The "Nintendo Games" forum, which includes Retro Game Reviews, has been archived and is now read-only. You cannot post here or create a new thread or review on this forum.
We play games. Games have objectives. You complete the objectives and win.
People play games, try to complete objectives, and win. They enjoy it.
In a single player game, you go up against the computer, keep trying, and eventually complete the game. Thus you win. You're happy.
I could nod towards the boom in shorter games to back me up. If you were to say that was just because developers were lazy, i'd then nod toward the trend in japanese gamers to favour the shorter games given the choice.
'Hardcore' gamers may lean towards tougher, longer games, but isn't that just because they're more capable, and look for a tougher challenge to make the taste of victory that much sweeter?
Hopefully then, we all agree people like 'winning' at their games.
While single player gives the gamer an open-ended shot at beating the computer, however many attempts it takes, when it goes to multiplayer against friends, the stakes change.
Each bout has a winner and loser. It's not 'win in as many attempts as it takes', but 'win as often as you can'.
On 2 player, you've got a 50:50 chance, it's not too bad. Step up to 4 player (assuming you're not split into 2 teams) and in any one bout, the odds are you won't win.
Sure, the games are fun to play, whatever the outcome, but that's just one element of the enjoyment.
Take away winning and you detract from the total enjoyment.
Multiplayer around a tv, it's not too bad, you can throw the fun of having a game with your mate into the equation.
But here (finally ;^) ) is what i'm getting at:
Online, you don't have that same friendship going on, or if you do, it doesn't work as well as in person.
So when your game envolves lots of players, most players lose the winning feeling too, you're down to just the enjoyment of playing.
Is it enough?
Well, that, naurally, has to depend on the game. Does the enjoyment of the game carry the gamers through?
It looks like most games are going to have to either get to a much higher standard of enjoyability to succeed in the online market.
That or find a non-competetive element.
One solution: Team games. With two teams, you dramatically boost the chance of winning.
But at the same time, you water down the flavour of victory.
Would your team have still won if you'd not been there? Maybe not, but what if it was just another random average gamer?
Were you really particularly important?
For many gamers, the answer would have to be no. So once again, we're losing the value of the competetive element.
Is this a problem for the future of online gaming? Well, i'm convinced that the best games don't need the winning feeling to be popular. But only the best.
For the future of online gaming as a whole, it'd look like a few big-guns would dominate, offering the necessary gameplay to keep everyone connected.
If this happens, in terms of online play at least, the smaller games will suffer, it'll be even harder for them to cut into the market, and even less likely for software publishers to take a chance on them.
While we're playing halo 8 and ssbm 2010, the original, innovative games could be drying up while small software houses could be shutting their doors.
An exaggeration? Probably. But regardless, i don't see many games cutting it if online takes off.
And i don't see it having good effects on the industry.
People play games, try to complete objectives, and win. They enjoy it.
In a single player game, you go up against the computer, keep trying, and eventually complete the game. Thus you win. You're happy.
I could nod towards the boom in shorter games to back me up. If you were to say that was just because developers were lazy, i'd then nod toward the trend in japanese gamers to favour the shorter games given the choice.
'Hardcore' gamers may lean towards tougher, longer games, but isn't that just because they're more capable, and look for a tougher challenge to make the taste of victory that much sweeter?
Hopefully then, we all agree people like 'winning' at their games.
While single player gives the gamer an open-ended shot at beating the computer, however many attempts it takes, when it goes to multiplayer against friends, the stakes change.
Each bout has a winner and loser. It's not 'win in as many attempts as it takes', but 'win as often as you can'.
On 2 player, you've got a 50:50 chance, it's not too bad. Step up to 4 player (assuming you're not split into 2 teams) and in any one bout, the odds are you won't win.
Sure, the games are fun to play, whatever the outcome, but that's just one element of the enjoyment.
Take away winning and you detract from the total enjoyment.
Multiplayer around a tv, it's not too bad, you can throw the fun of having a game with your mate into the equation.
But here (finally ;^) ) is what i'm getting at:
Online, you don't have that same friendship going on, or if you do, it doesn't work as well as in person.
So when your game envolves lots of players, most players lose the winning feeling too, you're down to just the enjoyment of playing.
Is it enough?
Well, that, naurally, has to depend on the game. Does the enjoyment of the game carry the gamers through?
It looks like most games are going to have to either get to a much higher standard of enjoyability to succeed in the online market.
That or find a non-competetive element.
One solution: Team games. With two teams, you dramatically boost the chance of winning.
But at the same time, you water down the flavour of victory.
Would your team have still won if you'd not been there? Maybe not, but what if it was just another random average gamer?
Were you really particularly important?
For many gamers, the answer would have to be no. So once again, we're losing the value of the competetive element.
Is this a problem for the future of online gaming? Well, i'm convinced that the best games don't need the winning feeling to be popular. But only the best.
For the future of online gaming as a whole, it'd look like a few big-guns would dominate, offering the necessary gameplay to keep everyone connected.
If this happens, in terms of online play at least, the smaller games will suffer, it'll be even harder for them to cut into the market, and even less likely for software publishers to take a chance on them.
While we're playing halo 8 and ssbm 2010, the original, innovative games could be drying up while small software houses could be shutting their doors.
An exaggeration? Probably. But regardless, i don't see many games cutting it if online takes off.
And i don't see it having good effects on the industry.
We play games. Games have objectives. You complete the objectives and win.
People play games, try to complete objectives, and win. They enjoy it.
In a single player game, you go up against the computer, keep trying, and eventually complete the game. Thus you win. You're happy.
I could nod towards the boom in shorter games to back me up. If you were to say that was just because developers were lazy, i'd then nod toward the trend in japanese gamers to favour the shorter games given the choice.
'Hardcore' gamers may lean towards tougher, longer games, but isn't that just because they're more capable, and look for a tougher challenge to make the taste of victory that much sweeter?
Hopefully then, we all agree people like 'winning' at their games.
While single player gives the gamer an open-ended shot at beating the computer, however many attempts it takes, when it goes to multiplayer against friends, the stakes change.
Each bout has a winner and loser. It's not 'win in as many attempts as it takes', but 'win as often as you can'.
On 2 player, you've got a 50:50 chance, it's not too bad. Step up to 4 player (assuming you're not split into 2 teams) and in any one bout, the odds are you won't win.
Sure, the games are fun to play, whatever the outcome, but that's just one element of the enjoyment.
Take away winning and you detract from the total enjoyment.
Multiplayer around a tv, it's not too bad, you can throw the fun of having a game with your mate into the equation.
But here (finally ;^) ) is what i'm getting at:
Online, you don't have that same friendship going on, or if you do, it doesn't work as well as in person.
So when your game envolves lots of players, most players lose the winning feeling too, you're down to just the enjoyment of playing.
Is it enough?
Well, that, naurally, has to depend on the game. Does the enjoyment of the game carry the gamers through?
It looks like most games are going to have to either get to a much higher standard of enjoyability to succeed in the online market.
That or find a non-competetive element.
One solution: Team games. With two teams, you dramatically boost the chance of winning.
But at the same time, you water down the flavour of victory.
Would your team have still won if you'd not been there? Maybe not, but what if it was just another random average gamer?
Were you really particularly important?
For many gamers, the answer would have to be no. So once again, we're losing the value of the competetive element.
Is this a problem for the future of online gaming? Well, i'm convinced that the best games don't need the winning feeling to be popular. But only the best.
For the future of online gaming as a whole, it'd look like a few big-guns would dominate, offering the necessary gameplay to keep everyone connected.
If this happens, in terms of online play at least, the smaller games will suffer, it'll be even harder for them to cut into the market, and even less likely for software publishers to take a chance on them.
While we're playing halo 8 and ssbm 2010, the original, innovative games could be drying up while small software houses could be shutting their doors.
An exaggeration? Probably. But regardless, i don't see many games cutting it if online takes off.
And i don't see it having good effects on the industry.
People play games, try to complete objectives, and win. They enjoy it.
In a single player game, you go up against the computer, keep trying, and eventually complete the game. Thus you win. You're happy.
I could nod towards the boom in shorter games to back me up. If you were to say that was just because developers were lazy, i'd then nod toward the trend in japanese gamers to favour the shorter games given the choice.
'Hardcore' gamers may lean towards tougher, longer games, but isn't that just because they're more capable, and look for a tougher challenge to make the taste of victory that much sweeter?
Hopefully then, we all agree people like 'winning' at their games.
While single player gives the gamer an open-ended shot at beating the computer, however many attempts it takes, when it goes to multiplayer against friends, the stakes change.
Each bout has a winner and loser. It's not 'win in as many attempts as it takes', but 'win as often as you can'.
On 2 player, you've got a 50:50 chance, it's not too bad. Step up to 4 player (assuming you're not split into 2 teams) and in any one bout, the odds are you won't win.
Sure, the games are fun to play, whatever the outcome, but that's just one element of the enjoyment.
Take away winning and you detract from the total enjoyment.
Multiplayer around a tv, it's not too bad, you can throw the fun of having a game with your mate into the equation.
But here (finally ;^) ) is what i'm getting at:
Online, you don't have that same friendship going on, or if you do, it doesn't work as well as in person.
So when your game envolves lots of players, most players lose the winning feeling too, you're down to just the enjoyment of playing.
Is it enough?
Well, that, naurally, has to depend on the game. Does the enjoyment of the game carry the gamers through?
It looks like most games are going to have to either get to a much higher standard of enjoyability to succeed in the online market.
That or find a non-competetive element.
One solution: Team games. With two teams, you dramatically boost the chance of winning.
But at the same time, you water down the flavour of victory.
Would your team have still won if you'd not been there? Maybe not, but what if it was just another random average gamer?
Were you really particularly important?
For many gamers, the answer would have to be no. So once again, we're losing the value of the competetive element.
Is this a problem for the future of online gaming? Well, i'm convinced that the best games don't need the winning feeling to be popular. But only the best.
For the future of online gaming as a whole, it'd look like a few big-guns would dominate, offering the necessary gameplay to keep everyone connected.
If this happens, in terms of online play at least, the smaller games will suffer, it'll be even harder for them to cut into the market, and even less likely for software publishers to take a chance on them.
While we're playing halo 8 and ssbm 2010, the original, innovative games could be drying up while small software houses could be shutting their doors.
An exaggeration? Probably. But regardless, i don't see many games cutting it if online takes off.
And i don't see it having good effects on the industry.
I see what you mean, this should be a GAD winner!
i never win at muiti players so im not a sore loser, but a verry happy winner, as i shout and dance if i can even kill one of my mates.
I don't think team games will really help anything regarding online gaming.
The truth behind online gaming is this;
There will always be, for any good game, a relatively small core of players who spend massive amounts of time on the game, and another group who have less skill but are still really good an habit the servers at the most popular times. These two groups effectively means that anyone ooking for a casual game will be anhilated in moments.
Sure, you could say people should persist, gain skill at their game. Which publisher is going to do that ? "Er...Hi Gamers, you need to pay £40 is for our online shooter where unless you devote half your waking day to it you won't last any longer than a couple of minutes whilst using that Broadband connection you're paying about £30 ish for a month, on the console that cost you £130 ish"
Teams make it harder for gamers to join in unless they've got a load of mates with the same game/free time/system - anyone not at school - Uni will know how hard that can be !
I think that, when consoles do get online over here, games which are pure versus shooters won't do massively well. In fact I don't think online console gaming will work very well at all - Sony seems to be leading the charge with Xbox in the rear and Nintendo sitting watchingwith a quizzical look on it's face. most of the time when I come in from work or Uni I want to play a game, not sit typing away to others, I want to be able to pause the game, mess around on it if I want e.t.c.
Online gaming is taken too seriously now.
~~Belldandy~~
The truth behind online gaming is this;
There will always be, for any good game, a relatively small core of players who spend massive amounts of time on the game, and another group who have less skill but are still really good an habit the servers at the most popular times. These two groups effectively means that anyone ooking for a casual game will be anhilated in moments.
Sure, you could say people should persist, gain skill at their game. Which publisher is going to do that ? "Er...Hi Gamers, you need to pay £40 is for our online shooter where unless you devote half your waking day to it you won't last any longer than a couple of minutes whilst using that Broadband connection you're paying about £30 ish for a month, on the console that cost you £130 ish"
Teams make it harder for gamers to join in unless they've got a load of mates with the same game/free time/system - anyone not at school - Uni will know how hard that can be !
I think that, when consoles do get online over here, games which are pure versus shooters won't do massively well. In fact I don't think online console gaming will work very well at all - Sony seems to be leading the charge with Xbox in the rear and Nintendo sitting watchingwith a quizzical look on it's face. most of the time when I come in from work or Uni I want to play a game, not sit typing away to others, I want to be able to pause the game, mess around on it if I want e.t.c.
Online gaming is taken too seriously now.
~~Belldandy~~
I don't know, a simple ranking system could match people up into groups of similar ability reasonably well, and i'm sure those technical experts could program something to shuffle the stragglers into small groups of those individuals who wanted to be in a random team.
So long as there are a reasonable number of players, i don't think it need be a problem.
So long as there are a reasonable number of players, i don't think it need be a problem.