Support NeoGAF

[Men_in_Boxes]

I've seen a number of comments suggesting that multiplayer is a crap shoot. Publishers and developers can't really know if their multiplayer games are going to sink or swim. I'm here to question that narrative, as well as ask for input from the percentage of NeoGAF members who consider themselves multiplayer centric. In reality, I think multiplayer today generally finds success using the rubric below...

THE MULTIPLAYER RUBRIC (Grade/4)

1. How well does your game cater to different playstyles + skill levels? Can the Dad who plays two hrs a week and likes to avoid conflict, find success alongside the 15 year old Red Bull drinking teen who seeks conflict?

2. Is the gameplay arc (loop) at a mature enough length? Longer arcs naturally create a wider variety of player experiences as well as protection from player fatigue.

3. How attractive is winning and how miserable is losing? Games with big stakes on the line provide a more compelling experience and encourage water cooler moments at the office. Water cooler moments lead to conversations like "Jump online with me this weekend and let's see if we can figure this out."

4. How accommodating is the social aspect? Can the Chatty Kathy have a rich social experience as well as the Loner Larry who just wants to keep his mic off? The more personality types that are catered to the higher the ceiling + floor is for multiplayer.

The next multiplayer phenomenon will likely score highly in all 4 areas. Conversely, game critics will continue focusing on more meaningless aspects such as graphics, art style, gunfeel, and Battle Passes.

Rubric reviews, 4/4 is highest grade:

Fortnite
1. 4
2. 4
3. 4
4. 4

Overwatch
1. 3
2. 2
3. 2
4. 2

Halo Infinite
1. 1
2. 1
3. 1
4. 1

Croatoan semi inspired this thread as he was the first one to see Valheims hit potential when very few were talking about it. I suspect he did so because he's attuned to a somewhat similar framework for assessing multiplayer. I'd be interested to hear from people who believe they somewhat understand this medium, and if there can be anything added to, or changed from the rubric.

As we approach another E3 season, it's likely we're going to see the next gen wave of multiplayer be revealed. It might be interesting if we compare this new wave according to the above rubric, rather than let the Greg Millers of the world try to dictate hype.

 

[Amornalx]

I found 7 possible genres that should be the next big game genres. Any of these ideas aren't mine, but from flyingorion:
Grand Royale
Battformer
MMO Dating
Audience Simulation
Music Sandbox
Limited Open World
Social Royale
And i think that at least one of these could be a future multiplayer phenomenon, not the next one, but a future one.

 

[Croatoan]

My method for figuring out if something is going to go big is:

1. Are streamers who usually play other games playing this one even if it is out of there genre or small.
2. Is it multiplayer, especially co-op multiplayer.
3. Does it allow player creativity (this doesn't mean a game has to have building or something like that. Just that players can be creative in how they play the game).
4. Does it have depth

Valheim hit all 4 of those so it was an easy call.
1. Freaking Tarkov streamers were playing it when it first dropped in EA. Cohh Carnage really signal boosted as well.
2. Co-op multiplayer in a big world. Yep this is a dead give away.
3. Building, terrain deformation, ect.
4. Massive world to explore, leveling system, lots of ways to build, fight and progress.


The reason why I say multiplayer is a crap shoot is.
1. Cheating is rampant on PC and Console
2. Dev philosophies either destroy depth or make things too in-depth. Middle ground is important
3. Devs keep chasing the same types of cookie cutter games and are afraid of extreme difficulty in multiplayer games.
4. Reliance on PvP, or shared world, instead of large open world co-op games.

Good example is Fallout 76. If that game was a 4 player or even 2 player version of Fallout 4 with a good story it is a hit. The reason it isn't is because they wanted to run their own servers instead of allowing players run their own servers with their own mods and stuff like Valheim. Dumb.

 

[Hugare]

"1. How well does your game cater to different playstyles + skill levels? "

Fortnite being 4/4 on this topic is ridiculous

It's not noob friendly at all nowadays. Even with a new account or having terrible K/D ratio, you will still play with some 6 year old kid that can build a bridge in 2 seconds.

I know so many people that left the game because the skill requirements nowadays is so huge.

But that was bound to happen with the increase in popularity

 

[Men_in_Boxes]

"1. How well does your game cater to different playstyles + skill levels? "

Fortnite being 4/4 on this topic is ridiculous

It's not noob friendly at all nowadays. Even with a new account or having terrible K/D ratio, you will still play with some 6 year old kid that can build a bridge in 2 seconds.

I know so many people that left the game because the skill requirements nowadays is so huge.

But that was bound to happen with the increase in popularity

I'd argue that it launched at a 4/4 but I could be talked into dropping it down to a 3/4.

The SBMM works about as well as other multiplayer games on the market. Not perfect, but what is? In terms of catering to different playstyles I see it as still an industry leader. Players that want to play like Rambo (high action, sweaty) can still drop into busy PoIs. Players that prefer calmer experiences can drop edge of map and loot up uninterrupted. You can also play more stealthy by hiding and focusing on loot that caters to ambush playstyles (sniping in trees vs. shotgun fights). It also does a pretty good job adding asymmetric mechanics into the game that play totally differently. The Mechs and UFOs cater to people not interested in playing like the sweaty bridge builders you describe.

My expectation is that your criticism will get more and more valid as developers start releasing games that emphasize different playstyles more and more.

The Call of Duty Warzone 2 developers said that this was one of their focuses on their next BR.

My method for figuring out if something is going to go big is:

1. Are streamers who usually play other games playing this one even if it is out of there genre or small.
2. Is it multiplayer, especially co-op multiplayer.
3. Does it allow player creativity (this doesn't mean a game has to have building or something like that. Just that players can be creative in how they play the game).
4. Does it have depth

Valheim hit all 4 of those so it was an easy call.
1. Freaking Tarkov streamers were playing it when it first dropped in EA. Cohh Carnage really signal boosted as well.
2. Co-op multiplayer in a big world. Yep this is a dead give away.
3. Building, terrain deformation, ect.
4. Massive world to explore, leveling system, lots of ways to build, fight and progress.


The reason why I say multiplayer is a crap shoot is.
1. Cheating is rampant on PC and Console
2. Dev philosophies either destroy depth or make things too in-depth. Middle ground is important
3. Devs keep chasing the same types of cookie cutter games and are afraid of extreme difficulty in multiplayer games.
4. Reliance on PvP, or shared world, instead of large open world co-op games.

Good example is Fallout 76. If that game was a 4 player or even 2 player version of Fallout 4 with a good story it is a hit. The reason it isn't is because they wanted to run their own servers instead of allowing players run their own servers with their own mods and stuff like Valheim. Dumb.

Curious if you think you can reasonably predict breakout hits when it pertains to PvP? I generally agree with your method, though I think we should be able to assess games without knowing how streamers are responding to them. I assume you're like me and currently don't see that "next big thing" on the horizon at the moment?

 

[Croatoan]

I'd argue that it launched at a 4/4 but I could be talked into dropping it down to a 3/4.

The SBMM works about as well as other multiplayer games on the market. Not perfect, but what is? In terms of catering to different playstyles I see it as still an industry leader. Players that want to play like Rambo (high action, sweaty) can still drop into busy PoIs. Players that prefer calmer experiences can drop edge of map and loot up uninterrupted. You can also play more stealthy by hiding and focusing on loot that caters to ambush playstyles (sniping in trees vs. shotgun fights). It also does a pretty good job adding asymmetric mechanics into the game that play totally differently. The Mechs and UFOs cater to people not interested in playing like the sweaty bridge builders you describe.

My expectation is that your criticism will get more and more valid as developers start releasing games that emphasize different playstyles more and more.

The Call of Duty Warzone 2 developers said that this was one of their focuses on their next BR.



Curious if you think you can reasonably predict breakout hits when it pertains to PvP? I generally agree with your method, though I think we should be able to assess games without knowing how streamers are responding to them. I assume you're like me and currently don't see that "next big thing" on the horizon at the moment?

Well I was in on pubg real early and new it would be successful. I had no idea it would spawn a genre.

Oddly enough I was also early on h1z1 but thought it was just alright.

I think the next big pvp hit is going to be a more accessible "Escape from tarkov" with devs that understand netcode. The cycle Frontier could be that game but I'll wait to see how they have changed things before I make a prediction there.

Honestly think it needs to be more modern in setting.

Played fortnight br day one and thought it was cool as hell. Didnt see it blowing up at the beginning. Once I understood thier memeish business plan I figured it would be successful but not for me and went back to pubg.

I like to focus on coop because those games have a really wide appeal and pull in people who dont pvp.

IMO streamers are driving the breakout success of smaller titles. Hell streamers are THE reason Escape From Tarkov blew up. Whether we like it or not they are very important in selling games or killing your game. Lirik, Cohh Carnage and other variety streamers that play small titles regularly are good ones to look at. As are the amount of people in chat saying, "this game is dope", "I am totally going to get this."

 

[Men_in_Boxes]

Well I was in on pubg real early and new it would be successful. I had no idea it would spawn a genre.

Oddly enough I was also early on h1z1 but thought it was just alright.

I think the next big pvp hit is going to be a more accessible "Escape from tarkov" with devs that understand netcode. The cycle Frontier could be that game but I'll wait to see how they have changed things before I make a prediction there.

Honestly think it needs to be more modern in setting.

Played fortnight br day one and thought it was cool as hell. Didnt see it blowing up at the beginning. Once I understood thier memeish business plan I figured it would be successful but not for me and went back to pubg.

I like to focus on coop because those games have a really wide appeal and pull in people who dont pvp.

IMO streamers are driving the breakout success of smaller titles. Hell streamers are THE reason Escape From Tarkov blew up. Whether we like it or not they are very important in selling games or killing your game. Lirik, Cohh Carnage and other variety streamers that play small titles regularly are good ones to look at. As are the amount of people in chat saying, "this game is dope", "I am totally going to get this."

I might be a little more bearish on the impact of streamers than you. They're great at driving awareness for games, but I haven't seen them hold much influence on a games long term success.

I paid attention to streamer numbers back when Fortnite was blowing up and whenever a big streamer would leave (Fortnite) to play a new release, their viewership would crater after the first day or two. Once they came back to Fortnite, their numbers would bump back up again. I'll always say, by far the most effective way to market a game is to make sure players enjoy it so much they want to...
A) Play it again.
+
B) Get their friends playing it.

Tarkov nailed that formula. HyperScape, which had massive viewer numbers at launch, didn't.

I'm also a bit skeptical on a PvE game becoming the next big thing as Steamcharts + XBL charts are dominated by PvP mainstays. Even Lost Ark, which I assume is mostly PvE, is starting to lose players at a steady clip. Though, I guess one could argue World of Warcraft was a pretty big PvE game, and a AAA Valheim-like would make waves too. Either way, exciting times ahead. June should be fun!

 

[Croatoan]

I might be a little more bearish on the impact of streamers than you. They're great at driving awareness for games, but I haven't seen them hold much influence on a games long term success.

I paid attention to streamer numbers back when Fortnite was blowing up and whenever a big streamer would leave (Fortnite) to play a new release, their viewership would crater after the first day or two. Once they came back to Fortnite, their numbers would bump back up again. I'll always say, by far the most effective way to market a game is to make sure players enjoy it so much they want to...
A) Play it again.
+
B) Get their friends playing it.

Tarkov nailed that formula. HyperScape, which had massive viewer numbers at launch, didn't.

I'm also a bit skeptical on a PvE game becoming the next big thing as Steamcharts + XBL charts are dominated by PvP mainstays. Even Lost Ark, which I assume is mostly PvE, is starting to lose players at a steady clip. Though, I guess one could argue World of Warcraft was a pretty big PvE game, and a AAA Valheim-like would make waves too. Either way, exciting times ahead. June should be fun!

Never said a PvE game would be the next big thing but I think it is easier for them to catch fire due to less compitition. I think the next big thing is an accessible Tarkov in a modern setting (aka PvP).