There aren�t very many multiplayer games in which I�ve strived to attain perfection, or at least attempted to be good at them. Unfortunately, there aren�t enough hours in the week for me to devote time to everything, and that bothers me. It isn�t because I want to pursue a lifestyle like that of Mr. Fatal1ty. It�s because you need to be competent in order to have fun with most games.
There are many situations in which I am enjoying a game but I don�t have the patience to learn all of the strategic nuances and the game�s vocabulary. This has recently happened with Demigod. I don�t hate the it or think it�s bad. I even had fun with it the few times I played. I just don�t care enough to be good at it, and it�s gotten to the point where me being a novice makes it a chore to play. Having fun suddenly becomes hard. I get an uncomfortable feeling that everyone is sighing at my every move, which probably isn�t true (I�m self-centered like that). In fact, it�s probably quite the opposite and not one person is noticing my fumbling idiocy.
More difficult is trying to get into games with an established multiplayer community. Everyone knows what to do, and everyone seems like they know how to do it well. You�ll find that new words have been added to the English language to define actions and things in the game. It�s a confusing, cold, and lonely environment. It will either scare you away, or you�ll love it enough to fight into it. That is, if you care enough to do so.
It�s a battle for attention. If there isn�t something that I find extremely appealing, it gets tossed aside. It happened with Gears of War, Killzone 2, Grand Theft Auto IV and a collection of many other games I care not to mention. I�m often mystified by the immeasurable number of video games that add multiplayer components to their game that didn�t need it. It is especially baffling when it looks like they went halfway on it. It�s like they cared, but didn�t have the resources or time to flesh it out, or probably added it just to check off something for the back of the box. Instead we�re getting watered down versions of both the single player and multiplayer.
I don�t mind it if I can see that resources went where they should have, but I always feel like I could have gotten more out of one experience if the other wasn�t there. It sometimes isn�t even the fault of a developer. I�ve seen and played a lot of games with new and interesting ideas that I should be paying attention to. I, however, already play games that I�ve invested so much time in that giving them up for that is difficult. To actually love something enough for a commitment is something that transcends innovation for me, unfortunately.
There was a case in which I was given the option to purchase a game without a multiplayer portion. It was the recently released Ghostbusters. I don�t think it was something that was intended to work in favor of the costumer, but it did for me at least. The PC version of the game was released without multiplayer and priced for half of what it cost to purchase the console releases. A few people looked on this as a negative, but I jumped in knowing that I was dropping something I never would have played for very long anyway.
It�s just difficult trying to be competitive in an environment where the bar continues to grow higher and higher while you�re off trying
to have a life. The guys (and girls) who constantly play these games with an indefatigable commitment will constantly create barriers for new gamers to come in and enjoy themselves. What I�m essentially trying to get across is that people who are good at video games are fun ruining assholes that need to be dragged from their entrails and hung on crosses.