Videogames and social impacts!

[Dogmantra]

Heyo chaps, I'm doing a short project on videogames for my college where among other things I need to do some research.

With that out of the way, you could help me and have a fun learning experience at the same time by doing the following two things!
Thing the first: filling out this survey (https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/viewform?hl=en_US&formkey=dFptaHBXRWRmenNhS2xpeC1fbWkybWc6MQ#gid=0)
(I understand this is the gaming section of a gaming forum so my results are gonna be a bit skewed)

Thing the second: having some fun debatey times in this very thread about the social impacts of videogames and indeed, videogames in general. So, to start off, I suppose I'll talk a little bit about a couple of topics and it can be a very regular forum thread (feel free to bring up discussion about other aspects of videogames if you have something interesting and insightful and fun to say about them [needless to say try to stray from politics])

So, multiplayer. There's something of a modern focus on it, with lots of games having a singleplayer campaign that's pitifully short and serves as just a tutorial for the main game, which is online multiplayer. Other games are solely multiplayer, which I personally think can be quite cool, especially if you're playing with friends. People say "oh they play videogames they're such a nerd I bet they're alone in a darkened room not talking to anyone" but really, I know a huge chunk of the reason I play League of Legends is for the company, I really enjoy playing with these people and I wouldn't honestly mind playing most games with them. My question about multiplayer is twofold: do you think a game could stand up on just multiplayer, or does it need at least some single player aspect? What would it take for you to play a game that was multiplayer only (specific features, people, splitscreen vs online)?


aaaand a second question: what makes someone a gamer in your opinion?
Do you have to play a certain amount of games? Just think about them a lot? Or is it more a sort of choice, if you want to be a gamer you are one? Personally, I think it's the latter, which I suppose is a bit of a cop out, but I don't think it's logical to exclude some types or amounts of gameplay from inclusion in gamertown just because they're not hardcore enough, or for any reason really.

[Brother Oni]

Survey filled, answering your questions:


My question about multiplayer is twofold: do you think a game could stand up on just multiplayer, or does it need at least some single player aspect? What would it take for you to play a game that was multiplayer only (specific features, people, splitscreen vs online)?


Games can stand on multiplayer alone quite easily. A number of games like Unreal Tournament or League of Legends are dedicated to this - even the singleplayer aspect is just multiplayer with bots.

As for what would it take me to play a game that was multiplayer only - it has to be fun on a subjective level and latency must not be a significant issue.



aaaand a second question: what makes someone a gamer in your opinion?

To me, a gamer is someone who spends a significant portion of their free time or disposable income on playing games.

[Toastkart]

So, multiplayer. There's something of a modern focus on it, with lots of games having a singleplayer campaign that's pitifully short and serves as just a tutorial for the main game, which is online multiplayer.

I'm not much of a multiplayer person. Most of my favourite games are single player only. When I do play with others, it's usually on the couch with my brothers and my dad. Sadly, this is getting more and more difficult to do with the advent of online multiplayer.


My question about multiplayer is twofold: do you think a game could stand up on just multiplayer, or does it need at least some single player aspect? What would it take for you to play a game that was multiplayer only (specific features, people, splitscreen vs online)?

I'm sure there are plenty of games that stand up just for their multiplayer. I don't really follow any, though. For me to play a multiplayer only game it would have to be engaging, it would have to have good character customization, story would have to be important, and it would have to play well.



aaaand a second question: what makes someone a gamer in your opinion?
Do you have to play a certain amount of games? Just think about them a lot? Or is it more a sort of choice, if you want to be a gamer you are one? Personally, I think it's the latter, which I suppose is a bit of a cop out, but I don't think it's logical to exclude some types or amounts of gameplay from inclusion in gamertown just because they're not hardcore enough, or for any reason really.

I think it's a very intuitive kind of thing. Someone who self-identifies as a gamer would count, but someone who plays games frequently wouldn't necessarily. My dad, for instance, has gotten pretty good at playing the games we play regularly, but he doesn't have any intuitive sense about how to move through game menus, he doesn't get how to exploit weaknesses in game ai, he doesn't really have any system mastery for any of the games we play, he's never really tried to figure a game out on his own, etc. I wouldn't call him a gamer.

[toasty]

So, multiplayer. There's something of a modern focus on it, with lots of games having a singleplayer campaign that's pitifully short and serves as just a tutorial for the main game, which is online multiplayer. Other games are solely multiplayer, which I personally think can be quite cool, especially if you're playing with friends. People say "oh they play videogames they're such a nerd I bet they're alone in a darkened room not talking to anyone" but really, I know a huge chunk of the reason I play League of Legends is for the company, I really enjoy playing with these people and I wouldn't honestly mind playing most games with them. My question about multiplayer is twofold: do you think a game could stand up on just multiplayer, or does it need at least some single player aspect? What would it take for you to play a game that was multiplayer only (specific features, people, splitscreen vs online)?

Multiplayer is THE REASON that video games are popular. Even in Singleplayer games, there is multiplayer. I remember me and my siblings would play Interstate 86, the three of us, on a single computer controlling one car. One of us would drive the car, the other would shoot the main gun, and the other would launch special weapons like a missile or laser or something. :smallbiggrin:

Other singleplayer games are still social via internet forums, or just general discussion. "I was playing KOTOR II and this happened, and I did that, what did you do?" Etc.

Having said that, I play video games now mostly becasue of mulitplayer. I play SCII and League of Legends for multiplayer. The SCII campaign was rather lame, but the multiplayer is awesome, if frustrating cuz I'm terrible at it.

The BEST way to play a game is to play at a LAN Cafe. Those are the greatest. I've never really done a lot of console gaming, but my best memories of gaming involve playing DotA from 3PM-8PM in a small, hot, room filled with computers and boys aged about 14-22. Its really fun. :smallbiggrin:



aaaand a second question: what makes someone a gamer in your opinion?
Do you have to play a certain amount of games? Just think about them a lot? Or is it more a sort of choice, if you want to be a gamer you are one? Personally, I think it's the latter, which I suppose is a bit of a cop out, but I don't think it's logical to exclude some types or amounts of gameplay from inclusion in gamertown just because they're not hardcore enough, or for any reason really.

I think its come to the point in the 1st World where most young people, men and women, play video games. For some its just tetris or Farmville, for others, well, they play games like Counter-Strike all day long. With that in mind the gamer title can't just be applied to anyone that plays video games.

Now, I'd probably say that its really a time commitment that makes you a gamer. All of my friends at college play video games, I'd only call maybe two of them gamers. None of them take gaming as seriously as me. :smalltongue:

Furthermore, I'd like to point out that there is a distinction between types of gamers. Lots of people, lots of gamers, will play Call of Duty all night long, but I don't like to consider myself "one of them" maybe this is... I dunno, arrogance or something (it probably is, I'll say it) but I am a "PC Gamer" and I'm a PC gamer because PC game are the most competitive. Nothing beats Counter Strike, SCII and League of Legends in the competitive scene. Maybe Unreal Tourement can give CS a run for its money, maybe SC: BW has something to say about SCII being the best RTS, but all of these games are still mainly just PC games.

[Cheesegear]

My question about multiplayer is twofold: do you think a game could stand up on just multiplayer, or does it need at least some single player aspect? What would it take for you to play a game that was multiplayer only (specific features, people, splitscreen vs online)?

Not only would I need IRL friends who play the game (unfortunately, I have a social life). Sure, I can meet people online, and have plenty of friends online. But, at the end of the day, when I leave the online community I can't talk to those people anymore. We can't go out for drinks or do anything else.

Second, it needs to constantly change. At some point, there is always a level cap (even in Space Marine), or maybe the game just runs out of content. This to me is a deal breaker. I mean, I can play that game right up until I hit the level cap, or I run out of content, but, if I hit that point, and then spend the next two hours playing with no discernible difference to gameplay, then I'm out.

See; League of Legends. It's free (which is a plus, and I can spend 20 bucks once a month if I want to), but, new Champions are constantly being introduced and patching occurs regularly making the game change.


aaaand a second question: what makes someone a gamer in your opinion?

Oni hit the nail on the head. Anybody who plays games for the majority of their free time, is a gamer. With the new recent burst in browser games, especially those that run on time limits (you can only do so much in ten minutes, or do one thing, wait an hour to do it again), some people can spend hours playing three/four games at once. As 'Master Race PC Gamer' as I am, I couldn't play three games at once if I tried.


Multiplayer is THE REASON that video games are popular.

I strongly disagree. Multiplayer is a demand that can be met. Fairly easily. However, many, many of the best games I've ever played have been Single Player games. Would Legend of Zelda be better if it was Multiplayer? Probably not.

If Multiplayer appeals to you, and that's why you game, that's fine. But I'm quite happy to play Single Player Borderlands for hours. Especially because Multiplayer Borderlands is just Single Player Borderlands with other people. The only difference is the people you can or can not play with.

Multiplayer does not 'make' a game. The game itself makes a game. If a game is absolutely horrid, but my friends are playing. Why would I keep playing? I can quit, then we can all go out for drinks. I still get the same social experience, but without being forced to sit through a game I only bought 'because it had multiplayer'.

[Spartacus]

Especially because Multiplayer Borderlands is just Single Player Borderlands with other people.

I don't want to nitpick, but single player Borderlands is just multiplayer Borderlands without the extra people.

[Spartacus]

Especially because Multiplayer Borderlands is just Single Player Borderlands with other people.

I don't want to nitpick, but single player Borderlands is just multiplayer Borderlands without the extra people.

[Axolotl]

My question about multiplayer is twofold: do you think a game could stand up on just multiplayer, or does it need at least some single player aspect?As long as it's open about the fact that it's mutiplayer only, then sure. Team Fortress 2 was one of my favorite games ever back in the day, it's only mutiplayer but it doesn't pretend to have single player game (and it came in the same box as Half-Life and Portal so that helps it I guess).


What would it take for you to play a game that was multiplayer only (specific features, people, splitscreen vs online)?For it to be good, and not require a subscription as well I guess.



aaaand a second question: what makes someone a gamer in your opinion?Simply to spend a significant ammount of time playing mainstream games.

[Mando Knight]

What would it take for you to play a game that was multiplayer only (specific features, people, splitscreen vs online)?

Hats. (http://tf2.com/?tab=blog) Bots to practice on, or a good community to learn the basics with/under.

[toasty]

I strongly disagree. Multiplayer is a demand that can be met. Fairly easily. However, many, many of the best games I've ever played have been Single Player games. Would Legend of Zelda be better if it was Multiplayer? Probably not.

If Multiplayer appeals to you, and that's why you game, that's fine. But I'm quite happy to play Single Player Borderlands for hours. Especially because Multiplayer Borderlands is just Single Player Borderlands with other people. The only difference is the people you can or can not play with.


Multiplayer = socialization. Even KOTOR can have a socialization aspect to it, though it is a Singleplayer game. Sure, "true" multiplayer requires a vs. or coop aspect to the game, but I think that a designer can intend multiplayer without actually having multiplayer. Consider Pokemom, in order to get "all the content" you need to trade with friends. That requires that A) you have friends B) they have other Pokemon games. Sure, you could be lame and buy both and unlock everything yourself, but that's cheating. :smallwink:

If most games weren't multiplayer I probably wouldn't play them. There is only so many times I can play KOTOR II and Golden Sun: the Lost Age. they are AMAZING games, but after the 5th playthrough they get stale. League of Legends will never get stale.

You do have a point about multiplayer being easier to design though. I will give you that.

[Dogmantra]

But I'm quite happy to play Single Player Borderlands for hours. Especially because Multiplayer Borderlands is just Single Player Borderlands with other people. The only difference is the people you can or can not play with.

Now there's a point, do you prefer it when a game says "here we go, this is the game, this is what you can do in it, oh, and you can play multiplayer if you want" or would you rather a game says "Introducing the NEW multiplayer tactical game where you do this!"
(if my examples suck what I'm getting at is do you prefer the multiplayer/single player to be a major thing pointed out, or would you rather the game just incidentally has one/both?)

[Remmirath]

Filled out the survey.


My question about multiplayer is twofold: do you think a game could stand up on just multiplayer, or does it need at least some single player aspect? What would it take for you to play a game that was multiplayer only (specific features, people, splitscreen vs online)?

I think that some games can stand on multiplayer alone. Things like first-person shooters, strategy games, and the like. To play a game that is multiplayer only, for me, it requires only that the game be fun and that the community either be good or be bad in a funny way.

Because MMORPGs are a different kettle of fish to me, I'll address that seperately: for me to play one of them, it would have to both not come with a monthly fee and also have only or at the least mostly people who actually roleplay.

I'm pickier about multiplayer for console gaming, because the only reason I play console games at all is to play them with my mom and brother. So, they have to have three-player non-online multiplayer through the whole game for me to consider them worth bothering about.


aaaand a second question: what makes someone a gamer in your opinion?
Do you have to play a certain amount of games? Just think about them a lot? Or is it more a sort of choice, if you want to be a gamer you are one?

Spending a fairly large amount of your free time playing them and enjoying them.


... what I'm getting at is do you prefer the multiplayer/single player to be a major thing pointed out, or would you rather the game just incidentally has one/both?

You refer to how the game is advertised? I truly do not care. Advertising has remarkably little effect on me, and I take it all in a rather cynical light.

My ideal of multiplayer would be how it is in Baldur's Gate or Icewind Dale: you can do the whole thing the same be it single or multiplayer. Failing that, I care little so long as the multiplayer component is more than 'here's that one mini-game you can do in the single-player, let's have that multiplayer' (the reverse would be equally bad if not worse, but I've not come across examples of that).

[Zevox]

Thing the first: filling out this survey (https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/viewform?hl=en_US&formkey=dFptaHBXRWRmenNhS2xpeC1fbWkybWc6MQ#gid=0)
Wasn't quite sure what you meant by "gaming merchandise" for that last question. Answered "no" running under the assumption that it's extraneous things like T-Shirts, toys, etc.

Surprised you didn't have a "I usually play alone" option under the "who do you play with?" question. I answered friends and people I've never met, because both are technically true, but I don't do much multiplayer, so that's a rarity for me.

On genres, you missed a big one: Action/Adventure.


TSo, multiplayer. There's something of a modern focus on it, with lots of games having a singleplayer campaign that's pitifully short and serves as just a tutorial for the main game, which is online multiplayer.
To be blunt, I get the impression that's only really applicable to shooters, as I haven't noticed any games from genres I actually play that are like that. RPGs are still as single-player oriented as ever. So are Action/Adventure games like the upcoming Batman: Arkham City or Zelda: Skyward Sword, and Platformers like Mario and Kirby. And genres that I play that have always had both single and mutliplayer components still do, such as fighting games and RTS games - see Starcraft 2's excellent campaign mode, or BlazBlue including a massive story mode in both of its titles, or the rebooted Mortal Kombat having a big story mode that is the video game equivalent of a dumb action movie.


My question about multiplayer is twofold: do you think a game could stand up on just multiplayer, or does it need at least some single player aspect? What would it take for you to play a game that was multiplayer only (specific features, people, splitscreen vs online)?
For me personally, it absolutely needs some single player. That's most of my gaming right there. The only games I've ever played multiplayer are a handful of fighting games and, just recently, Starcraft 2. I could maybe play a fighting game ala BlazBlue or Marvel vs Capcom 3 if it were solely mutliplayer (though in that genre a training mode would still be a must even then, and would qualify as a "single player aspect," if a very small one), but nothing else. (As you may surmise, I stay far away from MMOs and their ilk.)


aaaand a second question: what makes someone a gamer in your opinion?
Playing some variety of video games on some kind of semi-regular basis. That's it, really.

Zevox

[ShortOne]

If you don't mind, Dog, I'm just going to dump some of my thoughts about games/gaming in general, and maybe not answer your questions. If that's not okay, let me know.

I play video games for the sociability and to relax. They're just games to me, though, and they must, first and foremost, be fun. If it's a game that's stressful, or makes myself/other people upset after we've finished, I probably don't want to play it more than once.

I have trouble playing single-player games in a non-social environment. I am driven to play single-player games when they're witty and memetic, with engaging gameplay and the possibility for a social element (discussions with other players). I enjoy Minecraft, but only when I'm also on a voice-chat program talking to other people. I can't play games like Minecraft as the sole thing I'm doing-- they have to be the thing my hands are doing while my brain does other things.

To attempt to answer your questions:


multiplayer

I think there's always a way for someone to play multiplayer in a single-player headspace/like a single-player game. For TF2, just join a random server and turn off voice- and text-chats. For LoL, queue with random people and do the same. I don't know all multiplayer games, by far, so I don't know if this theory works for all of them, but I suspect that it might.

The short of it is that yes, a multiplayer game can work on "just" multiplayer, because there's always some exploit to make it work for a single-player-games-inclined person.


the formation of a gamer's supple knuckles

A gamer is someone who plays games because they want to, not because someone coerces them to.

[Dogmantra]

Surprised you didn't have a "I usually play alone" option under the "who do you play with?" question. I answered friends and people I've never met, because both are technically true, but I don't do much multiplayer, so that's a rarity for me.
Well, I assumed that if you usually play alone you just wouldn't tick anything.


If you don't mind, Dog, I'm just going to dump some of my thoughts about games/gaming in general, and maybe not answer your questions.

That's actually really helpful. Thanks :D

[Brother Oni]

Would Legend of Zelda be better if it was Multiplayer? Probably not.

This has already been done in Four Swords, which did all right if it wasn't for the issue of getting multiple gameboys and link cables together (I never saw a copy of the GC version for sale).

However if they designed it to be multiplayer from the ground up (split the inventory capacity of the characters, proper co-op puzzles, etc), it could be amazing.

Compare to New Super Mario Bros Wii with the multiplayer aspect bolted on to the original game. I found it intensely frustrating due to the mechanic of characters blocking others from jumping. It was a great party game, but if you wanted to complete it, single player was the best option.

[Maeglin_Dubh]

From a note I wrote a while back on Facebook...


So, I mentioned this yesterday. I've actually got a tabletop game that I'm running starting as soon as the last player gets here, so this is going to be a little more brief than I intendend. If you'd like more details on the ramblings behind this, I can expand later.

This refers primarily to multiplayer cooperative gaming, be it tabletop or computer based. I will occasionally refer to specific games, but the points are general.

Back in the day, a proper living required hunting and warring. Our present society doesn't require these as much. I don't have to go out with my friends and a pile of pointy sticks to bring back dinner. Although we could, the fine people at Giant might object.

The social units that built up around these activities have faded, at least in common society. Sure, people who still hunt for food and sport still have their hunting buddies, and military units have their own form of camaraderies. But for those of us who don't make our living in such fields, we're left lacking.This, I think is where gaming might fill in. After a botstomp with friends, we sit around the living room and compare notes. The newer players consult the wise old ones on how they built, traveled, and fought, while the wise old ones commend the newer players for lessons learned. The same is true in League, Dagorhir, and even D&D. Very rarely does the table completely empty as soon as the GM announces the end of the night's adventure. Lacking common careers and trades, the common point for the social group becomes the leisure activities of the group.

If we're all sitting in the same room playing a single-player game, this situation -might- still occur, if the game is of the sort that allows variation in tactics. These tactics can be compared and considered among the group, in efforts to improve in one form or another.

Another example is the Age of Empires subculture growing at VFCC, where people actually coach newer players through the basics of the game until they've reached the point where they can hold their own against other players. I was taught most of the basics of League by Pearson, and when Souza started playing botstomps with us, he often lost a lot of ground in the early game due to over-extending. So we did a game where he played his usual character and I played a support character and followed him around keeping him alive. Since then, he's improved, having had a chance to survive and learn from the mistakes that had previously gotten him killed.

So, since we don't hunt to live anymore, and don't have the social construct that surrounds a tribal hunting lifestyle, gaming fills in socially. That's the gist.

Based on readings from C.S. Lewis' 'The Four Loves'.

[Starwulf]

Simply to spend a significant ammount of time playing mainstream games.

Actually, if anything, I think that would NOT qualify someone to be a "gamer". Please note, I'm not saying people who play mainstream games aren't gamers, just that, of all things that would qualify someone AS a gamer, that would be the lowest on my list. Mainstream games are mainstream for a reason: They are super popular, and "Everyone is doing it". That's just following the crowd, or being another mindless buttersheep. It's not playing video games because you love them whole-heartedly and can't imagine a phase in your life where you aren't playing video games. It's playing video games because all the cool kids do it, so you do too.

Again, not saying those people AREN'T gamers, so please don't start a flame-war over this. Just that for me personally, that would be the lowest qualifier on the list of what makes a person a gamer.

For me, what makes a gamer is a passion for games of all types(with maybe one or two categories not being liked, because honestly, not everyone likes everything). It's a love for video games that encompasses and stretches throughout your lifetime, from the time you are first introduced to them, to the day you die. A gamer is someone who plays games not because they are cool, but because they enjoy playing them, and the experience that they give, the story they tell, the joy they bring.


Originally Posted by Dogmantra View Post
My question about multiplayer is twofold: do you think a game could stand up on just multiplayer, or does it need at least some single player aspect? What would it take for you to play a game that was multiplayer only (specific features, people, splitscreen vs online)?

Personally, I don't believe multi-player only games are all that attractive. I've always personally preferred Single-player games. That's not to say I haven't played and enjoyed MP games, just that in general I like to do my gaming by myself, for the fun of the discovery by myself. Afterwards I may go to a forum and read and discuss about aspects of the game, but I'm a solitary person by nature, and much prefer to do things alone and by myself. The few exceptions are Diablo 1, 2, and probably 3, Asherons Call, a few MUDs, and my personal favorite, FFXI, which I spent about 5k hours on altogether(total play time of just over 200 days).

In general, the only way I'm interested in multi-player only games are if they are large amounts of RPG elements, as well as the ability to just go off by myself once in a while and do my own thing, and actually get somewhere. if I'm forced to group ALL the time, EVERY time, I'm just not interested. I need to be able to unwind from the stresses of whatever clan or group or(in FFXI case) Linkshell I'm in, get something done that I want done, and not be submitted to the whims of the group as a whole. I like to be able to establish myself as a player WITHOUT the help of other people(In other words, when people see me, I don't want them thinking "Oh hey, That's Starwulf, of xxxxx group. Man they are a great group, he must be pretty damn good to be in there", I want them to think "OH hey! That's Starwulf! Man, he's one hell of a player, xxxx is one damn lucky group to have him".

[Knaight]

On games: I don't play videogames that much, and the vast majority of what I do is turn based "hotseat" gaming, in which there is one computer being used by a handful of people, all of whom are socializing. What this usually means is that I play Dominions 3 with friends, sometimes also play Battle for Wesnoth at the same time, and occasionally play single player games when the mood strikes me. I'd call that once every few months, if that.

On gamers: I'd say that anyone for whom playing videogames is a major hobby is a gamer. Major is a bit of a fuzzy term, so as clarification I'd state that one is a gamer if the content of their lives would change significantly with the removal of games. I, for instance, am not a gamer in the videogame sense, as I play them infrequently. In the tabletop sense, its certainly a fair term, as I analyze games, write games, play games, talk about games, so on and so forth.

[Nargan]

Filled out the survey.

My thoughts on gaming: I would agree with most people saying you have to spend a significant portion of your time being a gamer.

For me, it works as kind of a flow chart

Got work to do?
l y llllllllll \n
Do it llllllll Text friends, they doing anything?
llllllllllllll ly llllllll \n
Go see them llllllll Go on video games

The extent of my life in a nutshell, barring food, gym, etc. Since friends aren't always doing something 24/7 then I spend a large portion of my time gaming. I don't think it IMPACTS my social life, since as you can clearly see, socialising is higher up the chart :p

For the multiplayer question, I would answer as abso-frickin-lutely. Single player is nice to get to know a game FOR multiplayer. There are a few exceptions- someone mentioned zelda. But my general rule is multiplayer or gtfo.

I also spend a significant portion of my time thinking about games. I remember when I would come home on the high school bus, it was an hour long trip, I'd do homework while thinking about what I would do on games when I got home.

Now, I will literally walk from a to b doing exactly the same thing, and if I'm in a class the vaguely relates to some form of gaming, I will think about that game while being in autopilot for the class. It may be a hint of my minor form of brain damage-amage-amage.