MMOTW
It has been far too long since I've written anything I could publish here so let's get to it.
I have been a gamer most of my life. I have whiled away many rainy and snowy afternoons as a child playing on the Atari 2600 and Atari 5200. I spent many weekends in arcades pissing away my allowance and meager minimum wage earnings plopping quarters into games like Pac-Man, Tetris, and Mortal Kombat. I marvel at the way computer games have evolved in my lifetime because I have been alive as long as they've been around (Pong, the first video game sold as a consumer item, became available in 1974). Now, I simply play video games as a diversion from the stresses of daily life.
Unlike some hard-core gamers out there, I only play certain games that have high replay value. The primary reason is that many of the games out there are very expensive. Personally, I don't find it necessary or appealing to drop US$60 on the latest sports game sponsored by any of the major leagues (save for the one I mention below). With the newest iteration of home consoles, I've invested in certain video game franchises because I found that they have rich, compelling storytelling to go along with their eye-popping graphics. But their online multiplayer options convinced me of the games' replay value.
I only own nine games for my PlayStation 3 console: Red Dead Redemption, Grand Theft Auto IV, two PGA Tour games (each one has a different collection of courses), Little Big Planet 2, and four games in the Assassin's Creed series. All of the games I own have multiplayer options except for one of the PGA Tour games and the first two games of the Assassin's Creed series. Evidently, I have a special fondness for Assassin's Creed (AC). Not only do I find the story arc in AC intriguing (it uses events and people from history) the multiplayer is especially entertaining.
The two games in the AC series that has multiplayer, Assassin's Creed Brotherhood and Assassin's Creed Revelations (ACB and ACR respectively) employs an aspect of online gaming I personally have not experienced since the days of playing Marathon and Doom online in the mid 1990s. There are up to eight players in a small arena who have to use stealth and cunning to either kill each other or avoid being killed. I am aware that there are some people who would find this unappealing. I would say to them, "It's just a game." Oddly, given the problems that occur in these games (since they are programmed and are at the mercy of the internet in order to run), I find that I say this to some of my fellow competitors who have a tendency to rage when things go badly for them through no fault of their own.
The problems that my fellow online players encounter are not uncommon: lag time on the server for individual players, random and unexpected disconnections from the game server, glitches and bugs in the game program that disrupt play, people who play the game incorrectly, all of these thing occur and I expect them to happen. Honestly, I get angry at these things too during the course of a game because I am competitive and expect to do well. For me, that momentary rage passes and I move on to the next game because it's just a game.
What I find intriguing about all of the things that can go wrong in the game is how some people react to the glitches, poor play, and bugs. There are plenty of videos on YouTube dedicated to highlight them, complete with commentary from the players who took the time and expense to record their glitchy matches and spout their angry invectives from their virtual soapboxes:
The list is as numerous as the amount of videos dedicated to ACB and ACR gameplay. It's too bad that there are some who only spend their time being hypercritical of all the things that can and do go wrong; it distracts from those who post videos with constructive criticism for the publishers of these games. It detracts from the scores of highlight videos people publish who want to show extraordinary gameplay. Finally, it diminishes the efforts of those who post videos featuring strategies to make inexperienced players better, ultimately making one aspect of the multiplayer experience more enjoyable.
To everyone who spends most of their time making a stink over how bad the experience is, just remember: "It's just a game."
I have been a gamer most of my life. I have whiled away many rainy and snowy afternoons as a child playing on the Atari 2600 and Atari 5200. I spent many weekends in arcades pissing away my allowance and meager minimum wage earnings plopping quarters into games like Pac-Man, Tetris, and Mortal Kombat. I marvel at the way computer games have evolved in my lifetime because I have been alive as long as they've been around (Pong, the first video game sold as a consumer item, became available in 1974). Now, I simply play video games as a diversion from the stresses of daily life.
Unlike some hard-core gamers out there, I only play certain games that have high replay value. The primary reason is that many of the games out there are very expensive. Personally, I don't find it necessary or appealing to drop US$60 on the latest sports game sponsored by any of the major leagues (save for the one I mention below). With the newest iteration of home consoles, I've invested in certain video game franchises because I found that they have rich, compelling storytelling to go along with their eye-popping graphics. But their online multiplayer options convinced me of the games' replay value.
I only own nine games for my PlayStation 3 console: Red Dead Redemption, Grand Theft Auto IV, two PGA Tour games (each one has a different collection of courses), Little Big Planet 2, and four games in the Assassin's Creed series. All of the games I own have multiplayer options except for one of the PGA Tour games and the first two games of the Assassin's Creed series. Evidently, I have a special fondness for Assassin's Creed (AC). Not only do I find the story arc in AC intriguing (it uses events and people from history) the multiplayer is especially entertaining.
The two games in the AC series that has multiplayer, Assassin's Creed Brotherhood and Assassin's Creed Revelations (ACB and ACR respectively) employs an aspect of online gaming I personally have not experienced since the days of playing Marathon and Doom online in the mid 1990s. There are up to eight players in a small arena who have to use stealth and cunning to either kill each other or avoid being killed. I am aware that there are some people who would find this unappealing. I would say to them, "It's just a game." Oddly, given the problems that occur in these games (since they are programmed and are at the mercy of the internet in order to run), I find that I say this to some of my fellow competitors who have a tendency to rage when things go badly for them through no fault of their own.
The problems that my fellow online players encounter are not uncommon: lag time on the server for individual players, random and unexpected disconnections from the game server, glitches and bugs in the game program that disrupt play, people who play the game incorrectly, all of these thing occur and I expect them to happen. Honestly, I get angry at these things too during the course of a game because I am competitive and expect to do well. For me, that momentary rage passes and I move on to the next game because it's just a game.
What I find intriguing about all of the things that can go wrong in the game is how some people react to the glitches, poor play, and bugs. There are plenty of videos on YouTube dedicated to highlight them, complete with commentary from the players who took the time and expense to record their glitchy matches and spout their angry invectives from their virtual soapboxes:
"The Smoke Bomb is too powerful."
"The bug fix messed up the Mute."
"Only inexperienced douche-bags use the Hidden Gun."
To everyone who spends most of their time making a stink over how bad the experience is, just remember: "It's just a game."
Comments