Ah, David Jaffe. We don’t always agree with him but we do tend to admire his candour.
The industry’s most outspoken designer has been at it again, taking to Twitter to explain his views on traditional levelling systems in online multiplayer modes. Basically, he doesn’t like the ranking system most games use these days.
The multiplayer systems for Jaffe’s new game – Twisted Metal – are still in development and he does stress that just because he doesn’t like it, that doesn’t mean they won’t make it into the final product. He’s not the only one working on the game, you know. Just the most outspoken.
So what are his complaints about it? He says “it dilutes the fun of trying to outthink your opponent and stay 2-5 steps ahead because you now have this higher/meta goal that can take your focus from the core experience.”
I have to say, I’m not personally a big fan of most online multiplayer experiences because of the way the rhythm of a game is totally compromised and the, often hopeless, task of trying to match abilities (and ranks) with people who have twelve hours a day to practice. So I can see where he’s coming from, what about you?
Person678
A more Warhawk approach then? Good.
CdmanJak
agree with him
dizappear
Me too, i enjoy the unlocks for levels but that just time you put in, not skill!
BFBC2 has a good type of unlocking with rank, i.e. that if you play one class you only unlock that class, rather than just pick the easy class and spam till you unlock the better weapons.
We need abilities, unlocks and rank down to skill.
You could have training levels that you can work on specific skills to unlock. Lost planet2 has a battle gauge that goes down but if you die in a vs(tank) you lose more points. That would be good for games with weapons noobs spam with, if there was a extra loss of points people would only use when the have the skill.
Rob92
As much as some people will play for hours on end just to get a better level, it does give you something to work towards and play for.
I find that the novelty wears off quickly in multiplayer if your not given anything to aim for. It gets boring. Levels and such always give you something to play towards.
scaramanga1973
But then surely the opposite us also true.
If you are continually getting slaughtered because there are x number of players with much higher levels that carry perks you have yet to unlock that can act as a “turn off” that takes away from the core experience of player a trying to beat player b
iAvernus
I think they should have do lobbies based on rankings. If you don’t want that, then there should be an option to not go into lobbies with your same rank.
If someone said this below, I appolgise…I didn’t read all the comments below.
X201
Hate most MP games (and MP Trophies/Achievements should be banned)
Co-Op Mp games like TF2 are good because when you start you can avoid all of the “Learn the best places on the map” rubbish that you have to go through whilst playing as a lone player in MP.
With the likes of TF2 you can start by following others around the map and learn that way, but at the same time you’re being helpful to the team and having fun. It helps make pick-up-an play MP a reality.
Lone player MP though fills me with dread because I know that there are people on the game who play it non-stop for 12 hours a day,which results in me constantly dying whilst trying to learn a map, and doesn’t make for a fun experience in anyway.
PoorPaddy89
Completely agree. I don’t care for online for lots of reasons, and it’s ridiculous trying to keep up with people who spend so long every day online. I’m quite happy maestroing single player thanks.
cc_star
I think XP rewards should solely be cosmetic differences, so a gold gun – or some rather nifty outfits
I hate the fact its impossible to get into some games because people who not only have more skill & knowledge at a game than you but they also have loads more weapons and classes than you… it ruin games for people who don’t day1 purchase and stick at it like a sad twat with nothing else to do.
I think a combination of leaderboards & cosmetic unlocks are reward enough, but a level playing field is more important than weapon or class unlocks
OneShotWook
I tend to agree with you cc_star.Although i don’t really play the arena Dm stuff much anymore i can see why they add this kindve stuff,without it it all still plays a little like quake 1.
djhsecondnature
That’s why I rarely play DM.
Armonster9000
Halo 3 does it right.
Lobbies, Cosmetic upgrades, and a decent ranking system.
Everyone who plays eachother should be similar in level.
With more xp comes more armor.
I think they did it very well. But…”sad twat with nothing else to do” that’s a little mean lol. If you buy a game , you shouldn’t just give up on it if someone is better than you.
Foxhound_Solid
He does have a valid point to be honest…
maneorix
I totally agree. I hate the whole idea of perks and boosters that give an advantage on the battlefield. It should be about player intelligence and skill. Things like being able to see enemies on a radar aswell, that’s just silly – it ruins it for me.
It should be a level playing field for all, it’s cool to have different classes and stuff. But that should either be unlocked rather quickly or simply be unlocked for everyone straight away. So perks, killstreaks and other stupid stuff can just stay away.
eirekun
I agree, the level-ups should be for bragging rights only not tactical advantage.
It’s the reason I still play Battlefield 1943.
iAvernus
I understand what he means, and to a point I agree. But I like a challenge, and I like going up againts people who play longer than me. It makes beating them all the more satisfying.
As I said above, they should have an option that allows you to join lobbies with players on your level, or similar. Or you the option to grow a pair, and try to beat “better” players. IMO atleast =)