How to Craft a Great Multiplayer Experience

[AdamBrome]

Heya...

I wrote a white paper for Threewave about 6 months and it was just recently published @ GameDaily.com's business section. I've reposted it at my website (with permission) and figured I'd share it with you guys.

You can check it out here.

I wrote about 75% of the document and did the majority of its research. Threewave specializes in multi-player design & content and wanted to have our ideologies of a great experience written down. I researched the experiences for about a week and spoke with a number of people from different studios to get their thoughts on multiplayer as well. The article is a culmination of all ideas, thoughts, and theory on what makes for a great multiplayer experience.

Enjoy!

[Dodger]

How great someone wrote this!

[R_Yell]

Thx for sharing Adam, very good read. I could disagree in some point, but only because I'm designing a game mode that is hard to match with this:

Each level must be designed carefully, with every moment planned and considered. A level must be balanced to best represent the core mechanics, ensuring that the conflict zones are placed in locations where the players encounter each other within 15 to 30 seconds.

That principle is basic, of course, but when you introduce some layers of game play where random events take place, then is hard to consider and plan every moment.

I'm trying to create some order inside those "chaotic" random events, in the end they shouldn't create any major imbalance. It's like those maps generated randomly in RTS genre. Every player has a mine near its camp, but sometimes there are also some imbalances that makes the game interesting. Players must learn the map every time, but they know that key principles of map generation are always the same. Well, I'm about to introduce something in FPS using a similar concept.

[Grinwhrl]

Good read

[ReNo]

Indeed it was, I enjoyed it. I felt that it was a tad focused on FPS games, which isn't a bad thing at all, it's just that it read like it was trying to apply to all multiplayer games. I know there was a disclaimer stating as much near the top, but I just felt that came across as an "Oh shit - this is actually about FPS games, not just multiplayer games, better put something in about that!" last minute addition Like R_Yell, I think one of the most obvious examples of the genre focus comes from the statement that claims 15-30 seconds is the ideal time between player encounters (obviously not relevant to, say, RTS, RPG, racing, fighting, etc...). You can't cater for everything, I know, but it might have been wise to just write about FPS games and suggest that some of the points might be relevant to other genres. Interesting read anyway, and all valid points. Good job

[Pingu_swe]

When the tides of war turn, players must always remember the maxim, “the best offense is a good defense.”

Isn´t it the other way around? The best defense is a good offense.” Atleast that is what you say in Sweden. Anyway good read.

[Kakburk]

When the tides of war turn, players must always remember the maxim, “the best offense is a good defense.”

Isn´t it the other way around? The best defense is a good offense.” Atleast that is what you say in Sweden. Anyway good read.

I must say I recognize that other way too... hmm-- perhaps it's us swedes who are confused in general?

[Zacker]

Overall a fine read, you kept things fairly to the point.

downtime is always an issue

I don't agree here, if downtime was real issue then we would just alter the game design mechanics to avoid it. It is still there in many games because it is not an issue, but rather something giving players a well deserved break. It helps to break up all the killing with some moments to think things over in. Without those breaks many of the action filled events would not feel as tense as they do with some downtime.