Are multiplayer games even multiplayer anymore?

[light-v]

Modern multiplayer games feel hollow to me personally. Battle royal is the hottest genre right now but it just doesn't really encourages people to talk to each other imo. I don't enjoy playing BR games they just feel empty I don't see the point of winning even if it's a difficult objective to achieve I care more about the experience and with who than bragging rights on social media. 

I feel like the social atmosphere of the 2000s/early 2010s (peak popularity of MMOs) is now gone. I remember back then that I could effortlessly make friends in online games and even formed communities that way. These days, people seem to simply not talk to each other or when they do it's just to vent their frustration. It feels like everyone is playing in their own bubble in multiplayer games and it just feels wrong. Even the bigger MMOs like WoW seem to have fallen into the same pattern where players just are not as connected as before during vanilla all that in the name of accessibility. Have you guys felt this way too? Are there any games that still have this component?

[WereCatf]

Your question itself seems quite flawed: even games that have literally no other interaction between players than who shoots who do still count as multiplayer games, yet you imply that multiplayer means social interaction. That's not true and has never been; deathmatch is what started the whole multiplayer-business and if you distill e.g. Fortnite or PUBG down to its core, it's still basically a deathmatch-game. A better question would be: are social multiplayer-games really social anymore?

[ARikozuM]

Multiplayer games [of today] should die. They're being micro'd to hell and don't have any replay value except for ranking and leveling purposes. It isn't like WoW, RS, and other MMO's where you felt a sense of accomplishment when progressing to a tougher area in the game. 

[Speed Weed]

What if the player you encountered is autistic? 

[light-v]

5 minutes ago, WereCatf said:

Your question itself seems quite flawed: even games that have literally no other interaction between players than who shoots who do still count as multiplayer games, yet you imply that multiplayer means social interaction. That's not true and has never been; deathmatch is what started the whole multiplayer-business and if you distill e.g. Fortnite or PUBG down to its core, it's still basically a deathmatch-game. A better question would be: are social multiplayer-games really social anymore?

Well I wanted to discuss the current social aspects of gaming. Yes you are correct in the sense that if there is more than one player then it's multiplayer. The title is irrelevant. I am sorry if it mislead you to click into this thread but the real discussion here is about how isolating online gaming feels these days. 

[IdiotPenguin]

I think you can reword that title to better suit your discussion here but!

 

As a frequent multiplayer gamer person thing myself, I can definitely say that any multiplayer game that have a form of communication definitely has some form of toxicity and toxicity makes people more, well, toxic. Now I'm quite the child and wasn't really on the internet until like 2010 so I can't agree with you or disagree with you that things have changed although I can definitely say that making friends is quite easy. Most people nowadays think they're cool and that's just how it is now but there are some down to earth people that I usually find in my matches that I play regardless of what multiplayer game it is and If i wanted to, I could just easily ask to queue up with them again and they'd be down for it. Heck, like 95% of people would join me If I asked but their mentality and personality are a different story. Teamwork also exists even in Battle Royale. I do agree with what you're saying here but only to a slight degree as I can personally make friends super easily (hell my bestie is one I met online and that was like from back in 2014 or somethin I don't remember, back on old days of TF2 xd). 

 

But yeah I get what you're saying (atleast the part about the "venting frustration", usually on their own teammates

Spoiler

hah people and their insecurities xdddd

 

[light-v]

To those pointing out the phrasing of the title, it's on purpose. Now think about it. If there is no human interaction between you and other players, what's the difference with playing with bots? Admittedly bots that may vent their rage or aren't exactly predictable and might beat you. It doesn't change the fact that if you play at home and you don't get to see who you are playing with or against and without human interactions makes me question the point of multiplayer. Figuratively it's dead to me but I'm surprised that many people here treat the title so literally. 

[IdiotPenguin]

6 minutes ago, light-v said:

To those pointing out the phrasing of the title, it's on purpose. Now think about it. If there is no human interaction between you and other players, what's the difference with playing with bots? Admittedly bots that may vent their rage or aren't exactly predictable and might beat you. It doesn't change the fact that if you play at home and you don't get to see who you are playing with or against and without human interactions makes me question the point of multiplayer. Figuratively it's dead to me but I'm surprised that many people here treat the title so literally. 

What can I say man, you wanted a discussion which you have one now before your very eyes. I believe a discussion means having an opinion and that means we can say whatever we want to that we believe so you can't expect us to agree with everything you say.

 

EDIT : If you're playing a game that has other people you play against which you may not necessarily talk to it still is multiplayer even if you can't stalk them and know where they live or who they are believe it or not. I'm very sorry today's multiplayer doesn't meet your standard but maybe in the future that'll come back and you will like it again. 

[Speed Weed]

11 minutes ago, light-v said:

To those pointing out the phrasing of the title, it's on purpose. Now think about it. If there is no human interaction between you and other players, what's the difference with playing with bots? Admittedly bots that may vent their rage or aren't exactly predictable and might beat you. It doesn't change the fact that if you play at home and you don't get to see who you are playing with or against and without human interactions makes me question the point of multiplayer. Figuratively it's dead to me but I'm surprised that many people here treat the title so literally. 

That's why you play with friends and  not some random players that might be an asshoe. Try to find a friend or a squad that you can hop in. 

[WereCatf]

15 hours ago, light-v said:

Admittedly bots.....aren't exactly predictable and might beat you.....makes me question the point of multiplayer

But you just said it there yourself: human-players are of varying skill-levels and predictability in ways that no bots can yet match.

15 hours ago, light-v said:

If there is no human interaction between you and other players

Define "human interaction" -- when playing e.g. Battlefield 1, I may choose to play as a medic, see another team-member find the sentry kit and then follow them in an effort to support them. If they've got any sort of tactical and situational awareness, they'll notice this and try to make stick close to me, as well. There is non-verbal human-interaction between me and them. There are actually a lot of situations, where there is non-verbal interaction between players, hostile or friendly.

 

The issue here is that you do not consider this kind of interaction at all in your rant, seemingly only equating "human interaction" with "spoken or written communications" and I find that very short-sighted. The kind of interaction I mention wrt. BF1 may not be to your liking, but it is interaction, nevertheless.

[Speed Weed]

10 hours ago, WereCatf said:

But you just said it there yourself: human-players are of varying skill-levels and predictability in ways that no bots can yet match.

 

Define "human interaction" -- when playing e.g. Battlefield 1, I may choose to play as a medic, see another team-member find the sentry kit and then follow them in an effort to support them. If they've got any sort of tactical and situational awareness, they'll notice this and try to make stick close to me, as well. There is non-verbal human-interaction between me and them. There are actually a lot of situations, where there is non-verbal interaction between players, hostile or friendly.

 

The issue here is that you do not consider this kind of interaction at all in your rant, seemingly only equating "human interaction" with "spoken or written communications" and I find that very short-sighted. The kind of interaction I mention wrt. BF1 may not be to your liking, but it is interaction, nevertheless.

What the fuck? I didn't say " If there is no human interaction between you and other players." 

[WereCatf]

44 minutes ago, DaPhuc said:

What the fuck? I didn't say " If there is no human interaction between you and other players." 

I didn't quote you, I quoted OP, but something apparently went wrong with the forums and changed the quotations as if you had said it.

[Aetheria]

Yeah, the Internet as a whole has gotten quite terrible at social interaction. Games are especially bad. It doesn't help when everything is matchmade and there's no such thing as 'your regular server' any more; you never see the same player twice. Also doesn't help when every game is $0-$10 and populated with kids on school laptops, and the only way game designers can think to deal with the influx of bile is to limit social interaction all the more.