I agree with Avenger on his points, however, I do think that there is some danger on the margins. It wasn't so long ago that we here in the Den were arguing over whether it was a fair and just practice to tie gamerpoints to multiplayer gaming that mandates that the player play with anyone but his friends. The problems with this system are many: The player doesn't get to play with anyone he or she knows; The system usually boots the Player out of the game once it is completed, leading to a cycle of 5 minutes finding a game/five minutes playing a game; and The Player is far more likely to find him or herself playing with "Gamerwhores" who are not the most friendly of gaming compatriots.
My thought is that the addition of tangible rewards to the Gamerpoint system will practically mandate that all multiplayer acheivments are tied to "Ranked matches." At the very least Microsoft will have to keep better tabs on how developers choose to distribute their points. I mean, do we really want a class of games (see Fuzion Frenzy) that are popular solely because you can get 1000 points out of them quite easily? I know I don't.
My thought is that the addition of tangible rewards to the Gamerpoint system will practically mandate that all multiplayer acheivments are tied to "Ranked matches." At the very least Microsoft will have to keep better tabs on how developers choose to distribute their points. I mean, do we really want a class of games (see Fuzion Frenzy) that are popular solely because you can get 1000 points out of them quite easily? I know I don't.
No comments:
Post a Comment