UGH, EA does it again!!

GAWD, EA does it once again. In particular, Peter Moore:

The story on Kotaku says it all.

"Oh, and the best part? His posting name is EACrazyLegs. Wow!"

Ummm, earth to Peter Moore, I'M THE ORIGINAL CRAZYLEGS. Ya ok, so maybe a few people had it before me, but heck, CrazyLegs was the name given to me on SOCOM 1 when I was just a young lad trying out for a clan. I impressed the leader in a game and he said I could join but I needed a GI Joe name. I couldn't think of one that wasn't already taken, so he chose 'CrazyLegs' for me.


Yup. I was named after the wonderful Assault Trooper David O Thomas (hey his name is David too...how about that), or better known as the parachute guy from GI Joe.

Ah well...I eventually retired that name once I moved into the world of 360 & PS3, and decided to go with something that was more unique to me but could still be called on and recognized by my SOCOM buddies which really got me accustomed to online gaming in the first place. That name of course, is David2Crazy. It's used for both my XBL and PSN names, as well as my username on 1up.com.

Though I'll never go by CrazyLegs again, I'll always have those fond memories of the name that was with me through the greatest 3 years of online gaming in my life.

Online play and the numbers game

Originally posted on my IGN Blog

You know it’s true. Details on a new online shooter get released and the bigger the number of online players the more exclamation points you have at the end of your message board post. This little reaction is what marketing loves to see, but in recent years the cause of such feedback has been the death of some online games.

As you may know, Resistance 2 was just announced last week with a 60 player (and an irrelevant-to-this-editorial, 8 player online co-op) online component. 60 people is a huge number, but luckily for Resistance, Insomniac seems to know what they’re doing and are taking steps to make sure its not just complete havoc. This type of ‘bigger is better’ approach does not work for all franchises, especially ones that have built their community around a different kind of game play.


The major victim to the numbers game was SOCOM: US Navy SEALs developed by Zipper Interactive for the PS2. The first game launched alongside the PS2 Ethernet Adapter in August 2002. Including 8v8 online play, each of the 12 maps built around a specific mode of play, an online interface that encouraged communities, clan support, and being packaged with a USB Headset, made SOCOM the clear must-have online game. With critical and commercial success, a strong community was formed from the get-go.

A year later Zipper turned out SOCOM II. Though it had a few issues (including hit-detection problems) it was exactly what the community needed. All 12 online maps from SOCOM 1 were back (with some changes), and 10 new ones were added. Online play retained the 8v8 cap, improved community features, and added a couple new modes. Once again it was a critical and commercial success, and the fans loved it.

Sadly, for this story, 3rd time does not equal the charm. With the announcement of SOCOM 3 in 2005, Zipper and its unique online franchise had become victim to the numbers game. Promising massive 16v16 battles, tanks, hummers, and giant maps to hold it all in, Zipper was about to kill it’s community while exciting the media and people who had never previously touched a SOCOM title.

SOCOM 3 hit, and once again, was a critical (and to a lesser extent, commercial) success. Critics had been dazzled by the numbers of people, numbers of options, and numbers of ways to customize your weapons, giving the game high marks across the board. But to the community it was clearly a less enjoyable, less strategic, and less thought-out online experience. With a huge drop off of daily online players only months after release, it was clear that the old SOCOM community died with it, and the franchise was never the same.

There is a fundamental issue with the way online shooters are perceived by the media and by the masses. This focus on high numbers, vehicles, and everything but the kitchen sink has done nothing but dilute the genre, yet these same people who hype that up are also screaming for variety. We are the reason that unique gameplay ideas for shooters - which may revolve around smaller, more close-knit battles - are becoming extinct; as they are being passed off as ‘not as good’ because they lack the flashy bullet points of their big name brothers.



If the SOCOM franchise is the best representation of this, then there is hope for the future. As to the surprise of many, SOCOM Confrontation was announced last May with vehicles being completely removed from the game, with a focus on what made the original two fun; close-quarter fire fights on intricately detailed maps. Sadly though, there has barely been any attention paid to it. Would this have been different if it were announced to support 60 players, vehicles, helicopters, and boats? There is no doubt in my mind.

That is what has prompted me to write this. Even I’ve been dazzled by big numbers and lots of options, but that doesn’t make a great game. A multiplayer experience such as Goldeneye, though small, is still fun. Yet we don’t see developers try and tackle a smaller online shooter experience like that anymore. The higher the numbers go, the more we start to lose variety in what we’re playing. It’s important that the media and gaming community realize that we are the ones causing this movement. A game that supports a maximum of 16 players may be a better experience than one that supports 40 and has vehicles. Don’t lose sight of this.