|
On November 13 2009 22:43 motbob wrote:Show nested quote +On November 13 2009 22:24 BG1 wrote:
I measure the "goodness" of a multiplayer game by how much skill it takes, how balanced it is and how hard it is to get truly good at it. The more competitive the better. Basically when you've been playing a game for 10 years and you still get shit on by a random korean, that's a good multiplayer game.
Not some game that's catered to noobs and that is so limited that you can't even see a big skill gap between a good player and your average idiot. You're measuring it that way because you're good at video games (i'm assuming) and you can have fun playing anything, from Counterstrike to Starcraft to the most noob-friendly game because no matter what you play, you'll win some of the time. Most people like to feel competent, and matchmaking provides that feeling no matter who you are. What you call "catering to noobs," I call "bringing the joy of video games to the masses."
You can enjoy a nice single player game, you can play some WoW or play a nice co-op game with your friends but when it comes to playing versus other people online there has to be skill involved, a sense of competition and constant room for improvement. An online FPS is competition. Someone has to win, someone has to lose, someone has to be better, someone has to be worse and it's up to the game to provide proper balance and proper means to seperate yourself from the rest according to how good/bad you are by way of skill.
Dumbing down the game to make everyone feel as equal as possible is not a proper solution to a competitive online game.
|
motbob
United States12546 Posts
On November 13 2009 23:09 BG1 wrote:Show nested quote +On November 13 2009 22:43 motbob wrote:On November 13 2009 22:24 BG1 wrote:
I measure the "goodness" of a multiplayer game by how much skill it takes, how balanced it is and how hard it is to get truly good at it. The more competitive the better. Basically when you've been playing a game for 10 years and you still get shit on by a random korean, that's a good multiplayer game.
Not some game that's catered to noobs and that is so limited that you can't even see a big skill gap between a good player and your average idiot. You're measuring it that way because you're good at video games (i'm assuming) and you can have fun playing anything, from Counterstrike to Starcraft to the most noob-friendly game because no matter what you play, you'll win some of the time. Most people like to feel competent, and matchmaking provides that feeling no matter who you are. What you call "catering to noobs," I call "bringing the joy of video games to the masses." You can enjoy a nice single player game, you can play some WoW or play a nice co-op game with your friends but when it comes to playing versus other people online there has to be skill involved, a sense of competition and constant room for improvement. An online FPS is competition. Someone has to win, someone has to lose, someone has to be better, someone has to be worse and it's up to the game to provide proper balance and proper means to seperate yourself from the rest according to how good/bad you are. Dumbing down the game to make everyone feel as equal as possible is not a proper solution to a competitive online game.
I posit that matchmaking-style games provide exactly this sense of competition better than dedicated servers ever could. When you're a noob joining a counterstrike server for the first time there's no sense of competition. There's just a sense of getting raped repeatedly.
And besides, console FPSes take skill, too. It's just not centered around aiming skill... It's more about positional awareness and reflexes.
|
I just played this last night on PS3... and I'm pretty damn sure I'm getting it for xbox. It kicks ass.
|
Does anyone know if they are working on fixing the lag? I love the game I just hate the random dropping out and switching hosts because of lagging.
|
How exactly do you think they can fix the lag when people are hosting on their own connections? If someone has a bad upload, games going to lag. Welcome to console gaming.
|
|
|
On November 14 2009 00:47 udgnim wrote:
hahahaa
|
Hahaha that pic is absolutely priceless.
|
United States47024 Posts
On November 13 2009 21:22 motbob wrote:
if you measure the "goodness" of a multiplayer game by how much fun it is to people on average
then the matchmaking system of halo 2/3 and CoD4:MW 1/2 blow dedicated server style games out of the fucking water
I see one primary problem of Infinity Ward's solution: it kills user-made custom content. Now it may be deemed that would be the more profitable thing to do (as most console owners I know aren't big on custom content, and they're likely the bulk of the player base), but to PC users, it's a slap to the face. Custom content is the lifeblood of PC gaming. Most games that have had incredibly long lifespans on the PC have been driven by custom content, and it was hopeful that such content could be brought to consoles, but Infinity Ward has directly undermined that. You can say that people are having more fun with Modern Warfare 2 NOW. But will that hold true a year, two years or five years from now, with absolutely zero mods or user-made maps entering the scene?
|
Guys, imagine if in Warcraft 3, the only way to play online games was with their match-making ladder system (as in, you are unable to join custom games). That would suck balls, wouldn't it? Saying the matchmaking system is superior to dedicated servers, is like saying a system like that is better than what Starcraft has going for it right now.
|
On November 14 2009 05:00 TheYango wrote:Show nested quote +On November 13 2009 21:22 motbob wrote:
if you measure the "goodness" of a multiplayer game by how much fun it is to people on average
then the matchmaking system of halo 2/3 and CoD4:MW 1/2 blow dedicated server style games out of the fucking water I see one primary problem of Infinity Ward's solution: it kills user-made custom content. Now it may be deemed that would be the more profitable thing to do (as most console owners I know aren't big on custom content, and they're likely the bulk of the player base), but to PC users, it's a slap to the face. Custom content is the lifeblood of PC gaming. Most games that have had incredibly long lifespans on the PC have been driven by custom content, and it was hopeful that such content could be brought to consoles, but Infinity Ward has directly undermined that. You can say that people are having more fun with Modern Warfare 2 NOW. But will that hold true a year, two years or five years from now, with absolutely zero mods or user-made maps entering the scene?
All those numbers that come after COD aren't possible if you implement stuff like that. Longevity of a singular game doesn't generate money. Hell, if anything, it's a money pit 95% of the time.
|
On November 13 2009 21:22 motbob wrote:
hey guys I know you like being elitists and all but
if you measure the "goodness" of a multiplayer game by how much fun it is to people on average
then the matchmaking system of halo 2/3 and CoD4:MW 1/2 blow dedicated server style games out of the fucking water
"that's because the average person bad at the game" well no shit, in dedicated servers you have to be good at the game to get the most fun that you can out of it.
It's not much fun to play against hackers and other obnoxious players that you can't kick. Lag isn't any fun either. Matchmaking is a great idea, but I think MW2's implementation gives up too much and results in a net loss to the genre.
That steam group is hilarious too. I suppose I'm technically boycotting MW2 since I haven't bought it and don't intend to, but I didn't join their group.
|
United States47024 Posts
On November 14 2009 05:19 Hawk wrote:
All those numbers that come after COD aren't possible if you implement stuff like that. Longevity of a singular game doesn't generate money. Hell, if anything, it's a money pit 95% of the time.
As I'm said, I'm well aware that this move generates profit. That doesn't mean I have to like it.
Also, custom content kills sequels? Blizzard and Valve beg to differ.
|
It certainly doesn't encourage people to buy the new version.
|
im not the greatest at console fps and i have problems with my MP5k constantly shooting over the head of my enemy. does the recoil make my aim go up automatically? should i just start shooting from the body height on up?
|
On November 14 2009 06:26 Hawk wrote:
It certainly doesn't encourage people to buy the new version.
i beg to differ. in fact i think its quite the opposite. i think gabe newell is very wise in the subject
|
On November 14 2009 08:57 mnm wrote:
im not the greatest at console fps and i have problems with my MP5k constantly shooting over the head of my enemy. does the recoil make my aim go up automatically? should i just start shooting from the body height on up?
Yes, sub machine guns have a lot of recoil, causing your shots to go higher. Though, most of your shots with a mp5k should be hip fire..
|
The Vector has virtually no recoil.
|
what is the best weapon to use for domination?
|
Snet
United States3573 Posts
On November 14 2009 09:33 mnm wrote:
what is the best weapon to use for domination?
I think it depends on the map not the game mode. A great starter weapon is the SCAR assault rifle (#3 on the list) that you get early on. Use that with faster reload, 1 less killstreak, and increased hipfire accuracy. Oh and make sure you have care-packages enabled as one of your killstreak rewards.
Anyway, one of my favorite combos for domination and capture the flag is riot shield / shotgun. It's so much fun with unlimited sprint/+speed/+melee range and just charging at people smashing their head in at the capture locations.
It's an especially sick combo when playing against new players who don't know how to kill someone with a riot shield, lol. However later on you get raped by experienced players who just sidestep and stab you in the back. T_T
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT![[image loading]](http://diy.despair.com/output/poster65514220.jpg)
