The Instigator
Pro (for)
0 Points
The Contender
Con (against)
0 Points

Is required/mandantory or optional chatting options better for online multiplayer games?

Do you like this debate?NoYes+0
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 0 votes the winner is...
It's a Tie!
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 4/27/2016 Category: Games
Updated: 5 months ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 210 times Debate No: 90299
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (0)
Votes (0)




I will be arguing from the position that multiplayer online games need mandantory or non-optional chatting mechanisms in order to be better games. My opponent will argue for the idea that optional chatting systems in online multiplayer games are important to making the better.

The RULES are simple: All rounds contain arguments. The final round is only rebuttals, no new arguments. The first and last rounds may not include examples as evidential support except for your definitions. Those rounds are for the principles of the arguments one is going to make. All examples must be from either from Console, PC, or Mobile online multiplayer games or discussing them. All other examples will be invalid. Accepting the debate accepts all these rules as well.

Now, that being said, here are my opening arguments for why chatting ought to be required in online multiplayer games. First, definitions.

*Multiplayer: Of or relating to a game designed to be played by many people at once.

*Required: essential, needed, or necessary set out by rule; compulsory.

Chatting/Voice Chatting: Using a chat box or microphone and voice connection to transmit lingual information to other multiplayer gamers on the same server.

*Better: More useful, suitable, or desirable.

*all of these definitions come from the Free Dictionary by Farlex, on its website.

Now for my arguments for required chatting.

1. Required chatting enforces teamwork. In games that require a significant amount of teamwork in order to operate, sometimes players in an optional chat setting will opt out of chatting and coordinating with the team. This creates a frictional environment and a ruined game because the fun had in using effective teamwork is not had from the game due to silent people in the optional chat. Ultimately, the game is not better because of the friction, lots atmosphere of fun, and the lessons that could have been learned if teamwork had been used.

2. Required chatting creates a greater possibility of uniting people who are playing games together. Instead of optional chatting which someone could potentially find friends in, the chances are greater if chatting is required. This is because if I have say a 20% chance of finding someone I like on a chat usage within game of 40% of the possible time I could be utilizing it, then I am at a decent percentage. But if I am required to chat and I am turning that 40% into 100%, the 20% will translate to 50% greater chance of finding people that are similar or likable. Simple math, but in the gaming community that prides itself on being friendly, these numbers have huge impacts.

3. Required chatting if its voice chat raises multitasking abilities. Think about it. If I am playing an online multiplayer game with only occasional text chatting, then I am stopping playing of the game to do that. But when I am required to voice chat, I will get steadily better and better at managing my game, and focusing on conversation with other players.

4. Required chatting forces creative thinking. This is along the lines of teamwork, but is its own separate argument. If chat is optional, sometimes there is silence which is by definition no collective thinking on the part of the team. However when chat is required, team members will be forced to get creative in a collective group. This will solve problems faster, and enhance individuals creative thinking skills.

5. Required chatting can be tuned out without serious detrimental effect. Very important, but if introverts complain about required chatting or even people not fans of chatting nonstop in online multiplayer games, they can easily tune out required chatting. The catch is that only they will not be able to enjoy the benefits of required chatting. Everyone else who chats will benefit.

Now for Disadvantages to Optional chatting.

6. Optional chatting can be a hindrance on screen. I won't give examples, however logically if optional chat is not minimizable, that can detrimentally effect a game hub. But if you have to use it to effectively play the online game, it becomes an integral part of the game hub.

7. Optional chatting can make games fun factor dwindle faster than required chatting. Great conversation always makes for a fun experience, and the less conversation occurs, the more gameplay has to make up for it in online multiplayer games. This means that optional conversation can quickly make the game dwindle into a depressing grind. Especially if everyone ignores others in the chat. This is negated when chatting is required.

8. Optional chatting can be distracting when chatting suddenly becomes important and a player was not paying attention until that point in time. Pretty self explanatory, but necessary to point out. In some scenarios, it is important to chat when chatting is optional, and some people do not contribute at those points making the experience hurt or ruined within game.

9. Optional chatting fosters more hate than required chatting. When chatting is optional, less informational text is put into the chat box, and more opinionated information is substituted. This opinionated information can sometimes be (and often is) hate or verbal abuse based on several negative social stigmas. This is detrimental to the game experience. With required chatting, almost all text will be pertaining to the gameplay itself and how to better achieve objectives, capture targets, etc.

With that, I wait for my opponent's response.


Yes some guys do need force chatting like CS:Go, Dota, etc but what about games like Borderlands, Call of Duty, World Warcraft, Minecraft. These games are multiplayer and should have forced chatting on it is just plain stupid. If you want to chat with crew use skype ( or similar ).
Debate Round No. 1


Thanks for accepting!

First, you did not respond to almost all of what I said. So nearly all of what I said in Round 1 stands.

Second, you violated the role of not using examples in round 1. But I can work with that. However the rule violation should count against you.

WHAT ARGUMENTS STILL STAND. The Arguments that still go in my favor, are as follows. My definitions. Argument 1, Argument 2, Argument 3, Argument 4, Argument 5, Argument 6, Argument 7, Argument 8, Argument 9. Look for yourself voter at the short response of Con, and see how clearly my opponent addressed none of my important arguments. I don't feel the need to repeat all their taglines. Scroll up to see the arguments.

The only thing my opponent did address was the overrall resolutional statement, that optional chatting is better. So all my opponent tried to do was uphold the resolution with examples. That is it. Let's first look at those examples.

But first, my opponent conceded partially to my side of the resolution, that some online multiplayer games necessarily need required chatting. So Con by doing this invalidated the further use of the examples of CS:GO, Dota, etc (which is debatable what etc means).

The first example my opponent used was Borderlands. Now I have never played this game, but from what I understand, it is partially singleplayer. Let me clarify what my Multiplayer definition was. "Of or relating to a game designed to be played by many people at once." What I meant by this was games that were only playable online in a multiplayer setting qualified for this discussion. My opponent to invalidate this standard must bring up a definition of "Multiplayer" that he/she likes. So Borderlands doesn't count because its multiplayer by definition is optional, as opposed to be the only way the game is playable.

What about Call of Duty? Once again, optional multiplayer. But I will let this slide and discuss it a bit. In call of duty, because it's a console game primarily no real chat box is used. Its all voice chat these days. So if a team is trying to work together, they need to use voice chat. So it is optional, but not always. Also, in terms of the fun factor, COD is an overrated and very predictable formula of a game that gets boring after the third release played. It's not that fun without chat.

World of Warcraft. Since when was chatting considered optional in this game? I haven't played this, but even I know that chatting is required in this game to make sure that teams work well together. Bad example.

Minecraft. This game has optional multiplayer, and the amount of people playing singleplayer far outnumbers the multiplayer players. On multiplayer, in order to even communicate and work together with your teammates or server buddies you are required to chat. Period. Without it you have ambience and random people doing things that may or may not be helpful.

Skype is not the type of chat we are talking about. It doesn't belong in this discussion. The question was should online multiplayer chat systems be mandatory/required, or optional. There was no opening for third party chat systems the way the resolution was set up.

Now that I have responded to my opponents arguments. I don't feel the need to create any new arguments.

Your response?


LastSaga forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 2


I want a longer debate m8, and I know there are arguments to support optional chatting, so bring them up. If not, then I win.


Sorry I was busy.

What I understand it is.
Force Chatting- No option to be out of it. No muting is possible.

1. Required chatting enforces team work-

Some games this does apply to but what about the spammers, music players, trollers, and such. It just makes the game worse rather then with optional I don't have to hear any of that. Also these fun lessons are just 8- 12 year olds screaming at you for not doing what they say.

2. Required chatting creates a greater possibility of uniting people who are playing games together-

I do agree with that on some points but most games aren't like that. Day-Z is a ffa and do you really think people are gonna change when a force chatting feature is added no. They will use it to hear the pleading of their next bambi kill. Or games like Roblox or Minecraft it's full of little kids ( no offence to those little kids who actually understand gaming as a whole most just don't ) and they can be annoying. Do I really want to hear a 6 year old screaming he found a pig. No and you don't ether.

3. Required chatting raises multitasking abilities-

This is untrue humans can't multitask because they can only focus on one thing. This is just a distraction and will cause you to get killed.

4. Force chatting sparks creative thinking-

Unless you were playing with people you know. Most people will say no and its stupid. That point is invalid.

5. Required chatting can be turned off-

If it can be turned off what is the point in having it?

6. Optional chatting is hindrance on screen-

It is only a small portion unless you are using a small TV then it is a problem.

7. Option chatting can make the fun dwindle faster-

Do you know what the internet is like? 80% are jerks ( or 6 year olds saying they did your mom ) and the other 10% are non english speaker and don't get me started on the "Eliteists".

8. Optional chatting can be distracting when chat becomes important-

The thing about about optional chatting all you have to do is activate it and your good. It is no problem at all.

9. Optional causes more hate-

No this makes it harder to escape the hate the game will always have hate. A lot to.


My rival does not realize that optional is better because people actually have the option to choose. All the points he/she made make them look like they have never played a real game before.
Debate Round No. 3


Your definition of forced chatting and mine are different, so who's is better? My definition of required is better because it comes from a credible dictionary. That definition defined required as compulsory. Why is this important? Because then chatting that is required is structured in such a way that you have a need to participate or feel compulsed to, but you can mute it if you wish. I wanted to clear that up, and as will be seen that solves some of your other responses as well.

Now I will respond to your responses in order.

1. "Some games this does apply to but what about the spammers, music players, trollers, and such. It just makes the game worse rather then with optional I don't have to hear any of that". This is what reporting people is for in games that have these people. Reported people can be banned, and this leads to a better game that is free of spammers, music players, trollers and the like. So good point, but you forgot that reporting is a safeguard mechanism for that if chatting is necessary.

"Also these fun lessons are just 8- 12 year olds screaming at you for not doing what they say." The question never implied that you couldn't play with your friends did it? Because I'm pretty sure it did not imply that. It simply asked which is better, not which is better when you have to play with random people. Because if it is random 8-12 year olds I agree, that is pretty annoying.

2. You had examples of games where no one meets and makes friends. Day-Z may be a free for all, but that does not mean you cannot have constructive conversation. Games full of little kids are not exactly annoying. The chat system in those games is bad because of the little kids? See I think there is a flaw in your argument here. You are arguing with me from the standpoint that because 80% of the gaming community is complete garbage of people, there is no way that required chatting benefits games it is in. First of all you had 0 statistics supporting your 80% (not saying it could not be true, but you need to prove facts you bring up). Also if you are claiming to be one of the better ones of this community, that is pretty elitist man.

3. Once again, making a claim without any evidential basis for it. If you have ever watched Youtube game commentators, they can talk, and play a game well at the same time which is called multi-tasking.

4. How is the point invalid? By that logic I could call all the arguments you have made up to this point invalid because you could just play with your friends in optional chatting games and everything would be better. Just because something does not happen all the time, does not make in an invalid observation. Also I am not going to call all your arguments invalid, however I will call this response invalid because it makes no sense and I already debunked it in point 1.

5. Let's go back to definitions. If when the chat is on it is necessary to gameplay, then it is required chatting mechanisms. But note please that my definitions never said it cannot be turned off. You assumed that, without any logical support as to why. You just asked me a question. I have answered your question.

6. So you agree it is a hindrance on small TVs? That's good but my argument was that it was a hindrance period. If the chat is not necessary to the game, then it is only used when you are bored with the game. So if you are playing the actual game, it is a hindrance on the screen to getting full view. This is why some games like GTAV minimize the optional chat to give you the best experience. So I agree that for some games this does not apply, but for other optional chat games, it does.

7. I do know what the internet is like. No statistical proof. You are an elitist by your attitude (see point in number 2).

8. Ok, in some games. But in others, the chatting is not required for gameplay, but the chat box is still there or chat shows on screen. Examples: Dirty Bomb, Unturned, Minecraft to name a few.

9. "No this makes it harder to escape the hate the game will always have hate. A lot to." First I am not clear what you are saying. Second, if you are saying that hate is non-unique or gets worse with required chatting, I will refer you back to my argument on reporting people.

"All the points he/she made make them look like they have never played a real game before." Ok. haha. Ok. Listen I would not have started a debate on game chatting mechanisms if I had never played a real game before. I have played plenty of games in my life on originial Xbox, Xbox 360, PS2, Steam, and other computer games. I don't appreciate your Ad Hominem at all.

Let me make a couple of concluding remarks: My opponent skimmed over my arguments, but did not attack most of my core assertions under my points. The times he did do this, it was out of context with definitions or standards set previously in the round. The new arguments my opponent brought up were not very good and showed him to be calloused towards almost 80% of the internet. So my opponent does not deserve to win this debate because he did not pay close enough attention to my arguments, and did not choose to keep a civil attitude. He also broke one of the rules he was required to follow if he accepted the debate. For these violations and missteps in arguments please



If you actually pay attention they are better when they aren't talking.

Read this article

Also you never gave a definition for forced chatting so I am going by what I think it is.

All my topics stand over yours.

You have lost. Deal with it.

Vote Con ( The True Winner )
Debate Round No. 4
No comments have been posted on this debate.
No votes have been placed for this debate.