We Game Alone

Might as well get cracking, given how bad a track record I have for writing anything in a remotely regular fashion. I wrote this right after I published my last post, and it probably won't be posted until much, much later.

An increasing trend for games seems to be the multi-player focus. Games like Assassin's Creed Brotherhood, Bioshock 2, or even Portal 2 whose predecessors were a strictly single-player narrative are turning to at least include a multi-player mode, whether cooperative or competitive. At the core of this shift is the desire for game makers (developers and publishers alike) to extend the longevity of their product - which is a noble enough aim. Where single-player is limited to the extent of the content created by the programmers and the designers, the crux of multiplayer lies in human-to-human interaction, which is a dynamic that rarely rests stagnant.

Multiplayer has changed a lot as the years pass. Most notably the shift has been made where we expect multiplayer to be online, and not local. This is not inherently a bad thing. One rarely gets the opportunity to play games with a faraway friend were it not for the Wide Area Network. Online play also means learning (through competition or cooperation) with a higher skill ceiling as we are not limited to getting smoked by the smartest or fastest kid in the neighborhood. What it does mean though, is a physical segregation of people, which at times can feel almost counter-intuitive to the purpose of multi-player - the bringing together of players.

The most relevant example that comes to mind must be the hot-from-the-oven (and in this respect, controversial) Blizzard title that is StarCraft 2. While LAN parties have become a less relevant through the past couple years, omission of a LAN mode from StarCraft 2 caused for outcry and weeping for both the casual and serious tournament scene (if a casual tournament is at all possible). First Person Shooters like Modern Warfare 2 and Battlefield Bad Company 2 whose earlier installments considered LAN play to be part and parcel shipped without. Racing games like Burnout Paradise also have no local multi-player, save for a content update that allowed for pass-the-controller, turn-based play.

Why is this happening? I would hazard the guess that for the most part, it is the exertion by the publisher to increase sales, increase the number of unique units to be bought and played. Where LAN mode is available, a single copy of the game is sufficient for a group. Where there is split-screen play, one copy can usually cover four people at any given time. The business mentality might just be that sales could easily quadruple or more if everyone had to purchase a unique copy.

Consider me an old man for still valuing the traditional game enjoyed with friends in-person. A game in particular would be New Super Mario Bros. Wii, which features old-style shared-screen local multi-player. It has become my 'go-to' game when friends are around, and it would seem that time-and-time again, it excels as a game experience. Half its effectiveness lies within the video game, and the other half lies within the players and their interaction in the physical environment.

(Image from Destructoid)

While it definitely seems conceivable that a game experience could be impaired through physical separation of its multiple players, I don't think the inverse holds true. While online play is still very important for convenience's sake, to thin the already-existent ability for people to play together in a close (and closed) environment seems like a pirate-paranoid, cash-hungry tactic to me.

Addendum: A new look courtesy of Blogger's new template tool. Still nothing 'original', or saussage-relevant, but that may just come in time.

...And a not so quiet follow up

With the (rough and crude) formalities out of the way, I feel I must speak my mind.

The recent interview of StarCraft 2's Battle.net 2.0 has left me shocked. In a nutshell, features like chatrooms, LAN capability, online replays and cross-realm play have been omitted. While LAN play has been denied before, what is most mind bending is the lack of cross-realm play.

The implications of lacking cross-realm play are incredible - each region's StarCraft 2 is locked to play with its own region. Essentially, one must purchase the EU version to play with the Europeans, the South-East Asia version to play with Asia (with Oceania bundled in), and the US version to play with the North-Americans. In addition, each copy must register its own Battle.net account, such that there is no universal account that can handle different region versions. Given that StarCraft 2 is a three-piece epic, this implies that to be able to play the full experience with everyone, one must buy the three pieces, for each of three regions. That's nine StarCraft 2's. Now that the popular thing to do is to bump PC games up to $60USD a pop, that's $540USD for the comprehensive (vanilla, not collector's) package. We'd better hope that for that kind of price,  each part is content-packing enough to warrant buying three whole separate times.

Frank Pearce blames internet infrastructures for poor latency, resulting in poor gameplay as reason to cordon off continents. From what I know, this has not stopped any other RTS game in history from allowing cross-ocean connections. If Blizzard is concerned about latency, then they should develop a means to filter out faraway countries like a sane developer. Those with buddies can still connect at their peril, but at least also at their discernment. For a game franchise that is arguably as competitive as it gets, to split continents away from each other is counter-intuitive to too many degrees. What matters is choice, and Blizzard has chosen to remove it in their new infrastructures. This is effectively (i.e. with caveats) region-locking for the PC platform. Nigh unprecedented in history, and introduced, from all people, Blizzard, for a flagship product twelve years in anticipation.

Upon all this is lack of fan-craved online replays, chatrooms and LAN. While I do not play StarCraft competitively (or to any competent degree at all), those who are serious about the game often talk of chatrooms as a crucial point from which clans and groups co-ordinate and form. LAN play is by far the most 'pure' competitive experience, and to disallow such is a worrying trend in too many games. Each of these deserves to be an issue in its own right, but I will spare thee the lengthy prose.

Given what's been presented, I cannot say I have high hopes for the competitive, serious nature of play in StarCraft 2. I am not arguing that the core mechanics of StarCraft 2 is in jeopardy, but rather fear for my resolute brethren who desperately yearn for a unifying competitive RTS experience. Regardless of the outcome it'll be a gangbuster sell - StarCraft by name holds enough water that a hundred holes in the metaphorical bucket can do naught to stop it. Activision is simply a large powerhouse, and if consumers are to blindly buy what they have been marketed, we reward those who do not deserve it. And that of all things, dear reader, is most worrisome.

(P.S. For the piping-hot discussion, Team Liquid is as good a start as any.)