One of our resident gaming masters tells us why he thinks asymmetrical multiplayer is the next big thing.
First things first, asymmetrical multiplayer doesn’t really
convey the most clear of ideas, so it would be useful to clarify what exactly
we are talking about today. When I say “asymmetrical
multiplayer,” I mean to describe a multiplayer game mode or type in which each
team (or player, in some cases) is experiencing a play style that is
significantly different from the others.
Hardly a new concept, asymmetrical multiplayer has been around for
decades. Real-time strategy juggernaut Warcraft attempted it back in 1994. Naturally, the technological limitations of
its day prevented Warcraft: Orcs and
Humans from having the level of asymmetry that its modern incarnations
possess (Blizzard and Rain of Fire are totally the same spell, you aren’t
fooling us, Blizzard Entertainment), but the basic concept was certainly there.
Modern technology, namely the prevalence of online
multiplayer and cross-device functionality (think Wii U’s touchscreen Gamepad
or tablet compatibility with Xbox’s SmartGlass) has seemed to reinvigorate an
interest in these types of games. Just
look at some of the major upcoming releases across platforms – Turtle Rock
Studio’s Evolve, Lionhead’s Fable Legends, and Bioware’s next new
IP, Shadow Realms – all feature
four-versus-one gameplay, where the “one” is experiencing entirely different
gameplay from the others. But why the
sudden interest in gameplay of this type?
What makes today’s gamers’ expectations ripe for these sorts of
experiences?
First, and perhaps most importantly, is a definite shift in
multiplayer expectations. Generally
speaking, most competitive multiplayer games of the past offered pretty level
playing fields, where the only differentiation between players was skill (and
maybe internet speed). Think back to the
granddaddy of online shooters – Quake. Every player entered the arena as an equal,
equipped with a shotgun and some insatiable bloodlust. Compare Quake
to virtually any modern shooter, excepting those that are specifically
marketing themselves as “Oldschool,” like Toxikk. Modern shooters are rife with class systems,
weapons that become more powerful as you use them in successive matches, perks
and pay-to-win character boosts – all functionality that ultimately makes any
two players less “equal.” Now, this
isn’t meant to be an admonishment of games like this, on the contrary, the
explosive success of the Call of Duty franchise
after 2007’s Modern Warfare, and the
genre copycats that have followed it have clearly demonstrated that the average
gamer loves persistent upgrades and
a reduction in “equality.” Therefore an
argument can be made whereby gamers are more likely to accept a game in which
the two teams are decidedly unequal.
Second, technology has created some incredible opportunities
for advances in asymmetrical multiplayer.
Even the dying breed of “couch multiplayer” of our Nintendo Sixty
Forefathers can be improved – imagine a split-screen cooperative multiplayer
shooter in which you are discretely texted the name of one of your teammates,
and a potential reward for betraying them – imagine the distrust and chaos this
could create! Why not take advantage of
these incredible opportunities? Why not
utilize Xbox’s SmartGlass or Sony’s Vita integration to allow a single player
to control the flow of a game, not unlike the Dungeon Masters of yore? The ability to use multiple screens (even
when they are simply separate televisions or monitors through online play)
makes for some amazing advantages in asymmetrical multiplayer design.
-Patrick McDonald