|
Coming from a predominantly console playing ethos, where matchmaking rules supreme, the biggest problem I'd face would be a drunken blog editor or curse wielding junior. However, recently I've been subjected to PC gaming and its lobby system - along with it the flaws that stick out like glowing beacons of fail.
Yes, I'm annoyed. In a matchmaking situation, it would automatically find a match for you with similarly ranked players. The benefit of this is to give you the opportunity to build your skills up with competitive opponents, not dominant ones, and allow for somewhat of a progression to be made. Whereas, in a lobby system, a myriad of matches are placed in a vertical menu system for your discretion. In such a short time playing in the latter format I've noticed some alarming problems; and I'm not completely sure it's the systems fault either.
We all know those big tough gamers who flash their rank with such 'pride', as the rest of us bow down before their iron fist. They truly are the king of kings, and we should be gracious that our meagre ability be allowed in their almighty presence.
After recently acquiring Company of Heroes, a WWII real-time strategy game, and playing the single player for a period of time (which proved enjoyable), I packed my bag for the realm of online multiplayer. It was no misconception of mine that my ability would be tested in such an arena, but it would also elevate the level of fun. Or so I thought. The first difficulty I encountered was even getting into a game, in no way the fault of the system or latency/connection issues, but the egotistical hosts in which plagued the game, whose rank and accompanying stats allowed them to pick and choose they who may be worthy enough to be their loyal subjects.
Match after match, I would enter and be met with: "Kick number 3" or whichever place I had taken up upon entering. If I actually managed to get into a game, and lose against a much more seasoned (note I didn't say better) opponent, it would only further hamper my ability to play - as to be more 'evidence' of the total basket case I must be. However, one match in which I managed to string a few words in before the inevitably impending booting and confronted the players in the room. The general consensus was that I was a "noob" and had no place playing this game. But wait... don't I own the game? Apparently that doesn't already give me the right to play. I must come into multiplayer with stats earned through non-existent games.
I suppose that's the problem of trying to join the community of a game later into its life. You have to be there from the beginning or you're destined to be banished like the black sheep of the flock. There is no place for fun in online gaming anymore. You don't earn prestige and respect of your virtual peers by having fun - no sir. You must fight for every number you earn, and the right to place it on your cyber resume. Most commonly it is argued that "winning is fun", but if that involves shafting other players, do you really get a sense of fun out of such an act? I surely hope not.
In no way am I attempting to pigeon-hole this one particular example of a game as the universally renowned breeding ground of impatient, mindless malcontents. I'm well aware, as I'm sure you are too, dear readers, that this occurrence is not uncommon in the land of the interwebs. I'm merely recounting my experience from which hit me like a proverbial tonne of bricks. And I died a little in side. Why? Well, you see... the internet is a true phenomenon when it comes to gaming and all things related. It opened a whole new world of opportunity and synthetic adventures that were previously only dreamed of. However, the downside of this comes in many forms, at times seeming like the negatives clearly take aim at all the good, with no hesitation of pulling the trigger. Without sounding too philosophical or simply insane with all my construed sentences that seem to be going nowhere, I'll cut to the chase.
Games are supposed to be fun. Equality should come first before those with more free time than others. It's as simple as that. Or is it?
Yes, it is. But read on.
If to take a console approach at the thoughts I've portrayed, the Xbox 360 party system has created mixed emotions, if only for one reason. As most who grace the LIVE landscape, where avatars run free and magic is in the air, you have a select group of friends - be it personal or met through various online means, who you commonly converse with. Whereas previously you'd be subjected to the vast array of online dwelling folk that you'd come across during multiplayer games, this has slowly but surely become non-existent. If you don't believe me (which I know you do, because frankly, it's me), do some matchmaking on Halo 3 and see how many people are plastered with a symbol representing their party or private chat involvement. If you compare it to before this system came in place (I'll let you borrow my time machine), it's dramatically increased. But the question remains, is this a good thing? Ask yourself, do you prefer to sit by the warm, secure fire of the party chat; or are you only depraving yourself of meeting the colourful, if somewhat abrasive characters of the online world?
Matchmaking makes the difference. No one has the ultimate power as a lobby host does, so the people you meet are likely to be more tolerable (besides having no choice) with who they play with. That being said, you're just as likely to ignore the names on the screen and continue your party chat about the latest Pokémon cards, or whatever it is kids talk about these days.
Whilst touching on more points that I'd intended for a couple-a paragraph rant, I'm keen to hear your experiences with online gaming and the trials and tribulations you've faced on these journeys. As a closing memoir, I must add that since continuing to play I've been graced with a few positive experiences, which show that not all people are evil - just most.
|
Comments
PC gamers have only got themselves to blame. I mean, you don't think IW made the decision based on the whingings of a few gamers in some forums?. Mate they would've played it themselves and come to some conslusions themselves and I BET YOU ANYTHING there were some numbers being looked at in regards to server usage on all platforms. These people that ran these servers blew it by being pricks. CoD4 IS a better game on PC. It just is, but the situations you described over rides any joy you might get from the 'console' on PC with its shortcut buttons and pretty colours and crap.
So no, I don't think "Matchmaking" is better if you own a server. But if you don't, then yes, it's a better experience overall.
I keep forgetting about N4G.
I think this is exactly the reason why MW2 has matchmaking. I love matchmaking on consoles and it pains me that Killzone 2 doesnt have it! The difficulty can go from "I AM YOUR GOD" to "I AM YOUR BITCH" by moving to one lobby down.
N4G commenters just assume.