Classic Multiplayer

And Its Unfortunate Death

by exterminat

©2011 Nicholas Laborde

One thing that has particularly caused the grinding of my gears over the past few years is how Call of Duty has become milked, mainstream garbage rehashed every year with .5% better visuals and two new weapons. On top of that, each one sells better than the last!

Don’t get me wrong: you’re entitled to play whatever you like, and have fun with it.

I don’t strongly dislike Call of Duty for the fact that it’s popular, because then that would classify me as an angry hipster.

I dislike Call of Duty because it killed the last good thing the industry still had up its sleeve: what I’ll call ‘classic multiplayer’.

‘Classic’ multiplayer

Some will call this a nostalgic tirade; some will see a person speaking of when games were, in his opinion, much more fun. And then some will angrily type comments at me, calling me dumb, ignorant, inferior and an all-around evil person.

Believe what you may, but classic multiplayer has been on the decline for many years, whether or not we are willing to admit such a blasphemy.

How could such a thing happen? We’re more connected than ever before, and technology is peaking, allowing games to be some of the best in history.

If the online community from Halo 2′s height of popularity (around 2005 and 2006) were to view what we have today, they just may have had a heart attack.

The whole online scene rarely features what I call ‘classic’ multiplayer. That is, multiplayer where everyone starts out on the same field regardless of level and without weapon customization/choice. Most importantly, the weapons are placed in the map and you have to find them.

Halo is the focal point for much of my discussion, as it demonstrates the real last evidence of a properly executed classic multiplayer.

Nonsense!

The year is 2004. Xbox Live has been out for over a year, and still hasn’t picked up the steam it has potential to gather.

Then comes a little announcement: Halo 2 would feature Xbox Live support for online multiplayer.

Now, you kids with your PlayBoxes and XStation 3′s may not understand the concept of buying a console system or service based upon one thing.

Back in 2004, that concept still existed because not every game was a AAA multiplatform title, and the big AAA titles separated the men from the boys (whereas today if you’re not AAA, you may not succeed, and if you don’t have twenty-seven AAA titles on your system, it’s considered crap).

Halo 2 set the precedent for online console multiplayer. I can remember before I was an online gamer hearing animated discussions from all of my friends in regards to Halo 2 matches on Xbox Live.

Science proved that it was the greatest concept since sliced bread; Time magazine hailed it as greater than the wheel.

What does it all mean?

What really made Halo 2 great was its simplicity.

The biggest innovation was the “moving lobby.” Without this, online gaming wouldn’t be the same today. Halo 2 invented what we have come to know as the party system; for the uninformed, I’m talking about inviting your friends into a lobby and then searching for a game together while keeping you paired with your buddies.

That’s something standard for a multiplayer game these days. Does anyone care who created it? Absolutely not (because knowing your history isn’t important anymore!).

Imagine if Halo 2 were released today. Do you think with the current state of the industry and style of modern gamers that the title would be accepted and played like it was?

Of course not. One of the many things that made the title brilliant was how bare-bones it was, and how the community had to inject creativity in order for it to thrive like it did.

Would a modern gamer adjust a few game settings, play a custom game match without the ability to gain experience points, and do things like manually changing teams because of player-set rules?

That’s like asking someone to run a marathon; the typical person wouldn’t do it.

The difference in gamers in 2004 and 2011 is tremendous, but this isn’t a hate on the current gaming crowd. Games are equally at fault.

The bare-bones-ness of these games was what allowed people to get creative and make interesting multiplayer scenarios. The lack of customization, map tools and so many other modern conveniences led to players spending more times in a private game with their buddies than in matchmaking itself.

Nowadays, games have map tools, ridiculous meticulous options for multiplayer matchmaking, tons of customization, rank systems that stretch across every single game mode, the ability to rewatch games you’ve played, and so much more.

[Ed Note: We now often get pre-order or Limited Edition version codes for special weapons or other customisations too.]

But how many custom games do you see going in Halo: Reach, or even Call of Duty: Black Ops?

Little to none.

Having so much choice and so many options can be overwhelming to the point where most players won’t even try to fiddle with them; it’s much easier to wait for the best ones someone else more dedicated has made to appear in matchmaking.

As of when I wrote this, I have played approximately 1154 custom games in Halo 3, which is approximately 52% of my entire Halo 3 career.

How many have I played in Reach? Six.

And that was by accidentally starting them or just to look at the maps initially. I have not played one custom mode or map with any of my friends, because they aren’t playing any of them. It’s as if there is no purpose but it has to be there anyway!

In a sort of off topic note, I ask you one last thing: when was the last time you really anticipated a game? When the anticipation and hype were so much that you couldn’t contain yourself? By having games with yearly iterations, it slowly kills any form of hype or anticipation, especially with an onslaught of DLC and a multiplayer that resembles every other multiplayer.

I haven’t been legitimately excited for a game since Halo 3.

Oh 2011, how we love you so!

Have we truly reached a point where these things are outdated, obsolete, and quite possibly unappealing to the modern audience?

I was recently having a discussion with OXCGN’s own 2IC and editor, David.

When expressing my disappointment at the lack of good, fresh stealth-focused experiences in the  style of Splinter Cell: Chaos Theory, he made a point I would have been too unwilling to utter; gamers simply “don’t have time or can’t be bothered” to sneak through an environment (especially with multiple tries, if you’re a perfectionist like me) anymore.  The foreplay is too much work; it’s wham bam, thank you…you get the idea.

Every multiplayer has to be like Call of Duty in order to be successful.

Look at Medal of Honor (2010)! DICE felt the need to copy the very series that Medal of Honor created (COD) in order to ensure success.

Think about this: when was the last time you played a CTF (Capture The Flag) game mode?

It’s something that we need to stop and think about. Do we really want every multiplayer game to be like that of Call of Duty?

If not, then we need to call for the revival of classic multiplayer.

Another topic we’ve looked at is the death of split-screen multiplayer.  This was looked at awhile ago, but still applies: click HERE.

©2011 Nicholas Laborde

xxxxxx

Filed under: Blogbanter, Console gaming, Editorial, GameBanter, Gamer's Debate, Xbox 360 Tagged: | Call Of Duty, Call of Duty 4: Modern Warfare, Halo, Halo 2, halo: combat evolved, Microsoft, Xbox, xbox live