Comments on: The Cardinal Sin of Multiplayer Videogames (as demonstrated by Rayman's Raving Rabbids) http://critical-hits.com/2007/01/12/the-cardinal-sin-of-multiplayer-videogames-as-demonstrated-by-raymans-raving-rabbids/ The Journal of Gamer Culture Sat, 11 Feb 2012 17:53:14 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.1 By: Critical Hits » More on the Tragedy of Multiplayer (Spotlighting Wario Ware) http://critical-hits.com/2007/01/12/the-cardinal-sin-of-multiplayer-videogames-as-demonstrated-by-raymans-raving-rabbids/#comment-59101 Critical Hits » More on the Tragedy of Multiplayer (Spotlighting Wario Ware) Fri, 16 Feb 2007 23:34:44 +0000 http://www.critical-hits.com/?p=555#comment-59101 [...] talked about Rayman and Monkeyball previously, which are both third-party titles that manage to screw up multiplayer [...] [...] talked about Rayman and Monkeyball previously, which are both third-party titles that manage to screw up multiplayer [...]

]]> By: The Game http://critical-hits.com/2007/01/12/the-cardinal-sin-of-multiplayer-videogames-as-demonstrated-by-raymans-raving-rabbids/#comment-59100 The Game Sat, 20 Jan 2007 04:13:55 +0000 http://www.critical-hits.com/?p=555#comment-59100 Grr... just had to play through two hours of single player on Wario Ware: Smooth Moves to unlock multiplayer at all. And after getting all the multiplayer modes, there isn't nearly as much fun variety as the Gamecube version... Why Nintendo? WHY? Grr… just had to play through two hours of single player on Wario Ware: Smooth Moves to unlock multiplayer at all. And after getting all the multiplayer modes, there isn’t nearly as much fun variety as the Gamecube version…

Why Nintendo? WHY?

]]> By: The Game http://critical-hits.com/2007/01/12/the-cardinal-sin-of-multiplayer-videogames-as-demonstrated-by-raymans-raving-rabbids/#comment-59099 The Game Tue, 16 Jan 2007 23:25:26 +0000 http://www.critical-hits.com/?p=555#comment-59099 Ah, see, I remember that what happened with Goldeneye (and Smash Brothers, now that I think about it) is that one person would unlock everything and then everyone else would copy from his memory pack. Again, we wanted to play multiplayer, why did we have to play single player in order to get all the levels? Unlocking the different characters in Goldeneye was fine, but the level thing was annoying, especially since some of the challenges were really difficult to pull off. However, I would have been ok with it if we had been able to unlock levels by playing multiplayer... Ah, see, I remember that what happened with Goldeneye (and Smash Brothers, now that I think about it) is that one person would unlock everything and then everyone else would copy from his memory pack. Again, we wanted to play multiplayer, why did we have to play single player in order to get all the levels?

Unlocking the different characters in Goldeneye was fine, but the level thing was annoying, especially since some of the challenges were really difficult to pull off.

However, I would have been ok with it if we had been able to unlock levels by playing multiplayer…

]]> By: Original Sultan http://critical-hits.com/2007/01/12/the-cardinal-sin-of-multiplayer-videogames-as-demonstrated-by-raymans-raving-rabbids/#comment-59098 Original Sultan Tue, 16 Jan 2007 04:12:50 +0000 http://www.critical-hits.com/?p=555#comment-59098 I don't know if I fully agree with The Game here as he seems to be taking a fairly extreme position. I think that unlockable multiplayer content - even 'core' stuff like levels or characters - is o.k. as long as most of what makes the multiplayer good is there. A game that I thought did a good job of this was Goldeneye (for the N64). If I remember correctly, the multiplayer had like 12 levels in it, but 9 of them were available from the beginning, and 1 of the unlockable levels was 2-player only and was therefore useless. There were lots of unlockable characters but mostly they were all the same. But the game gave you all the weapon sets to start, and all of the various modes (License to Kill, Capture the Flag, Team games, etc), and that was really the 'core' of the multiplayer mode. So I think that it all depends on the execution in finding that balance between enough stuff to establish a fun, core multiplayer, while at the same time having a few unlockable goodies to encourage you to play more. I don’t know if I fully agree with The Game here as he seems to be taking a fairly extreme position. I think that unlockable multiplayer content – even ‘core’ stuff like levels or characters – is o.k. as long as most of what makes the multiplayer good is there.

A game that I thought did a good job of this was Goldeneye (for the N64). If I remember correctly, the multiplayer had like 12 levels in it, but 9 of them were available from the beginning, and 1 of the unlockable levels was 2-player only and was therefore useless. There were lots of unlockable characters but mostly they were all the same. But the game gave you all the weapon sets to start, and all of the various modes (License to Kill, Capture the Flag, Team games, etc), and that was really the ‘core’ of the multiplayer mode.

So I think that it all depends on the execution in finding that balance between enough stuff to establish a fun, core multiplayer, while at the same time having a few unlockable goodies to encourage you to play more.

]]> By: The Game http://critical-hits.com/2007/01/12/the-cardinal-sin-of-multiplayer-videogames-as-demonstrated-by-raymans-raving-rabbids/#comment-59097 The Game Mon, 15 Jan 2007 20:27:42 +0000 http://www.critical-hits.com/?p=555#comment-59097 Stuff that doesn't affect gameplay- like costumes, music, etc- is fine to be unlockable. But even then I don't think it's necessary. If you need to cripple the multiplayer to extend the life of the single player, you have a bigger problem: your single player isn't good. It should be able to have plenty of replay value on its own. Now as I said, being able to unlock multiplayer content by playing multiplayer isn't nearly as bad. Still annoying, but you're not forcing us to play a single player game we don't want to play. Stuff that doesn’t affect gameplay- like costumes, music, etc- is fine to be unlockable. But even then I don’t think it’s necessary. If you need to cripple the multiplayer to extend the life of the single player, you have a bigger problem: your single player isn’t good. It should be able to have plenty of replay value on its own.

Now as I said, being able to unlock multiplayer content by playing multiplayer isn’t nearly as bad. Still annoying, but you’re not forcing us to play a single player game we don’t want to play.

]]> By: Bartoneus http://critical-hits.com/2007/01/12/the-cardinal-sin-of-multiplayer-videogames-as-demonstrated-by-raymans-raving-rabbids/#comment-59096 Bartoneus Mon, 15 Jan 2007 20:21:36 +0000 http://www.critical-hits.com/?p=555#comment-59096 From what I understand this is mostly just a tactic to prolong the lifetime of the game after purchase, if you -force- the player to get through as much of the single player as possible, then theoretically they're playing the game for longer and hopefully enjoying more of your content. A question I have is, would it be possible to provide you with enough content out of the box that these feelings go away, yet still allow for multiplayer content to be unlocked during single player mode? Then the people who take the time (and hopefully pleasure) to go through and beat the single player are rewarded with more options in multiplayer, but without it you're not penalized by having crappy selection? Or is this a simple case of: if the content exists I want it? Is there a middle ground here? From what I understand this is mostly just a tactic to prolong the lifetime of the game after purchase, if you -force- the player to get through as much of the single player as possible, then theoretically they’re playing the game for longer and hopefully enjoying more of your content.

A question I have is, would it be possible to provide you with enough content out of the box that these feelings go away, yet still allow for multiplayer content to be unlocked during single player mode? Then the people who take the time (and hopefully pleasure) to go through and beat the single player are rewarded with more options in multiplayer, but without it you’re not penalized by having crappy selection?

Or is this a simple case of: if the content exists I want it? Is there a middle ground here?

]]>