SUSPECT: RE: [casual_games] multiplayer?

[k f]

I have a friend who has always wanted to play real-time multiplayer games 
like Air-hockey on the net, but he just can't seem to, at any time of day or 
night, because he's on a dial-up. And he's been trying that for the past 
month. He doesn't want to spend $$$s on a console. He doesn't mind bringing 
his mouse over for a friendly one-on-one. But now I'm going to have to tell 
him that he'll have to change his mindset, because nobody in their right 
mind would cramp around a PC and do something like that.

After hearing all the counter arguments I have arrived at the following 
conclusion. My firm will be the only one turning out games with support for 
multiple mice. :-) :-)


>From: Alex Amsel <tuna at tunatech.com>
>Reply-To: alexa at tunatech.com,IGDA Casual Games SIG Mailing List 
><casual_games at igda.org>
>To: IGDA Casual Games SIG Mailing List <casual_games at igda.org>
>Subject: Re: SUSPECT: RE: [casual_games] multiplayer?
>Date: Fri, 27 Oct 2006 14:50:48 +0100
>
>This isn't a new solution. It's been tried and supported many times, I 
>think even back to my Amiga days. However, you aren't going to get a 
>significant mass of people using 2 or more mice on one computer. Apart from 
>anything else, there's space considerations, especially when computers are 
>used at home.
>
>Having more than one person sit around a computer is uncommon even on games 
>supporting joypads. People don't want to do this, they want to play on 
>their TV or over the net when it comes to multi-player.
>
>Some board(ish) games can get away with it, but I'd say that's despite the 
>game being on PC more than anything. These kinds of "multi-player" titles 
>will become more and more popular on interactive video - such as DVD-Extra, 
>broadband game solutions, and set top boxes.
>
>Finally, a multi-player game over the net means there is always a game to 
>be had, day or night. This isn't true on one machine, as much as it's great 
>fun to shout and rant at your opponent (or is that just me?).
>
>I do agree with much of what has been written regarding internet 
>multi-player problems, but to some extent they're solvable with sufficient 
>grouping and design. Several sites out there seem to make a significant 
>income with their multi-player web games, put it that way.
>
>k f wrote:
>>
>>The idea germinated when I first saw some kids at a console and they were 
>>screaming away at each other in excitement. And I thought to myself, why 
>>don't I ever see a kid scream when he is playing alone at the PC. And it 
>>suddenly struck me that it was because he was "alone". The missing element 
>>was the most important, the "physically present" human opponent. Give two 
>>kids a crumpled paper ball and they are likely to have as much fun, if not 
>>more, than sitting at a AAA title.
>>Every time I have tried to log in to play real-time multiplayer games I 
>>have either been unable to join, because of network lag, been unable to 
>>play in real-time, or just plain kicked off the server because of 
>>excessive lag. That's hardly the type of multiplayer experience anyone 
>>would like to return to for a half hour break. Which is why most of the 
>>multiplayer games are turn based.
>
>--
>
>Alex Amsel
>Tuna Technologies Ltd (Sheffield, UK)
>Cross Platform Game Development
>Tel: +44 (0)114 266 2211  Mob: +44(0)7771 524 632
>
>
>_______________________________________________
>Casual_Games mailing list
>Casual_Games at igda.org
>http://seven.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/casual_games

_________________________________________________________________
Tried the new MSN Messenger? It’s cool! Download now. 
http://messenger.msn.com/Download/Default.aspx?mkt=en-in