Don't Hate the (Multi)player... Well, maybe a little...

I need to make my stance on something clear, because the clever among you may have noticed some omissions from my game reviews. I don't do online multiplayer. I know this is odd, especially in todays market, but I've always seen it as an addition. Please, allow me to explain my personal opinion.

Now let me get this point across, I am NOT saying that online modes aren't fun. I've put plenty of hours into multiplayer and I think it's entertaining. I just never considered it to be a main feature of a game because that's not where the value is for me. Granted, there are plenty of games where it is the main feature, but that is quite different from what I'm talking about here. Personally I find the intrinsic value of a game is its single player campaign. This is where, generally speaking, all the proper elements are introduced and executed. Thus multiplayer is a sort of game in a game (play Death Match or Capture the Flag) and while that is cool, it's ultimately novel, like a mini-game. All to often though online multiplayer is an after thought.

Whoever won the match has a lot to be proud of... right?

Not to sound harsh but the efforts put forward in online multiplayer are generally fruitless. This, in addition to the fact that the online community is akin to the Mos Espa Cantina, make me agree with the likes of Yahtzee that a game must stand on its single player campaign alone (For being such a mild mannered critic I find that I agree with him quite often). Extra Credits (a show you should certainly be watching if you read my blog) just posted an awesome video about the Skinner Formula of game design. Essentially games are designed for compulsive behavior rather than engagement and online games tend to be the worst offenders. Again, don't get me wrong, it's fun to play a few rounds with friends, and the tools we have now-a-days like voice chat make it even more personal if you can't be in same room as a buddy. However, Skinner-esque game design is lazy and does nothing for any genre.

There have been some games lately that attempted to stretch out the idea of what online multiplayer could be. Good examples are Resistance 2's robust multiplayer story campaign, which took elements from the single player side and added them to the standard multiplayer. This essentially added a whole extra game to Resistance 2. Also, Bioshock 2 made the multiplayer portion take place during the Splicer uprising, instead of just tacking it on. This tie in to the arching story of Bioshock made it just a step above being just another "Death Match" with a Bioshock skin. I'm also curious to try Assassins Creed: Brotherhood's multiplayer. Another great online multiplayer is Left for Dead 2. This series provides a sort of narrative lite while making you work together and face down a zombie apocalypse in "episodes". Again, it's something I prefer to play on LAN with my fiends, but it still is a step in the right direction.

You work together or you die.

While I feel that online modes tend to be like fish out of water compared to the single player proper, I absolutely love co-op games. Resistance: Fall of Man had an absurd co-op campaign in which one person plays as Nathan Hale, the protagonist who is introduced as the only American to survive this "alternate history D-day". Player 2 is assigned the role of a silent soldier who despite being attached to Nathan Hale at the hip is never mentioned once. This is the definition of tacked on multiplayer but there is a very simple joy to be found in playing through that campaign with a friend (splitscreen only). Even without having an impact on the story you experience it together, which is terrific fun.

Ultimately though I'm just stuck in a simpler time when multiplayer was a four person round of Golden Eye. I really have to praise Scott Pilgrim Vs The World: The Game for using local co-op for that true old-school vibe. Yes, I have a bias. I was lucky enough to find a girl who will play video games with me for the rest of our lives, so local co-op isn't hard for me. I get to enjoy games with my beautiful wife instead of some foul mouth 10 year old.

What really grinds my gears is that now-a-days online modes have gone from extra to standard. Just because some games are built around an online component doesn't mean that every FPS or action game needs them. It just seems ludicrous that a game can be scored down for not having this extra… it's an extra for a reason.

I'm certainly a minority in my opinion of online play, and don't worry, multiplayer isn't going anywhere. The fact of the matter is that publishers have a reason for including this mode now. Halo and Call of Duty have pushed this feature into the limelight. Online multiplayer is now the glue to keep you attached to your purchase so you don't trade it in. That's why community is pushed so hard: score, experience, rankings, leader-boards; all these things are in place to keep you coming back for more. So we have two choices, continue to be amused by Skinners Box, or introduce some forward thinking, and come up with a new standard for the "standard" multiplayer.

Now for the good. The key aspect of multiplayer is the Unique Experience. It's those unscripted moments that are so hilarious or so epic that you have to applaud the luck, skill, timing, or whatever elements took place in its coming about. Now, this isn't restricted to multiplayer, but the community aspect means that it certainly does it best. When crafting a single player campaign developers need to realize how important the unique experience is. Scripted events are nice, but to many of them and you end up with an analog controlled Michael Bay film.

What Online multiplayer lacks is the Core Experience. The ability to emotionally draw in and invest the player (Please note; MMORPGS are excused from this, but only slightly). Things like choice and consequence, emotional resonance, these are lost in an online match. Call of Juarez 2: Bound in Blood (a game I will be reviewing soon) had an incredible single player story. The end had me just about speechless. So did any of that carry over to the online mode? No. Such a wonderfully crafted journey boils down to a game of sheriffs and bandits when taken online.

So what needs to happen? Well, better design first and foremost. The current standard works fine, and there are those who might say if it's not broke don't fix it, but I feel like there is so much more that can be done with this side of the industry. If you read my blog regularly you know I push games as art, and that means every aspect of games, even the aspects I don't usually care for, like online modes. Millions of people love online multiplayer, and it is fun, but that doesn't mean there isn't room for improvement. And whatever you do don't use the argument that "it captivates millions of people, so it must be good right?" Because the same argument can be used for Baseball, Avatar, and Twilight.

Infinity Who?

As I mentioned in my last review (Scott Pilgrim Vs The World:The Game) I am currently three games behind on the Call of Duty series. This is not due to any dislike of the franchise. I genuinely enjoy the games and appreciate the over-the-top spectacle they've become. The only reason I haven't been able to keep up is financial for the most part, though one reason is because the games don't rank terribly high on my 'Need to Play' list.

So of course I was interested in Black Ops, I really do want to play it (though I want to beat World at War and Modern Warfare 2 first). Black Ops has held my attention recently, however, for another reason entirely. I wanted to see the sales figures. Sales figures often interest me, simply to see what people are buying, but this was different, there is a conclusion to be drawn at the end of this road about a group of folks known commonly as gamers.

You see, the Call of Duty franchise has traditionally been made by two separate developers. The power house 'Infinity Ward' put the series on the mainstream radar with Modern Warfare (Call of Duty 4) then Treyarch came in and used the same engine to develop an interim title World At War (Call of Duty 5). Now, Modern Warfare was such a huge success that Infinity Ward began working on the sequel almost immediately, while Treyarch's game was released in the mean time.

Don't look for this logo on any future COD games

World at War was a solid game but it was certainly not as polished as MW. This is due in no small part to the fact that Treyrch's development team was split in half the other half working on Quantum of Solace, which also uses the MW engine. To not get to much into the nitty gritty (this really isn't supposed to be a COD article) after the release of Modern Warfare 2 the head honchos at Infinity Ward got in a dispute with Activision (Owner of the COD license) and the big A cut them loose. Most of the MW development team followed suit and left, afterward Infinity Ward was essentially dissolved and all the power and glory of the COD franchise was placed squarely in the lap of Treyarch.

Now here's the thing, it really seemed like back in the day most folks knew that World at War was made by a different studio. If you look at the charts sales went down for World at War (Post Modern Warfare), and then skyrocketed for Modern Warfare 2. So that is why I was so interested in seeing the launch sales numbers for Black Ops, a Treyarch game. I figured at this point because of all the press coverage over the two heads of Infinity Ward leaving, more people would be aware that this Call of Duty was made by a developer different than the ones responsible for last years behemoth. So would this be the begging of the end for the franchise? A slow decline with the departure of Infinity Ward?

Well, no.

Sales figures just came back and Black Ops actually out sold Modern Warfare on launch… That's just staggering! This game raked in $360 million from 5.6 million Units Sold, almost an entire million more than Modern Warfare 2, and snagging the title of best first day ever (source). So what does this say about us?

Well, it could say many things to be honest. Perhaps this means the gaming community as a whole is somewhat less informed then previously speculated. The controversy over the departures and dissolving of Infinity Ward was no where in sight on launch day obviously. In hindsight, I highly doubt more than a fraction of the people who bought it are well read in industry news. Maybe people were just sick of World War II shooters and didn't want to play World at War.

No, unfortunately what we are probably seeing here is what Jeremy eluded to briefly in his blog, essentially; the masses. The masses are not here to promote video games as an art form, or push developers to make better games. The masses come for one reason only, a sick game of C-O-D bro. Ultimately there's nothing wrong with that, I mean, it's just people having fun and that's what games are made for right? But we can't forget that is not all they are made for.

Sick Game of COD BOP?... Actually, that sounds disgusting...