Issues with your account? Bug us in the Discord!
The importance of multiplayer
croxis
I am the walrus
in Zocalo v2.0
I got into an argument in an IRC room about the importance of multiplayer in games. (The context is about having a bunch of expansions for spore - one of which creating some kind of LAN or Multiplayer game) They were arguing the multiplayer lengthens the life of a game. I wasn't disputing that, but I was arguing that, overall, multiplayer isn't that important the the majority of the people who buy the game.
My major line of evidence for this was the results of a poll taken by stardock when making galactic civ 2. They placed a poll on their site asking how important multiplayer was to them, and (IIRC) only 10% responded that multiplayer was very important to a game. Their response to this was that because it was an internet poll, its evidence is useless. My counter argument was that the participants of internet polls vote only if they feel strongly about the issue so if anything the vote for multiplayer (as all gamers supposedly feel strongly about the issue - according to them) then the results for multiplayer would be exaggerated.
The other point they made was the amount of LAN gamers as they wouldn't show up in market statistics comparing number of units sold to number participating in a matchmaking system like gamespy or battle.net. I feel, but have no numbers, than the number of LAN gamers are very insignificant and these people would probably be playing online anyways.
So, in short, I'm dragging the debate here. Anyone have actual numbers? How do you feel about the topic? I love playing game son my home LAN with my bro and dad, but how common are we? Should multiplayer be an expansion if it made the main game cheaper (ala Galciv2)? What else?
My major line of evidence for this was the results of a poll taken by stardock when making galactic civ 2. They placed a poll on their site asking how important multiplayer was to them, and (IIRC) only 10% responded that multiplayer was very important to a game. Their response to this was that because it was an internet poll, its evidence is useless. My counter argument was that the participants of internet polls vote only if they feel strongly about the issue so if anything the vote for multiplayer (as all gamers supposedly feel strongly about the issue - according to them) then the results for multiplayer would be exaggerated.
The other point they made was the amount of LAN gamers as they wouldn't show up in market statistics comparing number of units sold to number participating in a matchmaking system like gamespy or battle.net. I feel, but have no numbers, than the number of LAN gamers are very insignificant and these people would probably be playing online anyways.
So, in short, I'm dragging the debate here. Anyone have actual numbers? How do you feel about the topic? I love playing game son my home LAN with my bro and dad, but how common are we? Should multiplayer be an expansion if it made the main game cheaper (ala Galciv2)? What else?
Comments
[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by croxis [/i]
[B]My major line of evidence for this was the results of a poll taken by stardock when making galactic civ 2. They placed a poll on their site asking how important multiplayer was to them, and (IIRC) only 10% responded that multiplayer was very important to a game. Their response to this was that because it was an internet poll, its evidence is useless. My counter argument was that the participants of internet polls vote only if they feel strongly about the issue so if anything the vote for multiplayer (as all gamers supposedly feel strongly about the issue - according to them) then the results for multiplayer would be exaggerated.[/B][/QUOTE]
Using that poll as evidence is a flaw in your argument. That poll is specific to one game and the audience of that website will be people interested in that sort of game. I dare say that if you'd placed the same poll on the Doom 3 website during its development, you would have got considerably different results.
For me, multiplayer is not very important. I play games for the single player, and more often than not for the story. But I do enjoy the occasional multiplayer game. I have no doubt that there are a lot of people out there who are the opposite: they prefer the multiplayer aspect over a single player story, but will play a good single player game.
FPS games have a tendency to be somewhat short compared to most other varieties, and as such, multiplayer becomes one of the best ways to expand the gameplay experience indefinitely. Some multiplayer modes incorporate story play, but most are just plain blow 'em up.
RTS is another genre in which multiplayer is important. Due to the limitations of AIs, one cannot expect gameplay to stay fresh simply because all routines are scripted. This on top of the fact that many modern AIs cheat like mad to maintain the advantage.
In an RPG (Not MMO, mind you), platformer, or adventure game, multiplayer serves little to no benefit, as the major points of interest are usually in story and character development. Jak & Dexter, Grim Fandango, Psychonauts, etc. all fit into this and are perfect examples of where a lack of multiplayer causes no problems, even going so far as to potentially improve the product by not bogging it down with unnecessary gameplay elements to make the bridge between single and multi.