And here comes my main point. For online play to become completely mainstream, some console maker has to find a way to make it completely seamless. The user needs to be able to stick the game in, hit power, and be online just like that. How will this be accomplished? Hey, if I knew that, I'd do it myself and become a millionaire.
The fact of the matter is that the average console gamer is less technical than those with the patience and relative know-how to get a PC game up and running. They're entirely different breeds of people. And that's all I have t'say 'bout that.
| How far is too far? |
|
Hey there, Drew.
What would it take to make online console gaming as effective and
appreciated as online PC gaming? Well, in my opinion, online console gaming
will never be as effective as online PC gaming, because console gaming would
lack two critical components: the ability to organize games, and the ability
to exchange messages during gameplay.
For example, let's say I'm sitting at my PC, and I decide I want to play a
game of Starcraft with someone. I load up IRC, or ICQ, and ask any of my
friends who are on: "You wanna play Starcraft?" To which they will sometimes
reply yes, and we'll play. In addition to this, we can discuss what type of
game we want to play, how long we have to play, and so forth.
This is nigh-impossible to achieve with consoles. I could only organize
games with someone in my local area by calling them up and saying, "Want to
play such-and-such game?" I could NOT call one of my friends across the U.S.
to ask the same question--the phone bill would skyrocket. How else would I
get in touch with them? Well, I could get on the computer, of course, but
once I'm there I'll generally think, "Well, why not play a game of
Starcraft? Or C&C?" Consoles would have to give gamers a way to get in touch
with people online without making the person having to sit around in a game
lobby--perhaps a messaging service such as ICQ?
Also, while I'm in the middle of playing a cooperative game with one of my
friends, we'll message one another to coordinate plans and such. This would
be vastly difficult to do with a controller pad (having to input each letter
one by one) before the game, and virtually impossible to do while you're in
the middle of a heated game. There would be little to no communication going
back and forth--say if your partner suddenly dropped, you would have no idea
what for. It could have been a power outage, it could have been a server
crash, or maybe they just had ornery parents who wanted them off. There'd be
no way of telling you, would there?
I believe communication is a vastly important aspect of online gaming. With
a console, even getting across, "Want to play a game?" would be a chore.
IMO, if online consoles are to be successful, they must include some kind of
mini-keyboard to use for communicating to other people, or a vastly
intuitive method of talking to others using just the controller pad. (I
sincerely doubt the latter will come to pass, though the former is not an
impossibility.)
-Matt Blackie
|
Of course, the company who makes the console could just stick in a keyboard along with it. But, then, we begin to enter the dangerous realm of the set-top box. unfortunately, it's hard to see how online gaming can become an accepted forum without consoles becoming mini-computers in and of themselves. And that's an entirely new can of worms. I could write an entire column about that alone. In fact, I think that I will.
Hey, take a wild guess what tomorrow's topic is going to be? I'll give you three guesses, and the first two don't count.
| Social interaction can actually be enjoyable, believe it or not. Yes, there are other people out there |
|
I have mixed feelings on the subject of online gaming. I play a lot
of Quake 3 Test, and I've had some games I'll probably never forget
(translation: loser). But despite the fact that some of the online
first-person shooters far outrun most of my multiplayer console games, I
will always prefer sitting in front of the TV with my friends, trash
talking or what have you (I don't trash talk most of the time, but that
ain't the point). I just enjoy it more; it feels more social. Plus,
Morpheus's immortal line from The Matrix just sounds better out loud,
IRL, after a 80-20 win in Super Smash Brothers, than "Evil Pikachu: how
did i beat you" could ever be.
Of course, if Roger Wilco were available for Linux... anyway. Before
I let a dangerous rant out of the bag, let me cut this short: while
online gaming is great, and at a LAN party preferable to split-screen
multiplayer and the like, I believe current console multiplayer will
always have its place. I would hate to see either replaced in favor of
the other, and I'm worried that might happen, like Deathmatch destroyed
co-op.
-Hamato Yoshi
|
That's one area where console games have always been superior to PC games. It's a hell of a lot easier to get a group of friends together and to gather around the N64 for a good game of Goldeneye or Smash Brothers than it is to have the coveted LAN party. As much fun as online gaming can be, actual social interaction only serves to heighten the experience. Perhaps multiplayer gaming on consoles would be best served if it continued on the route which it has up until this point? It's certainly a viable alternative.
Think about it: you can pop the game in, plug in the 4 controls, and you're ready to go. You can call a few friends up, have them come over, and enjoy socializing with your pals. Maybe online isn't as important as we've made it out to be?
Maybe if you try hard enough, you could learn to breath water rather than oxygen. While that sort of multiplayer gaming has its place, and is even superior in its own respects, you're not always going to be able to get a hold of 3 or more people for such a get-together. And that's why online gaming has become so popular. Anytime, day or night, that you should crave a game of Starcraft, hop online, find another gamer, and satisfy the urge.
| The return of Ian P. |
|
*Laughs and points at you while enjoying the ease of his life*
~Ian P.imp
|
You pimps really get under my skin, let me tell you. While hardworking, honest people such as myself are studying and toiling just to pay their way for college, you're off selling rocks of crack which net you the a sum of money equivalent to the average person's monthly wages. You just sit there, with your fur coats and many adoring whores thinking that you're so clever; you really think that you've got things figured out.
Well, let me tell you something. There are a lot of advantageous reasons for being an upright citizen. For example, we get to excercise our minds deciphering and filling out copious numbers of tax forms each year while you have an accountant report the earnings of a pauper on your behalf, such that you only lose a minimal portion of your dishonest earnings. We certainly got the good end of the bargain on that one; keeps the mind sharp. And while you're surrounded by gorgeous harlots, people like us are getting dumped because our respective significant others have grown tired of eating Doritos and watching movies at dilapidated, low-cost theatres. See, you just have it too easy. Where's the thrill of the chase? Obviously, you pimps are screwing no one other than yourselves. I think I've certainly made that point.
However, there will always be those unaware of the fact that the old adage. Yes, my friends, the grass is always greener on the other side of the fence.
| Not the man, mind you, da man |
|
I just wanna say that Ian P is DA' MAN !!
~Ian P wanna-be
|
I hope you're proud of yourself, Ian. It's your kind which will lead this fine nation to its inevitable decay. Thanks to you, Ian, we will all be dressing in white jump suits with large, genitalia-accentuating undergarments worn on the exterior, in addition to getting a kick out of beating old women to death with marble statues of penises.
And yes, that is an actual letter I received.
Closing Comments
Do you like to debate? Do you enjoy arguing your point as effectively as possible? Do you enjoy having others read your opinion, see your foundation of logic, and be persuaded to think more along the lines of how you feel? I sure do. And I bet that you do, as well. Along with such things as eating, breathing, and procreating, bickering is a deeply embedded element of human nature.
And who am I to make myself an impedement to Mother Nature? I've already tried it in the past; she doesn't take it lightly, let me tell you. All I did was turf her lawn, and the next thing I know I'm getting to work in a canoe. Well, I've certainly learned my lesson. And so, I enjoy giving you guys something to rant about. I derive satisfaction from shooting down or agreeing with the opinions of you crazy readers. What does all of this mean? It means that I'm about to hit you up with tomorrow's topic, that's what it means.
At what point does a console become more of a be-all, do-all set-top box than a gaming platform? Is that necessarily a bad thing? There's many facets to ponder. So ponder, already. And then write me. It's a great way to shut me up.
-Drew Cosner
|
|
|
|
