In many online games in which teams or other large groups of players are involved (ranging from shooters like Team Fortress 2 to cooperative MMORPGs like Shin Megami Tensei IMAGINE), there is also an element of teamwork required -- the need to rely on, and be relied upon by, your fellow players, perhaps in combat against other similar groups, or just against groups of monsters, raid bosses (which deserve a post all to their own), or what have you. In any case, the unifying element here is that the game wants to take advantage of the social aspect of a primarily online game -- which is all well and good, a noble goal, and a bunch of other good things.
What's not so good about it is that it rarely works out.
A social group, in the case of an online game, is one built immediately, and not through happenstance (as might happen in real war, or similar), but through a bunch of different people wanting to play the same game and ending up in the same place as a result -- public games, public servers, or simply MMOs with shared worlds (World of Warcraft, but not Guild Wars). The level of teamwork which can achieve is affected drastically by your familiarity and camaraderie with your teammates, no matter how much some people would like to deny like that, and affected further by whether these people are polite, cooperative team players. In most public games, at least one of the two is missing.
As a result, many public games tend to fall flat -- people with access to a microphone and a lot to say with it can seriously damage the ability of a team to cooperate. Doubly so if they're willing to curse out a teammate for a single mistake, and it's even worse if these people are willing to grief their own team to make a point in that vein (and yes, griefing will get an article too). And even in a public game, if you do get a good crop of polite, cooperative skilled players on your side, they still more than likely lack familiarity with you -- and believe me, the difference between playing with a stranger and a friend is immense. A friend is a lot more familiar with your quirks and shortcomings and will generally act to shore them up, and you're likely to do the same if you know them. That's simply not the case for someone who has no idea who you are and how your personality affects the game.
The best player-side solution is to play with people you're exceedingly familiar with, but not only is this a serious luxury for some people, it is terribly boring for most others. Unless you have a well-rounded, massive group of Elysian warriors that take turns playing and never play the same match twice, it's going to get boring sometime -- or maybe you're just not easy to bore. At any rate, the simple fact is that even groups you are familiar with can be painful to play with sometimes.
The best developer-side solution is a bit harder to argue, because the developer has so many options, but many of which are unfeasible or relatively useless, and what might seem good to one player will very much displease another. In my opinion, I'd say that designing a game that works with smaller groups of players is a step in the right direction. While in a game like Team Fortress 2 you can be coordinated as many as sixteen versus sixteen, it would be a lot easier to get three or four people on the same page. Hell, what if each TF2 match consisted of several groups of players working on different "mini-maps", and whichever team, RED or BLU, won the most out of, say, five battles (three people on each "squad" for a total of three), is determined to win the round. In this case, you're still reliant on your teammates, but your teammates are probably more reliable.
In any case, this is hard issue to debate and talk about, so I want your opinion as well. If anyone's reading this, I'd love you if you left comments telling me what you think about this and what you think could be done about it!
No comments:
Post a Comment