next »

[FatHat]

(I'm phrasing this in the form of a question, but mostly I'm musing out loud to help myself think through this. Definitely want suggestions on this though)

One thing I've been noticing about popular massively multiplayer games is that they do not require much skill on the players part. Instead, advancement is based on time investment.

It's not my intention to deride that, some people certainly enjoy MMORPGers. What I'm getting at is that it seems like the prerequisite to creating this sort of social experience is that elements of skill have to be dumbed down so that everyone can be on the same playing field. This seems like a high price. Can we do better?

In other words, can we create multiplayer games based on skill that can still be enjoyable to people that aren't very good?

To give some context, I've been thinking about Left 4 Dead. Amongst my group of friends, we tend to be roughly equally good at the game, and we have a lot of fun playing through it on versus or in Expert campaings. Recently we managed to recruit one of our other friends, let's call her Sally, to play. The problem is, Sally is really really bad. We want to include Sally, and she tries hard, but she just sucks at the game. It's not her fault, she's just not experienced with shooters.

The problem is, as a designer, how could we change Left4Dead so that Sally can play with us?

One option is that we could give Sally a handicap. Maybe she starts with more health and the game helps her aim. This is a possible solution, but I'm afraid it might be patronizing.

We could do this in a hidden way, so that the players never know. Maybe her health looks the same, but she takes less damage when a zombie hits her, and the game dynamically scales this. I like this a little better.

Another consideration might be to change the game mechanics outright. The reason sally sucks is because she doesn't have 10 years of shooter experience like the rest of us do, and there's no way she can realistically catch up. So perhaps instead we do what nintendo did with the Wii, and put everyone on the same playing field by changing how we interact with the game entirely so nobody has an advantage. I think the Wii is largely popular because it avoids the "I suck at videogames so I'm not going to try" phenomenon, because it doesn't even look like playing a videogame. Of course the dangerous part with this approach is that the mechanics we have are there because they've been proven to work, and so by striking it out away from those there's a danger you make something alien that isn't fun.

Maybe another option is to not level the playing field, but to make failure fun. For instance, maybe if you die as a survivor, you're allowed to play as one of the zombies. This could also create an interesting dynamic: now the more experienced players have more vested interest in protecting their feeble comrade, because they could come back to haunt them.

Or if you want to avoid that rabbit hole, maybe the game could let their ghost assist the survivors, while also simultaneously teaches them the skills they need to excel later in the game.

The two things those options have in common is that failure is still possible, but you remove the aspect of punishment.

What do you guys think? What other mechanisms could we use to allow casual gamers to still enjoy skill based multiplayer games?

[Lynx]

It either needs to be adaptive difficulty, or you need to have a per-player-configurable difficulty.

Adaptive difficulty: the game notices that player X misses a lot and starts giving them help.  Or that player X has died a lot and starts reducing the health they take, and providing more visible guiding arrows to help them get back to the sides of their compatriots.

Configurable difficulty would just show the players the list of handicaps they were currently receiving and allow them to turn those on.

Also, having 'lives' for a multiplayer game is probably not satisfactory.  If someone dies, and runs out of lives, they wind up having to sit out - that's no fun.  Instead, it could require people to drag the unconscious team mate to a safe place where they can resuscitate him/her.  If everyone goes unconscious then it's rewind-to-last-safe-point time.  It should feel like part of the game experience, rather than counting off a finite resource (lives) at the end of which players lose the game.

[the9thdude]

First, you need BASIC game mechanics, the simpler the better. In the case of L4D, you can move, shoot, pickup/throw stuff and that's about it. The goal has to be equally simple. With these two you lower the learning curve substantially. Then you should somehow FORCE the players to co-operate and give them bonuses for doing so; like if they travel together, they get a slight health/resistance boost.

With these simple factors, you have the more skilled players looking out for the lower skilled players and the lower skilled players don't feel like they suck. Also, reward assists. Nobody likes it when they get assists throughout a game only to end up at the bottom of the leaderboard.

[dbb]

I've seen the phrase "asymmetric gameplay" around a few places. A good example is the old Games Workshop board game "Space Hulk", a turn-based tactical thing which had a squad of space marines fighting their way through a spaceship that was infested with aliens. Played a lot like a board game of the film "Aliens". Playing as the aliens was a lot simpler and easier for inexperienced players, as you constantly spawned new units, and you just charged and attacked at close range, meaning there wasn't a lot of complex rules to learn. Playing as the marines was harder and more complex, as you had to be very careful to keep your guys alive, and there were lots of tactical decisions to be made about covering fire etc.

The nice thing about it was that someone who had never played it before could play the aliens and give an experienced opponent a reasonable challenge.

By throwing out a lot of the received wisdom about "balanced" opponents, you could make a game with a lot of options for people of varying skill levels to play each other.

[brog]

This is definitely a problem to consider with competitive multiplayer games.  One thing I've noticed in the various gaming communities I've been part of is that people are a lot more willing to play a boardgame that they'll almost certainly lose than a videogame.  Boardgame players accept that if they play a game they've never played before against expert players, they'll lose, and that's okay - it's the best way to learn.  Videogame players, for the most part, seem to much prefer playing against the computer first until they feel like they have a chance of winning in multiplayer, and many never play with other people at all.

I'm not sure why this is.  It might be that computer-gamers are weak.  Or it might be because board games are generally played with people you know, as this lostgarden article suggests.

Whatever.  For a game to have depth of skill and strategy is considered a good thing, but it also means a high-level player will almost certainly defeat a new player.  This is a problem for videogames, and I have no ideas how to solve it.  (But to be honest, I'd be happy to have a small hardcore community around one of my games, even if it was offputting to new players.)

(Another difference between boardgamers and videogamers: boardgamers like to know the rules before they start playing!  It's really weird; I've been used to trying to educate players through the game itself, because I know they're never going to read the manual, but then when I show it to my boardgame friends they want to read the rules first!)

[Jolli]

how modern action multiplayer games seem to handle it-

pair up players of similar skill levels (matchmaking)
--(halo 3 has a special introductory playlist for new players, to only play with new players until... you know.)

reward losers
--keep dying and you get perks that... helps you -cod6

overpowered new player's friendly tactic/weapon/whatever
--the "c stick" with smash bros melee
--the chainsaw in gears 2
--martydom perk in cod4 is available right at the start with the intention for newbies to get free kills with it (tho abused by higher level players)

i don't know of any game that just change the mechanics of the game for bad players... o well

[mewse]

There's an easy solve for this -- one which nobody ever uses.

It's simply this:  Instead of making a player more powerful as they do well, make them less powerful.  Instead of giving players new abilities for reaching higher levels, take away their best abilities, or make them more attractive targets in some game-specific manner.  (Perhaps make them larger or slower so that they're easier to hit, or take away some of their health, etc).  This approach automatically balances the game so that players of different skill levels can play together -- the players who do better will find the game scaling in difficulty for them, while the players who have trouble will find it becoming easier for them.

Of course, nobody does any of this -- it feels weird to punish a player for doing too well, and it's counterintuitive to start a player with everything, and slowly remove things over the course of a game.  But it actually would completely solve exactly this problem.

[Jolli]

well that could work for a game like cod4

maybe take away martydom at level 10, and replace it with a perk that skilled people would like, like uhm... radar jamming. IDK

[easynam]

I think it could only really work in a game without persistent stats. (like an RTS; everyone has the same options in every game generally)

Maybe a game where as you grow stronger you become bigger and less maneuverable, and then smaller more maneuverable players can hit their weak points (Captain forever kind of does this; a lot of ships can be taken out by flying a tiny ship into their weak point and destroying them.

[Dacke]

One solution is to have different roles.

For example, in Team Fortress, playing different classes require different skills.

• Playing as the medic, you don't have to be good at aiming. Being a good medic is about paying attention to the other players and have good timing.
• Playing as a mechanic is about knowing when and where to put buildings up, something your team mates can help you with until you learn to read the game.

Neither of these classes require very much shooter-skill, yet they can be of great use to their team. While playing such a supporter class, you get more comftable with the game and get practice. Most people on the team still need to play shooter-skill-based classes to make a good team, but a beginner can easily fit in and help out

[team_q]

There's an easy solve for this -- one which nobody ever uses.

It's simply this:  Instead of making a player more powerful as they do well, make them less powerful.  Instead of giving players new abilities for reaching higher levels, take away their best abilities, or make them more attractive targets in some game-specific manner.  (Perhaps make them larger or slower so that they're easier to hit, or take away some of their health, etc).  This approach automatically balances the game so that players of different skill levels can play together -- the players who do better will find the game scaling in difficulty for them, while the players who have trouble will find it becoming easier for them.

Of course, nobody does any of this -- it feels weird to punish a player for doing too well, and it's counterintuitive to start a player with everything, and slowly remove things over the course of a game.  But it actually would completely solve exactly this problem.

If a game gives benefits to newbies, then people who have played a lot will 'Smurf' and make new accounts to take advantage of the benefits with their greater skills. People do this in MMO's all the time.
If you give advantages to people who don't play well, socially it becomes a bit of a black mark, you aren't good enough to play with the big boys, so you NEED these enhancements. It could work if you made it invisible, but spreadsheet people will figure it out and use it for there advantage.

[SirNiko]

Give the skilled players some control over Suzie. For example, in L4D, maybe the other players can pick which weapon Suzie uses when, or use a system to automatically call her over when you need to be revived. As she gets better at the game, you exercise less and less control over her, until eventually she's doing everything herself.

This could also benefit skilled players who simply don't want to be bothered with some aspect of the game, like weapon selection or whatever.

It'd be the video-game equivalent of a co-pilot.

-SirNiko

[FatHat]

Give the skilled players some control over Suzie. For example, in L4D, maybe the other players can pick which weapon Suzie uses when, or use a system to automatically call her over when you need to be revived. As she gets better at the game, you exercise less and less control over her, until eventually she's doing everything herself.

This could also benefit skilled players who simply don't want to be bothered with some aspect of the game, like weapon selection or whatever.

It'd be the video-game equivalent of a co-pilot.

-SirNiko

That's an interesting idea. It makes me think of Final Fantasy 12's battle system. I'm not sure if you played it, but one of the game mechanics was that you could "program" the NPC characters to do certain actions in an "if-then" sense. I thought it was really well done, and it allowed you to develop very complex strategies over time without having to micromanage. I think that's definitely a viable option here...

[SirNiko]

I have played FF12. Using a similar system could possibly work.

My only concern is over how it's implemented, and whether Suzie would resent being manipulated. For some, it'd be a non-issue. For others, the player might be upset that they're losing control.

Possibly introducing some sort of system where the control mode still lets Suzie interact would ease this. For example, she's called over to help, but can still turn and shoot at monsters on the way there. Or, use make her use the smart bomb, but she gets to pick whether she throws it overhand, underhand, or some other purely cosmetic decision.

I dunno, though. Maybe that'd be a big issue, or maybe most of the Suzies in the world simply won't care. I've seen both kinds. If you ever implement this, I'd love to see the results on how children / unskilled adults react to the system.

-SirNiko

[FatHat]

I have played FF12. Using a similar system could possibly work.

My only concern is over how it's implemented, and whether Suzie would resent being manipulated. For some, it'd be a non-issue. For others, the player might be upset that they're losing control.

Possibly introducing some sort of system where the control mode still lets Suzie interact would ease this. For example, she's called over to help, but can still turn and shoot at monsters on the way there. Or, use make her use the smart bomb, but she gets to pick whether she throws it overhand, underhand, or some other purely cosmetic decision.

I dunno, though. Maybe that'd be a big issue, or maybe most of the Suzies in the world simply won't care. I've seen both kinds. If you ever implement this, I'd love to see the results on how children / unskilled adults react to the system.

-SirNiko

Oops, heh, I was thinking you were referring to Suzie as a bot, hence the programming bit. But now that we're discussing this accidental collusion of ideas, programming a player would be vastly more insulting... but I like it. Now I'm totally wondering if it could work, heh. Instead of applying medpacks to people you could apply a skill-pack. 

[BlueSweatshirt]

It would definitely be cool to play an action-type MMO where you program methods of action to your player, rather than executing them yourself.

 

[SirNiko]

Oops, heh, I was thinking you were referring to Suzie as a bot, hence the programming bit. But now that we're discussing this accidental collusion of ideas, programming a player would be vastly more insulting... but I like it. Now I'm totally wondering if it could work, heh. Instead of applying medpacks to people you could apply a skill-pack. 

No, no. I think you have mistaken my point. There is no robot to speak of in this setup.

Imagine you are playing Super Mario. You and Suzie each are holding a controller. Suzie is playing by herself at this point, when she encounters a goomba. You take over, from your controller, making Suzie jump on the goomba. Suzie, from her controller, takes over again. You encounter a question block, and Suzie does not understand what it is, so you demonstrate by taking over and hitting it, and collecting the mushroom inside. Suzie now understands question mark blocks. You let her hit the next three by herself. Another goomba appears, and Suzie feels more confident. She jumps at it, overcompensates, and jumps right over. But now she's making progress.

No robots are involved. Every action Mario performs is driven by a player pressing a button. The other, more important part is that Suzie never relinquishes her controller. She is there playing continuously, not giving up her controller at any point. She may choose to take the front at times (She likes hitting the flagpole) or she may operate as a wingman (when you have fire flowers, she likes to fire the fireballs while you jump on platforms).

There's probably a lot of other ways you could implement this concept, and working this on a computer might take some effort, since controllers are not always easily available.

Also, for an MMO where you present tasks and then the game executes them, check out www.kingdomofloathing.com . It's pretty much the only MMO I know where botting is considered perfectly legitimate, since it offers the player no advantage (You're limited on turns per day, so having a robot run turns for you is perfectly reasonable). Your strategy for how to use the turns is far more important than the actual execution of the turns.

-SirNiko

[Brice]

Oh my, this is one of the great problems in game design.  I think you said all of the known solutions in your first post.  You can get the person up to speed or handicap them.  This is why there are no (successful) skill based MMO's.  The Reward and Punishment Systems don't make sense.

It's a really fundamental problem.  Think about about normal games, like sports.  In tennis, you don't want to play with someone who's a lot worse than you, unless you're goofing off.  The whole point of the game is to test your own skill, so if you aren't testing your skill there's no point.  It's different with other activities, like dancing, where it isn't competitive, and both people are working together to just have fun.  But that's a different Core Experience.

Imagine you are playing Super Mario. You and Suzie each are holding a controller. Suzie is playing by herself at this point, when she encounters a goomba.

That reminds me: has anyone played New Super Mario Bros. Wii?  That has multiplayer + the patented Nintendo auto-play features.  I wonder how successful that is?

[alspal]

I liked how in Halo ODST fire-fight, all the players share the same lives counter so you pretty much have to make sure that everyone is working together and looking out for each other.