Is network/internet multiplayer a must have?
by Chris Jorgensen · in General Discussion · 09/06/2006 (12:59 pm) · 15 replies
Hi all,
I'm working on a simple 2D spaceship fighting game. Pretty fun, in the same vein as Space War or Star Control Melee, but with the benefit of being developed with modern graphics software and TGB. My original intent was to just create a multiplayer game for up to 4 people on a single PC, with AI-controlled opponents for the single player mode ala something like Street Fighter. I believe the indie game 'Gibbage' is similar in features.
My fear, however, is that the game could then come up short in terms of features when compared to something like the open source game 'Star Control: Timewarp", which, while worse graphically and ultimately lacks some of the gameplay elements I'm developing, actually has internet multiplayer.
Now I am fluent in C/C++ and have a decent handle on simple networking concepts. So in a sense I think I could probably mod the networking in TGB for my purposes. But is it worth the time/trouble to implement? Is network play a must have?
Long term, my goal is to sell some copies, get some feedback, and then port it to XBLA CC with any changes I feel fit. It's not my intent to make tons of money or anything, but obviously the more copies I put out there, the more feedback I can get. (And I don't want to go the free route!) A second question might be the price point. Would network/internet support have pushed Gibbage's worth from $10 to $15... to $20? I know it's hard to quantify such a thing, but I'm simply trying to gauge how strongly people feel about that feature.
Thanks!
I'm working on a simple 2D spaceship fighting game. Pretty fun, in the same vein as Space War or Star Control Melee, but with the benefit of being developed with modern graphics software and TGB. My original intent was to just create a multiplayer game for up to 4 people on a single PC, with AI-controlled opponents for the single player mode ala something like Street Fighter. I believe the indie game 'Gibbage' is similar in features.
My fear, however, is that the game could then come up short in terms of features when compared to something like the open source game 'Star Control: Timewarp", which, while worse graphically and ultimately lacks some of the gameplay elements I'm developing, actually has internet multiplayer.
Now I am fluent in C/C++ and have a decent handle on simple networking concepts. So in a sense I think I could probably mod the networking in TGB for my purposes. But is it worth the time/trouble to implement? Is network play a must have?
Long term, my goal is to sell some copies, get some feedback, and then port it to XBLA CC with any changes I feel fit. It's not my intent to make tons of money or anything, but obviously the more copies I put out there, the more feedback I can get. (And I don't want to go the free route!) A second question might be the price point. Would network/internet support have pushed Gibbage's worth from $10 to $15... to $20? I know it's hard to quantify such a thing, but I'm simply trying to gauge how strongly people feel about that feature.
Thanks!
About the author
Owner of Cascadia Games LLC
#2
but I would require multiplayer to even consider spending my time on it.
my time is short, the time I spend playing games has to be overloaded, meaning I need to spend that time
with my Friends playing games Together.
so .. for me its a must.
09/06/2006 (2:46 pm)
I am probably not the target audience.but I would require multiplayer to even consider spending my time on it.
my time is short, the time I spend playing games has to be overloaded, meaning I need to spend that time
with my Friends playing games Together.
so .. for me its a must.
#3
tdn.garagegames.com/wiki/Torque_2D/RealTimeNetworking
09/06/2006 (3:21 pm)
This might interest you. To make use of it however, you need to have TGE. I haven't actaully looked at it... i just knew it was there... anyway... here you go.tdn.garagegames.com/wiki/Torque_2D/RealTimeNetworking
#4
You realize that you just gave a link to INSIDE THE TORQUE 2D DEVELOPER NETWORK. Meaning someone like me that doesn't own TGB, can now access the TGB Dev Network. Meaning if someone had a pirated copy, he now has all the docs he needs to help him.
09/06/2006 (4:37 pm)
@ChrisYou realize that you just gave a link to INSIDE THE TORQUE 2D DEVELOPER NETWORK. Meaning someone like me that doesn't own TGB, can now access the TGB Dev Network. Meaning if someone had a pirated copy, he now has all the docs he needs to help him.
#5
Now let this thread go back to its topic, the importance of multiplayer in games - thank you.
09/07/2006 (8:11 am)
Geez Okashira, way to blow things out of proportion. GarageGames lock pages that are product specific and it's hardly Chris's fault that they chose not to on that particular page.Now let this thread go back to its topic, the importance of multiplayer in games - thank you.
#6
I've personally logged many many many Halo 2 hours online. But at the same time, I've also always loved games like Bomberman, which you (in the past) had to play with people in person. I agree with the Gibbage creator that some of the experience is lost when you play online. On the flip side, I want to learn how to sell a game as much as how to create one. Admittedly, like you I tend to look for multiplayer when I'm looking at games. I'm not much of a single-player person. And not everyone has 4 joysticks for their PC!
@Okashira
My original plan was to polish then consider multiplayer.... but is that really wise? I'd imagine real-time networking is not a trivial chance to the source. In my experience, breaking everything earlier is better than later.
My goal right now is to keep the entire game in script. I mean, it's simple enough that should be possible. Here's a more engine specific-question. If I port over my TGB script to Torque X, will real-time networking be straightfoward to implement?
09/07/2006 (12:31 pm)
@BadguyI've personally logged many many many Halo 2 hours online. But at the same time, I've also always loved games like Bomberman, which you (in the past) had to play with people in person. I agree with the Gibbage creator that some of the experience is lost when you play online. On the flip side, I want to learn how to sell a game as much as how to create one. Admittedly, like you I tend to look for multiplayer when I'm looking at games. I'm not much of a single-player person. And not everyone has 4 joysticks for their PC!
@Okashira
My original plan was to polish then consider multiplayer.... but is that really wise? I'd imagine real-time networking is not a trivial chance to the source. In my experience, breaking everything earlier is better than later.
My goal right now is to keep the entire game in script. I mean, it's simple enough that should be possible. Here's a more engine specific-question. If I port over my TGB script to Torque X, will real-time networking be straightfoward to implement?
#7
Internet multiplayer is, even with Torque, a collossal pain in the neck. The technical details are only part of the story. The design issues, the testing... that'll drag you down hard. Either it needs to be a key feature of your game, or you should drop it entirely. Focus attention (your own and your audience's) on what your game does that nobody else does. Trying to play "Keeping Up With The Joneses" with every other title out there that is remotely similar to your own is going to result in an over-schedule, over-budget, lukewarm title that does a little bit of everything but doesn't do anything really WELL.
Pick your battles. If you wanted to make your game a multiplayer game and give it the focus it deserves, you wouldn't be asking this question.
09/07/2006 (12:33 pm)
Quote:My fear, however, is that the game could then come up short in terms of features when compared to something like the open source game 'Star Control: Timewarp", which, while worse graphically and ultimately lacks some of the gameplay elements I'm developing, actually has internet multiplayer.So what?
Internet multiplayer is, even with Torque, a collossal pain in the neck. The technical details are only part of the story. The design issues, the testing... that'll drag you down hard. Either it needs to be a key feature of your game, or you should drop it entirely. Focus attention (your own and your audience's) on what your game does that nobody else does. Trying to play "Keeping Up With The Joneses" with every other title out there that is remotely similar to your own is going to result in an over-schedule, over-budget, lukewarm title that does a little bit of everything but doesn't do anything really WELL.
Pick your battles. If you wanted to make your game a multiplayer game and give it the focus it deserves, you wouldn't be asking this question.
#8
Never thought of it that way. After reading your post, I completely agree with you.
09/07/2006 (1:31 pm)
@JayNever thought of it that way. After reading your post, I completely agree with you.
#9
Jay makes several good points. If your funding/schedule/game concept is tight, however you determine it, then you should concentrate on making the game you wanted to make in the first place. If you make a fun game then that people appreciate then ask your user-base and maybe expand the sequel "Version 2 - Now with multi-player!". I think it's better to ship a smaller game that you're proud of and start from there rather than not ship a huge concept game you couldn't finish or ship a game with more bullet point features but you feel you have to apologize for.
Also I think people often count on multiplayer to cover the lack of inherent fun gameplay or lack of content. _Escape Velocity_ from Ambrosia was one of my favorite games for a long time. It was strictly single player but new success brought new worlds to conquer (literally) and then fans started putting out expansion packs that added more content and new plots. I would rather have that game then a game with 1/3 the universe size but 6 multiplayer maps.
Remember, the vast majority of all arcade games ever shipped were not multi-player and some of them did just fine.
My $.02,
=Tod
09/07/2006 (1:36 pm)
Jay: Pick your battles. If you wanted to make your game a multiplayer game and give it the focus it deserves, you wouldn't be asking this question.Jay makes several good points. If your funding/schedule/game concept is tight, however you determine it, then you should concentrate on making the game you wanted to make in the first place. If you make a fun game then that people appreciate then ask your user-base and maybe expand the sequel "Version 2 - Now with multi-player!". I think it's better to ship a smaller game that you're proud of and start from there rather than not ship a huge concept game you couldn't finish or ship a game with more bullet point features but you feel you have to apologize for.
Also I think people often count on multiplayer to cover the lack of inherent fun gameplay or lack of content. _Escape Velocity_ from Ambrosia was one of my favorite games for a long time. It was strictly single player but new success brought new worlds to conquer (literally) and then fans started putting out expansion packs that added more content and new plots. I would rather have that game then a game with 1/3 the universe size but 6 multiplayer maps.
Remember, the vast majority of all arcade games ever shipped were not multi-player and some of them did just fine.
My $.02,
=Tod
#10
I think MP is a good idea and can help a game like yours a lot. But the game had better be good regardless, you need to get a userbased and people out there that want to play MP in the first place. Otherwise your going to have a poor SP game no one buys and without any gamers there is no point having MP. Not if no one is around to join in with your games.
09/07/2006 (3:09 pm)
MP is used a lot to hid poor AI, something pretty common in most games including torque ones. The single biggest reason I see for having MP is if you want to build a community around your Indie game and keep people playing since typicaly most indie games suffer from a lack of time money and resources being put into them.I think MP is a good idea and can help a game like yours a lot. But the game had better be good regardless, you need to get a userbased and people out there that want to play MP in the first place. Otherwise your going to have a poor SP game no one buys and without any gamers there is no point having MP. Not if no one is around to join in with your games.
#11
As for AI -- this is something I'm pretty interested in. I did one attempt purely in script but, overall, it's pretty poor. I think it'd be fun to write a really good one.
Thanks for the input all. I should be able to put up some screenshots in the TGB "Show Off!" forum soon. :)
09/08/2006 (4:20 pm)
I think there have been some good responses here. I agree that I'm not too keen on taking weeks (if not longer) to implement decent networking. And it certainly wasn't my original vision to include it. So I think I'll, for now, just try to make it a tight little game and networking be damned. Like someone suggested, I can always do a sequel if I feel like it was a success and would like to continue with the project.As for AI -- this is something I'm pretty interested in. I did one attempt purely in script but, overall, it's pretty poor. I think it'd be fun to write a really good one.
Thanks for the input all. I should be able to put up some screenshots in the TGB "Show Off!" forum soon. :)
#12
a title that offers only single player is destined for the shelf.
however, a title that offers multiplayer connectivity can be a different game altogether.
and be played over and over.
this is of course not always the case, depending on the flavour of your game.
some games just dont offer much extended play even if multiplayer.
again this is user perspective, there are people still playing diablo1, diablo2, Titan Quest 2 and even the Original Command and Conquerer..(and of course thier numbers dwindle everyday)
the real question from this would be, what is your game type.
09/08/2006 (4:37 pm)
I think one of the key piece's perhaps left out here is playability.a title that offers only single player is destined for the shelf.
however, a title that offers multiplayer connectivity can be a different game altogether.
and be played over and over.
this is of course not always the case, depending on the flavour of your game.
some games just dont offer much extended play even if multiplayer.
again this is user perspective, there are people still playing diablo1, diablo2, Titan Quest 2 and even the Original Command and Conquerer..(and of course thier numbers dwindle everyday)
the real question from this would be, what is your game type.
#13
09/08/2006 (5:13 pm)
Remember on AI - Input, Processing, Output. The simplest form of true AI is artificial neural networks. Look it up on Wikipedia.com. 
#14
09/08/2006 (8:15 pm)
I would say making the game fun is the most important aspect, sometimes gameplay is dependent upon multiplayer. It all really depends on the game you are making and what is the focus. For a game like spacewar the multiplayer over the net could be fun, but I would still focus on getting gameplay developed first.
#15
I actually took a term of Artificial Neural Nets last fall. It's OK but I'm not a huge fan of it. I much prefer genetic algorithms, which is the focus of my thesis research (evolvable hardware). There are flavors of GA-based Learning Classifier Systems that I think could be good for AI. Basically, these are decision rule sets that, after some period of time, have their success rates input into a GA for some fine tuning. :)
The present "temp" AI in my game is just feedback-based tweaking of decision thresholds. So if you, the ship, keep getting shot, then you will tend to retreat more. But if you hurt the other ship, then you keep attacking. It also takes into consideration your power/health and has a "mood" factor (ie you attack when you feel like it). It's major flaw has more to deal with it's slow to make decisions and doesn't do a good job aiming its weapon, firing at where its target was instead of where it thinks it will be.
But AI is really a different topic. I agree that gameplay should be my first focus, but also that there are avenues of gameplay that will be missed due to a lack of network multiplayer.
09/09/2006 (1:06 am)
@OkashiraI actually took a term of Artificial Neural Nets last fall. It's OK but I'm not a huge fan of it. I much prefer genetic algorithms, which is the focus of my thesis research (evolvable hardware). There are flavors of GA-based Learning Classifier Systems that I think could be good for AI. Basically, these are decision rule sets that, after some period of time, have their success rates input into a GA for some fine tuning. :)
The present "temp" AI in my game is just feedback-based tweaking of decision thresholds. So if you, the ship, keep getting shot, then you will tend to retreat more. But if you hurt the other ship, then you keep attacking. It also takes into consideration your power/health and has a "mood" factor (ie you attack when you feel like it). It's major flaw has more to deal with it's slow to make decisions and doesn't do a good job aiming its weapon, firing at where its target was instead of where it thinks it will be.
But AI is really a different topic. I agree that gameplay should be my first focus, but also that there are avenues of gameplay that will be missed due to a lack of network multiplayer.
Torque Owner Okashira
Also, price depends on your final product. I personally haven't played Gibbage, so I can't say. On the price, go to some 2d gaming communities with a demo of your finished game, have people play it, and ask them how much, if anything at all, they would pay for it.
Oh, and ask questions on communties like these :).