I can speak to that...
Posted: Thu Apr 29, 2010 01:25 pm
I'm no coder but human motivation is my area so I'll talk a bit about that.
The reason multiplayer only is scorned in this context is simple.
People do not play well with others. Also, in economic terms any multiplayer affair is a "network good." That is, the more the merrier and by definition new games have fewer players.
You have to look at the psychology of competition. If you think that's irrelevant ask yourself why games like mafia wars make so much money and yes I realize money isn't the point of this but marketing is effectively what you guys are talking about aside from the technical issues.)
Playing a multiplayer beta that you are not developing for is low on psychological rewards.
I join a game, I play with people, I win... big deal part of me says there are like 50 players total, my victory is hollow. Or you lose and well, few people actively enjoy losing.
I'm anti competition personally so I'm PVE coop, as opposed to PVP.
In this case there is no PVE, there aren't even easy access to bots to practice on. (think crimsonland 3D heh)
Some people dislike working out in public for the same reason. People prefer to do their baby step stumbling in private.
People need a feeling of accomplishment. And there's just nothing to accomplish here for the end user except some vague notion of the enjoyment you get during the game. A modern version of "it's not if you win or lose."
The problem with that is if you're going to sell the experience as valid on its own merit why bother with blood? Why not simply play some other more developed FPS?
I mean if I just want dark themed FPS madness deathmatch I'll play painkiller. It was developed FOR that.
By focusing on multi-play you're rejecting the thing that makes blood worth looking at again in the first place. Its personality. Its history.
Now if you made some sort of PVE co op type option like unreal tournament invasion mode, only with zombies, and/or you added something to accomplish and show off like the leveling ability of COD, then you'd be on to something, but then again, that really wouldn't be blood anymore would it.
I can't speak for everyone of course but I'm here for nostalgia. I'm here to one day see blood how I remember it. I don't remember it as blocky and pixilated, as it looks to my modern eyes.
I want to find all the movie references again and listen to the cultists shouting in Sanskrit, and then set them on fire lol.
The remakes of quake and doom for example look like I remember doom looked. I want the same from blood.
Whatever form it takes, if you want people to be interested, there has to be something they can do right away by themselves, to motivate them to do "the work" and setup multiplay.
And the more players the more glory to be had for developers and that's a valid economy perspective when we're talking about volunteer effort. Sure some of you may do it for fun, or intellectual puzzle value, but you're also doing it to share your art or to be thanked. Very few people paint and then burn their work. They want it to be seen.
All disclaimers apply. I know its volunteer, I'm not complaining, no I can't do any better myself, I know no one is forcing me to be here, I appreciate how hard this is, etc etc etc.
But speaking for end users, we're a selfish fickle lot, we really don't care about any of that, we just want to poke a rat with a pitchfork and chuckle.
Sorry for the soap boxing, its in my nature. (I'm used to representing large groups. I was body president in college hehe)
The reason multiplayer only is scorned in this context is simple.
People do not play well with others. Also, in economic terms any multiplayer affair is a "network good." That is, the more the merrier and by definition new games have fewer players.
You have to look at the psychology of competition. If you think that's irrelevant ask yourself why games like mafia wars make so much money and yes I realize money isn't the point of this but marketing is effectively what you guys are talking about aside from the technical issues.)
Playing a multiplayer beta that you are not developing for is low on psychological rewards.
I join a game, I play with people, I win... big deal part of me says there are like 50 players total, my victory is hollow. Or you lose and well, few people actively enjoy losing.
I'm anti competition personally so I'm PVE coop, as opposed to PVP.
In this case there is no PVE, there aren't even easy access to bots to practice on. (think crimsonland 3D heh)
Some people dislike working out in public for the same reason. People prefer to do their baby step stumbling in private.
People need a feeling of accomplishment. And there's just nothing to accomplish here for the end user except some vague notion of the enjoyment you get during the game. A modern version of "it's not if you win or lose."
The problem with that is if you're going to sell the experience as valid on its own merit why bother with blood? Why not simply play some other more developed FPS?
I mean if I just want dark themed FPS madness deathmatch I'll play painkiller. It was developed FOR that.
By focusing on multi-play you're rejecting the thing that makes blood worth looking at again in the first place. Its personality. Its history.
Now if you made some sort of PVE co op type option like unreal tournament invasion mode, only with zombies, and/or you added something to accomplish and show off like the leveling ability of COD, then you'd be on to something, but then again, that really wouldn't be blood anymore would it.
I can't speak for everyone of course but I'm here for nostalgia. I'm here to one day see blood how I remember it. I don't remember it as blocky and pixilated, as it looks to my modern eyes.
I want to find all the movie references again and listen to the cultists shouting in Sanskrit, and then set them on fire lol.
The remakes of quake and doom for example look like I remember doom looked. I want the same from blood.
Whatever form it takes, if you want people to be interested, there has to be something they can do right away by themselves, to motivate them to do "the work" and setup multiplay.
And the more players the more glory to be had for developers and that's a valid economy perspective when we're talking about volunteer effort. Sure some of you may do it for fun, or intellectual puzzle value, but you're also doing it to share your art or to be thanked. Very few people paint and then burn their work. They want it to be seen.
All disclaimers apply. I know its volunteer, I'm not complaining, no I can't do any better myself, I know no one is forcing me to be here, I appreciate how hard this is, etc etc etc.
But speaking for end users, we're a selfish fickle lot, we really don't care about any of that, we just want to poke a rat with a pitchfork and chuckle.
Sorry for the soap boxing, its in my nature. (I'm used to representing large groups. I was body president in college hehe)