Is there some benefit I don't know about with the method of online multiplayer that kicks you out after every match? I just can't grasp why this would appeal to anybody. Let me take Gears 2 for example. Not only has the online been deathly slow since the beginning, but you only get to play one match in public matches. Then you need to go find another one! What the hell? Is there a real reason why other than putting the gamer through more button pressing and waiting? I hear Halo 3 does the exact same thing. Motorstorm Pacific Rift does it too and it gets on my nerves.

Why don't all online games use the method that once you are in, you can stay until you feel like leaving? I can be playing with an awesome group in Gears, and then *poof* I'm not playing with them anymore, and I need to see how the next group is. I've noticed my favorite multiplayer games this gen, Burnout Paradise, Call of Duty 4 & 5 and Warhawk all have the same thing in common. You can stay in until you feel like quitting or the server empties.

Thoughts? Agreement? Disagreement? Explanations?

Though CoD5 won't kick you out, there always seems to be some kinda random error that forces me to find a new server anyways.

Maybe it's because you're playing it on PS3. I've played a lot of COD 4 and 5 on 360 and rarely get server issues. I know COD4 has a notorious online multiplaer breaking issue involving many kinds of routers. Mine is affected. I can't play COD4 online. I just get a message saying "Downloading game settings" that never ends. Maybe COD 5 has some problems also. That's more of a technical issue though, not a design choice. What I'm talking about is purposely designing multiplayer around getting kicked off after every round. I just don't get the point.

Agreed, WarHawk and Battlefield are famous for that.

You mean famous for the good version of multiplayer right?

I think most games will allow the game to loop in unranked matches, but in ranked they usually make you search out a new one.  Presumably so that you and your buddies can't dominate a server and stat pad.  Warhawk allows you to stay in the ranked server but it will randomize teams and team balance after each match. 

I find it really depends on the game I'm playing if I find it annoying or not.  If there are a lot of different game types, then I don't mind so much if you have to search again after each match.  It allows you to mix it up a bit.  As long as the match making process is reasonably quick anyways.

Well as far as I know, Gears 2 has no ranked matches. They are all just matches. In Motorstorm there are both, but I'm pretty sure you get kicked out in both scenarios. I'll need to check later though.

I like what you said about Warhawk though, and I wish other games would take that approach of balancing teams on the fly in between matches. That's how COD does it and it works great.

IMO: Online console gaming sucks. I hate waiting around to play with people online and a lot of the time you can not even find an online match. Local multi-player or system link is so much better.
PC is the best in regards to online gaming.

IMO Goldeneye remains the best console shooter game in terms of multi-player action. 4 players on one system a blast with mates. It may look crap in graphics when compared with todays console shooters but the multi-player of Goldeneye still remains as one of the best  ever done on console.

Ya Warhawks system works well, I also like how some official servers auto-rotate the game type. 

In games where it does boot you after every game the party system becomes important.  Its frustrating going from being on a good squad to a squad that blows monkey nut and/or quit.

What console games do you play?? I never have a hard time playing online at all.  Maybe you should give it another shot.