Print

Author Topic: Mario Games Offline... Again.  (Read 8923 times)

Trainman

  • Bob-Omg
« on: June 16, 2013, 05:05:24 PM »
So, Nintendo has used what seems to be every excuse in the book to not include an online multiplayer mode for 2D (and more recently 3D) Mario games.

Some of you have defended their decisions to the death citing all sorts of reasons why it doesn't matter that Mario games aren't online, and even Nintendo tried stating that NSMB Wii wasn't online because the game by itself was "...pushing the Wii to its limits." Why any of you defend it confuses me.

Now that we are in the era of Wii U, they have literally no excuse to not include online play in multiplayer 2D or 3D Mario games, and you don't have any excuses either. There aren't any technical issues, the gameplay in NSMB U and 3D World has already been tailored for multiple characters on the screen, and other games that will be coming out (MK8, Smash Bros. U, etc.) will quite easily implement online even with their more impressive technical attributes.

So I must ask, why the crap not? The "it's about having friends over and bumping elbows" excuse is completely dead and makes no sense.
Formerly quite reasonable.

« Reply #1 on: June 16, 2013, 05:49:11 PM »
"...pushing the Wii to its limits." Why any of you defend it confuses me.

Super Smash Bros Brawl. It was already a doublesided game with a large file size to begin with, and then they added multiplayer online. The result was that it was very laggy online and nobody ended up playing the multiplayer.

The "it's about having friends over and bumping elbows" excuse is completely dead and makes no sense.

Just because 20-40 year olds don't come over and play doesn't mean nobody does. Nintendo is a family company. Kids go over to their friend's house all the time.
Now with grandeur.

« Reply #2 on: June 16, 2013, 05:57:16 PM »
YYur  waYur n beYur you Yur plusYur instYur an Yur Yur whaYur

« Reply #3 on: June 16, 2013, 07:00:10 PM »
I wouldn't play 3D World or any iteration of NSMB online; unless you have headset communication working for you during gameplay, it doesn't seem worth it. Even so, couch-proximity communication seems much more efficient for cooperative Mario games.

There's just something about Mario platformers that doesn't really feel right with online play... unless it's competitive; a race or anything that allows people to work independently (all the while against someone else) to a goal would work, because it doesn't require what I can only assume are ridiculously awkward exchanges like, "Let me pick you up" or "Go get that block." Mario games are too simplistic for that; hearing cooperative commands across the living room makes more sense than them being barked over wi-fi.
I'm a horrible person.

« Reply #4 on: June 16, 2013, 07:02:44 PM »
Also they did try to implement sort of a competitive multiplayer in the original NSMB, but it didn't really work.
Now with grandeur.

The Chef

  • Super
« Reply #5 on: June 16, 2013, 08:15:03 PM »
It's funny you made this topic Trainman, because literally the week before 3D World was announced, I was saying they should make a Mario MMO where the players could be multicolored copies of Mario, Luigi, Peach and Toad.

Super Smash Bros Brawl. It was already a doublesided game with a large file size to begin with, and then they added multiplayer online. The result was that it was very laggy online and nobody ended up playing the multiplayer.

:|
« Last Edit: June 16, 2013, 09:27:37 PM by The Chef »

« Reply #6 on: June 16, 2013, 09:04:56 PM »
I think that if a 2D/3D Mario game were to include Online multi-player that it would have to be  designed from the ground up around this concept. Anything less would be a tacked on feature. I know I played online racing on Sonic Rush: Adventure and even though I was racing another human being I felt as if I was just playing time attack by myself -- it was sterile, and there was no interaction. I played Sonic4EpII online and while it did force you to work together it still managed to feel cold and distant. Off the top of my head I can't think of an instance where I played a 3D platformer with online multiplayer so I'm not sure how much it would add to the fun factor.

I think a 3D Mario would probably be more fertile grounds for an online experience, though that could just be my bias. But again, it would have to be built around that concept. You run into game design quandaries like what to do if your partner disconnects mid-level, when the level was set-up under the impression you would have X partners. You could have their ghost character be played by AI, but then it's essentially a one player game again and AI usually sucks; You can bounce the player back to a menu or a hub but that robs the game of momentum and angers the player. (I could really see the Super Mario Club hating that.)
Kweeh! Kweeh! Yes, Kweeh forever!

« Reply #7 on: June 16, 2013, 09:27:49 PM »

 when the level was set-up under the impression you would have X partners.

This. NMSBWii didn't have heir levels built to accommodate multiple players, except gimmicks like levers, etc., and those were only or getting Star Coins and the like and didn't really heal you advance in the level. Thusly, you had 4 characters bouncing off eachother and not cooperating in the least, unless they had lightning fast reflexes. It also suffered from the fact that Yoshis could swallow other people, causing a lot of accidental deaths.
Now with grandeur.

BriGuy92

  • Luck of the Irish
« Reply #8 on: June 17, 2013, 03:49:04 PM »
Super Smash Bros Brawl. It was already a doublesided game with a large file size to begin with, and then they added multiplayer online. The result was that it was very laggy online and nobody ended up playing the multiplayer.
You've really got no idea how computers work, do you? A game being large in storage size has literally no effect on its playability online. Ideally, only a tiny bit of data, such as for instance the opponent's controller inputs and position, is sent over the network, and the console uses the resources that are already on the disk to display that character on the screen. A game could be a single megabyte, or a dual-layer 8GB DVD, and still send the same exact amount of data over the network in multiplayer.

The problem with Brawl's online mode is that either the programmers didn't optimize the network code well enough, resulting in too much data being required, or that Nintendo's network wasn't set up well enough to handle the traffic from online play. In all likelihood it's a combination of both.

From what I've heard about the Wii U's online service, it seems that those problems should be gone. I don't own one, so I haven't really been able to see it for myself, but if that is indeed the case, then I'm with Trainman. But, of course, if Nintendo deems that spending the extra time to develop online multiplayer for its games won't help them sell, then I guess there's not much that can really be done about it. Kind of a shame.
Know the most important contribution of the organ Fund science girls type. It's true!

Suffix

  • Steamed
« Reply #9 on: June 17, 2013, 04:26:51 PM »
It's curious. I know that the DS was powerful enough to support decent online multiplayer in Metroid Prime Hunters, but for the Wii to fail at online Brawl? It's got to be a problem with optimization.

Trainman

  • Bob-Omg
« Reply #10 on: June 17, 2013, 05:39:15 PM »
Just because 20-40 year olds don't come over and play doesn't mean nobody does. Nintendo is a family company. Kids go over to their friend's house all the time.

I wouldn't play 3D World or any iteration of NSMB online; unless you have headset communication working for you during gameplay, it doesn't seem worth it. ...hearing cooperative commands across the living room makes more sense than them being barked over wi-fi.

Just more shining examples of exactly what I'm talking about when I say people will make any excuse. Both of those don't make any sense. There's basically no reason why Nintendo couldn't do it and make it work; they just don't want to do it. It'd make things easier if Nintendo actually had voice chat, I'll concede that. Some of you people think that it's something that is unattainable. "well its not really designed for it and omg what happens if someone DCs and  what happens if there's no communication and man how would nintendo code such a feature in a game that is already built around the multiplayer aspect (3D world) hmm lets just not do it its too much trouble."

You still have no excuses. Some of you are allergic to online multiplayer. You are all horrible people.
Formerly quite reasonable.

« Reply #11 on: June 17, 2013, 06:03:24 PM »
You are all horrible people.



they just don't want to do it


And with good reason. Try thinking of a way to put online multiplayer in a one player platforming game with terrain destroying mechanics that makes sense and will sell the game on just that alone. I challenge you.
Now with grandeur.

BriGuy92

  • Luck of the Irish
« Reply #12 on: June 17, 2013, 06:15:56 PM »
Take New Super Mario Bros. Wii

Replace a local player with an online player.

BAM
Know the most important contribution of the organ Fund science girls type. It's true!

Trainman

  • Bob-Omg
« Reply #13 on: June 17, 2013, 06:34:58 PM »
are you 12. that entire line you said about challenging me to figure out a way to make it work makes absolutely no sense.
Formerly quite reasonable.

The Chef

  • Super
« Reply #14 on: June 17, 2013, 06:38:26 PM »
I think he actually is 12...

« Reply #15 on: June 17, 2013, 07:12:11 PM »
I gave my opinion drawn from personal experience, which is valid, whether you like it or not. You paraphrased my post (in such a way that clearly alienated part of my reasoning for thinking it wouldn't work) and called me a horrible person (I of course figure it's an exaggeration that came from your frustration, but still); I don't see how anyone here is supposed to present a counter-argument without getting similar treatment, so I suppose I'll just concede from this discussion on the basis that I don't think that this is a constructive conversation beyond the premise.

That was a long sentence.
I'm a horrible person.

« Reply #16 on: June 17, 2013, 07:29:33 PM »
are you 12. that entire line you said about challenging me to figure out a way to make it work makes absolutely no sense.

I just want you to walk in somebody's shoes before prematurely judging them. You don't know what goes on in the head of Miyamoto or whether his idea of Mario had any thought of online multiplayer.
Now with grandeur.

WarpRattler

  • Paid by the word
« Reply #17 on: June 17, 2013, 07:49:20 PM »
The big thing about Brawl's crappy online play is, fighting game netcode needs to be perfect, or online play is going to suffer immensely for the most common use cases*.

Look at Street Fighter IV, which is "playable" online*, but is generally much laggier than Super Street Fighter II Turbo HD Remix and other games that use GGPO, even on "good" connections.

Look at The King of Fighters XIII, which is more or less unplayable online* due to SNK Playmore's decision to attempt in-house netcode on a relatively low budget, instead of spending that money on something sensible like a GGPO license.

Look at Marvel vs. Capcom 3, where instead of taking the extra time to design better netcode or spending the money to license GGPO, the devs included a lag simulation option in the game's training mode, effectively admitting that their game sucks online*.

Look at DarkStalkers Resurrection, where the guys at Iron Galaxy not only used GGPO, but optimized its use to a much greater degree than most devs who license the library; as a result, Vampire Hunter and Vampire Savior have God-tier netplay.

Platformers are in very much the same boat, but unlike fighting games, we don't exactly have good platformer-friendly netcode libraries, which is why so many platformers, both eastern and western, simply don't offer online play (or heavily downplay its existence) even when they do have multiplayer modes, rather than offering online play with half-assed netcode a la Brawl, or delaying until the netcode isn't butt.

A lot of popular competitive genres, including first-person shooters, racing games, MOBAs, and real-time strategy games, tend to have far more room for latency than fighting games or platformers; as an example, StarCraft is playable online on far worse connections (including satellite) than something like BlazBlue can handle. (There's also more room to cut corners in lieu of proper solutions to real network problems; the existence of lag-switching as a Thing That Actually Works is a good example of what said corner-cutting can lead to in practice.)

Also, "what if a player drops out and there are now fewer players than the level design was intended for?" is a wholly legitimate concern for a lot of cooperative multiplayer games. Imagine trying to solo the co-op tower in Catherine or the co-op campaign in BattleBlock Theater. You can't just have an AI take over for puzzle-solving or hidden item collection like you can for shooting in, say, Left 4 Dead, so having the computer take over for the dropped player isn't a good option, and "boot everyone out of the game if someone drops" is not fun.

*Outside of Japan. It's a lot easier to design netcode for a tiny island nation with good Internet than for somewhere huge with generally-crappy Internet, so that's what these companies do; as a result, netplay in these games tends to be completely viable in Japan, and less than good everywhere else.

Trainman

  • Bob-Omg
« Reply #18 on: June 17, 2013, 10:55:02 PM »
I call on Nintendo to bring us out of that predicament, in that case. Someone develop netcode libraries for it, determine what would happen if a player disconnected at a crucial moment, and figure it out. That would be preeeeeeetty cool.
Formerly quite reasonable.

Print