It seems that a lot of big-name multiplayer games today incorperate the idea that you start out with a limited selection of stuff and unlock more as you play more. Battlefield 2, R6V, and CoD4 use this, and Vegas2, Frontlines, and a lot more games all use this mechanic, and frankly it seems to me like an unbelieveably bad idea. Why do you want to work for the good stuff? You could have all the equipment, classes, weapons, whatever from the moment you put the disk in the tray, or you could have to work for getting stuff. Why the hell do you want to wait? The very concept of having to invest hours upon hours into a game before I can get the full experence of it just seems ludicris.

It's not just my desire for instant gratification, it's a form of unbalance that's written dirrectly into the framework of the multiplayer itself. Player X and Player Y are fighting each other, but Player Y has been playing a lot longer and has much better guns, tech, and armor. Player X has no chance at all. Balance is possably the single most important part of a competitive game, and the Battlefield 2 model so many games are using destroys game balance by giving better stuff to some players and not to others. Take CoD4: If you want to be a sniper, if you're low or mid level and don't have the R700 or Barrett 50-cal, you are forced to use a less powerful and/or less accurate weapon. The mechanic PUNISHES people for daring to not buy the game on release day.

And yet the BF2 model keeps surfacing in new games. Why? Why do people want to have to work to get the full experence of a game? Why do people want to incorperate unbalance of the game into its most basic structure? Why do people want to punish people for getting a game later than others?

Maybe to encourage multiplayer. I'm not sure since I'm not a dev but it seems to me that is why. It could also be there to give some feeling of accomplishment or something.

The feeling of accomplishment is winning and enjoying the game! The encouragement to play is the fact that it's fun! If a game employs anything other than this then they're just being gimmicky.

EDIT: Ranks by themselves are fine. Good way to enlarge your e-penis and if the game uses a matchmaking function it's a great way to make sure people play relitively within their own skill level. But tieing gameplay advantages to ranks is just idiotic.

Because being rewarded for your efforts in an activity that can sometimes feel like wasting time fills a huge gap in the experiance of playing a game. You can either play COD4 for 3 hours and stop and feel like it was fun, or feel like it was fun and you accomplished something. Also, COD4 was a bad example to use as a negative in weaker players getting out-gunned. In COD4, you get most of the good guns right from the start or within like 5-10 games. The first sniper is just as capable as the Barrett, with minor advantages for either. The way you talk about it, it's like experienced players get cannons that shoot nukes while new players get a big stick. It's not like that. As you level up, you get a larger variety of weapons and such, each with it's own advantages and disadvantages. I guess my point is, stop blaming guns for you dying, because I've never seen an unlockable gun that was insanely better than anything you could get from the start.

CoD4 is an example of the BF2 model working extremely well, as there really isn't a distinct advantage between levels. It still has the IMO even bigger problem though: it makes you work to get the full experence of the game. If the fun of the game isn't enough of an "acomplishment" to you, then why are you playing it?

So a game expects you to play it for an extended period of time before you've experienced the whole thing? Holy crap!

Shocking. Games wanting people to play them. For a lot of time.

I always thought it was a good idea. looking back at wolf et, they had it right were a low level person would not have access to the same stuff as someone who had the better experience. So many games are coping this idea but, more from better abilities like running with a flamethrower and faster recharge rates, to more like you can't use certain weapons until you kill so many people, or bomb so many things.

I don't personally like it, especially if its unlocking things that would make very little game play difference.

by your logic, butters, why don't we all use strategy guides and find all the secrets in games? or why not use cheats on everything we play?

why would you play games and not expect to have to work for something? i may be naive, but i thought that's what video games were all about.

In cod4 multiplayer when you start it up for the first time you have 3 classes to pick from. I'm not saying this is a good thing but for the average player if they had started the game for the first time and they had 1000 combinations of classes to choose from they would have just been baffled and rather than baffling the audience infinity ward chose to spoon feed you the weapons. And as you rank up and unlock new weapons and perks you are encouraged to use them rather than just sticking with the m16 that you have had since day 1.

I like not having everything at once, because it gives me something to work towards, a goal in the game. If I had everything right away, I would get bored. In CoD4, I don't think the level difference makes a HUGE impact on how you can do in a match. I have beaten people way higher level and have been beaten by people way lower level. Sure, the guns are slightly better, but not in ways to make it so they always win. And hey, I only use the M40A3 :D

There was a recent study done, and this one's for reals, that showed that when playing video games, it was the act of accomplishment that kept the gamer going. They said it was the sense of accomplishment that led to an unnoticable high, and got the gamers addicted to playing. Thats why some people strive for 100% completion and accomplishment and such. I think when omre game devs hear about that study, the CoD4 style of multiplayer will grow to an even bigger size.

I think the feeling of accomplishment is exactly why they do it, and I think it works like a charm. The amount of times I should have stopped playing and gone to bed, but thought to myself 'oh but I could level up in like a games time, and I wonder what I get this time.' So of course I stay up an keep playing. And this is coming from someone who has never really played FPS online, as he felt they were too daunting to get into.

I think in COD4, they have it just right. When you start it holds your hand enough, starting with just deathmatches, letting you learn the maps, and get a feel for the different guns. Then as you unlock more game modes, and eventually the challenges, it opens up the game so much more, and does such a great job of doing it. I think the challenges are the most important addition in COD4, as they encourage you to play game modes you might not have, try new guns, and to play the way you might not have before.

I kinda have to agree with Butters on this one. If the game did something like Planetside where it was a continual world, ok, I can see it... but for a game that is over in a session, I dont get the point.

I think the challenges are the most important addition in COD4, as they encourage you to play game modes you might not have, try new guns, and to play the way you might not have before.
Yeah, the challenges are a great system. I have played much longer than I should of because I was thinking "Oh! in a couple mroe games I might be able to finish this!"

CoD4 is an example of the BF2 model working extremely well, as there really isn't a distinct advantage between levels. It still has the IMO even bigger problem though: it makes you work to get the full experence of the game. If the fun of the game isn't enough of an "acomplishment" to you, then why are you playing it?

It only takes lke 2-3 days to level to lvl 55 dude...

But how long does it take to do that 15 times (prestige) ? This idea of working for my equipment is what kept me playing this game, I mean really how do you like running for your weapon instead of pulling out your hard earned barret 50 cal.

Okay, Ala Douche, with single player games working for the experence is good; that's what a single player game is about. But multiplayer is different.

To the "sense of acomplishment" idea: I said in my second post that a ranking system is fine, and I encourage games to use it. But if you brand gameplay elements to ranks then you're just turning your game into an MMO-esq time sink that feeds off addiction. If you're game isn't good enough to get a "sense of acomplishment" when playing and winning games, then the game is inherrently flawed and relies on gimmicks to continue its lifespan.

You speak truth from the hole on your face. I really hate things like runescape and warcraft I want to be excited rather than be a 60 year old virgin.

With mmorpgs it makes sense, those games are fueled by addiction. But it seems that mmos are infecting the FPS genres, as its those games that I'm ranting about.

Exactly I really don't see that in any games though.

But how long does it take to do that 15 times (prestige) ? This idea of working for my equipment is what kept me playing this game, I mean really how do you like running for your weapon instead of pulling out your hard earned barret 50 cal.

See this is something I agree with. Games like Halo I couldn't get into, as its a game about memorising the levels and where the guns are. To me that's less fun then pcking what gun I start with, and certainly more off-putting to a newcomer if you ask me.

I think it's somethng that when done right (like in CoD4) works well, and adds to the experience and enjoyment on the multiplayer without asking too much time of the player. When done wrong it is an entry barrier and detracts from the fun of the game. It's a balncing act, and if you can't get it rght, don't add it in just because it's what all the other games are doing.

Yeah thats why halo is on my shelf while cod is on the floor with the disc in my xbox. Without a need to keep playing (wanting to rank and get better while owning people) a game can't entice me.

The part of the BF2 model of spawning with your favorite guns is fantastic, and more games need to use it. (I'm designing a game, and it uses a variation of the idea) But make everything available from the start!

what is so different about multiplayer? especially in games like COD4... i've owned the game since the day it came out and still haven't finished the campaign... all i play is multiplayer. my problem is, since i play it on PC and i've reached level 55, i have nowhere else to go, so the sense of accomplishment is diminishing... all that's left is to hone my skills and get better. if you ask me, that's a lot more boring than having something to work for, and i think the hundreds of thousands of people who are playing COD4 would agree with me.

also, there is a mode in COD4 called "oldschool" mode... i think i heard somewhere that the 360 version did away with it, but it lets you choose any weapon you want from the start.

Having never played a multiplayer game in my life, I'm probably not the best equipped to debate this issue, but here's my take.

Personally, half the resaon why I don't play on multiplayer is because, most of the time, I either can't afford, or can't run the latest games. I have considered buying games like BF2, but have realised that, by the time I get it, everybody who still plays it will just be so far ahead of me that it will be virtual sucide to even try. So I am caught in a catch-22. I can't run a new game, but if I buy an older one, I'll be killed in about 5 seconds by players who have everything but the kitchen sink, and know all the maps, weapons and tricks off by heart. In this case, it makes it very hard for someone like me to enter into the multiplayer market.

Well, it encourages longievity in a game by making players come back to it to improve their personas and also prevents the game from being stale as your skillset improves and evolves your character.

In short they're learning a lot from the addictiveness of MMOs; adding a level up system to any FPS nowadays is like online crack cocaine.