Competitive = Better? (multiplayer)

BlitzKrieg

Interesting question from a design perspective.

Does Designing a multiplayer game to be at its heart a competitive experience above all else make it definitely a better game?

I am part of a beta for an upcoming RTS and its beta forum has a very long debate going over the availability of mirror matches and the argument against them is that it would be historically inaccurate and that a lot of people play the game are history nuts who like their accuracy (the other big thread is a request list to correct all the inaccurate insignias and coloured markings on the uniforms. The argument to have mirror matches is that it makes the game more competitive as it allows for pros to focus on specific armies (and naturally the Starcraft comparisons came up)

It has further been claimed that it has been part of the developers philosophy to make the game more fitting to a competitive scene by speeding up the average length of a game and streamlining certain features.


Now this isnt the only game chasing the competitive dream. I know EA constantly bang that drum with some titles, particularly Battlefield and Command & Conquer which have both tried to re-invent themselves somewhat. With Battlefield in some ways trying to recreate inside itself a mode that focuses on smaller teams and more fixed objectives (the cries of copying COD is actually more EA wanting BF3 to be a fixture in e-sports, hence modes like squad rush variants and smaller maps being a reoccurring appearance in the DLC). Cause 32 player teams in game modes that can stretch on doesnt fit with the competitive scene where the focus is on smaller teams and matches that last 15 minutes at most. Red Alert 3 was pretty much built from the ground up as an attempt to be competitive, its single player suffered greatly (being sh*t) from this but I will admit of the post westwood C&C games, red alert 3 was actually my favourite to play online.


So not from the perspective of someone who intends to be a *pro gamer* themselves, but as a general online player, do you feel a game that has been made to be as competitive as possible is always going to be a better online experience?


Should it be a designers intention if they are making an online mode for a game that they are making one that could work as part of a tournament and league scenario? And thus with this focus they will have made a fundamentally *better* game overall.

The recent success of games like DayZ would indicate *No* but then the juggernauts that are League of Legends and starcraft 2. not to mention the constent success of FPS since counter strike to Call of Duty which define the e-sports all seem to scream *Yes* Its interesting that even games that you would think shouldnt have a competitive element actually do, case in point the Left 4 Dead series has an e-sports element.

degrassinoel

did you get into the C&C beta?

personally i think co-op is a better form of play than competitive but then i'm sh1te at most competitive games anyway.

Magill

Ultimately it just depends on the player and what they prefer. Thankfully theres a good mix of competitively designed MP games and more chilled out Co-op and casual ones tho.

Retr0gamer

Depends on the player ultimately. Myself, I'd prefer to play local with mates. Once an online community starts taking games seriously and I start getting left behind because I play a wide variety of games instead of just the same one all the time, that's when I get bored and bow out. I'm too much of a messer.

Big Knox

More recently I enjoy a healthy mix of both and always have although I used to play nothing but competitive games. I've played TFC at the highest level, CS at a decent level, WoW arenas (:o) at a decent level and more recently HoN but I don't have the time or patience to play competitively at what I would see as an acceptable level anymore. It really does take a hell of a lot of commitment, time and patience to play at the top level in any game.

At the moment I'm playing a lot of Path of Exile which kind of fits both sides of the bill. Being a casual (albeit hardcore) game at it's core but having race seasons and events with leader-boards adds a competitive dimension which is great as you have the option to play competitively but it's not forced on you or necessary!

The likes of LoL, Dota and Starcraft make great competitive games as they are extremely deep at the core with a massive learning curve but they are terrible games to spectate unless you have a massive interest in the game already. This is the problem which holds back a lot of games in an e-sport sense but there's no doubt games designed to be competitive often do very well and are usually the games with the longest life-span.

Nody

On it's own I'd agree; to be a competitive e-sports game you have to strike a balance and hence by extension there should be no major advantages by going for any side. The downside of "competitive" is that many companies thinks that means it's ok to make it a huge grind or put the "competitive" part at the end of a leveling process or something stupid like that. It also has a tendency to mix badly with PvE (i.e. competitive games should be pure PvP based in my book) and needs to be kept completely separate from any single player/multiplayer co-op modes (Starcraft is a good example on how the single player campaign does not in anyway impact your PvPing).

Smartly Dressed

If competitive means a game which is balanced, consistent, has strong map design and a learning curve and rewards the team is who is better than the other then yes, a game designed with competition in mind is simply better in every way. Even if you're a casual player, you will still benefit from the competitive aspects of the game.

It's a shame console games are moving rapidly away from this.

Jonny7

Depends on what the game wants..


Left 4 Dead was striving for fun

Starcraft 2 for competitive balance at the highest levels

Il Sturmovik more for realism

Obviously they have to sacrifice certain elements (usually realism) in order to make the functional in multiplayer in the first, but too much and the game might lose it's original appeal

Depends on how multiplayer-centric it is



I think if game developers decide what gamers are going to want from the multiplayer aspect of the game and then focus on that.

johnny_ultimate

Yes, a lot of games aimed at the competitive market do require tighter, more balanced design - in that sense they may be purer examples of gameplay design.

Personally, I have little time for them though. Like Retr0, I just cannot see myself devoting the time required to compete at a high level in a multiplayer game. There's always new games to play (as well as other hobbies to pursue) and I couldn't justify spending a vast majority of my limited gaming time on timesinks no matter how well-designed. It is rare I devote 60-100 hours to a game (probably less than five in the last five years, and they have been exemplary RPGs) and certainly couldn't bring myself to spend 1000s on anything. I can easily see the appeal, but that appeal is not for me.

2Mad2BeMad

use to be big into competitive games
like cod4 back on the good owl days with gamebattles
but have since grown old and dont enjoy playing competitively anymore gets boring playing the same owl ****e day in day out haha ( is this a sign off getting old? )
prefer just chilling with mates playing fifa or other coop games, or even playing battlefield multiplayer with a few mates online
much more fun