In response to Acebloke (#19)
Acebloke wrote:
This seems to be a rather large rant against anyone who develops on BYOND (or elsewhere) who doesn't develop free to play MMO styled games with the intention of including in-game content with micro payments.
I don't care if the game is an MMO, but all games should have some sort of multiplayer. Networking is built into practically every engine/console/computer, and an internet connection is standard to most gamers, even required in some cases.
I also don't care if games have micro-transactions, but again, games should not charge you a 60 dollar entry fee just to find out that their 4 hour single-player-only campaign is just as pathetic as anything else available.

As for BYOND making money:
- Micro-transactions for developers
- Pager should be free to use, pay to customize messages, send invites, showing your profile pic, etc. The pager is their biggest place for both improvements and selling points.
- Hubs should only be available to members (as they are now), and only members should be able to edit them. Possibly lower this to require a membership for listing status, but allow anyone to create. Sort of how it worked before.
- It should be made more clear that only fan members actually matter, this would make developers want more members to fan their games
- Interface ads that approved hubs can choose to include in their games for a large cut of the profits
- Built-in game features that can be toggled by the developer (like relog timers/ques for starters)
- More functional ways for developers to sell memberships as part of their games
- A better pricing scheme, 1 month for 5 dollars
- I'm sure we could all go on forever, but they're just going to ignore these suggestions anyway, so why bother?
The micro-transactions would be nice - I'd buy something from a game I've been playing awhile.

The Pager needs updated - Profile Pictures to the left of the user's key would be nice.

I could live with Ads in games.

Lowering the membership price and time length would make it worth buying , since I take breaks from BYOND.
In response to Falacy (#20)
Falacy wrote:
I don't care if the game is an MMO, but all games should have some sort of multiplayer.

If you mean all games in general, and not just games on BYOND, then this is absolutely ridiculous. And it really seems like you're talking all games in general.
In response to Popisfizzy (#22)
Popisfizzy wrote:
If you mean all games in general, and not just games on BYOND, then this is absolutely ridiculous.

What games shouldn't include multiplayer?
^ World of Warcraft :P
In response to Falacy (#23)
Falacy wrote:
What games shouldn't include multiplayer?

Well, if I go through only what I have on Steam: Half-Life 2, Half-Life 2: Episode One, Half-Life 2: Episode Two, Braid, Cave Story+, Dragon Age: Origins, The Elder Scrolls III: Morrowind, The Elder Scrolls IV: Oblivion, Fallout 3, Fallout: New Vegas, Half-Life, Half-Life: Blue Shift, Half-Life: Opposing Force, S.T.A.L.K.E.R.: Shadow of Chernobyl, SimCity 4, Super Meat Boy, World of Goo, Portal.

In general, there is little point in including multiplayer in many RPGs, puzzle games, and platformers. It doesn't have enough benefits to warrant the complexity required to add it (especially in RPGs, which require extensive balancing to play right, but it can also be applied to puzzle games). It's less of an issue for FPSs, where typically the normal balance required of the game is suitable for multiplayer, but a lot of FPSs just won't benefit from a multiplayer mode. Half-Life 2's multiplayer is actually a separate game, which I have played but do not actually own, and the game certainly isn't negatively-impacted by it. The game is strong enough to stand on its own.
Falacy is like the Ron Paul of BYOND
In response to Popisfizzy (#25)
Popisfizzy wrote:
Half-Life(s)
There are already mods to play HL2's campaign coop

Braid
This game was just bad, but multiplayer puzzles wouldn't be a problem. You can already double yourself up as part of puzzles cant you? A 2nd player could also boost you to climb and such.

Cave Story+ & World of Goo.
Never played these so I can't really comment

Dragon Age: Origins
How could this game not benefit from multiplayer? There is already a large party, other humans could control the NPCs/bring in their own character to replace the NPCs.

The Elder Scrolls III: Morrowind, The Elder Scrolls IV: Oblivion, Fallout 3, Fallout: New Vegas
The only issue with adding a multiplayer feature to these type of games is that other players could maliciously murder all the NPCs in your game. An easy fix would be making it so that the host is in primary control of the game, and people who join are only allowed to attack NPCs that are already marked as hostile against the host. Otherwise, multiplayer/coop in such games would be amazing.

SimCity 4
There are plenty of games like this that already have multiplayer. Each player can build up their own area and whoever creates the most successful city wins. There are also opportunities for coop, as players can basically just build separately but have their buildings work as one.

Super Meat Boy
I hate super meat boy. However, there could easily be some sort of race mode implemented into this game. They could also put coop puzzles, where you can stand on other players heads.
Okay, so rather than arguing why they should be implemented you're just saying how they could be. Providing no rational explanation as to why it's a requirement, or how it would improve gameplay in any way.

Well, I'm done here. Knew this was pointless from the get-go.
In response to Popisfizzy (#28)
Popisfizzy wrote:
Okay, so rather than arguing why they could be implemented you're just saying how they could be. Providing no rational explanation as to why it's a requirement, or how it would improve gameplay in any way.

Sorry, I didn't think you were looking for an explanation of the obvious: Multiplayer practically doubles the content of a game. It allows you to play with friends, which generally makes games more enjoyable. It allows you to play with other people, which adds a ton of replay value to games. It adds a social element to games that isn't available in singleplayer. It provides a competitive aspect to the game, even in purely coop experiences. It gives a reason for players to invite other players to play the game. It provides a better arena for feedback and community development. and etc.

Considering there is no reason NOT to have multiplayer, aside from laziness on the developer's part... There are very few (if any) games that you HAVE to play multiplayer. Even an MMO like WoW, you can play alone if you wanted. A game should have strong support for both. I'm not saying a game should be multiplayer ONLY, but it definitely shouldn't be singleplayer only.
Lazyness on the developers part? hah
In response to A.T.H.K (#30)
A.T.H.K wrote:
Lazyness on the developers part? hah

Implementing multiplayer takes extra consideration and effort. I find it unlikely that any developers could sit down and somehow decide that their game would be better if people could only play it alone. They sit down and decide that implementing multiplayer would require an extra million hours of work, and so they just pass it over.
In response to Falacy (#29)
Falacy wrote:
Multiplayer practically doubles the content of a game.

By, depending on the game, letting you go to the same exact area but with ~~friends~~. How exciting. It's like making a game extremely hard with lots of backtracking just so your game is ~~~~fifteen hours long~~~~.

It allows you to play with friends, which generally makes games more enjoyable.

Alternatively, you could make the game enjoyable by itself, rather than hoping that your boring game is fun when you're with friends who can mock it.

It allows you to play with other people, which adds a ton of replay value to games.

No. It just means you can play the same level against different people. You're not encountering anything new. This gets boring, very fast.

It adds a social element to games that isn't available in singleplayer.

Because my favorite thing to do when playing a story-focused RPG is seeing someone type in the text boX, 'U GAGFOT U STOL MY L00T IMMA STIK MY P33N IN UR MOM', whether it's from immature twelve-year-olds, teenage losers, or stupid frat boys.

It provides a competitive aspect to the game, even in purely coop experiences.

Why, again, do I want competition in a puzzle game, or an RPG? Or even a first-person shooter? Must I feel the need to race against someone else? The game should be compelling, enjoyable, and well-paced on its own. The Modern Warfare series is a serious example of an exhausting game: It always feels like you're racing against the clock against something, and you never get to take a breather. They should take a look at Valve, who actually knows how to make a game with good pacing.

It gives a reason for players to invite other players to play the game.

This says nothing other than you want a game that can be described as "the singleplayer sucks by the multiplayer is great". Why is this inherently better than, "the singleplayer is great but there is no multiplayer"? You've just answered a question with nonsense.

It provides a better arena for feedback and community development.

This is an answer without a problem. There is little point in 'community development' without something like multiplayer for it to center around. And oh-so-often does this just descend into, 'HEY, MY LEAST FAVORITE WEAPON NEEDS TO BE NERFED BCUZ ITS TOO STRONG' and 'Y U GANK MY FAVRT WEAPON NOW IT 2 WEEK'.

Considering there is no reason NOT to have multiplayer,

Except that there are lots of good reasons.

aside from laziness on the developer's part...

You are so lucky to have never had to actually write networking code, and not have to understand the difference between client-side architecture and server-side architecture, in regards to design and implementation. Because of this, you are not on a horse high enough to make an informed comment.

And this is even ignoring the extremely-important and not-so-simple affects on the design of the game itself.

I'm not saying a game should be multiplayer ONLY, but it definitely shouldn't be singleplayer only.

And still you say it, but fail to give any good reason why.
Here is an interesting discussion on single-player game design.
It doesn't really apply to multiplayer BYOND games, but it does demonstrate how games used to implore techniques such as being extremely difficult, and "quests" (running from A to B back to A again) to extend the length of a game.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Aip2aIt0ROM
In response to Falacy (#23)
Falacy wrote:
Popisfizzy wrote:
If you mean all games in general, and not just games on BYOND, then this is absolutely ridiculous.

What games shouldn't include multiplayer?

Multiplayer makes a lot of games a terrible experience. I play Heroes of Newerth and I'm sure I would enjoy it a lot more if I could play against NPCs as opposed to the 12 year old foreigners who curse me out over a game. I also played Rumble Fighter and Lost Saga - these are highly competitive games in which laggers gain an advantage over you ( sometimes you can't hit them, sometimes you can't see when they activate a skill, sometimes they appear behind you and knock you off the stage ). Again, NPCs fix this problem, and I find myself playing enjoying the single player mode in these games over the laggy multi-player.

Multiplayer is fun, but let's be real: sometimes it's a crap experience as well. Imagine if Elder Scrolls was a competitive MMO - you'd have people on dial-up connections warping around you spamming fireballs or something while there is nothing you could do about it. All that does is piss people off, not make them enjoy the game. The fact that it's single player eliminates all that nonsense, and people don't have to worry about some 40 year old in their Mom's basement doing something to ruin their game experience.
In response to Popisfizzy (#32)
Popisfizzy wrote:
No. It just means you can play the same level against different people. You're not encountering anything new. This gets boring, very fast.
That gets boring fast? That's why almost every best selling game in the last decade is exactly that? And why all of them still have players/active communities, while single player games are all abandoned a week after release?

Because my favorite thing to do when playing a story-focused RPG is seeing someone type in the text boX, 'U GAGFOT U STOL MY L00T IMMA STIK MY P33N IN UR MOM', whether it's from immature twelve-year-olds, teenage losers, or stupid frat boys.
You're probably just reading your own chat there

Why, again, do I want competition in a puzzle game, or an RPG? Or even a first-person shooter? Must I feel the need to race against someone else? The game should be compelling, enjoyable, and well-paced on its own.
Pacing and competition are two completely different things. Coop competition isn't "ZOMG I HAVE TO GET TO THE FINISH LINE FIRST", its "Wow, that guy has cool armor, I want that" or "Wow, that guy just took out an entire horde of zombies, I'll have to get better to keep up."

This is an answer without a problem. There is little point in 'community development' without something like multiplayer for it to center around. And oh-so-often does this just descend into, 'HEY, MY LEAST FAVORITE WEAPON NEEDS TO BE NERFED BCUZ ITS TOO STRONG' and 'Y U GANK MY FAVRT WEAPON NOW IT 2 WEEK'.
This isn't an "answer without a problem", its just a problem that nobody cares about in singleplayer games. "Yay I got my +9999 sword of face pwn, now I can go 1 hit kill the NPC boss". Whose going to complain about that?

* Repetitive reasons about multiplayer somehow making bad singleplayer good *
This is obviously not what I'm saying. In fact, the singleplayer and multiplayer experiences should be nearly identical. See L4D or Saints Row.

You are so lucky to have never had to actually write networking code, and not have to understand the difference between client-side architecture and server-side architecture, in regards to design and implementation. Because of this, you are not on a horse high enough to make an informed comment.
Your mindless assumptions are interesting, but as usual, nowhere near valid.

And still you say it, but fail to give any good reason why.
I have given plenty of reasons, you seem to be the one failing to give even a single good reason that a game should remain singleplayer only.


EmpirezTeam wrote:
* Terrible multiplayer is terrible *
Well, yea. Poorly designed multiplayer might suck, but playing against poorly designed NPCs has just as much opportunity to fail. You mentioned a lot of fighting games; singleplayer in these games offers almost no challenge. In Street Fighter 4 I can own any NPC on the hardest difficulty, but if I go online I can easily find a challenge, if not somebody who can completely own me.
In response to Falacy (#31)
Falacy wrote:
A.T.H.K wrote:
Lazyness on the developers part? hah

Implementing multiplayer takes extra consideration and effort. I find it unlikely that any developers could sit down and somehow decide that their game would be better if people could only play it alone. They sit down and decide that implementing multiplayer would require an extra million hours of work, and so they just pass it over.

Playing horror game in a multiplayer mode with friends would totally suck. Horror games are supposed to be scary and friends would make you laugh. That would make you remember the game as funny, not scary. It wold destroy the opinion about the game being the most scary computer game ever. It would end bad for game's sales.

I totally disagree with Falacy. There are games that are supposed to be singleplayer. I have played multiplayer version of my favourite RPG: (Gothic) and that totally ruined climate of the game.

It's not multiplayer that makes a game better but good ideas!
In response to Kisioj (#36)
Kisioj wrote:
Playing horror game in a multiplayer mode with friends would totally suck. Horror games are supposed to be scary and friends would make you laugh. That would make you remember the game as funny, not scary. It wold destroy the opinion about the game being the most scary computer game ever.
RE5 is multiplayer, not that that is much of a horror game. Dead Space has multiplayer. I watched a livestream of somebody playing Amnesia, they were still plenty scared, even though there was live chat.

I totally disagree with Falacy. There are games that are supposed to be singleplayer. I have played multiplayer version of my favourite RPG: (Gothic) and that totally ruined climate of the game.
A completely optional feature that you can avoid if you so desire. However, I'm sure there are plenty of people who enjoy it and/or play nothing but that. An optional feature that there is no excuse to leave out. If anything, this is a good example for my point, not against it.
Using this logic we can say that every optional feature is good because there might be person that will like it.
In response to Kisioj (#36)
Kisioj wrote:
Playing horror game in a multiplayer mode with friends would totally suck. Horror games are supposed to be scary and friends would make you laugh.

No Left for dead is great single or multiplayer ...

This discussion is really based on personal preferences and as usual no one can come to a peaceful resolution because of it.

This topic has gone way off once again.
Page: 1 2 3