Post by: Wesisapie on April 28, 2003, 08:49:07 PM
1. Bad communities - they may have heaps of people in them, but when all these people are complete wankers, it isn't really that much fun. Counter-strike is probably a great example of this. The game is ok, maybe even good, but when coupled with a bunch of campers and elitists, it's easy to see why it has such a following of haters. Those 10 year olds kids yelling into their microphones don't help either.
2. Repetitivity - It is cool when you first start playing games online, but after a while this "cool i'm playing against actual people" becomes pretty dull. Also, see above point for reasons. The originality of new online games is also slipping.
3. Everyone wants to be "the hero", but in online games, you realise you're just another nerd playing a game online.
4. Lack of co-operation: closely tied with point #1, there is no point making team based games when everybody plays "Lone Wolf"
So in conclusion, the only game worth playing online is DOOM II. The best way to play this is dialing up directly to their modem. Co-op of course.
P.S. This is about online PC gaming, console online gaming may not have the same problems.
Post by: BlkPaladin on April 28, 2003, 09:42:52 PM
And then you have the campers etc and every other problem under the sun.
Post by: Grey Ninja on April 28, 2003, 09:52:25 PM
But to quote penny arcade.... online gaming would be cool if it weren't for all the people.
Post by: Mario Menace on April 28, 2003, 10:32:36 PM
Another thing is that playing with or against "Joe Shmoe" from timbucktwo is not as fun as playing with your buddies in the same room. I remember spending countless hours with my friends playing Goldeneye and trash talking each other as we play. To me THAT is what multi-player gaming is all about! It's the comraderie you develop with your friends while playing. Not with complete strangers.
Post by: Uglydot on April 29, 2003, 12:11:20 AM
Post by: Locke Cole on April 29, 2003, 02:55:49 AM
Quote
Originally posted by: Grey Ninja
I hate Counterstrike just as much as the next guy. (Just had to say that)
But to quote penny arcade.... online gaming would be cool if it weren't for all the people.
What do you mean Grey, you don't like Counterstrike at all? Anyways, I can agree with that list that gets me angry when I play that game. Thats why I only play on like adult servers beacause they kick people who act like a a$$. Hopefully if Nintendo goes online, they'll find a way for players to vote against people who act like them.
Post by: adamhap on April 29, 2003, 03:18:31 AM
Adam
Post by: BlackGriffen on April 29, 2003, 04:04:19 AM
BlackGriffen
Post by: RickPowers on April 29, 2003, 06:19:51 AM
Sure, maybe it's not the most friendly thing to do in a game like Quake, maybe, but my suggestion is to just get over it. camping is strategy. Maybe YOU don't like it, but then maybe the smart thing for you to do would be to learn the maps, find the favorite camp spots, and flush out the campers with a rocket or two. Seems to me that if you're always getting picked off by campers, you just aren't playing the game smart.
Post by: DRJ on April 29, 2003, 06:32:30 AM
Warcraft III is fun too but everybody uses a map hack so they can see your entire army while they are still hidden.
Playing Mario Kart or F-Zero online would be fun, but action replay or some other company would make cheating programs, so your playing fair, but someone else makes their cars go faster or something else to give them an unfaire advantage. It just ruins it for everyone and there is no way to really stop it.
I like the lan idea a little better since you can play with your friends. Isnt the point of playing these multi player games to be able to make fun of your friends after you completely own them in a game. You cant really do that online with people you dont know.
Post by: WesDawg on April 29, 2003, 07:51:20 AM
Post by: dmcollin on April 29, 2003, 09:47:21 AM
Anyways the main problem with online gaming is that it realy requires high bandwidth to play at an acceptable level for most games. Until broadband becomes more ubiquitous and modem speed increases there will not be enough people to use it to make a profit from it. If you look at the xbox most people who use their live service are very experience computer users who also do pc online gaming. Also if microsoft changes over to a monthly subsription you will see people leave the service quickly.
Post by: Ninja X on April 29, 2003, 10:04:50 AM
Post by: dmcollin on April 29, 2003, 11:23:19 AM
Post by: RickPowers on April 29, 2003, 11:34:12 AM
Quote
well in regards to the camping remarks, i have to say from playing cs from beta 4.0 on that camping tends to ruin the game especially with a gun like the awp which is so clearly the best weapon in the game (my beloved deagle has been castrated with every release since 1.0 on). Anyone can easily learn how to use it and with the pistol switch script it makes it to easy to kill. CS is the only game in which you can run around scoped with a sniper rifle then make a quick stop and have a perfect shot. If you ever play on servers with extremely good players you will see that majority of people use the awp and colt just because they can kill so easily in almost any situation.
If you think camping ruins the game because the weapons are off-balanced, blame Valve, not the players. What I don't understand is that you then back that comment up saying that you can "run around" with the sniper rifle, stop briefly, and get a kill. Again, sounds like a problem with game balance, not with the players.
Post by: Caster13 on April 29, 2003, 11:51:43 AM
Quote
Originally posted by: RickPowers
Let me just get something straight about "campers". In a game like Counterstrike, camping is not only acceptable strategy, but there are times when it's the smart thing to do. It makes me laugh when people accuse the sniper on our team of camping. What the hell else is a SNIPER to do?!?
Yes, in real life, snipers do sit in one place for a while, but in a game, it just gets tedious and annoying. Real police officers do not just sit outside the building where a criminal is holding a hostage. Real terrorists don't hide in a corner when they have a freaking bomb to plant. Real counter-terrorist operatives dont sit in the far end of the building when there's a primed bomb about to blow.
Counter-Strike is not a deathmatch game where the objective is to kill as many people as fast as possible. It's a game with objectives that you are suppose to follow.
Quote
Originally posted by: RickPowers
If you think camping ruins the game because the weapons are off-balanced, blame Valve, not the players. What I don't understand is that you then back that comment up saying that you can "run around" with the sniper rifle, stop briefly, and get a kill. Again, sounds like a problem with game balance, not with the players.
I agree with you on this though. Many people will agree the AWP/AWM is overpowered, but hell, some people learn to live with it. I've learned to take care of these guys without too many problems.
Post by: mouse_clicker on April 29, 2003, 11:56:40 AM
Post by: EggyToast on April 29, 2003, 11:59:40 AM
So a lot of that balancing lies on the developer. You'd be surprised how many people claim someone's cheating just because they're playing a game well, or exploiting an unbalanced weapon. For instance, the rockets in TS2 are *perfect*, because they arc upwards as they move forward so it's very hard to peg someone from a distance, and they don't move super-fast. I actually think TS2 has a very good weapon balance.
But yeah, the problems with online gaming certainly boil down to "lame gamers" and "lack of innovation in new games."
Post by: Locke Cole on April 29, 2003, 12:44:48 PM
Quote
Originally posted by: Caster13
I agree with you on this though. Many people will agree the AWP/AWM is overpowered, but hell, some people learn to live with it. I've learned to take care of these guys without too many problems.
Same here, I play too often with awpers, when they shoot me down I get angry and remember where they were last time. Then all I do is bring nades and just kill them easily. Anyways you can do something about the campers, just fight back and don't complain.
Post by: EggyToast on April 29, 2003, 01:06:45 PM
Quote
Originally posted by: Caster13
Yes, in real life, snipers do sit in one place for a while, but in a game, it just gets tedious and annoying. Real police officers do not just sit outside the building where a criminal is holding a hostage.
Heh, actually, they do.
Quote
Real terrorists don't hide in a corner when they have a freaking bomb to plant. Real counter-terrorist operatives dont sit in the far end of the building when there's a primed bomb about to blow.
Hide and sit, perhaps not, but real terrorists tend to be as sneaky as possible. They don't take a gun and go up against military personnel. They try to go undetected as long as possible and then BOOM. So they really woudln't fit into a video game well, unless you're playing "Police Profile Simulator -- catch the bad guy without firing a shot!"
And bomb-squads tend to send in 1 or 2 personnel to deactivate the bomb, but if it's ready to blow, they send in a bomb robot, or empty the building. Again, making sure a building is evacuated while your robot wheels up tot he bomb isn't exactly good game material
Post by: manunited4eva22 on April 29, 2003, 01:21:37 PM
Games where camping is effective: in general games with a very slow tempo, games that tend to be more on the 'realistic' side. Large spread out levels and moderate numbers of players also make camping and sniping easier. Games like Rainbow Six, America's Army, etc.
Games where camping is just stupid: games with extremely fast paces or games with many people. Also games that have little space to roam make it difficult for snipers.
Post by: Grey Ninja on April 29, 2003, 02:43:22 PM
I play a lot of America's Army. The game has a different philosophy on campers than most games. Each round has a time limit of about 8 to 10 minutes. It's perfectly acceptable to wait for about half of that time in an effort to deplete the enemy of resources.
Snipers almost never get accused of camping, as they are meant to be held in the back, under the cover of the riflemen.
People playing the defense are meant to be campers as it's good strategy, and their job is to stop the assault team, not attack.
However, genuine campers are often votekicked, as the situation is different for them. They will be playing on the assault side, and when time is very short and they are still back at the spawn point doing dick all, or running the wrong way, they are obviously not an asset to the team. I will always boot such a person. If they are on defense though, it's an entirely different case.
Post by: GeN on April 29, 2003, 03:33:13 PM
Post by: LRonHoover on April 29, 2003, 03:56:16 PM
Nintendo develops and markets a "cube server". Of course I don't know all the technical details but a larger cube throw in a hard drive charge ?$200-$300?. Owner pays for bandwidth, etc. and Nintendo provides server interface software. Yes, No, Maybe? Anyways my two cents.
Post by: Scyth3r on April 29, 2003, 04:46:17 PM
It's always nice to have the option of internet gameplay than not having it all.
Post by: Wesisapie on April 29, 2003, 08:49:21 PM
Post by: Grey Ninja on April 29, 2003, 11:56:40 PM
Quote
Originally posted by: Wesisapie
The reason people camp is that they aren't good enough at rushing, and they get killed every time. So they make up the excuse of "playing smart". "Playing smart" is no fun. Go play raven shield or something if you want that. Counter-strike used to be a fun game before all the campers came along and claimed to be master strategists. If you see the best of the best, usually they are people who rush, find cover to reload, rush, and so on. Camping is not a strategy, it's stupidity.
There's some truth to that. Nothing makes me feel so good as to blow through a bunch of camping assault people on the "Bridge" map in America's Army, and climb their tower and shoot them in the back. When I can pull it off, I feel like I am king of the world.
When I stay far back and pick off the assault people struggling to cross the bridge, I feel like a coward.
Post by: EggyToast on April 30, 2003, 06:16:45 AM
That's why most online games don't go past non-team deathmatch -- everyone wants to get the most kills, the least deaths, and "win." Very rarely does someone enjoy sitting back and playing transport, or sniper, because they're not the 'glory' roles. The glory roles are rambo -- 1 person gone crazy and killing dozens of people without getting hit.
blah blah blah. Glory is lame.
Post by: oohhboy on April 30, 2003, 07:49:27 AM
Post by: EggyToast on April 30, 2003, 08:22:08 AM
Post by: Syl on April 30, 2003, 01:05:07 PM
Never being a fan of counterstrike.
nor pure PVP play, More of a fan of Co-op.
I played diablo II for over a year and a half. Itemwise, I got rather wealthy. Friends wise, I had too many to count, and was angry at the 25 person limit on buddy list. Character wise, I have 12 level 85+
I even wrote my own guide for the spearazon (with the help of aprof), and its hosted on the best diablo II site on the net.
http://www.diabloii.net/strategy/x-guides/spearazon.php
(my name IS misspelled in the top corner, don't think it was even noticed when it was posted)
anyway, I started playing diablo II because, the first few times through, it was interesting. I then was gave enough items to last me... just about forever, and i started to worry about character devolopment more than the actual game about halfway through my career.
Now, as far as hacked items and idiots go. Diablo II is FULL of them.
quoting a signature "If idiots could fly, Diablo II would be an airport"
I play 100% legit, I have STILL never owned any sort of hacked, or duped item. most of my equipment i found myself, most of my major items i found myself, for fear that the ones i trade for would either be duped or botted.
Now, the last few months i played, i was in a few clans (namely midnightmf and http://www.theamazonbasin.com ) and they too, inforced "legit" rules.
I stopped playing public games near the end of my career. After i created the blender class (my pride and joy) and after playing for a year and a half, the amount of hacking/annoying people got to me. but, more importantly. The game got boring.
When 1.1 comes out, I'm going to start playing diablo II again. Lets hope blizzard fixed the problems that plagued the original so much.
I still have yet to play any sort of online game on a console. Simply because the only one that I can with my current systems is PSO.
Online gaming has become more of a hacker's way to make money than anything else. Thats why i tend to play private games, I however, love online gaming. The amount of people you meet there, comparing the good to the bad, makes it definately worth it.
Post by: Tael on April 30, 2003, 04:59:26 PM
QuoteWhat about PunkBuster? It does a fine job of getting rid of cheats in RTCW and the Enemy Territory test.
Originally posted by: GeN
Well cheaters that play online games are just something were gonna have to live with. They aren't going anywhere. Saying online gaming would be better without cheaters is like saying the world would be a better place without criminals. Yes it's true it would but it will never happen and we have to find a way to live with them.
Post by: corwin on May 01, 2003, 10:04:21 AM
When Doom2 was there I had some much fun playing co-op.
While deatchmatch, or team-deatchmatch is very basic, (almost too basic.....kill everybody who is not you, or kill everybody who is not your team) co-op teamplay is something you can create a whole new gameplay on. (i.e. "you press that switch and then I sneak trough the door that opens for only one second")
I still think games are there too dive into another world, with you as the hero. I think mass-multiplayer games won't make it in the long run... I played multiplayer games on PC for quite some time (quake3arena, unreal tournament,counterstrike etc. etc.) and I was shocked how much more fun I had playing metroid prime...my first game on gamecube.
If you think about it, there have not been much co-op games, and way too much multiplayer games, where you just shoot eachother in some place, with some character. I don't know about you, but I'am fed up with that. I want a good story, a world that's about to die with you as the world last hope.....and maybe you and someone else..!
Post by: ZebulahnX on May 01, 2003, 10:04:34 AM
Post by: EggyToast on May 01, 2003, 01:16:43 PM
At least with 1p games (like Metroid and Zelda), the developers have tried their hardest to make the whole experience very involving and, compared to most online multiplayer games, the quality shows -- I can't count the number of bugs and exploits I've heard about (and seen in many cases) for online FPSs, let alone RPGs. Not to mention that if you don't feel like getting all buddy-buddy with some other people online, you're basically 1 guy going up against huge clans of people who train together, and you get blasted because all the people like you experienced the same thing and never bother to play anymore.
Post by: NickNiteQ93 on May 01, 2003, 02:48:21 PM
Post by: Grey Ninja on May 01, 2003, 03:57:30 PM
Quote
Originally posted by: EggyToast
I'd also say that complaining about "jumping" instead of simply "strafing" is sort of a cop-out -- it's a new, valid movement for FPS that helps make the game a bit more 3d, and ti's not "cheap," rather just something new. I agree that jumping and rocketting the ground is cheap, but jumping itself (and not jumping) is more of a strategy. If you *can* jump, why don't you jump over the rockets?
It's fine for games like Quake and Unreal Tournament. They don't strive for any kind of accountability to the laws of physics. For a game that's supposed to be realistic however, it's completely stupid.
Try carrying a 50 pound rifle and a backpack full of ammo, supplies, etc. around a battlefield for a while. During this time, you will be jumping around like you are Mario looking for a hidden coin box. Do you seriously think that you would last more than 3 minutes before having a heart attack or passing out due to exhaustion?
It's NOT a realistic tactic. If you are on the battlefield, you will be wanting to find cover, and move up the battlefield bit by bit until you are close enough to make the enemy feel your wrath.
THIS is what America's Army tries to show. And this is also the reason that fatigue is in the game. It's impossible to jump around like a loon for 10 minutes straight in real life, and it's impossible in the game. I have no complaints whatsoever with that. Counterstrike is not for someone who wants a realistic experience at all, although it tries to sell itself as such from time to time.
Post by: ThePerm on May 01, 2003, 06:16:19 PM
Post by: colmag on May 02, 2003, 05:22:38 AM
I've been playing online for about 5years, and for the first few it was fantastic. It's degenerated to the point now where i don't play online at all. At first it was fresh, and the it cost a reasonable amount to play, so people respected it. Now pretty much anyone can play, and unmetered connections mean twats can spend all day on their, without fear of their dad's bending them over 'cos of the phone bill.
I bought an MS Gamevoice, and have only used it once. You get 15 people on a server using it properly, and 1 person broadcasting random screams and insults to everyone, and the game is destroyed.
Something else i've missed is the "story". I'm really back into single player gaming now, and realise how much the plots add to the games. GTA VC, Zelda, FF etc. are so immersive. I'm just glad that id have reverted back to making single player games.
Post by: BlackGriffen on May 02, 2003, 06:10:45 AM
) where you have complete control of the server, and can limit the use to a select group of friends and invites. BlackGriffen
Post by: colmag on May 02, 2003, 11:26:45 AM
Post by: manunited4eva22 on May 02, 2003, 11:47:27 AM
Post by: Nintendo Gamecube on May 02, 2003, 02:55:32 PM
Which brings me to another point, someone pointed out that playing AI is the same as playing any human on the internet. How wrong you could be. The human mind is much more complex and developed than AI is and ever will be. Humans have the aiblity to memorize and learn your tactics, and adapt to them. AI have a set mode of their abilities and cannot change any more than the programmers will them to. Humans on the other hand adapt, learn, and increase in skill. Humans have an unlimited amount of room to improve, whereas AI's are limited to the progamming they are built on. In addition, you can communicate with humans, whereas computers have built in quotes.
Hacking, is another issue. I think someone pointed it out best. They will always be there, just as there will always be criminals on Earth. The best thing to do is accept it, and fight against it rather than complaining about it.
Just a side note, why is it referred as hacking? There are merely scirpts, whcih modify the game to your advantage.
Post by: mouse_clicker on May 03, 2003, 09:24:59 AM
Hehe- speaking of fatal1ty, a good friend of mine's cousin is best friends with him. He lives in Wichita, Kansas, I believe (I live in Derby Kansas, a suburb of Wichita), and his actual name is Myron.
Post by: ThePerm on May 03, 2003, 10:15:13 AM
Post by: Uglydot on May 03, 2003, 05:39:46 PM
Post by: ThePerm on May 03, 2003, 05:59:29 PM
