next »

[Zaeche]

I've been thinking about this a lot recently.

I like both, and think both have their place. Every time I've had a small and simple idea with a multiplayer aspect, I've always begun by thinking of it as a local multiplayer experience. Perhaps it's to do with having a smaller scope, an easier time implementing it, the general responsiveness and lack of latency, of being somewhat infatuated with TowerFall's design ... but eventually, it's led me to question if the technical aspect is truly the only distinction between the two?

It seems somewhat subjective. Certainly, for me it would be a factor: while I can code, I'm no Carmack. Looking at it differently, such as for design implications, sort of helps? Why one over the other, and vice versa? Possible story implications, if any? That sort of stuff.

I'm sure there are some fairly obvious answers to my musings, but still, I think I just want to listen to everyone else's thoughts for the time being.

Oh, and here are a couple of interesting links (local yet lives).

((Edit: Cripes, I didn't realise this was going into 'Creative' and not 'Design'. Let me know if that's a problem and I'll move it.))

[Mittens]

I've been pondering this a lot lately

The main implications are social.
If your game expects people to get invested by learning deep mechanics or listening to a story, then local multiplayer is going to fight against you. People will be around their friends and less able or willing to focus. On the other hand, if your game is shallow and lighthearted, then online would be poison since it would inhibit a players natural enjoyment due to the detached social landscape. In an online game all the fun needs to be contained within the game, in a local experience, there is space for fun in the room outside the screen but less depth feasible inside it.

[Zaeche]

The main implications are social.

True. I've been thinking of it as a kind of 'social scope' where you can decide on the size of community: one a large, sprawling metropolis [online], the other smaller, isolated pockets [local].

If your game expects people to get invested by learning deep mechanics or listening to a story, then local multiplayer is going to fight against you. People will be around their friends and less able or willing to focus.

Interesting way to put it.

But then: what of a local co-op game? Wouldn't that engender immersion as players have to work together and are (as equally as they could be) invested? I think so and it's one of the aspects I've been struggling with. Even if the game is primarily centred around local multiplayer, I think the option of online is a 'nice to have' sort of feature.

What if you can't get friends and the game requires there be three players minimum? Should one care for that scenario as a developer (or just implement bots and call it a day)? And at what point does one have to 'give in' to online because it's a more 'scalable' architecture? I mean, supposing a game requires an absolute minimum of four players - and it only grows from there - it makes more sense to go online.

Rambling done.

[nickFromPaintteh]

Back in uni was really nice to play multiplayer shooters with people in the same room .

But (families and kids) it is more difficult to get people in the same room to play.
I really I am into online multiplayer games.
 It is always more fun (for me) to play against people than any AI.