The Space/Time Continuum of Multiplayer Gaming

It's not a particularly novel concept, but it is interesting to look at how we play games with our friends in terms of space and time. Are we playing together in the same room, or are we in separate places and competing over the internet? Are we playing together at the same time, or can our play time be mutually exclusive? It should seem quite obvious that the most popular form of multiplayer gaming is remotely synchronous. Every online shooter falls under this category, and it's this category of competitive gaming that companies spend the most amount of time and money on... Right?

Well, it's not entirely true, and I'll get to that in a bit. First, let's look at which realm the first form of competitive gaming was in: co-located synchronous. Spacewar! and Pong were both strictly multiplayer games that required both players being in the same room looking at the same screen. It's interesting to note this, because the next wave of arcade games were almost all single-player. Pac-Man, Asteroids, Centipede, Donkey Kong; just about every other old-school arcade game you can think of is single-player, but they did issue in the second realm of multiplayer gaming: co-located asynchronous. While you were not directly competing against anyone, every game had a leaderboard, so you took turns going for the best score, and in that way you were competing against everyone who came before you and everyone who would come after you.

So, if you think about it, leaderboards are still the most common form of competitive gaming, but now they're all online. Just about every Xbox 360 game has some sort of online leaderboard, but when the boards are so expansive they tend to lose meaning. They're great for competing for the best kill-to-death ratio in Call of Duty or the for the highest Pacifism score in Geometry Wars 2, but they're such minimalist interactions that they barely qualify as competition. In fact, they're more of a meta-game than a game, since you don't play leaderboard. So, if you exclude leaderboards, the most common form of competitve gaming these days falls in the remote synchronous quadrant. While I would never complain about this, I would like to enjoy games in the other realms as well.

Party games, much like blockbuster PC games, seem to be a dying breed, which is just a shame. Super Smash Bros. Melee and Halo: Combat Evolved pretty much mark the the last hurrahs of co-located synchronous gaming. We definitely live the age of online gaming, and the problem with it how impersonal it can be. Sure, split screen was and still is a nightmare, but we've become so spoiled by Xbox LIVE and the like that it's almost become taboo. Hell, Call of Duty and Battlefield won't even allow you take a friend online with you, which is almost unforgivable. LIVE games are great for keeping in touch with friends who've moved away, but it's ridiculous that if I'm hanging out with a group of friends and we all want to play our favorite multiplayer game, everyone has to return to their respective residences to play on their on 'Boxes. These days, the only company that seems to still encourage the party game is Nintendo...which not-at-all coincidently has the worst online gaming network.

So, there's my little rant about synchronous games, but what about the asynchronous? Well, if you take leaderboards out of the equation, they don't exist all that much. There are turn-based games like Chess or Advance Wars, but are they truly asynchronous? I guess I'll accept a "yes," especially if you're playing Advance Wars on a single Gameboy since people usually take turns observing the gamespace.

Something that I hadn't seen very often until quite recently is the asynchronous remote game. The first game of this type I remember enjoying was Scrabulous on Facebook. Now I play Words with Friends on my iPhone, and it's essentially the same thing, but I like it better because playing it on my phone is far more convenient. It's absolutely fantastic. For those who don't know, it's the classic Scrabble board game (with a few minor changes to avoid copyright infringement), but you can take as much time as needed between turns and simply play at your convenience. It's a way to throw in some quality gameplay with friends while you should be doing something else. I would love to see more games like this in the future.I'd love to see more original games of this type that aren't adaptations of established board games like Chess or Scrabble. Advance Wars (well, it'd have to be a copycat of it) would be particularly great.

So, anyway, I hope I've given you guys something to think about while I'm out of town this coming week. For those of you familiar with Words with Friends, check out the 1500+ point play in the picture above. Somebody had the play of a lifetime; although I suspect it didn't come about organically.

--Chilly P

Chilly P's Rules for Online Shooters

I've played a heck of a lot of online shooters over the years. Not so much on PC, but I'm a bit of an Xbox LIVE expert. Anyway, mainly drawing from the Halo, Call of Duty, Gears of War, and Left 4 Dead series, here are some basic rules I think all games should follow. Later this week I'll go over some all-time best features and worst fuck-ups.

HUD and Other On-Screen Information
The heads-up display is one of the most important and often over-looked features of shooters. One thing that drives me bat-shit crazy is when information like how much ammo you have will just fade away at times. Little things like an ammo count never obscures your view, just leave them there. Always (unless--and this is rare--it should be removed for gameplay purposes). For example, when I'm a charger in L4D2 and I'm choke-slamming some poor sap, why does my health bar disappear? Sure, I can't move anymore, but it's nice to know how much health you have. Just leave it there.

I also don't understand why games like Gears of War have no radar whatsoever. Call of Duty has a perfect model for this: you see the map in the upper right-hand corner, and dots show up when people fire. This makes sense. If you're in real life and you hear a gunshot, you can tell where it's coming from. Games use stereo sound, so until surround is the default (which it probably won't be any time soon), information like this should be expected. Another thing CoD does which I think should be in more games is the grenade indicator. If someone throws a grenade at me in real life, I'm going to hear where it bounces. This compensates for a lack in technology, and that makes it a good thing. Actually, the lack of the two aforementioned features in Hardcore mode is the reason I think that mode is ridiculous. It's supposed to be more realistic I guess, but I think taking away things that compensate for technological deficiencies is just stupid.

Another thing that's important is feedback for hits and misses. Halo does it by showing flashing energy shields, Call of Duty does it with that little 'x' in the middle of your screen (accompanied by a little 'tsk' sound), and Gears does it with blood spray. I really don't have any complaints here, I just thought it was worth mentioning.

It's also important that objective markers and other on-screen data do not obscure your view. That damn "C" marker in Domination on Underpass is like a dick coming out of someone's forehead. It's already hard enough to see on that map, don't make it worse with giant green/red arrows.

Be careful in how you distinguish teams. Halo gets bonus points for brightly and distinctly coloring each team. Gears gets a C- because the Locusts make more noise and are thus less sneaky than the COGs, and Call of Duty gets an F+ because it's nearly impossible to tell who's friend and foe without seeing a name above their head (which can lead to confusion when a friend is behind a foe and it looks like your friend's name is above that bastard who's about to gut you with a striker). You may think an F+ is too harsh, but let me also remind you that ghillie suits all look the same, and the fact that the team wearing black scuba suits on Sub Base has a distinct disadvantage to the other team of guys in snow camo.

If you're aiming down a scope and someone shoots you, your scope should be interrupted. Halo does this correctly.

Auto-aim is a necessity on consoles, but try not to let it go overboard. I can't tell you how many times I've killed people in Call of Duty because my auto-aim starting tracking someone I couldn't see. Yeah, I use it to my advantage, but it's pretty unfair.


Button Layouts and Weapon Swapping
Halo: CE got it right. Two weapons max, switch weapons with "Y", and map grenades to their own button. It's as simple as that. Battlefield: Bad Company does this archaic crap where the shoulder buttons cycle through different items, one of which is grenades. No. Don't do that. I don't want to have to switch to grenades. Ever. BC commits another no-no in that knifing results it actually keeping your knife out. This is also dumb.

You should also never have to cycle through anything. This is why the two-weapon idea is so important. Cycling is a pain, requires too much memorization, and can cause some serious problems in the heat of battle. One button, "Y", should switch between two weapons. Don't over think it. No cycling, and no mapping weapons to the D-pad. I'm looking at you, Gears. Nobody needs to spawn with a Lancer, shotgun, and a pistol. You already let people choose between a Lancer and a Hammer Burst, just let them choose two guns to load out with. Before you ask, "Well, who the fuck is gonna want a damned pistol?!" let me tell you who, you vulgar little delinquent. This would balance the meat shields and boom shields because--wait for it--you have to have a pistol to do it! There, now the boom shield isn't the most advanced piece of weaponry in the game. "What about the grenades?" you may ask. Like I said, map them to their own button. "LB" and "Y" aren't particularly useful in that game; I'd say go with "LB" since I know you'll have mapped weapon-switching to "Y" like I asked. Tap "LB" to blindfire (blindthrow?) a grenade; hold "LB" to start swinging it like a foxtail. You're welcome, Epic.

Two more things on this subject: always map reload to either "X" or a shoulder button, and never make me press a button to pick up ammo. Left 4 Dead has reload mapped to "B." Why? To spit in the face of console conventions because you want to be different? No! Bad Valve (slaps wrist). Oh, and Active Reloading in Gears is an awesome idea. No complaints here.

Other General Rules
Never, ever let physics interrupt gameplay. I'm looking at you, Epic. Remember when Gears 2 released and smoke grenades made you go ragdoll for 2 agonizing seconds? Dumb. Sooooo dumb. I know you've fixed it since, but you lost a lot of players because of that.

Do let physics be hilarious, though. Remember warthog jousting in Halo: CE? It was awesome, and I wish you could somehow turn that on in Halo 3. Also, so-called "gibs" in Gears are quite funny as well. Dead people flying around like weightless ragdolls is always a good laugh.

Proximity explosives should be visible and delayed. Good: Claymores in Modern Warfare. Bad: Bouncing Betties in World at War and grenade planting in Gears 2. Claymores are perfect. They have ~180 degrees of effectiveness, you can spot them around corners if you're careful, and if you're not, then you die. Even if you know there's a grenade planted around a corner in Gears 2, it's still pretty impossible to avoid it. It takes forever to shoot down (if you even can) and they go off nearly instantly. Bouncing Betties are just too hard to see without Bomb Squad.

Never have lock-on weapons for use against user-controlled vehicles (this excuses the necessary Stinger in Modern Warfare 2). Remember in Halo: CE when you had to kill vehicles with a well-timed grenade or rocket? Yeah, took skill. The Missile Pod? Not so much. Actually, let's throw Spartan Laser in there, too. Vehicles should never be death traps. Make people earn their vehicle kills. Now, I know the splaser and the missile pod are there mainly to shoot down Banshees, but it's not my fault the developers decided that the most elusive vehicle should also be the only one with an unexposed pilot. Maybe they should've thought of that before.

Offer a variety of playlists. Bungie gets, like, 12 gold stars for this. Modern Warfare 2 gets one gold star. Why only one? Where's my MLG playlist and 1st-person Team Tactical? Actually...

If your game has "cheap kills" (think energy sword), offer a set of MLG playlists. You know why Modern Warfare 2 is losing players? There's no where to escape the knifers, shotgunners, and n00b-tubers. I'll go into more detail about this in a later post. Sneak peak: Hardcore does not count as a satisfactory playlist for "hardcore" players.

Do a beta test. Seriously. Gears 2 and Modern Warfare 2 didn't do betas and their games launched as glitchy, unbalanced messes.

Don't let multiplayer achievements affect gameplay. The first Gears and--to a lesser extent--Halo 3 did this, and it's really, really annoying. However, I'm not saying that you shouldn't have multiplayer 'cheevos. I likes me my 'cheevos. Just be smart with them. It's also smart to emphasize winning over K/D or getting kills with specific guns. A player's first priority should be winning.

Flamethrowers are never a good idea.

Dog tags (Bad Company) are an awesome idea. In fact, if you have to do a kills-based 'cheevo, you should probably require unique Gamertags (and, obviously, a smaller number to compensate). That should get rid of those damned grinders. Buncha jerks if you ask me.

Never let people be temporarily invincible (unless it's to counteract spawn-camping). It was so annoying in Gears having to wait until the pick-up-weapon animation was done before I could pop some knucklehead's dome, and don't get me started on that temporary invincibility when you pick up the overshield in Halo 3.

Sprinting is good; holding down a button to sprint is bad.

Dual-wiedling is okay, just be careful how you implement it. They had to patch Halo 2 because dual-wielding was overpowered (although I say Halo has become better because this led to melees and grenades being more powerful), and I think we all remember those damned Akimbo Model 1887s.

If melees cause victims to be stunned, be sure that stun time is less than cool-down time. This was an issue in the first Gears because you were stunned longer than it took to perform a second melee. Also, the melee-spamming in Left 4 Dead was unbalanced in favor of the survivors (they patched it to include a cool-down after a few successive melees).

I actually can't believe I have to say this, but don't make the amount of time it takes to reload longer than the reload animation. In Left 4 Dead 2, the sniper rifle (my personal weapon of choice) takes ~3 seconds to reload, and when the animation is done, you're still not quite finished reloading. You have to wait a moment until that '0' becomes a '30' before you can switch weapons or take some pills. If you do it an instant too soon, you have to start all over next time you switch back to your sniper rifle. Honestly, you should make the animation run a little longer than the amount of time it actually takes. Props to Modern Warfare 2 for getting this right.

Summary
You may or not agree with me on all of these principles, but you probably should. I'm not trying to take away anything that made these games unique, and I understand that newbie-friendly game elements exist as a way to level the playing field. I'm just saying that certain conventions have proven to be much, much better than their alternatives, and that if you do want to include newbie-friendly weapons and/or classes, offer some way for the seasoned vets to avoid gameplay mechanics that feel cheap.

--Chilly P