When id Software made their latest announcement – as
usual, not in a press release but rather in John Carmack’s electronic plan file
– they shocked the world by announcing that Quake 3 would be abandoned in favor of a
new multiplayer only game experience entitled Quake Arena. Although there have been a
multitude of online-only games (from FireTeam to Microsoft’s Asheron’s Call and
even Virgin’s SubSpace), id’s decision to go multiplayer-only with Quake Arena
is the 900 pound gorilla that has all the sudden made most gamers wonder about the
importance of multiplayer gaming.
I still remember having the time of my life playing friends
and family in some of the first multiplayer games – The classic example was playing
the original Descent over the modem or even Doom. Through a direct modem connection with a
friend, the whole concept behind multiplayer was incredibly appealing: Actually battling a
human opponent -- in many ways the ultimate AI. You could trade inside jokes over the chat
interface and plot secret attacks that you’d laugh about the next time you met face
to face. With the massive growth of the Internet, services such as GameSpy, Won and
Heat.Net have grown into virtual meeting hubs for multiplayer gaming – Now some games
are promising up to 32 different players on the same multiplayer map. There’s no
question that multiplayer is addicting, but even since the days of Doom, there’s been
one major problem: The accessibility for multiplayer just isn’t there.
I remember when Descent was released and how it was
incredibly easy to play over the modem – no configuration nightmares. Since then, few
games have really had "one button" multiplayer support. As everyone knows, the
multiplayer code in Unreal is unstable at this point, as was the case with the initial
code in Quake. To many companies, multiplayer is an important element (one of those bullet
points that should be on the box), but it never really has been the main focus of a major
game, perhaps with the exception of Ultima Online. Even hit games such as Red Alert may
only have about 10% of the audience ever play a multiplayer game. Westwood tried an
online-only game in the C&C universe with Sole Survivor and it failed. Will Quake
Arena be id’s Sole Survivor?
I strongly doubt it, because I think id realizes that their
strength is in technology and not single player game design – although Quake 2
certainly did prove id could design a pretty solid single-player game experience. At the
same time, it’s important to note that the online audience is skewed toward
multiplayer – Although the decision to do a multiplayer only game may be applauded
online, it remains to be see exactly how the mass-market would react to such a decision.
My take? I actually think the idea of having players compete against smart AI bots in a
game could be an incredible experience – BotMatch in Unreal can be fun, although I
think id has their work cut out for them creating truly worthwhile AI opponents if the
pseudo-multiplayer experience with Bots is going to work in Quake Arena.
Games such as Half-Life promise "one click" access
to multiplayer and other features such as being able to find your friends online and hook
up with them for a game, and I think if Half-Life succeeds in delivering such an intuitive
multiplayer front-end, it could hook droves of individuals on the multiplayer experience.
However, accessibility is the key, and id needs to be very aware of this when designing
Quake Arena. If they can design a compelling multiplayer-geared game that has one-click
accessibility out of the box, I’m sure they will be able to maintain their market
share.
However, do gamers always expect a balanced game? (i.e. a
combination of single and multiplayer features). I don’t necessarily think so.
Whether most gamers will admit it or not, games like Duke 3D, Unreal, Quake, and Command
and Conquer were all designed first and foremost with the single player game in mind. id
is a company that is always taking risks and I think it’s a bold move for them to try
to shift the focus to multiplayer gaming. Does this mean that a whole bunch of other
companies are going to start devoting resources to creating multiplayer-only 3D action
games? I don’t think so. I certainly think there is something to be said for the
explorative feeling of walking through a level at your own pace and not having to worry
about 11 other players wanting to frag you.
Ultimately, I think we will see a blurring between single and
multiplayer gaming. The single-player game will slowly evolve into the type of experience
where the AI is so sophisticated it will almost feel like you are in a multiplayer game
– You’ll have teammates and enemies that can think as well as shoot. When the AI
of NPCs in the environment is near the level of another human opponent, you probably
won’t be able to tell whether you are fighting another human or the computer, thus
creating a single player experience that mirrors multiplayer action. Of course, this whole
concept presupposes that AI will get to the stage where it can mimic realistic human
behavior. I’m confident that we will one day see this.
For the time being, Quake Arena will no doubt take strides
toward building the multiplayer community on the Internet and I applaud id for deciding to
take a risk and see what they can do with an online-only game. If the accessibility is
there, then there’s no reason the gamers won’t be there too.
I'll be back tomorrow with another editoria answering
your questions. If you had a question you'd like answered tomorrow, send e-mail to feedback@gameslice.com If you have a suggestion
for a future topic, please drop me a line too!
