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.

Dr. Halo, or, How I Learned to Stop Being a Fanboy and Love Video Games

My latest blog entry has spurred me on to finish a piece I have had in the works for quite some time. You see, with the incredible reception of Black Ops there was a misunderstanding. Many people just denounced this as Fanboys doing what they do. The success of this game, however, reaches far beyond that. Here we will make a clear distinction between a fan, and a fanboy, and how a horde of fans can set a world record, and change our industry.

Lets start with the Fanboy/Fangirl (we have to be PC after all). Now then, it can be very easy to confuse a fan with a Fanboy. They will both say things like "This is the best game ever/of all time/is awesome/is epic!" In short, they will love the game. Where the two groups divide (unintentionally, mind you) is in knowledge. A Fanboys greatest weapon (in his/her mind) is the knowledge they hold of their beloved franchise. It's more than a game just being fun, they will defend characters, story, gameplay elements, even the development studio.

"It's 'Aerith' you troglodyte!"

This is the gap between a fan and a fanboy. You honestly can't believe that "Dark Knight" did so well because of fanboys. Yes, there are a great many Batman fanboys, but there are is an even bigger mass of fans. It was the fans that pushed the box office take of Dark Knight through the roof, and the same can be said of Black Ops.

Lets take a closer look at a fan. A fan is simply a person who enjoys something, they would 'like' the profile for Scott Pilgrim Vs The World on Facebook, but they wouldn't spend their spare time writing reviews for every product released (oh snap, what did I just say about myself). Fans tend to enjoy something for face value, and while they might encourage others to experience it, they won't attempt to convince in any way other than "It's really good, you'll love it"

To go back to fanboys, they take things to the next level. They dissect and evaluate, the good ones will criticize elements that deserve it and compliment those that are above and beyond. The flip side, obviously, are the fanboys that ignore all faults and praise the glory of their franchise to the ends of the earth. In short, they lack either reasoning skills or critical thinking. We need to put an end to the rampant fanboyism people, this is a detriment to the game industry. I don't have a problem with games that are "Middle of the road", but praising mediocrity will only result in mediocre games. It's ok to be a fanboy, but don't let it blind you.

Hear no, See no, Speak no evil against your favorite franchise

So What does it all mean? This represents a change in the tide, this is the rock solid proof of the industry turning mainstream. What was once niche and surviving because of fanboys has grown into something that a great many people enjoy and appreciate. This happens with every medium and its about time it happened to games. If this sounds frightening, well… it is and isn't. This is growth, and good for such an amazing medium. At the same time it could represent growth in the wrong direction. We want video games to grow upward, strive for goals that are artistic and have value. Publishers (the people that actually spend money for a game to get made) want to see it grow large (think: fat instead of tall). This will result in the continuation of "Trend Gaming" where the publisher only green-lights games that are selling now (see any military FPS' set in current day lately? How about set in WW II a few years ago).

Fans have officially power-grind the game industry to a level up, and now you know what, in my opinion, that means for our future. We are at a cross road and must decide whether we will become bloated and stagnant, or push toward diversity and something better. So let's encourage publishers to take chances, and for developers to express themselves.

As an Endnote: If you're wondering about the title being Dr. Halo, that is because in my humble opinion, there are more Halo Fanboys than Fans. If you're insulted by how that sounds don't be. People love the games and they are quite good for the most part. Also, one more thing, it is perfectly acceptable to be a fanboy of my blog. In fact, you probably should. Go get a T-shirt made.