Become a fan of Slashdot on Facebook

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
First Person Shooters (Games) PC Games (Games) Entertainment Games

Why Online Gaming Isn't As Fun As It Should Be 147

Posted by simoniker from the nuke-the-leet-speekers dept.
Thanks to GameSpot for their 'GameSpotting' editorial discussing why online gaming can often be more frustrating than fun. The columnist finds two main reasons for frustration - firstly: "I don't like getting trounced by someone who is either flat-out, hands-down better at a game than I am or has simply invested many more hours in getting good at the game than I have." He also has issues with impolite players: "I think online gaming brings out some really despicable behavior in people, which I don't particularly mind but that I certainly don't like." Some possible solutions are mentioned, such as "effective player-matching services", but what can and should be done to make playing online a delight?
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Why Online Gaming Isn't As Fun As It Should Be More

Why Online Gaming Isn't As Fun As It Should Be

Comments Filter:

  • You like Greg huh? (Score:5, Interesting)

    by WapoStyle ( 639758 ) on Sunday September 28, 2003 @11:51PM (#7082263)
    Someone likes Greg Kasavin's weekly Gamespotting editorial. Seems it shows up every Sunday night like clockwork.

    That's ok I like them too and always read all the Gamespotting columns. Check out Alex Navaro's column this week...he is just learning the ways of Microsoft it seems.

    But I trendily digress, the article is very true. I picked up Unreal Tournament back in early 2000 and it was my first foray in the online world. It was fun being a newbie playing on Heat.net but soon that went belly up and I had to switch to the in-game server browser. Boy was I in for a surprise with the raw talent at playing UT those guys had! You would think playing everyday for hours on end for many years and you might be able to compete.

    Nope. After playing for 3 years I finally gave the game up because I still couldn't compete with the 'elite' guys. Those guys are so insane and rightly called freaks.

    • Re:You like Greg huh? (Score:3, Insightful)

      by Synic ( 14430 )
      If your first FPS game was UT, then no wonder you were getting trounced by elite players. Many of those fools have been owning n00bs since Doom added multiplayer. So count the years from then, let's see how many games as well: Doom, Doom 2, Quake, Quake 2, ... and finally we get to UT and Q3's time period. They've simply been playing a lot longer than 3 years-- compared to them you are still a newbie.

      • Re:You like Greg huh? (Score:5, Insightful)

        by Anonymous Coward on Monday September 29, 2003 @03:14AM (#7082904)
        That's the mentality that is ruining online games for people. The fact that no matter how good you get people will still consider you a "Newbie" because you can't devote your entire life to playing those games.
        • I can easily code a version of Tetris that would adapt to your playing skill, providing you with matching pieces and even moving them for you. May be sometimes removing lines that are not full yet. :) The question is - will it be a better multiplayer game overall? Will more people play it than the ordinary version that relies on your skill?

    • Re:You like Greg huh? (Score:5, Interesting)

      by FileNotFound ( 85933 ) on Monday September 29, 2003 @10:55AM (#7085329) Homepage Journal
      Some people just cannot become "elite" at FPS, to others it's almost natural. I've been playing FPS since Doom and always found it easy to come out on top.

      In the days of HEAT I participated in all the tournaments. While I never won a single one of them I generaly came out in the top 10 or at least the top 25 players.

      In the end though, it's 25% natural ability, 25% computer(good video card, mouse and keyboard that you're used to and good connection), 40% knowledge of the game and 10% skill.

      Seriously though, very little "skill" is needed to be great at FPS. It's all about knowing the layout of the map, having quick reflexes and knowing the tricks of the game.

      If you have a sucky PC or you just can't seem to react as fast as the "twitch" gamers do, you'll just never attain the same level they will.

      They "elite" will seem like freaks, you'll be sure that they play 24/7 and maybe even cheat, but then neither is true.

      I go to LAN parties about once a month and several times people thought I was cheating when I shot them right in the head from across the map with a non scoped rifle, again and again...fact is I didn't but I just knew at exactly what level to position the mouse to hit someones head at that level and had the reflexes to point it there quickly.

      By the way, if you think UT is hard, try Descent 3.

      I swear that game will make you go mad. You think circle strafling is something? Try sphere strafling. I know people who play Descent 3 with 2 joysticks in order to strafle in 2 dimensions easier...now those are freaks.
      • I couldn't agree more. Though I would say if you have a low end PC you have very little chance of becoming good at a game. And of course being an LPB (low ping bitch) helps a lot too.

        I'm getting very annoyed with these editorials though. Some yahoo who doesn't even seem to be a real gamer starts mouthing off about how to make the gaming market better. There are so many things that I feel need improvment before we should try "skill matching servers". Eg : better interface for Kicking TK'ers (Team killers),
      • By the way, if you think UT is hard, try Descent 3

        Haven't played Descent 3, but I sure remember playing the first one on the network my brother and his friends set up in their dorm (they had a coax cable going down the hall with t-splitters going to each computer - this was back in the days of DOS, and it was hell trying to get a network going). That is a crazy game, and a hell of a lot of fun in multiplayer. I got my butt kicked - before that I don't think I had ever played a game with more than two or

  • Simple Solution? (Score:5, Insightful)

    by cmason32 ( 636063 ) on Sunday September 28, 2003 @11:54PM (#7082275)
    Well, you're always going to have jerks, whether online or in real life - there isn't much you can do about that except find a group of polite people with whom you have a good game. Hopefully that group of people will also have a comparable level of play and one won't get trounced by the opposition. If they are much better hopefully they'll teach you a trick or two and help you improve your game. Those people may be few and far between, but they're out there.

    Futher, if the main point of playing is merely to enjoy the game, does it really matter if you occasionally run into people who are very good at the game? One can't win every time they play, can they? And if everybody is beating you then maybe you just need to practice more. To me the point of playing online is for the comraderie and the competition - the competition adds another level of excitement to the game. It's fun when I do well and when I don't do well it compels me to try harder.

    By "you" I mean you in the general sense.
    • Problem is, the ratio of jerks to non jerks online is considerably different due to the fact a lot of people seem to act like jerks on the net and do and say things that would get their asses kicked in real life.

      I've not read the article, but I'm surprised cheating wasn't really mentioned in the Slashdot story. I mean if you ARE getting seriously "0wn3d", the other player may be a scumbag cheater instead of having any real talent.

      As for finding a group of people to play with, that's a good idea. That's wh
      • "I mean if you ARE getting seriously "0wn3d""

        Not necessarily. I know several online gameplayers who can come into a mach three quarters of the way through and still win - they do have real talent. Yes, there are a lot of cheaters out there, but that doesn't prevent someone wiping the floor with you without cheating.
    • "Well, you're always going to have jerks, whether online or in real life..."

      The ratio is 1 out of 5. The catch is that it's not always the same people.

    • One can't win every time they play, can they?

      Well, theoretically it should be possible to design a game that would provide all players with similar but distinct games, so that all players can win. ;) It's very difficult, but it can be done. You need enough simularity that people can communicate about the game and that it feels like playing a human, not an AI, but you need to make it distinct enough that in the last 15 minutes you can give both players a chance to win, by branching the game into two. :)
    • To an extent I think the real problem is that the "jerks" tend to often suck horribly. The "elite" hate the sucky jerks and appear to be assholes who talk down to the "noobs".

      The problem for the "avg" player is that the jerks think he's a leet and insult him when he's winning by just a bit and the leets think that the avg is just another noob and talk down to him like he's a 12 year old.

      This puts the avg player in a nasty position with no place to go.

      It's kinda like EQ when you really get down to it, you

  • Online Gaming Improvements (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Babbster ( 107076 ) <aaronbabb@NOspaM.gmail.com> on Sunday September 28, 2003 @11:54PM (#7082277) Homepage
    1. As mentioned, skill-level matching services. They'll never be perfect, especially with griefers who would have nothing better to do than screw up their rating just to annihilate newbies, but they're better than nothing. The biggest drawback here is that someone would have to maintain the ranking service and the matchmaking servers. Most companies that aren't Blizzard or Microsoft don't really want to do it.

    2. Every game needs to have anti-cheating devices that are updated regularly. This not only helps stop cheating, but shuts people up who think they're really good, get their butts kicked and then accuse others of cheating.

    3. Easy muting. Many of us have little to no interest in seeing strings of expletives rendered in leetspeak OR plain English. It should take no more than two keystrokes to set someone to /ignore.

    3.5. Easy kicking. It should be easy in any game to vote someone off the server, and said vote should result in at least a two-hour ban on that IP returning to the game.

    4. Display of average ping rates at server select. In other words, if I'm pinging a game at 80 ms, I'd rather not go into a game where the average ping of the players is 300 or 10. There could even be a feature (server-optional) that only allows people to join whose pings are within a certain percentage of the current average. While I'm sure there are some people who enjoy being the LPB, others get bored if the game's design allows that person to more easily dominate.

    Those are the top 4-1/2 off the top of my head.

    • Re:Online Gaming Improvements (Score:5, Interesting)

      by rhakka ( 224319 ) on Monday September 29, 2003 @12:13AM (#7082357)
      You don't even need to have any kind of stats or calculations to do skill matching.

      You know on single player games, where you choose your difficulty? Why not just look for "newbie", "intermediate", or "pro" games?

      If someone joins a newbie server and is whupping ass on everyone, have the game prompt the newbies on whether or not they want to kick the person who is kicking ass. If he's beating on them that bad he should be on a different server or skill level anyway.

      Server admins could set their servers to whatever level they want to cater to, or let the server advertise itself everywhere and the first player to join causes it to settle on that player's skill level until it's empty again.

      Of course it's not perfect, but it would be an easy implementation and should help. Finding games of people about your skill level should be convenient and easy, and why have to wait for X number of games for the ranking system to figure out where you should be, or spend your time playing hardcore players who started new accounts to clear their records? Just tell the game what you want...
      • I like that a lot. It definitely evades the issue of designing a skill ranking system and implementing it (like some developers, I have a tendency to overlook simpler solutions). "Make it so." :)

        • Re:Online Gaming Improvements (Score:5, Interesting)

          by rhakka ( 224319 ) on Monday September 29, 2003 @01:59AM (#7082648)
          I often do too, but what killed the idea of ranking-based matchmaking for me is Warcraft 3. To put it plainly, I suck at it. Which is to say I had about a 30% win ratio. But every other match I played was some guy who was starting over to clear his record, or starting a "for fun" account, or some other variant of a very skilled player being identified incorrectly. When you've played five games of something and you're faced with UBERDOOD13 with hundreds of battles behind him, it's not a lot of fun. I could have kept playing and improved, but I just wasn't having fun, so I played about twenty matches (i really tried to like it) and gave up.

          Stats and Rankings are wonderful.. rankings got me hooked on Unreal Tournament and made me play it for ungodly hours a week for six months trying to stay in the top ten of the gametype Domination.. and I've been a hardcore fan of the series for years since then. But I think both of these ideas could exist side by side, it's not an either or proposition. Newbie servers: no ranking (maybe stats for fun). Seperate Intermediate and Pro stats/rankings so there is no benefit to dropping below your skill level to whore points which, yes, still happens in ELO based systems.

          The hardest part of the idea is deciding what level of gameplay performance would trigger the "do you wanna boot this slumming lamer" message :D

      • Re:Online Gaming Improvements (Score:5, Interesting)

        by anon*127.0.0.1 ( 637224 ) <slashdot AT baudkarma DOT com> on Monday September 29, 2003 @02:33AM (#7082757) Journal
        The problem with letting players handle the skill matching is that a lot of people would deliberately understate their playing skill in order to play games that they can easily win. They're not interested in a competitive match... they want to beat someone and run their smack and talk about how pathetic the other player is, and how great they are.

        Take a look at the Starcraft games on BNet sometime. Starcraft has been out for quite a few years now. You'd think that there aren't that many new players trying it out, but it seems like every third game on BNet is "n00bs ONLY!!" or some crap like that. Not because there are that many new players, but because people want an easy win against another human. Same thing with the supposed Free-For-All games where two or 3 guys will team up right away because they made an agreement before the game started. They don't want competition, they want an easy win and the feeling of smug superiority that comes with it.

        From my perspective, the solution is simple. Give me a way to positively ID players, no matter what nick or account they use. BNet could use each players CD key to generate a unique "Player ID" which would be displayed beside the players name. The ID number would stay the same no matter what names the player used or what accounts he played under.

        Then give me a way to easily make notations about players, or put them in categories while I'm playing. If I've got someone in the "Don't play with" category, I should get some kind of warning every time I see them, or every time they join a game I'm playing in. If I feel that someone is very skilled and a fun person to play with, I should be able to see them easily as well. In short, take away some of the anonymity, and force players to experience some repercussions for their negative actions.

        • trick is, you can't do that either. Even CDkey security gets hacked and the lamers just download lists of CDkeys that have been pilfered, stolen from stores, or tricked out of unsuspecting players. Since fully 50% or more of everyone who buys an MP enabled game doesn't ever even try to play online, it goes undetected most of the time.

          Nothing is perfect!!! But allowing people to choose their own difficulty/gameplay level and simply installing safeguards to identify the slummers and remove them is, IMHO,
    • One thing everyone has to realize is that these issues are only present in real time online multiplayer games. If companies made some more turn based online multiplayer games, then things would be super awesomer. I imagine a day when there will be an X-COM type game online and multiplayer. Ahhhh, ph33r that.

      But yeah, Tribes 2 was the best ever, until they fucked it up. Counter-Strike is also awesome. The trick to not getting pissed at it is to be naturally good. That way you can kill cheaters without
      • How did Tribes 2 get fucked up? I never played, but it always seemed rad, so I'm curious.
      • You get this in turned based games even more I find. Worms Armageddon and recently GunBound prove this. In these game you normally wait 2-3 minutes in between turns and have nothing else to do but chat.

        I would like to see an age bracket or adult only servers/channels but even this would bring problems with the minority of well behaved teenagers.

        Putting a reality check on this: Teenage boys are sex-starved boys who question their own sexuality in public (u r gay) and are out to prove their manliness to all
        • The prolem is- it isn't teenagers. Not even the majority. I've been playing online games for years. I've led guilds of 50 people or more. And I've interacted with hundreds of others. And through it all I've found the percentage of assholes is only slightly higher among the younger generations- and in fact the younger generations tend to be better than the older in general, because they make more of an effort at acting mature. I can't tell you the number of 40 year old men I've met who get off on ruini
    • Most of those are pretty good ideas, however the idea of easy kicking kinda presents a problem, if you allow just anyone to start a kick vote, often times you'll get stuff like kickbanning the other sides best player or something, and it's not fair for people to be getting kicked because they are good. When it comes to kicking, it's still something that's best left to the person who made the game for stuff hosted by a player or the admins of the server otherwise.
      • Make it an 80% vote, then - if the teams are so unbalanced that 80% are one side then it's probably a bad game in any case. If someone's starting votes without "just cause" then vote to kick them. Too many servers run 24/7 with little to no supervision, so expecting server admins will solve every problem - or even a majority of problems - can be too much to ask. Restricting the vote initiation to specific people can theoretically work, but only in situations where you usually have those specific people a
    • you should try Enemy Territory... it has so many things like muting, kicking, anti-cheating, etc. Plus, the way it works makes the teams to be very cooperative.. I love that game. unfortunately it doesnt have enough maps...
    • 1. Xbox Live does this (even for non-MS games) 2. Xbox Live does this (yet people cry about it) 3. Xbox Live does this (simply disconnect your voice comunicator) 3.5 Can you see a pattern? (You can block people form games you host) 4. Ditto (it converts the ping time into something more people will understand, a score out of 5)
      • 4. Ditto (it converts the ping time into something more people will understand, a score out of 5)

        I would hope that's a setting somewhere (since I haven't bought Live I don't know), since I hate the systems that do that (such as Battle.net). For instance, how do I know if a 3 is what I consider playable until I've tried a few dozen games? If it just said 400ms I'd know quite well that it's unacceptable for anything but turn-based play.
    • As an avid counter-strike player, I've noticed that in heavily team-oriented games like CS, team matching in public servers is generally more important than skill matching. Whether I go 20-0 or 0-20 can depend greatly on how organized my team is.

      Sometimes you get the team where everybody rushes together, a few effectively decoy and you dominate maps that place you at a disadvantage, other times you get the team with a bunch of rogues who just want to find a cosy corner to picnic and hope somebody happens

  • "Why Online Gaming Isn't As Fun As It Should Be?" (Score:5, Funny)

    by Spoing ( 152917 ) on Sunday September 28, 2003 @11:56PM (#7082282) Homepage
    Erm, because I suck?

    (Today I lost 1/2 my credits in Vendetta [guildsoftware.com] attempting to get to hidden sector 18.)

    • My sentiments exactly. If he can't run with the big dogs, well, that's what "n00b servers" are for. If he's really so sensitive (and such a sore loser) that there're no severs on the net that can accomodate him, maybe he's playing the wrong games.
      • Problem with "n00b servers" is in many cases, hardcore players go on them just to get the "thrill" of bagging someone who has never played online before.

        A BIG part of the problem with stuff like Blizzard's matchmaking on Warcraft 3 is you get wankers with multiple accounts posing as "n00bs" so they can beat the living hell out of you.

        Nothing is going to fix online gaming and make it fun for all until we can personally track down and beat the living shit out of the griefers.
  • Well, because it's nothing like "The World" [dothack.com] of course, though the games are a pale imitation of the game as demonstrated in the shows. The AI's don't even know how to do a good "Attack, dodge heal" cycle.

  • try orisinal (Score:1, Offtopic)

    by an_mo ( 175299 )
    try orisinal [blogspot.com] sorry I don't have the direct link right here

  • Solution (Score:4, Insightful)

    by Iamthefallen ( 523816 ) <Gmail name: Iamthefallen> on Monday September 29, 2003 @12:14AM (#7082361) Homepage Journal

    There are way too many whiny trolling kids on fully public servers, try to find clan servers that are open to public use as they tend to be more actively administrated and have house rules. Be polite with the server admins and make sure you understand the rules of the community. Most admins will listen to input and usually the trolls and lamers find themselves banned pretty quick. There are communities for all types, from no profanities allowed to no racist/sexist talk to everything goes, find one you like and lurk around to try to get an idea of what it's about before approaching admins with issues.

  • Like the author of the article, I tend to get my arse kicked when I play online. But on the other hand, if I have a few mates over with their machines and we have a go at my favourite games on the LAN, I tend to kick arse. It's hard to find a combination of people to play against where I'm vaguely in the same ballpark skill wise, which is why I tend to just play against the bots in UT and crank their skill up if I'm starting to beat them too easily.
    • Ehm, well how about not playing straight deathmatch then? Make teams even out the players and make sure that everyone understands the meaning of the word teamplay.

      Personally I hate people who immidialty pounce on a new player claiming "you sucko I fragged you moron" (add generous portion of leet speeck) when the new player is just standing still having the interface explained to them.

      Better yet make it coop play and make it clear that you are the musketeers. New player dies? Mission lost. You then often s

    • I found my way out of this problem when I was playing Quake 2. I downloaded the Eraser bot (the same author wrote the bots for UT iirc) and played against a few of them for a few weeks. By the time I got back to playing online, my skill level had improved quite a bit (to the point of being accused of being a bot, though I now know that doesn't take much, depending on how rampant cheating is). Setting bots to adaptive is helpful as well, though the Eraser was particularly problematic because multiple bots wo

  • I agree, pretty much completely (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Dark Nexus ( 172808 ) on Monday September 29, 2003 @12:54AM (#7082469)
    I used to play games online on a regular basis, starting with QuakeWorld. Hell, I remember when GameSpy was JUST for Quake. Now I'll rarely play anything online if it's not a game with ONLY friends.

    Back then, it was FUN. A little less fun when you lost, but then, losing BADLY in the team-based mods (mostly Team Fortress, for me) wasn't TERRIBLY common, because people would even up the teams either on their own, or with only a little bit of prodding. Even when you DID lose, the winner was usually very gracious about it. The amount of trash talking was generally pretty low. A little bit of boasting and bragging at times, but not with every kill, or even every win.... and almost no cheating accusations.

    The same could be said of Half-Life at first. It wasn't until CounterStrike became huge that things REALLY started to go down hill.

    As for strategy games, the last time I seriously played any of them online with the public at large (and not just with friends) was the early days of Starcraft, before everyone stopped playing any map that wasn't either "Big Game Hunters" or one of it's variants.

    Warcraft 3 does a pretty good job with skill matching (my record is somewhere around 60% wins, and unless you're at the very top or very bottom of the rankings should level out around 50% for each ideally), but the trash talking and insults are still FAR too prevalent for it to be enjoyable.

    Skill matching like in Warcraft 3 can work for some, but not all games, but until there's a consistant and reliable way to keep the level of trash talking morons out of the game (don't say server admins - they can't be there ALL the time, and with many games can't monitor everything) online gaming will just keep getting worse and worse.
    • Warcraft 3 does a pretty good job with skill matching (my record is somewhere around 60% wins, and unless you're at the very top or very bottom of the rankings should level out around 50% for each ideally), but the trash talking and insults are still FAR too prevalent for it to be enjoyable.

      You'd be surprised how few people on battle.net actually understand how the winning percentage should work out. If you don't have a ~75% winning percent (and it has to be at solo), then you get harassed and called a ne
  • http://www.penny-arcade.com/view.php3?date=2003-04 -16&res=l

    http://www.penny-arcade.com/view.php3?date=2002- 08 -30&res=l

    http://www.penny-arcade.com/view.php3?date=2002- 07 -19&res=l

    • Here's what you need to do. (Score:1, Funny)

      by Anonymous Coward
      Not really improvements, but general rules an on-line gamer should know ...

      1. Play games that are invite only. That way you know who's gonna join.

      2. Always tell people you're a "newbie" and kick the crap out of them at the game and claim "beginner's luck"

      3. Pick a handle that shows you're a girl and be cute (most users don't like to torch girls that are cute). Then kick the crap outta them.

      4. Otherwise, stop whinning, get real friends to play with you because people on-line don't like you either.

    • Re:Obligatory PA Link(s) (Score:4, Funny)

      by Alizarin Erythrosin ( 457981 ) on Monday September 29, 2003 @10:51AM (#7085279)
      When I put in an ob. PA link I at least make [penny-arcade.com] them [penny-arcade.com] real [penny-arcade.com] links.

      And I'm surprised you didn't even find this one [penny-arcade.com]... pretty fitting for the type of stuff now.
  • Aside from the griefers......if the only people you play against are approximately equal in skill level with you, how are any of you going to ever get better?

    I've played a lot of online games, and there will ALWAYS be someone better than you out there, often times many people. But whenever you see them do a new trick, or watch their response to something and be amazed at how effective it is, you learn something new that improves your skills.

    While it may be annoying sometimes, like when you keep getting plu

    • Pet peeve (Score:5, Insightful)

      by rjh ( 40933 ) <rjh@sixdemonbag.org> on Monday September 29, 2003 @02:08AM (#7082671)
      if the only people you play against are approximately equal in skill level with you, how are any of you going to ever get better?

      Pet peeve: people who think that the amount of fun you have in a game must be directly proportional to how good you are at the game. Why should I have to devote myself to getting better at a game in order to have fun?

      I'm a moderately good chess player. I enjoy playing chess. It's fun. I could be a hell of a lot better if I were to take the game more seriously, but I want the game to be fun, not a job.

      I'm a poor Q3 player. But I enjoy playing regardless, even if I usually do wind up in the lower half of the scores at local LANfests.

      Nobody should have to get better at a game as a prerequisite for having fun.

      Period.

      And people who don't understand this simply don't understand the most important thing about game design. Namely--it's not whether you win or lose, or how skilled or unskilled you are. It's about fun. Everything else is just candy.
      • Mod Parent up.
        Fun is the reason I mess with the gravity on the servers I admin. Fun is the reason I teleport snipers to sweet spots in the map. Fun is the reason I change the map to whatever I feel like playing.
      • I've been playing multiplayer since Doom. I have been hosting LAN parties for three years now. And, I suck at games.

        Yet, I keep getting back in time and time again to get my ass handed to me because I don't equate my position on the ladder with how much fun I'm having.

        Sure, it's exciting to get near or at the top, but even when I'm dead last, chances are that I had a good time when playing. Being a sucky player, I live for the individual kills - those times when I was able to pick off the guy who's cle
      • Nobody should have to get better at a game as a prerequisite for having fun

        When I first started getting laid, I wasnt that great at it (so my girl tells me), but that doesnt mean I didnt have fun learning.
    • I suck at MechAssault- but I think it is a fun game-

      In a good game, I'll die 12 times, and maybe get 9 kills. Very rarely will I go over the 50% mark.

      The most fun I have is when I am in a game, and getting beat horribly...like 0 kills and 15 deaths. Then, finally...I kill someone. Just taunting him for the last few minutes of the game (while he kills me 5 or 6 more times) makes it all worth it.
  • I think a big part of the problem is that when someone decides to be a complete a**hole, the negative repercussions are not nearly as severe as they would be in the real world. The real world and the internet are two very different beasts, which makes creating and upholding justice in one very different than doing so in the other.

    If I decide to create an Everquest character and then go around slaughtering newbies, the worst that can happen is that my account is disabled/removed and I'm out about 15 bucks

  • Online frustrations (Score:4, Interesting)

    by Anonymous Coward on Monday September 29, 2003 @01:29AM (#7082560)
    The first online game I played was Doom (with a hack called, I think, Doomgate). It was amazing to us at the time. Can you imagine - playing online with people in other countries!

    It was a special experience, and those that played treated it with respect. Some of the first custom maps people made for Doom online play had built-in "typing rooms". If you wanted to talk to your opponents, you popped in there. The walls had a custom texture that said something like "TYPING ROOM - NO KILL ZONE", and it was considered cheating if you hurt anyone in there.

    I picture the first propeller-driven biplane aircraft pilots waving at each other in a gentlemanly fashion - when they only dropped bombs on enemy troops, before they strapped a machinegun on the front and started shooting at each other.

    For me, online play has gone horribly wrong since then. The floodgates opened, the masses want a jet-fighter with guided nuclear missiles to smash into the bleeding skulls of their enemies. Death-In-A-Box, internet play assumed. Sign Up And Kill Shit. If you're not typing to taunt, go play on IRC. I hate it. I can't play Quake3, Unreal Tournament or Battlefield 1942 online anymore.

    Planetside [planetside.com] is the closest yet in getting back to that early sensation of getting to know the people I was playing with. Unfortunately it's also a complete failure due to the masses of bugs, faction inbalance (should have 2 sides, not 3), broken rewards system (there's no incentive to defend). There's also a tremendous difficulty in finding other players due to Star Wars Galaxies sucking out the population (and I'm not following them because I prefer my games to not be turn-based, thanks).

    Here's hoping that someone at id Software has played Planetside, finds inspiration, can see the problems - and decides they want to blow them out of the water.
    • I picture the first propeller-driven biplane aircraft pilots waving at each other in a gentlemanly fashion - when they only dropped bombs on enemy troops, before they strapped a machinegun on the front and started shooting at each other.

      I just found this part very apt, coming from a Team Fortress background. There's a cycle in the TF games (TF, TFC, not as sure about UF and Q3F) where at first people take pot-shots at each other on the way to the enemy base, and then people get carried away and start havi

  • Complaining About Relative Skill Is Pointless (Score:5, Insightful)

    by swdunlop ( 103066 ) <swdunlop @ g m a i l .com> on Monday September 29, 2003 @02:30AM (#7082750) Homepage
    This guy needs to grow a backbone; if he wants a game where completely new players have a fair shot against experienced ones, he should go into the alley behind where he works and shoot dice. Games of skill and strategy are always going to reward those who have spent more time studying the game. A ranking system works nicely when communities are small and individuals know one another, but in the largely anonymous online communities that form around your average game, the ranking system breaks down as griefers enter the system.

    A prime example of griefing in this fashion is the latest batch of RTS's: C&C Generals and Warcraft 3. Both games have a tiering system, and both systems are liberally abused by individuals who prop up their egos by tearing down the newbies. Just sit down, find a game you won't get sick of in a month, and play.

    My personal recommendation for this is Go. Simple rules, simple play, a polite online community and nobody's marketing department is promoting it.
    • He doesn't want a "fair shot" against experienced players. He wants to find games where he doesn't have to PLAY the experienced players as a newbie, because he just wants to have a FUN, low level game. He doesn't care about skill progression or becoming better. He just wants to sit down and play a few games for fun here and there and have it ACTUALLY BE FUN.

      I know an assload about competition and I'm one of those people who plays to improve. But you can't fault someone for just wanting to screw around
    • Not exactly. In games you can give odds to others. If you are much better in UT, play with 50% health or give others 200%. If everyone (or at least enough people) did it or were forced to do it, people will have closer matching skills, while the game would not become random like dice.

  • Difficulty (Score:5, Insightful)

    by DarkZero ( 516460 ) on Monday September 29, 2003 @02:51AM (#7082824)
    You'd think this same spirit of competition would draw me right into competitive online games like Counter-Strike or Warcraft III. And, to some extent, it does. But for all the hours I've spent playing shooters and real-time strategy games over the years, and despite how authoritative I try to be about these types of games, I know full well that I'm simply nowhere near as good at them as a lot of people are out there. It would be easy for me to make excuses about how I don't have as much time as some people to play Counter-Strike for eight hours a day, or whatever. But I'll admit it straight-up: Even if I did do nothing but play Counter-Strike (or insert_game_here), I'm quite sure I'd never have the skills to be considered a truly competitive player. Which is fine.

    This isn't so much a problem with online games as it is with the types of games that are played online. Awhile ago I used to play Garou: Mark of the Wolves, a fighting game for the NeoGeo, on MAME w/Kaillera online. Yeah, I got my ass kicked a lot, but in about a month I was as good as most of the better players on the servers from North America, Europe, and Asia. They kicked my ass, but I learned from the ass kicking that I got. When some guy started really stomping on me with Hotaru Futaba, I picked Hotaru and kept playing against him until I knew the character roughly as well as he did, and my next opponent got royally stomped by my Hotaru.

    Warcraft III does not play like this. Warcraft III obscures what the enemy is doing, encourages absolute silence aside from "gl hf" and "gg", and only shows you the absolute crux of the enemy's larger strategy. The only way to learn the game is to either observe games, watch replays, or spend hours being taught by someone. In other words, the absolute WORST way to learn the game is by actually playing it. That's the worst type of online game for anyone but dedicated fans of the genre, but it seems to be the prevailing trend in online games. Counter-Strike, Tribes, and Return to Castle Wolfenstein work pretty much the same way. When someone shoots you in the head from two hundred feet away, you haven't learned anything. You've gotten your ass kicked, but haven't learned from it, and that means you will probably get your ass kicked again in the same way a couple minutes from now because you don't understand the mechanics of your ass-kicking. Again, the game encourages learning the tricks of the game by reading websites and FAQs, observing games, etcetera... everything but playing the game.

    These styles of play are completely contrary to the refined genres of multiplayer arcade games. Arcades have fighting games that let you learn from your opponent and dancing games that allow you to see your opponent's physical technique as he kicks your ass, but explicitly restricts games like light gun shooters and four player brawlers (like TMNT or X-Men) to cooperative human vs. computer play. This is because they simply realized that everything that can be multiplayer should be, but that not every type of game is cut out for it. The PC industry hasn't really caught onto that yet, but you can't really blame them when most of the games that are really conducive to competitive multiplayer would require peripherals like gamepads, dance pads, and other things that guarantee that you won't sell more than five copies of your PC game.

    I don't understand his point about people acting like assholes online, though. If some thirteen year old typing "0WN3D!!!!!" in Counter-Strike really bothers you that much, I suggest that you find a cave in the woods to hide in, because someone honking their horn at you on the freeway just might give you a heart attack. It's true that there's a certain detachment from natural social behavior when you're online, but for most of us it works both ways. Someone mocking you online isn't like a real person standing next to you harassing you. It's just background noise. It's no different than the sound of cars and people passing by as you play a game of basketball outside. There

  • Change the conditions (Score:3, Informative)

    by sbryant ( 93075 ) on Monday September 29, 2003 @03:34AM (#7082959)

    If you're new and get killed all the time, you need to get into a scenario where you have better chances. One good way is to play a team-based game where friendly fire is disabled - then half of the players won't be trying to kill you!

    Another big factor is ping. My accuracy is much better at 80ms than at 130. Analogue modems really do suck. ISDN is good, as is DSL if your provider hasn't enforced the extra error checking. This is one reason why real LAN gaming is popular - no latency problems.

    Try using traceroute to check the number of hops to various servers. It's not the exact same thing as ping response time, but fewer hops are better. The more hops, the more likely you are to have your data rate upset by something else.

    Although it has less effect than high ping times, optimising your hardware can help. That doesn't so much mean getting the latest greatest, it means making the most of what you have. I know it doesn't look as good as higher resolutions, but 640x480x16bit may well help. Winmodems (software control/compression etc) also mean a performance hit.

    -- Steve

  • Happy Campers (Score:3, Interesting)

    by NanoGator ( 522640 ) on Monday September 29, 2003 @04:08AM (#7083036) Homepage Journal
    I used to play Quake 3 a lot, particularly the Space CTF map. For the uninitiated, the Space map is a platform that is hovering the middle of nothingness. Fall off the platform, and you go screaming to your doom. It's out in the open. You can see the enemy's flag from your flag. Right above the flag, there's a levitating platform that has a railgun. Picture this for a moment. From your base, you can snipe somebody at the other base as they try to plant the flag. Unfortunately, I've been called a 'faggot camper' a number of times for using that element in the map. You see, sometimes people get damn good at using the railgun, and it can be very difficult from one end of the map to the other.

    Camping in general can be a problem. I've personally witnessed somebody really ruin a level doing that. He waited in front of a respawn point and *blam* was killing everybody that freshly materialized. Thus, he was always racking up the points. In this particular map, sometimes the teams are so imbalanced that 2-3 people from one team can completely supress the other team, thus ruining the fun.

    You know, I can see the complaint. Control that platform, and you control the game. However, what people often fail to see is that the platform was placed there with a railgun on purpose. If somebody's sniping you, take them out!

    I've had some not so fun nights because of this. Not because somebody was better than me with a railgun, but because people would start bitching and moaning anytime used a railgun in that map. Eventually it'd turn into a flame fest, and I don't mean with rocket launchers. *blip* YOU FAG! *Blip* STFU *Blip* Nice little tent you have up there! *blip* You suck!

    Sad thing was, there was no way to ignore it. Bitch bitch bitch. Eventually vendettas would form and instead of capturing the flag, people would get angry with each other and either take up 'camping' or worry too much about taking out the 'camper'.

    My point? Frankly, skill is only a factor in it. There are a lot of people out there who deseperately need a lesson in tact. If I'm up on the sniper perch and you can't get past me, what's wrong with politely asking me nicely to ease up? When somebody says "YOU FAGGOT CAMPER!", I just keep shooting them. Never once has somebody said "Hey man, could ya lighten up there?", if they had I would have been happy to comply.

    Yeah, I know, I'm an asshole. But I don't think it's unreasonable to be polite. I'm just there to have fun.
    • For one, not everyone is as nice as you, YOU DAMN CAMPER! :)

      For two, camping can be a strategy, sure, but it's a grey area topic due to the bad level design factor. Games should be fun for the largest number of players and a good level designer must keep that in mind at all times. If a level designer creates a map that permits a camper to be safe from harm, then it's a bad level design because it caters to a single player. Good level design allows for campers to exist, but makes it possible for campers to
      • Yes, that is most definitely true.

        In this particular case (and only in this case) the level designers did put in a few things to make it difficult. For one, the map is symmetrical, so both sides have the same platform. Secondly, they put a hole in the platform that one can shoot up into. Third, if the guy can see you, you can see him. *Blam* Fourth, and this isn't exactly the level itself but how the game is played, you can rocket jump up there and get the dude.

        To a rookie, yes this is a problem. How

    • Re:Happy Campers (Score:3, Insightful)

      by Gr33nNight ( 679837 )
      Some people call it camping, I call it defence. Granted, I havent played CTF hardcore since Quake 1 CTF, but the same deal applies.

      The only real camping was respawn camping, otherwise its defense.
    • People who complain about snipers are idiots. FPS's are loosely based on real combat -- granted, I haven't been to an Unreal Tournament game lately, but you get the picture. In real life, snipers kill the enemy, and the only way to stop them is to kill them. Why is this such a difficult concept?

      Because in real life, the people who get killed by a sniper *stay* killed. I can just imagine some Afghan troops respwaning and shouting at an American sniper during an engagement: "Hey yoo freeking American j

  • Team games full of loners (Score:4, Insightful)

    by QuantumG ( 50515 ) <qg@biodome.org> on Monday September 29, 2003 @04:52AM (#7083102) Homepage Journal
    Gotta love games like Counterstrike and Team Fortress which have gameplay that stresses the importance of team play filled with people who are lone guns. Can you imagine a real life counter terrorism squad running around trying to outdo each other, every member of the team having a sniper riffle, occasionally shooting their own teammates in the back and having a good old chuckle about it back at the base?
    • It's the same in all online team games. Take Day of Defeat for example. So many games just end up with snipers in every window killing anyone who moves so they can say "w00t! 10 to 1 k1ll:de4th. I ownz you". It's so boring for everyone else. The few times you get a really good team that works together to capture flags it's so much more fun.

      There was a period in DoD where on lots of servers the sniper scope didn't work and it was liek a whole different game.
  • He's getting old. I find that the older I get, the slower my reflexes are and the less I am able to learn to play an action game. I doubt I'd be able to pick up Super Mario Bros the way I did about 15 years ago...

  • Not all games.... (Score:3, Insightful)

    by Eluding Reality ( 691589 ) on Monday September 29, 2003 @06:29AM (#7083388)
    I play a game called Fighter Ace 3 (ver 3.6) which is an online ww2 flight sim.

    These problems do not come up as much over there, partly because it is a closed server, only for paying subscribers (10$/month with free game download), but also because of the in game support provided. There are training classes for new players to teach them the basics and rooms limited by in game rank so you can fight players of a similar skill level. There is also good in game monitoring to remove anyone who is ruining the game for others plus its easy to gag anyone if there are no sysops/admins about. All this and up to 200 people dogifghting in a room make for a good online game.

    Game info here [jaleco.com]

  • Its the communities (Score:3, Interesting)

    by krs-one ( 470715 ) <<moc.smuroflgnepo> <ta> <civ>> on Monday September 29, 2003 @06:55AM (#7083487) Homepage Journal
    I didn't read the entire article (skimmed it), and I'm only 19, but I've been playing online games for probably 7-8 years now (started with Doom, which I guess was very basic, but still had multiplayer, nonetheless). I think that it is the communities that online games have to offer.

    The first online (truely online) game I got involved in was Quake II, which was badass. People were friendly, there was a great community, id is just a cool company, etc. Then I had a little hiatus, and came back in the Unreal Tournament days. Again, another incredible game with an incredible community. I joined a clan with an average player age or 35. Obviously, a bunch of adults playing a game makes it *much* more enjoyable than a bunch of 13 year olds. Adults can get stuff done, pay for stuff, and instill a sense of maturity in all the players. I also thought the UT community was really friendly as well. Tons of maps being made, we had *many* friends in other clans, Epic, again, is a cool company that supports the community (see the 1 million dollar contest they are supporting right now).

    However, after that, it started to decline. The UT community pretty much stayed the same, but I started to play other FPS games, like Soldier of Fortune 2, and Return to Castle Wolfenstein, and a few others. The communities for these games were horrible. Just a ton of whiney, immature, 13 year olds who cause a ton of trouble in servers. Clans don't work (my friends started one and it failed miserably whereas the UT clan I'm in has been around for more than 3 years).

    So...when the communities of games improve, the online games will improve. (Also, in case you couldn't tell, this is entirely from playing FPS's since thats all I play, but I hear its the same for RPG and RTS games).

    -Vic

  • A few things you can do to ensure good online game (Score:5, Insightful)

    by AlexMax2742 ( 602517 ) on Monday September 29, 2003 @07:49AM (#7083759)
    I have been playing online games back when Quake 1 Shareware servers were plentiful, 28.8k modemsm were plentiful and broadband was simply unheard of. Over time, I have found there are a few things you can do to avoid stupid players, because beleive it or not, reguardless of what othe rpeople may remember, there were still lamers back then. Granted, not nearly as many as there are now, but they existed.

    The most important thing, however, is to find a handfull of servers and stick with them. Back in the Quake 1 days, there was a server called quake.nye.net that ran a DeathMatch + Mod that added a whole bunch of crazy things to the game like grappling hooks and homing missles. However, I stuck around, and I soon came to be friends with a lot of the other server regulars, such as people from the DMPC clan (I stil don't know how BattleCruiser got so good...), and almost every time I joined that server, I knew I was in for a good time. (And by the way, my nickname was KiLlJoY, if anyone was on that server too).

    Most in game server browsers have a favorites list. Gamespy does too. Shop around, and find a server that contians people that you like playing with. Then hang onto that server for dear life. Your online experience will get much better if you become a regular at a server.

    Also, Xbox Live has a number of awesome features that can halp you weed out the bad players. When you first get the game, shop around on different servers. Once you find a game that you enjoy playing in, send friend requests to all the cool and kickass players that you have fun playing with (since servers are rarely around for more than a few hours at a time), and whenever you see them online, join them or invite them. The friends list is a gift from god, and in my opinion is one of the best features of Xbox Live.

    Hopefully, my few rambling paragraphs has some insight. May your games be happier and more fun.

  • Maturity and the platform (Score:4, Insightful)

    by bildstorm ( 129924 ) <(if.hhs) (ta) (yhcub.retep)> on Monday September 29, 2003 @07:53AM (#7083778) Homepage Journal

    I've found that I really dislike online gaming, even when it's a genre I'm really good at. I love RPGs and I'm not a horrible shot in Counter-Strike. However, there are issues at stake.

    First off is the situation in which all the little kids are online and being obnoxious. You know (and I hope a gaming service takes the hint), I'd be willing to spring a couple of bucks a month just to make sure that if some jerk comes on and is abusive, he gets nailed and banned. I don't mean laughing or when someone sucks saying they suck. I mean really being obnoxious about it. If people had to link their real life personality with online games they might think twice.

    The other issue is how some of these games are really just twitch and shoot. No real-life anything. The "bull-rush each game until you finally get the right way" approach sucks. In reality, you die, you're dead. Also head shots don't always kill, despite some cheap games that think that. Yeah, you can incapacitate someone, but good grief, it'll usually take another shot or two to do them off. If their buddy can snag and patch them, well, they've learned. Any game that improve skill based on not just your twitch-and-shoot capability, but also survivability would be good.

    Maybe it's just me, but a frag-fest isn't all that interesting. It was cool when I was, um, 15. Now I'm far more interesting in using good tactics and lining up a good shot.

    (I love taking out snipers by returning fire with a pistol.)

    In so far as RPGs go, someone should really build in some social repercussions. Yeah, you can slaughter all the villagers, but someone's bound to notice and try to arrest or kill you. Even in pen-and-paper RPGs, players seem to think they'll get away with everything forever. It doesn't occur to them that eventually someone will try to poision them, kill them in their sleep, or otherwise.

  • when it comes to multiplayer, I've discovered recently I'd rather hang out on the couch with a few friends in front of a console, then secluded in my room fragging people I don't know and will never meet. whether we pass wavebirds back and forth playing soul calibur 2, hangin out for 10 minute smash bros. matches, or invite a bunch of friends (and a few extra xboxes and tv's) over for a massive 16 player halo game, I'd much rather play with people I know. he mentions something about "reaching out and punc

  • Just like basketball (Score:2, Interesting)

    by bearclaw ( 217359 )
    These are the same problems that have plagued people with sports.

    I play basketball regularly with some friends of mine at a local court, and that court is pretty much known as the place for people of "medium" ability to play. No one there is joining up with the NBA anytime soon, but no one sucks either. Occasionally really good or really bad people come, but eventually they leave because it is either not as challenging or too hard.

    Likewise, about a mile down the road is a court that is known to have rea
    • In the game theory / game economy book "A Course In Game Theory" by Martin J. Osborne and Ariel Rubinstein (MIT Press), they cover this fairly in-depth.

      You wouldn't normally want to kick somebody off, as you suggest, but rather punish them for their behavior in an attempt to prevent it in the future.

      I seem to remember it was under 'punishing cheaters', and even had ways to fight back in 'punishing the punishers', but what you describe could be melded in with that. I thought when I read it, and still bel

  • "I don't like getting trounced by someone who is either flat-out, hands-down better at a game than I am ". Sheesh, play a game that isn't as heavily weighted towards individual skill. Or play one with handicaps.

    I don't mind if people are far more skilled than I am. Coz I usually play a team game - Custom Team Fortress. Maps typically have team objectives so a game is usually less of a deathmatch.

    What ruins a game is:
    1) People who cheat.
    2) Arseholes - people on the same team but play against you - shoot yo

  • Isn't this why MMORPG's exist? (Score:3, Interesting)

    by telstar ( 236404 ) on Monday September 29, 2003 @11:49AM (#7085914)
    That way you can aimlessly walk around massive world, interracting with next-to-nothing, and raising your experience level just by staying logged in.

  • Just Like Golf... (Score:2, Insightful)

    by Metal_Demon ( 694989 )
    Lets say you are playing UT or something like that. Generally the same couple of people are always winning. There should be a game mode that you can play that causes the winner to get nerfed or the loser to get a boost of some sort after each match. To use the UT example...say L33TKilla gets 20 frags to your 2. Well before the next match starts L33TKilla gets a speed drop and/or you get a speed boost. This time L33TKilla only wins 20 to 12, make a smaller adjustment or start L4m3M3 off with his weapon of ch

  • Rankings (Score:4, Insightful)

    by TrippTDF ( 513419 ) <hiland@g m a i l.com> on Monday September 29, 2003 @12:16PM (#7086183)
    Some possible solutions are mentioned, such as "effective player-matching services", but what can and should be done to make playing online a delight?

    It's actually hard to believe there is not a good system in place for ranking... it would make the games fun, too, assuming you didn't have assholes joining lower ranks to clean up on the n00bs.

    I'm an OK FPS player. At my college, I was one of the better people on campus, and could routinely trounce everyone I know (it's way more satisfying to frag someone you know from down the hall) but when I went online, I sucked horribly.

    These games are NOT fun when you are loosing constantly. I've quit games out of frustration before because I'll spend 30 minutes just getting killed before I can even grab a descent weapon. In fact, I rarely, if ever, play games like this anymore.

    A ranking system would get me back into them, but only if it's built in. I've become a casual gamer, and it's not worth it to me to have to set up a 3rd party program to play ranked games. I want it to be a standard part of the game, automatic.

    It could make things really, really fun this way.

    Or, I'll just play Uru.
  • Most massive online games like everquest require very little real skill to become good at. I could teach my grandmother how to play, and in a few months, she would be as good as anyone else. Games like quake and warcraft take hundreds or thousands of hours to develop skills, memorize maps, and develop strategies. Most importantly is that you have to have real talent. I will never be as good at golf as tiger woods, even if I had been trained from birth. The same holds true in video games, like it or not

  • Skill matching Vs Attitude Matching (Score:3, Funny)

    by phorm ( 591458 ) on Monday September 29, 2003 @01:19PM (#7086863) Journal
    I find that one of the stronger reasons I haven't played on BNet lately (aside from shortage of time) have been the impolite if not completely idiotic players. Warcraft III has a useful "Skill Matching" system, which means that after awhile if you get good you can go being the usual trolls and idiots. However, I would propose that games also include a small "Attitude Matching" system.

    How to do it? After a game, you get the screen displaying player stats as usual, with a "Attitude" selection beside each. Vote them from "+5 friendly to -2 Troll." Then, you could blacklist players with a crappy rating (somewhat like Slashdot Karma system). Perhaps players could also leave comments,and Blizz or whatnot could check into players with a really bad rating and nuke their associated CD-key off the network for a period of time.
    • sure, and if they have more room for the description then they could call it "people that cant handle text insults".

      unforunately thats hardly a bulletproof system anyway, and it would surely get abused no differently than the skill matching ...

      are you serious? nuke their cd-key because they are trolling? wow ...
      • You know, it's oen thing to accept trolls on paid places like slashdot. It's another to accept it on a service that you paid for the software to use. I've had serious issues with players who exist on b-net for no other reasons than to annoy others. They join a game, verbally abuse both sides, and basically do nothing all game or even attack their own allies.

        In light of bigger things you might not consider it a huge problem, but it does detract from the quality of the experience so it might be worth findin

  • reward co-op play? (Score:2, Insightful)

    by tartley ( 232836 )

    How about in-game mechanisms like:

    a) Award 1.0 frags for killing a player of the same ranking of you. Award more for killing someone better than you. Award less for killing someone not as highly-ranked as you. Below a certain point, the reward for killing a player actually goes negative - lose points for killing newbs (unless you are a newb)

    b) Rewarding highly-ranked players if they 'rescue' a newbie by killing any other highly-ranked players who were attacking the newb. (hmmm. perhaps not much window o

  • Oh it's definitely the 'online' aspect... (Score:3, Insightful)

    by daVinci1980 ( 73174 ) on Monday September 29, 2003 @03:05PM (#7087950) Homepage
    ...causing all the problems.

    "He also has issues with impolite players"

    Cause I've never met a football player who was rude because he thaught he was better than me.
  • I think online gaming brings out some really despicable behavior in people

    Keep talking, it'll give me more time to frag you...

  • Online vs. live. And the "fair shake". (Score:4, Insightful)

    by Demon-Xanth ( 100910 ) on Monday September 29, 2003 @03:33PM (#7088259)
    I've played Diablo online alot, and I've played fighting games in the arcade alot. I really didn't enjoy Diablo much, but I enjoy the arcade games immensely. In Diablo, it took me THREE WEEKS to find a single game with 3 players that I could trust not to shoot me in the back. Shooting someone in the back IS NOT CHALLENGING. Anyone that says it is needs to be mugged. In real life.

    Now, at the arcade, it's a fair shake. You have all the tools he has, and you're playing by the same rule book. That's fun. If you give me a fair shake, I'll happily lose 10 times in a row just because there's the chance that I can beat someone much better than I have. Hell, I managed to play Duc at MvC2 during E3 one year. Yeah, I got wasted. But it was fun. (he perfected the guy I went with).

    One thing that WASN'T fun, even though it was a fair shake was when I was trying out a networked NASCAR Heat game, iirc it was for the xBox. I don't know if the other players thought that I was a computer opponent or what, as I was the one taking a perfect racing line and easily catching up and passing. But every time I got in the lead, one of the other players would send me into the wall in a suicidal move like thier car was a Patriot Missle and I was a SCUD. I've played the same game on a PC with friends and it's always fun though. We're both going for it.

    So the big thing to make it fun is for both players to enter the game with the same intent, and playing by the same rules. That makes it fun. When the other player has a big sword of bashing +9999999999 and is out to kill another player then take off, it's not fun.

    How can this be forced? In some games it's simple, when you create a game in a RPG/action/adventure game, have the ability to turn PvP OFF.
  • That's because of the important fact that you can't punch someone in the face over a modem.

    HOWEVER - I have had the chance to meet a few jeering Internet bullies in real life and they always turn out to be cringing little shits.

Slashdot Top Deals

Put your Nose to the Grindstone! -- Amalgamated Plastic Surgeons and Toolmakers, Ltd.

Close