Maes
I like big butts!
Posts: 7955
Registered: 07-06 |
Modern multiplayer gaming.
I know I will catch a lot of flak on that, but seriously, it almost never thrilled me. OK, back in the arcade era it was fun playing head to head vs or with someone, largely because two player modes were well implemented -usually-, and there were no such things as network connections, online cheats, aimbots, latency, "1337 pr0 comp3t1t1v3 fux0r pwn3rz" etc. There were ofc "good players" in particular games, but there was no doubt about his skills: it was all there before you, right there and then. If you wanted to challenge him, you could do it on perfectly equal terms. Same machine, same controls, and a crowd to watch :-D
On the converse, the modern form of internet "online" multiplayer never thrilled me so much, whether we're talking about stuff like WoW (if I wanted a crude 3D hack'n'slash game in a large world, this could be done perfectly offline with a good variety of NPC).
With RTS, I've had bitter experiences with a particular title (Warlords Battlecry) which required split-second precision in receiving network data, and lag had very adverse effects on the gameplay (which was another can of worms).
What's worse, the adverse effects were heavily asymmetrical and biased. If lag affected both players equally, I'd pass. Alas, that was not the case: put simply, the host got an immense advantage over his opponent and experienced a smooth game with apparently little resistance from his opponent. The player at the other end just saw his troops dying out of nowhere. In a game where a single spell can decimate an army or two arrows in quick succession can kill an approaching unit, that makes a whole lot of difference thus making PvP matches pretty pointless, and my guess is that it's not going to be much better for other RTS too, unless they use Supreme Commander's totally synchronized network code.
Same thing for many FPS games: local hosts have an enormous advantage vs people connected externally. If you can see and shoot your opponent before he sees you for technical reasons, it's pretty pointless debating who's 1337 and who's skrub: it would be like the Aesop's fable with the crane and fox.
In that respect, I saw a major difference in, say, Battlefield 1942's handling of network latency and e.g. ZDaemon's: ZDaemon becomes practically unplayable with ping differences as small as 50 ms (also due to the fast-paced gameplay), while in BF1942 you could still have a good match even on dial-up, as long as you didn't expect getting pistol headshots in CQ all the time. Whenever I hosted a game, I still got a MAJOR advantage in one-on-one fights...so I really wonder how can "competitive" players back their claims in something so temperamental. In turn-based stuff, OK. Real time and temperamental? No fucking way.
|
03-14-10 06:19 
