6 ms·

I don’t mind multiplayer for Diablo. My first experience with Diablo was at a cybercafe in Virginia in 1996. Multiplayer was only LAN. No TCP/IP. I’ve played e

I don’t mind multiplayer for Diablo. My first experience with Diablo was at a cybercafe in Virginia in 1996. Multiplayer was only LAN. No TCP/IP. I’ve played every Diablo game since, including the latest Diablo Immortal. Multiplayer is fine when it’s optional. What I hate is forced parties. Dungeons where I have to have 2+ more players to even participate despite my 9,000 combat rating. Forced multiplayer is bad. Developers shouldn’t assume every player has 7 friends who also play. “Always Online” is also bad. What if I want to play during a flight or traveling where I have a few days down time? What if I want to play when I don’t have access to the internet? Sucks to be you… The vast majority of my experience playing D2 was solo, single player. The vast majority of my experience with D3 was solo, single-player. Even in DI, I run around ignoring party requests and playing how I want to play but there’s tons of content I can’t enjoy because I don’t have a party of 8 and refuse to party up with random 14 year old kids. I like how some MMO’s just threw you into a raid group if you were in the area. GW2 (requires a little bit of effort) and old Warhammer Online had this. When done right it was great. Run to area event, get roped into the raid group, beat the big bad boss creature, get rewards, leave raid group.

derac 4y ago
Both kinds of games are good. When forced cooperation works, such as in early WoW and even more so with early Everquest, it can be a very magical thing. The combination of high time investment to get things done, often needing other classes to do those things, and no cross-server play builds a server community in a very special way. Other classes needing skills only yours has also means you have other people coming to you for help often, you can sell your skills, and your class feels more fun and unique. Of course, these games have other massive issues. Particularly the leveling experience on servers past the initial rush.
spywaregorilla 4y ago
I feel it makes raid groups pointless. If they're not organized then they're mostly just background noise.
- gabereiser 4y ago
  But usually there's other options if you want to be specific about who you invite. Clans/Guilds are moderated (require approval) and parties are (accept invite) so a raid group is just a lump of parties together for a goal. This, I support. Having to "lfrg bleh bleh" sucks and is never an effective use of your time in a game. Raid Finders (like Party Finders) promised to deliver a better experience but failed for the most part as people continue to restrict who they play with. How would you solve raid groups NOT being pointless while also making sure that players who want to participate, can, without having to play the "pick me for your team" game?
  - spywaregorilla 4y ago
    I would just do NPCs if you want to imply you're part of a group. This has the added advantage of making everyone unique even if there's a boring 3 unit meta amongst a giant roster of classes or characters or whatever. Most co-op gameplay in MMO types of games is really bad. Consisting of either mindless support roles that just cast buffs or heals on a recurring timer without too much consideration of anything else; or of brutally picky metas that require specific movement patterns that you're just screwed on if you don't know them. Especially if there's no communication features. If you just meet some randoms, don't really talk to them, and just kind of hope they don't kill the run, then forget about them, that's a bad experience. Good multiplayer requires you to interact with other people. Carefully orchestrated raid team crafting is an option without much mass appeal but it is an option. Since it's not really possible to expect coordination among strangers, and there's a high demand for gameplay with strangers, I would say the game needs to be highly reactive. That is to say, your optimal gameplay can't be pre determined. It depends on what they do, and randomness. The general idea that its ok to just drop into a random group and give it a try implies that the content has to be really easy otherwise people will get frustrated. It depends on the game.
    - Retric 4y ago
      I briefly did top tier raiding and even that doesn’t expect actual coordination among players beyond hitting the correct meta. It all ends up as everyone playing slightly different mini games as people eventually memorize whatever line dance is needed to get the loot piñata to pop. Swap people between different parties or even equivalent guilds and there’s basically zero learning curve. I don’t think this is an issue with MMO games, I think it’s a problem where teamwork is hard. Even just consistently getting a large group together at the same time and not breaking down due to interpersonal conflict is a heavy hurdle. Expecting people to then follow complex plans while also filling the basic roles of the game and not standing in fire is just more than most groups could do.
Justsignedup 4y ago
Very few forced mplayer games really really work well to avoid toxic communities. Deep Rock Galactic seems to be a magical game where everyone comes together. But the reality is that most games end up with toxic people. My fiance definitely prefers SPGs over mplayer, mainly because she never has to consider dealing with this BS or playing on someone else's time. And she gets sadder and sadder every time she is forced into some mplayer experience when she just wants to enjoy a game alone. And I can completely empathize.
- rickstanley 4y ago
  > Deep Rock Galactic seems to be a magical game where everyone comes together. Team Fortress 2 also comes to mind, what a beautiful community.
- joshstrange 4y ago
  > Deep Rock Galactic seems to be a magical game where everyone comes together. I do continue to see this mentioned on Reddit. I've got hundreds and hundreds of hours in DRG and it's all solo aside from literally 5-10 games I played with friends-only (but none of them play regularly). I'm so glad DRG support single player, gives you a bonus (Bosco), scales the game, and lets you pause. I'm glad the multiplayer is good, I'm happier that I don't have to deal with it at all if I don't want to. It's been really sad to see my favorite franchises slowly go online/multiplayer (Elder Scrolls/Fallout) and I constantly worry that the games I've been playing for over a decade (like Oblivion, Skyrim, FO3, FO:LV, FO4, ME1, ME2, ME3) are the last of their breed. For me even having multiplayer/online (more specifically, a recurring revenue stream) taints a game in the same way that IAP taints mobile games (with the exception of "remove ads", "full unlock", or "unlock level pack", if I see "500 gems" I run in the other direction). It skews incentives and ruins games. No matter how much you swear up one side and down the other that it doesn't, it's not true. PvZ 2+ was ruined by IAP and EA even went back and ruined PvZ 1 (even for people who bought it). "Where's The Water?" was also a great game that was littered with IAP in the second version, Angry Birds as well has fallen. It makes me incredibly mad and sad that there are so few good single player games and the ones that do exist aren't coming from AAA studios/big names. DRG is a good example, so is something like Factorio (which does have multiplayer, but don't monetize it). Cosmetic-only DLC/IAP seems to be pretty safe overall but I still worry how much longer it can last when assholes like the CEO of Unity thinks anyone not prioritizing monetization are "Fucking Idiots" (His "apology" is meaningless, he meant what he said and fully believes it). It just feels like we will never see something as pure, wonderful, and buggy :) as Skyrim again. Even that game has the shitty "Creation Club" or whatever they called it trying to monetize mods. ES:O/FO:76 are garbage compared to their predecessors. Indie games are great and seem to be the only place you see a real desire to create something fun, not just something that will print money, but I yearn for the kinds of games we just don't see from indies (again, ES/FO/ME to name a few I've loved, if you know of any like this please let me know). I desperately hope I'm wrong and we see a resurgence of games that try to be fun instead of casinos in disguise. Until then I'll keep playing my old games and the few indies that make me happy instead of feeling like a second job.
7thaccount 4y ago
I only play single player games. I'm interested in a good story and game play, not online play. I like the simplicity of this approach.
- chrsig 4y ago
  I'm more or less the same. If i wanted to deal with people I'd be out doing something, not playing a video game. my exception is dark souls, where I happen to really enjoy the pvp approach, and doesn't really give players much of a way to be toxic other than literally throwing dung at each other.
sennight 4y ago
Pay-to-win mechanics only work in multiplayer, so expect a lot more pressure for settings where conspicuous consumption flourishes. The worm will eventually turn, but not until there is a pretty massive shift in the public consciousness - which would have a far greater impact than just wiping out loot crates and $1.99 cosmetic reskins.

derac 4y ago

Both kinds of games are good. When forced cooperation works, such as in early WoW and even more so with early Everquest, it can be a very magical thing. The combination of high time investment to get things done, often needing other classes to do those things, and no cross-server play builds a server community in a very special way. Other classes needing skills only yours has also means you have other people coming to you for help often, you can sell your skills, and your class feels more fun and unique. Of course, these games have other massive issues. Particularly the leveling experience on servers past the initial rush.

spywaregorilla 4y ago

I feel it makes raid groups pointless. If they're not organized then they're mostly just background noise.

gabereiser 4y ago
But usually there's other options if you want to be specific about who you invite. Clans/Guilds are moderated (require approval) and parties are (accept invite) so a raid group is just a lump of parties together for a goal. This, I support. Having to "lfrg bleh bleh" sucks and is never an effective use of your time in a game. Raid Finders (like Party Finders) promised to deliver a better experience but failed for the most part as people continue to restrict who they play with. How would you solve raid groups NOT being pointless while also making sure that players who want to participate, can, without having to play the "pick me for your team" game?
- spywaregorilla 4y ago
  I would just do NPCs if you want to imply you're part of a group. This has the added advantage of making everyone unique even if there's a boring 3 unit meta amongst a giant roster of classes or characters or whatever. Most co-op gameplay in MMO types of games is really bad. Consisting of either mindless support roles that just cast buffs or heals on a recurring timer without too much consideration of anything else; or of brutally picky metas that require specific movement patterns that you're just screwed on if you don't know them. Especially if there's no communication features. If you just meet some randoms, don't really talk to them, and just kind of hope they don't kill the run, then forget about them, that's a bad experience. Good multiplayer requires you to interact with other people. Carefully orchestrated raid team crafting is an option without much mass appeal but it is an option. Since it's not really possible to expect coordination among strangers, and there's a high demand for gameplay with strangers, I would say the game needs to be highly reactive. That is to say, your optimal gameplay can't be pre determined. It depends on what they do, and randomness. The general idea that its ok to just drop into a random group and give it a try implies that the content has to be really easy otherwise people will get frustrated. It depends on the game.
  - Retric 4y ago
    I briefly did top tier raiding and even that doesn’t expect actual coordination among players beyond hitting the correct meta. It all ends up as everyone playing slightly different mini games as people eventually memorize whatever line dance is needed to get the loot piñata to pop. Swap people between different parties or even equivalent guilds and there’s basically zero learning curve. I don’t think this is an issue with MMO games, I think it’s a problem where teamwork is hard. Even just consistently getting a large group together at the same time and not breaking down due to interpersonal conflict is a heavy hurdle. Expecting people to then follow complex plans while also filling the basic roles of the game and not standing in fire is just more than most groups could do.

Justsignedup 4y ago

Very few forced mplayer games really really work well to avoid toxic communities. Deep Rock Galactic seems to be a magical game where everyone comes together. But the reality is that most games end up with toxic people. My fiance definitely prefers SPGs over mplayer, mainly because she never has to consider dealing with this BS or playing on someone else's time. And she gets sadder and sadder every time she is forced into some mplayer experience when she just wants to enjoy a game alone. And I can completely empathize.

rickstanley 4y ago
> Deep Rock Galactic seems to be a magical game where everyone comes together. Team Fortress 2 also comes to mind, what a beautiful community.
joshstrange 4y ago
> Deep Rock Galactic seems to be a magical game where everyone comes together. I do continue to see this mentioned on Reddit. I've got hundreds and hundreds of hours in DRG and it's all solo aside from literally 5-10 games I played with friends-only (but none of them play regularly). I'm so glad DRG support single player, gives you a bonus (Bosco), scales the game, and lets you pause. I'm glad the multiplayer is good, I'm happier that I don't have to deal with it at all if I don't want to. It's been really sad to see my favorite franchises slowly go online/multiplayer (Elder Scrolls/Fallout) and I constantly worry that the games I've been playing for over a decade (like Oblivion, Skyrim, FO3, FO:LV, FO4, ME1, ME2, ME3) are the last of their breed. For me even having multiplayer/online (more specifically, a recurring revenue stream) taints a game in the same way that IAP taints mobile games (with the exception of "remove ads", "full unlock", or "unlock level pack", if I see "500 gems" I run in the other direction). It skews incentives and ruins games. No matter how much you swear up one side and down the other that it doesn't, it's not true. PvZ 2+ was ruined by IAP and EA even went back and ruined PvZ 1 (even for people who bought it). "Where's The Water?" was also a great game that was littered with IAP in the second version, Angry Birds as well has fallen. It makes me incredibly mad and sad that there are so few good single player games and the ones that do exist aren't coming from AAA studios/big names. DRG is a good example, so is something like Factorio (which does have multiplayer, but don't monetize it). Cosmetic-only DLC/IAP seems to be pretty safe overall but I still worry how much longer it can last when assholes like the CEO of Unity thinks anyone not prioritizing monetization are "Fucking Idiots" (His "apology" is meaningless, he meant what he said and fully believes it). It just feels like we will never see something as pure, wonderful, and buggy :) as Skyrim again. Even that game has the shitty "Creation Club" or whatever they called it trying to monetize mods. ES:O/FO:76 are garbage compared to their predecessors. Indie games are great and seem to be the only place you see a real desire to create something fun, not just something that will print money, but I yearn for the kinds of games we just don't see from indies (again, ES/FO/ME to name a few I've loved, if you know of any like this please let me know). I desperately hope I'm wrong and we see a resurgence of games that try to be fun instead of casinos in disguise. Until then I'll keep playing my old games and the few indies that make me happy instead of feeling like a second job.

7thaccount 4y ago

I only play single player games. I'm interested in a good story and game play, not online play. I like the simplicity of this approach.

chrsig 4y ago
I'm more or less the same. If i wanted to deal with people I'd be out doing something, not playing a video game. my exception is dark souls, where I happen to really enjoy the pvp approach, and doesn't really give players much of a way to be toxic other than literally throwing dung at each other.

sennight 4y ago

Pay-to-win mechanics only work in multiplayer, so expect a lot more pressure for settings where conspicuous consumption flourishes. The worm will eventually turn, but not until there is a pretty massive shift in the public consciousness - which would have a far greater impact than just wiping out loot crates and $1.99 cosmetic reskins.