Search Unity

  1. Unity 2019.1 beta is now available.
    Dismiss Notice
  2. The Unity Pro & Visual Studio Professional Bundle gives you the tools you need to develop faster & collaborate more efficiently. Learn more.
    Dismiss Notice
  3. We're looking for insight from anyone who has experience with game testing to help us better Unity. Take our survey here. If chosen to participate you'll be entered into a sweepstake to win an Amazon gift card.
    Dismiss Notice
  4. Want to provide direct feedback to the Unity team? Join the Unity Advisory Panel.
    Dismiss Notice
  5. Unity 2018.3 is now released.
    Dismiss Notice
  6. Improve your Unity skills with a certified instructor in a private, interactive classroom. Watch the overview now.
    Dismiss Notice

Split screen Vs the Ubiquity of online play

Discussion in 'Game Design' started by Braineeee, Jan 30, 2019.

  1. Braineeee

    Braineeee

    Joined:
    Nov 9, 2014
    Posts:
    861
    Hey. First thread I've posted in some time.

    Anyhoo let's jump right in...

    There's a disconnect in the US between people of all walks of life. There is some research and some literature out there which correlates the increased ubiquity of devices with a decrease in social skills/social life/ and quality of life.

    What I want to focus on here is the gaming part of things.

    If you were old enough to play an N64 or a SNES you know what I'm about to say. This might be controversial but gaming was fun back then because of the social aspect. You typically sat in the same room (or building, ala' LAN gaming)..

    It was about having fun together, not competition. People didn't play to win, every. damn. time. I'm looking at you League of Legends and your bass-ackwards "must play to win" enforcement.

    I think many of us want games to be fun again. I think that's why some people play. They want it to be fun but the plethora of trolls, cheaters, and those who play to win make it a sordid experience 99.99% of the time.

    Have a look at Nintendo's recent games. Pokemon Go (ok it launched three years ago but hey) encourages people to play together, outside via the capturing of pokemon with AR.

    Smash Brothers is a honestly a college phenomenon. I cannot think of any other games which so many people play together (in the same room!).

    I think there is opportunity to improve the gaming experience by making cooperation among people happen more easily. There's also a lot of innovation that could be had.

    I think we could as game devs really improve our games by making them more about cooperation than the antonym.

    Discuss.
     
  2. TonyLi

    TonyLi

    Joined:
    Apr 10, 2012
    Posts:
    8,862
    Are you looking for a discussion about cooperative/fun play versus high stakes competition, or about local co-op versus remote online multiplayer, or something else?

    For the former, what about games like Journey? Or shared experience games like MMOs?

    For the latter, local co-op games are rarely profitable enough to sustain developers. People claim they want to play local co-op, but they don't back it up with their purchases. And, although I love local co-op, I can unfortunately understand why. I don't live in a college dorm with a bunch of roommates. It's a big production to get my friends to come over and sit down for some couch co-op. If I wanted to play a game right this second, it would need to be single player or online multiplayer.
     
    Braineeee likes this.
  3. BIGTIMEMASTER

    BIGTIMEMASTER

    Joined:
    Jun 1, 2017
    Posts:
    1,687
    "I think there is opportunity to improve the gaming experience by making cooperation among people happen more easily. There's also a lot of innovation that could be had."


    what do you have in mind?


    I think dark souls was a great example of fostering cooperation. The game would have faded to black if not for a small group of fans who built a wiki that allowed others to get a grip on the game that otherwise was too challenging to get into. Jolly cooperation. From there it exploded.

    That's all there is to it, I think. Make a game that's hard enough people have to band together to beat it. I don't think you need any novel gameplay mechanics. Like things where one player has to wait for another so they can both press a button at the same time to open a door. That's lame. That's not cooperation. That's just annoying and annoyed people don't cooperate well.

    Journey is a big one often mentioned, but personally I didn't get it. You didn't do anything. You just walked up a hill with somebody else. May as well have been a movie. But whatever, it did something for a lot of people so that's that. Certainly the charming visual experience did something to make people feel calm and happy. So that's good.


    over-the-top online competition may be in part due to big shot youtube gamers and gaming becoming a sport. I know back in the Halo lan party days I played to win. Didn't make it less fun, except for the one dude who always lost and we all picked on. That loser.

    Can't do much about that I don't think. Games like R6 Siege have ranked and casual modes, but people are still pretty awful in casual. Worse sometimes. But it's a competitive designed game. Something like Super Smash Bro's is a party game. Totally different vibe.
     
    Last edited: Jan 30, 2019
  4. JoeStrout

    JoeStrout

    Joined:
    Jan 14, 2011
    Posts:
    7,590
    I've been on the Oculus Go platform a lot lately, as both a developer and (occasionally) as a player. Multiplayer games are very popular there. Some of them are traditional competitive games, but others are either social (no win/lose at all) or co-op (like QuiVr, for example — up to four people working together to defend the gate).

    Many players in the community have commented how much fun co-op is. On the other hand, lots of people still enjoy the competitive games. I think there's room for both.
     
    Braineeee likes this.
  5. Braineeee

    Braineeee

    Joined:
    Nov 9, 2014
    Posts:
    861
    Honestly the only reason I say any of this is once you make it about winning it sucks the fun out of it. Playing with Rando's or worse "pub stomping" with friends may be fun for you and your friends but everyone else it sucks. I see it as a problem to be solved.

    @tonyli28 the thing about that is that its just one person's experience (though I think its valid). There are probably more people not in college who are gamers than there are, but I mean if American football fans can get together every sunday to watch a game why can't gamers?

    If it meant fighting off depression and loneliness why not?
     
  6. Braineeee

    Braineeee

    Joined:
    Nov 9, 2014
    Posts:
    861
    WEIRD ALERT.
     
  7. TonyLi

    TonyLi

    Joined:
    Apr 10, 2012
    Posts:
    8,862
    I'm just saying that when a bunch of people already live together in a university dorm with time on their hands, it's much easier to start up a couch co-op game. If I want to play 4-player couch co-op with my older friends, they have to find babysitters, work around their work schedules and other life obligations, etc. There's a certain nostalgia about couch co-op, but it's hard to make it financially viable.

    Pokemon Go is good to discuss. You can pick it up any time, no matter where you are, and meet other people at hotspots. Even if you're competing with other people at a gym location, there can still be an in-person social aspect.
     
    Braineeee and Shorely like this.
  8. Braineeee

    Braineeee

    Joined:
    Nov 9, 2014
    Posts:
    861
    Dude what are you smoking?

    I mean that is a kind of cooperation, but not what I had in mind.
    I mean for gods sake Battlefield even your own teammates will be ignoramuses out of malice or just plain incompetence. Point being that lots of people play to win but few play for fun anymore. Its a social phenomenon that MP games today are frustrating because of three problems: cheaters, trolls, and those who play to win. I don't think resorting to screaming and smashing things or rage quitting is an indicator of good culture.

    There are many ways to accomplish cooperative play. That community thing isn't even something designer's can affect.

    Way to oversimplify.


    I wouldn't want to play with you either.



    Yea that isn't casual or social because its not in-person. It sucks because its over the internet with a buncha rando's.
     
  9. BIGTIMEMASTER

    BIGTIMEMASTER

    Joined:
    Jun 1, 2017
    Posts:
    1,687
    what are "many ways" to accomplish cooperative play? Come on, you started the conversation, you should be supplying the meat.
     
    Shorely and JoeStrout like this.
  10. Braineeee

    Braineeee

    Joined:
    Nov 9, 2014
    Posts:
    861
    Oh, okay. By cooperative play I mean you could: display the whole game on one screen with 'x' players on it. Its been done lots in the old days but not enough today imho.There's so many First person shooters today its obnoxious. The perspective can be anything. Top down, 2d/3d side scrolling, a camera which stays in one position and rotates/zooms to keep players in focus, etc.

    The point isn't just the perspective though. I think players ought to be in the same room or building. Without in person socialization it just becomes play to win.

    I mean hell I just an intriguing idea... not sharing it for the time being :p
     
  11. BIGTIMEMASTER

    BIGTIMEMASTER

    Joined:
    Jun 1, 2017
    Posts:
    1,687
    why do you think in-the-same-room face to face play keeps things from becoming play to win?
     
  12. TonyLi

    TonyLi

    Joined:
    Apr 10, 2012
    Posts:
    8,862
    People may still play to win, but it's less toxic than anonymous trash talking over the net.
     
  13. Braineeee

    Braineeee

    Joined:
    Nov 9, 2014
    Posts:
    861
    Maybe because in person people are generally not trolls and don't treat each other terribly? Granted some people might play to win, you're right about that, but still.
     
  14. BIGTIMEMASTER

    BIGTIMEMASTER

    Joined:
    Jun 1, 2017
    Posts:
    1,687
    why though?

    if you could answer why, then maybe you could engineer some way to get that answer into an actionable plan to solve the problems you see in online play. You've got to dig deeper. Erase assumptions, and get to the facts.
     
    Shorely likes this.
  15. Braineeee

    Braineeee

    Joined:
    Nov 9, 2014
    Posts:
    861
    Nah brah. Pretty sure I know what I'm talking about. Don't need to do any more thinking about it.

    Don't need to beat dead horses...
     
  16. RichardKain

    RichardKain

    Joined:
    Oct 1, 2012
    Posts:
    1,127
    Develop a game to run on a local server. Develop an app available for iOS or Android that serves as a "controller" for the game, and also stores player-specific data and customization. People go to the location of the local server, whatever that might be, connect to it via the Wifi LAN, and play the game with each other. Actual genre of game is irrelevant, it can be almost any game type. Rinse and repeat for whatever manner of game you are trying to generate.

    This is a design that I've been toying with in the design phase for quite some time. The only developer that has come close to something similar is Jackbox. And they've been insistent on taking a web-based approach in order to maintain greater control and pulling in user data.

    Location-specific design requires that the developer commit to the concept. Most developers aren't willing to go that far because it means forgoing the reach that on-line titles usually provide. There is ample potential in the concept. It just needs a few developers to properly dip their toes in. Centering it around smartphones-as-controllers makes sense, as it drastically lowers the barrier to entry. It would also reduce the potential for more action-oriented fare, but that is only a problem if that was your genre focus. For social-focused games, something less action-focused would be better for greater interpersonal interactions.
     
    Braineeee likes this.
  17. devotid

    devotid

    Joined:
    Nov 14, 2011
    Posts:
    290
    Why would you play a competitive game not to win? In reality. Someone ALWAYS wins and Someone ALWAYS has to lose. Get over it. Call me "old school" though.
     
    RavenOfCode and Shorely like this.
  18. RavenOfCode

    RavenOfCode

    Joined:
    Apr 5, 2015
    Posts:
    847
    As someone who's been playing sports for the majority of my life and who's currently in college playing a varsity sport that statement is utterly false. Trash talk (ie. breaking someone's mental state down via words) is for assholes.

    Sometimes I play competitive games just because I enjoy the mechanics and I know other people do this too. However, I think the people who "don't play to win" (ie. just play for fun) shouldn't complain nor care about others winning.
     
    Last edited: Feb 5, 2019
    devotid and Braineeee like this.
  19. Braineeee

    Braineeee

    Joined:
    Nov 9, 2014
    Posts:
    861
     
    RavenOfCode likes this.