Remember that one guy?

Growing up in the 90s, I and most other kids I knew owned very few games for whatever video game console they owned. Presuming they owned a video game console at all, of course, and most didn’t. Owning only a few games generally meant that the games you owned got played to death, even if they weren’t very good. So you got pretty skilled at whatever games you owned. I got good at the pretty terrible Jurassic Park game for the SNES. A friend of mine could beat Super Mario World in under an hour. And then there was that one guy who owned Street Fighter 2. Or whatever other fighting game.

He knew every character’s moves. He jumped all over the place. He used “cheap” moves like leg sweeps. He knew about and had unlocked the secret characters.  He had his favourite character’s moves memorised out of a game magazine, and allowed nobody else to play that character, ever.

You’d probably only played a bit of Street Fighter in an arcade a couple times, or maybe at a friend’s place. You picked whichever character you thought looked cool (I picked Blanka, because, electric shocks!). While you were still trying to work out which buttons did what, that one guy wiped the floor with you. Maybe he’d throw you a bone by telling you how to do one of your chosen character’s special moves, but then he’d counter it every single time. Sometimes he might even let you win one of the three rounds, only to trounce you in the other two.

Electricity! Awesome, right?

Electricity! Awesome, right?

Playing the game against that one guy was just no fun. You weren’t even playing the same game.

Maybe, if you were very lucky, that one guy wasn’t a jerk, and your group of friends played the game a lot together, and you all achieved a modicum of skill. Maybe you banned leg sweeps, because they’re cheap. You knew the characters your friends liked to play, and the way your friends played them, and got used to how to fight them. Then you’d go play the game with someone else, and it was like playing with That One Guy again. He pulled out shit you never even had a clue was in the game. It was amazing, but you still just got beat a lot. He just wasn’t even playing the same game as you and your friends.

If you go play something like Street Fighter or Starcraft 2 these days, That One Guy’s level of skill is pretty much the baseline requirement. Everybody’s read the guides, knows all the moves and strategies and the attributes of every character or unit. That sort of information is assumed knowledge, given its free availability online. If you don’t know it, you just can’t play the same game as everybody else. Likewise, it’s assumed you’ll be part of the one big community that plays the game online, and that means you have to know this stuff to play at all. Even if you only ever play with friends, there’s always That One Guy who *has* read the guides and whatnot, and brings all that knowledge to bear, and you just can’t even play the same game as him without it.

ur doin it rong

This “6-pool” strategy does not seem to be as awesome as I was told.

Personally, my suspicion is that this is an inevitable outcome of the contemporary gaming environment, where online play and access to online information is assumed. Accounting for that environment has to, equally inevitably, be a part of how multiplayer games are designed these days. That affects everybody who plays those games, whether they can or do play online, whether they access that information or not.

This seems to me to be inherent to multiplayer games. Multiplayer games have to account for the way the community of players engages with each other through the game in a way that singleplayer games do not. Having a secret uber-powerful, unbalancing weapon or other element in your singleplayer game is feasible because not every player will look up a guide that will tell them how to get it (or, less likely, experiment enough with the game to find it on their own), and even if they know about it, they can choose not to get it. Having the same in a multiplayer game would be devastating, because accessing that unbalancing element would become the new baseline. Economists and psychologists and people who research game theory can probably tell you all about the ways that knowledge, and assumptions of knowledge, of a system affect the way people engage with that system and each other.

These days, we pretty much all have to be That One Guy.


2 thoughts on “That-One-Guy-ification

  1. I think one of the biggest problems for a lot of competitive games is that they allow players to minimise uncertainty. While a good player should be able to win significantly more often than a beginner, I think any accessible competitive game should have enough uncertainty in it that a beginner can beat anyone else by getting lucky. Now, purists hate that, but it makes a game tremendously more accessible when dumb luck will beat even the best player on a regular basis.

  2. Pingback: Your Game Is Dead: The Inescapable Contingency Of Multiplayer | Macrotransactions

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s