Slashdot Mirror
The Crossing - A New Way to FPS?
1up has a look at Arkane Studios' extremely ambitious new project. Called The Crossing, the FPS title looks to combine single and multi-player modes in a new way. From the article: "In the simplest sense, story missions are single-player shooting with an exception: Naturally intelligent human opponents take the place of A.I. There are two types of players: Elites and skirmishers. Elites are gamers playing the game in story mode. They're beefed up, heavily armored, and heavily armed. They have to be able to hold their own against a swarm of skirmish players. Skirmishers are gamers who typically play on multiplayer maps: well-trained, rank-and-file soldiers playing primarily to have some quick fun and increase their rank through defeating the occasional Elite. Skirmish players can also invade story maps and 'possess' A.I.s ala Agent Smith in The Matrix." So even if you're playing through the story, you'll still be challenged by the 'NPCs', all of whom will be played by a real-life human. Sounds like it could either be awesome or a total flop. Which side are you leaning on?
The kind of people that play Single Player are not going to be as good as those that play Multi only, I only have to watch people play single player to get frustrated with how much they suck except are still able to beat the game after 50 respawns and save points.
If you don't vote, you don't matter, so don't waste your time telling me your opinion
Mostly because if a player wanted to play against another player, they'd play online. Personally, the last thing I'd want is to be playing the story mode and have TeHUb4R1337GuY show up. Maybe it's just me...
"I think that God in creating Man somewhat overestimated his ability."-Oscar Wilde
Step 1: Allow PvP griefing in your game.
Step 2: ???
Step 3: Profit!
Sounds like someone is trying to invent step 2, there. Like any other PvP, whether it works will depend on how well the game is balanced. One player -- who probably is not a die-hard PvPer -- against a swarm of PvP-savvy opponents? That sounds very difficult to balance correctly. Best of luck to the designers, they're gonna need it.
Genocide Man -- Life is funny. Death is funnier. Mass murder can be hilarious.
This seems like an awesome idea in theory, but could be a huge fluke. If there are enough people on your server to take control of the "NPC" it could indeed be very fun. However, if no one is on your server, it will just be another Carmageddon style game (ok so im not 100% sure the style of the game). Although I guess you would obviously join a server that has quite a few players. (I mean would you join a counter strike server that has 31 bots and no real players)? With that being said, this is defiently worthwhile to try. This should prove if there is a market for these kind of games, and if so, could open up a whole new genre.
I see problem with this - skill gap between people that typically play single player FPS to enjoy storyline and people that play multiplayer competitively is so huge that no armor, health boosts or anything will help.
I'm really looking forward to being spawn-camped in single player.
I've always wondered about a pokemon game in which you played the "random trainer"... You must stand entirely still, hoping to hell that after 20-40 hours the hero comes around. If he does, without avoiding your watchful gaze, you get a single battle against him. Oh joy. Afterwards, he might be desprete enough to talk with you...maybe even register your phone number... But seriously, this is basically DnD inversed (1 player vs. 90 GMs). Sounds like Splinter-Cell Multiplayer...or objective counterstrike maps on servers that don't kick you for rescuing hostages/pslnting the bomb. Doesn't matter though. In the end it'll go down to "get the most kills".
Ginga no Rekshiya Mata Each page.
Everquest (the original) did an experiment for a while on their PvP servers - you could log in and become one of the low level NPCs randomly in any of the newbie dungeons.
Its was great fun to do and added another dimension to the game - my only regret was that they didn't take it to higher levels!!
$_="Slashdotter";$syn="OTT";s;..;;;sub _{print shift||$_};s!ash!Perl !;s=$syn=ack=i;tr+LLEd+BLAH+;_"Just Another ";_
Can you say ambush? As in all the human "bad guys" find a place the "good guy" needs to go that also has lots of "bad" NPC, and all point their strongest weapons at the door...
That's just one example of a very simple tactic the "bad guys" are sure to develop in time, even if they can't communicate. The first will probably be "herding" where they stick together, all the better to take down a better armed foe.
Then there's those people who are so bad at FPS that they just won't be able to beat the game if having "real" opponents isn't just an option.
You'll also have to find a "swarm" of people playing the bad side in this odd multiplayer for every "good" player.
Does a line appended to your comment give your post meaning in and of itself, or only in relation to those without?
I tried making a mod for Quake that did something like this. I called it Duel-Coop. I'm not sure where my page on it has gotten off to, but I have a broken link on my homepage for it.
IMarv
Trusting software vendors is no smarter than trus
My version would be set in a zombie universe ala dead rising or such, but with a mmorpg feel. Single players would start out as normal players aaginst AI controlled zombies, but if they died they could choose to become one of the undead, with infinite respawns (random area respawns).
The goal would be try to live long enough to escape to a shelter or remote island.
Ever game would be an instance which would reset if goals are accomplished (everyone zombified, or people escape, etc..) that's the basics but the more I think about it the more possibilities for fun gameplay have seemed apparent..
Depends if your idea of fun is to have NPC players replaced with 12yr olds that would like nothing better then to ruin your single player game. IF you can can ensure that the NPC players are of a certain quality level and stay in character then yes it could be cool. Pay the NPC players a fair wage and have players rate them and maybe you'd have something.
I do see that some of this is addressed in the article but overall it appears you'd have to be very rigid in making sure your NPC player strictly follow a story line as opposed to just hoping on and treating this like UT, BF, or any other PvP online game.
If you wanna get rich, you know that payback is a bitch
If there are other players, whether controlling what are typically NPC mobs or not, that's multiplayer.
Asymetric multiplayer has been done before, AvP for example, and can be very fun though it is also very hard to work right. It's really not that different than Assault modes in UT, except the two sides are playing drastically different characters. In general, the idea of having one group of "players" who are trying to accomplish a mission, and another group of "monsters" with help from NPCs trying to stop the players appeals to me.
It's like a lot of things -- if you can make it work, it will be great, otherwise it will suck. Yeah, I know, real insightful.
The enemies of Democracy are
I'd also have concerns about my son playing a game where live human opponents might jump in and interact with him. We were playing soccer in Garry's Mod and within minutes a griefer jumped on, stole the ball, and wouldn't let go of it. I explained to my son what a griefer was, turned off the server, and turned it on again with a password. Fortunately Sam couldn't read at the time, so he couldn't see the stream of obscenities showing up in the game.
An entire game that involves folks like that is going to make me steer clear of it. I suspect other parents may feel the same. Kudos to the company for trying something different, though.
Perfect Dark already tried this in a non-online setting. There was a "counter-op" mode where your friends would play against you.
It was rather boring. I also don't see them getting enough "skirmish" players to actually have many real players in all the story mode people.
If you need 3 paragraphs to explain your game mode it's probably too complicated. Although you could call it "mutant and assault mixed with co-op single player" and be reasonably close.
I hope they manage to balance for the fact that a) unless they're lucky they won't get a big enough player population to support their proposed skill-matched 25 player games and b) 90% of people will want to play as the elite, when they want it to be the other way round.
One more observation - single player AI is dumb for a reason. We already have much better bots (e.g. UT) than the AI typically deployed in single player games. It's because getting outsmarted and outgunned is no fun, it's far more satisfying to either chaingun a row of idiot grunts or beat an on-paper equal human player.
Still, I wish them luck for trying something different. Waiting for a demo...
I think this would work, assuming the skirmishers weren't that powerful. If the skirmishers were 1/4 as powerful as the elites, the having a bunch of skirmishers attach you, would suck.
"Patriotism is supporting your country all the time, and your government when it deserves it." Mark Twain.
I play a ton of single player FPS - but after I whip it on hard, then I drop the game. Mostly, I stick to the multiplayer. However, I would probably quite enjoy doing the FPS thing as the hero against a ton of other people - my big worry is that it would be the 12 year old's playing the weak nerfed out opposition. I chew through them with all things being equal now - I can't imagine how easy it would be if they were nerfed. This is a cool concept - but I honestly don't think they'll get the balance right. Too hard to acheive. This is a game where if the hero is exceptionally good or except crappy, it's gonna suck. What if all the opposition are competent guys who want to have a good game, but the hero is some 12 year old that just turns in circles, stuck in the next room cause he can't figure out the controls? It'll feel pretty weak pretty quickly.
Alot of commenters are pointing out that most players will probably want to play as elite, one way around that would be to make the mercenary part of the game free.
EQ tried this briefly on their test server maybe 5 years ago. On the character selection screen you were given a "Monster" option. It didn't work, and they took the option off there.
It's got several problems. None of them are insurmountable, but I would be surprised if any game company could successfully overcome all of them without several significant attempts.
1) Players will not fill the role they were designed for. Or more accurately they will deliberately choose to disengage from their intended role since that's tedious. You'll end up with all the monsters from a given level grouping up together for a single assault, or camping and taking pot shots. In EQ they had monsters from the level 10 area wander down to the level 1 area and grief the level 1's until someone bigger came along and wiped them out (only to start the cycle again 10 minutes later). You can design a game which prevents the monster from straying too far from their intended purpose, but then how fun is that?
2) Monster balance and player balance are very different things. Monsters are buffed in certain ways to make up for their lack of real AI. These same buffs are unbalanced when those abilities can be used intelligently. These different levels of buffing will make it challenging to make player controlled monsters balanced for all players. Also as a monster your intended role ultimately is to be defeated by the player. Why do you want to go into a situation you know is likely to defeat you as your primary purpose?
3) What do you do as a monster until the player arrives? Maybe you're switching around a lot between monsters so you are always near the player, but what if the player skips you (or you don't find the player)?
4) Especially in games that are approached as single player games, you really need to have a nice challenge gradient. It needs to be doable and the player needs to succeed more than they fail, but not have success be overly easy. Otherwise the player will get bored or frustrated.
5) If you successfully overcome all of these obstacles, how are you really any different from any other pvp game that has classes? Zomg my rogue can take out a priest before they even knew what hit them, or my hunter can two-shot a mage. What is the real distinction here other than one player vs many (and how do you make the many aspect interesting enough that it's not just a standard pve game all around, and how do you keep it from being so interesting that noone wants to be the single player?)
The only thing that's different about this from MMO PVP is that one side is the good guy (maybe) and the other side is evil (maybe).
Slay a dragon... over lunch!
Personally i'd find it irritating to be a skirmisher and limited in firepower, in most single player games you kill hundreds-thousands of NPC's
i cant see this being balanced to be fun for all, somebodys going to get the short end of the stick
This seems similar to the ractives in "The Diamond Age", where actors would bid for contracts with publishers to appear as the NPCs in other people's stories.
The bit that's missing is the bit about being paid to be an NPC.
Dunx
Converting caffeine into code since 1982
..."they're beefed up, heavily armored, and heavily armed."
I think it's an interesting idea, of course it's really just making a multiplayer RPG with different goals. You could easily have multiple different possibly conflicting missions.
I can easily see Rainbow6/SWAT living in a Simcity world. It could be like the real world only different, maybe some sort of Second Life or something.
This reminds me of the old Jedi Master gametype from JKII. When the map started, it was a race to be the first one to pick up the map's only lightsaber. Whoever got to it became the Jedi Master, and everyone else tried to kill him. It probably had the fewest people playing of all the modes, but behind Duel it was my favorite.
Aside from having the only saber (which was a 1 or 2 hit kill), you got every force power maxed and a force pool way bigger than usual. You had abilities like force sight, which at it's highest level was basically a wall hack. You could see every player on the map, no matter where. It also let you dodge all sniper fire as long as you had it running. On certain maps, the Jedi was next to impossible to beat if they were any good. That is, unless two people cooperated to take him down, intentionally or not. The powers made the jedi all but immune to attack from whoever he was fighting, so you had to have one guy draw his attention and another shoot him in the back.
This sounds like one of those great on paper ideas. How much bandwidth is this going to require of the person playing story mode? This is essentially going to require them to be a listen server so that's something that raises a red flag immediately in my mind. No one is going to want to drop in on someone's game which is being played on a standard DSL or Cable line and have 5 other people playing as well.
The idea sounds good to some degree. It sounds like they're trying to implement something like a DM mode from NWN in a FPS.
This cross-play idea isn't new really. Spore brought the idea forward when it was announced almost two years ago. Sure players aren't actively controlling the creatures in your world, but everyone else playing the game does have an impact on your world. Everyone is in their own private sandbox because Wright and the rest of the designers didn't want to have griefers causing pain for people.
Some games like Kingdom of Loathing use a similar idea. It's massively multiplayer in the sense that there's about 1000+ people logged in, but player interaction is limited to buffing, trading, and very limited PVP.
Insert Sig Here
Does anybody remember the old NES Civil War-themed game North vs. South? It had a bunch of mini-games, one of which was essentially a basic side-scroller with one player trying to run to the end of the level (a fort, I think) controlling your usual videogame character: can take quite a few hits more than the common bad-guy, has longer-range attack, etc.), while the other player had a twenty weak (one-hit and you die) characters who he could throw at his opponent one at a time (essentially having twenty respawns). The second player's goal was to kill the single commando-guy before he reached the end of the level.
Anyway, essentially what it boiled down to was it was pretty fun getting to play on "the other side" as the weak but well-numbered cannon fodder. I can see this idea, if done right having the same feel.
[SIG] It's like putting a moose in the blender -- a recipe for disaster!
I wonder if would work better if they designed some kind of ranking system, similar to the way Halo ranks you on Xbox live. That way, you would hopefully be playing against people of comparable skill.
I've been waiting for a game to do this for ages. In theory it makes great sense, players enjoy different aspects of a game but usually have identical game experiences. For example, some players enjoy having every advantage over their opponents (and become known as "griefers" who prey upon those that are unlikely to beat them). It seems better to create a game mechanic that turns that style of play into something enjoyable for both sides rather than artificial rules that prevent player interaction.
I just wonder how many players will be interested being an expendable minion. The article/company claims that the PKs will be drawn to this role, but the griefer PKs will likely prefer the "elite" role that is closer to a PvE experience (griefing has always been closer to a PvE experience, but with realistic suffering/domination). The real PvP people usually prefer "fair" fights which might not make them that interested in fights against "elites". I suppose it depends on how it is balanced. If the fight is fair, but just asymmetric so that one side has few troops with great power and the other has many troops with little power, most PvPers shouldn't have an issue with that. I suspect though that the "elite" experience is supposed to be more like a PvE experience, i.e. you almost always win. In that case the minions can only strive for stats: to be the best of the chumps which may have limited appeal.
Regardless of the success of the mechanic, it is a great experiment. I can't wait to play.
Complexity Happens
If they let the elite have control of how many Skirmishers joined them, or of who the skirmishers are, this could work. For example, the Elite lets two skirmishers play, the skirmishers get fragged, their control jumps to another NPC. Or you had some kind of 'ladder match' where you iterated through a single player level with players taking turns at the Elite spot. That could work. But yeah, it probably won't work well with an open join world. Unless you're a guy who wants a real challenge to beat a bunch of griefers.
People usually complain that NPC sucks, the AI isn't advanced enough... so if they set traps, why bother? A single person rushing into a storm of baddies isn't supposed to be easy. Of course, FPS aren't remotely realistic in that aspect - Gordon Freeman beating a crapload of aliens, Doom Marine disposing of hordes of demons, Masterchief, pick your poison. Even the dummiest and underarmored grunts would eventually overwhelm a lonely player. Jedi Knights would probably make an interesting fight though (Clone Wars style, not the pussy they were in movies).
Where is that guy who'd die defending what I had to say when I need him?
When killing is the ultimate goal in the game, yes PvP will just boil down to these kinds of problems, tactics, and boredom. Which is why I think a lot of people are tiring of the same old FPS.
What happens when the "monsters" and the "players" have asymmetric goals? What happens if you really can't kill them at all in the PvP setting? I think there's been a lot of progress lately in this respect wrt level design in single player that can be directly applied to a PvP setting.
e.g. 2 types of multiplayer "monsters" battle it out in a turf war. The single player game can then be to:
a) survive in the midst of the greater conflict
b) become an initiate of one of the opposing factions
c) run a trade and logistics business in the war
d) become a heavily armed merc and sway the battle for the under dogs for prestige
e) serve as a diplomat by politically controlling game resources
etc...
In fact, the "monsters" might not even have an incentive to kill the single player at all. If the single player provides some strategic advantage against the other faction, the "monsters" might very well want to court the single player and keep him alive and in the game helping their side. Alternatively, they may want to eliminate him to reduce the other faction's advantage...
In any case, there's plenty of opportunity. I think the real progress here is if the developers are willing to challenge the expectations of what a FPS should be. Whether the game turns out good, bad, popular, or unpopular, it's still valuable progress.
---k--
</stupid>
Perfect Dark... year : 2000.
Cwm, fjord-bank glyphs vext quiz
re; your #1, auto-nerf the monster player. Constantly monitor the former NPC role abilities and powers based on location.
If they wander down to the level one area/levels, reduce the monster level to level 3, if there are 40 of them within a certain space (on-screen together) , make them level one or even negative levels of ability.... or make them cross-attackable if they are too densely in an area..
If the monsters abilities are tied to the region, the motivation to go grief a bunch of beginners fails.
every day http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Random
...back when I was tinkering with an MMOG design (yeah, like half the world out there, I know).
The idea was, whenever a player reached a certain repeatable milestone - X hours played or whatever - they would get a chance to "jump into" a boss-level mob out in the world somewhere. So when a party of players encountered that boss mob, it would be another player controlling it and not just an AI. The critter-playing player wouldn't be given any indications as to who the players were - depending on the intelligence level of the mob in question, the critter player would just see X number of pieces of meat walking around, or perhaps basic shapes (say a mob can pick out a magic using enemy vs. a melee-oriented enemy), that sort of thing, to help prevent griefing of certain other players.
The critter-playing mob would have a certain amount of time they could control boss mobs - say a few hours, total - and could use their time as they saw fit, piecemeal or all at once. I figure I would have also built in some sort of alert system - i.e. when a player had some critter time available, they could turn these alerts on - so that when normal players were getting close to a boss mob encounter, alerts would go out to the players with critter time letting them know, so if one wanted to hop in, it wouldn't be too much of a wait until the party arrived and the fun began, and they would get the most out of their critter time.
"People" using "unnecessary" quotes should be "shot".
You have the option to play any game of your singe-player "franchise" schedule against a real player. He will simply assume the exact team/roster you are playing that week.
Not many people did it, but it worked fairly well since online Madden is almost always 1 on 1. I don't see a decent number of people volunteering to take the place of NPC's.
Flop.
heres an idea for ensuring balance as close as possible: the first few levels will be difficulty metering, it will get progressivly harder computer contorlled ai up to the point where it is no longer possible for you to keep the charachter alive. at that point the system can determine the skill level of the player. have multiple difficulty level servers setup for gameplay and allow only the servers in your skill level to be entered for play. i think that would be the closet thing to help the situation that worries most people in check. it would be harder for highly skilled players from mobbing a low skilled player. it would help to ensure that the game is just hard enough for the players to have fun, and easy enough to keep the people playing.
I would call this innovative, but ultimately isn't this what Counter-Strike started in a sense?
There is an actual mission where you play against fellow players? This seems to be a larger extension of what Counter-Strike already does. While not wholly innovative, I think this is a very good idea. Too bad my FPS skills are so weak. I enjoy a FPS with good ambiance and story, but I'm a poor FPS player since I rarely play them.
http://blindscribblings.com - Tasty pop-culture in conceptual fashion.
I figured that playing soccer was a pretty tame thing for a seven year-old to do. Of course, soccer with profane jerks wasn't quite what I was hoping for.
In general, though, Sam's pretty comfortable with FPS's in general. He doesn't get to play Doom 3 or similar games. He did play HL2, which I felt fine about.
I don't think I'd like him playing multiplayer games with people outside our family, though. That's a bit outside my comfort level.
I think this would be a lot better if the simple players were controlled from just a few humans view overhead map controls like an RTS. Let the AI take care of the small details and let a human take care of the strategy. Would be a lot better than the CONSTANTLY dying that would occur in FPS mode.
Like if you ran a hunting sim, if you play as the deer you get points for eating grass, copulating, beating other deer, etc. If you're the hunter, you get points for killing deer. (or maybe playing a bear would be more fun...)
As long as the balance is good, it could be interesting.
Also, AI-run opponents are usually absurdly strong, to make up for how stupid they are. If you put a human behind one of those elemental things in WoW, for instance, he's be unstoppable.
I would imagine that many griefers are going to want to be in the non-Elite role, and do their best to be a total ass for the "Elite" player. The latter is looking to get through the single-player campaign, and they're supposed to be able to take down a few mercenaries along the way. Well, a couple things the griefer would do to spoil that: run around constantly to avoid being killed, camp in weird locations, exploit bad map geometry (etc), or better yet, get a bunch of griefer friends together and find a way to constantly kill the Elite, so that they can't get to the next part of the campaign.
Yeah, that sounds like a lot of fun.
That said, I do think it's an interesting idea, and I like to see that there are still developers willing to take risks and innovate. But they're going to have a lot of challenges to get through first.
-- jchenx
The "Minions of Mirth" RPG (http://www.prairiegames.com/) did this too - I remember playing as a skeleton for a while.
(Not sure why you'd call an RPG "Servants of Laughter", but WTF do I know?)
When I play a game in single-player mode, I expect my opponents to behave realistically within the context of the game world. Enemy characters should exhibit the instinct for self-preservation (unless they're jihadists) and should employ tactics that would be sensible in real life. I can't suspend my disbelief if an enemy trooper is bunny-hopping. The problem with putting a human player in character is that there's no way to force him to act as though he has only one life to lose; even if he does have only one life per round, that's a poor approximation of the consequences of dying in reality.
NPC predictability gets even worse in another video game (albeit not first-person, not shooter) whose title includes "Crossing". The game Animal Crossing for Nintendo GameCube is intended to be played in at least 730 sessions spanning 365 days, but the NPCs run out of things to say after about seven.
"Elites are gamers playing the game in story mode. They're beefed up, heavily armored, and heavily armed."
Sounds like the "single player" will have an advantage over all the PVP'ers, perhaps twice as much health, more rounds, more armor, better weapons. I think this sounds like a great idea, good for people who want the next level of A.I. in their NPC's.
Some early first-person shooters were Atari's Battlezone and BPS/Xanth's Faceball (originally published as MIDI-Maze for Atari ST). These were extremely abstract by modern standards and would probably be rated E if published today. The cartoonish Jumping Flash! first-person platform shooters for PlayStation were also rated K-A (now called E).
Even if the enemy character looks like an anthropomorphized rabbit? Remember this when you run into Bunnie, Dotty, Genji, Pippy, Claude, Gabi, Coco, Gaston, Doc, or Snake in the Crossing.
I think Pokémon, a role-playing game for Game Boy published by Nintendo, solved that issue rawther well: each of your own gamecocks who has attacked the opponent creature receives a share of the experience when the opponent faints.
I think it would be even better to have the single-player "wander" into 2-team multiplayer competitions. The single-player may have a completely different goal than the 2-teams, but will feel like he or she is crossing through a more realistic conflict.
I'll use Enemy Territory as an example since I've played that more than most multiplayer FPS.
The single player has a mission to just "escape" by going from one end of the map to another. Or something simple like that. He has to start on, say, the Axis side of the map, maybe not even that far from the current Axis spawn, and make his or her way across to some point on the Allies side of the map.
I'm thinking of a map, like, tc_Base. The Allies are trying to Dynamite the Axis radar, meanwhile, Joe SinglePlay is trying to escape from the same compound. He will have to dodge through Axis soldiers who perhaps have some incentive to shoot the player.
You could just use current multiplayer servers, and drop the occasional single-player into the action as if the player "wandered in"
I think this would give the multiplayer players "something to do" besides sitting around and talking about the latest Stormtrooper rifle until the Jedi force pushes them down the shaft (Jedi Knight II).
One of the reasons I don't play multiplayer PvP type games anymore is because I don't have the time to play continuously, only now and then. So I don't have the skills that 14 year olds who do nothing but play all day (and who have all the lastest exploits and robot hacks running), who do nothing but trash talk and rnu around blasting everything that moved.
So to sum it up: I go there for enjoyment, not to listen to crap and get 'powned' by L33T uber hackers without a life. Probably the vast majority of FPS players feel the same way.
The only reason I can see someone who usually plays a lot of multiplayer games (e.g. CS or variants, FEAR Combat, etc.) wanting to be a Skirmisher is, basically, because these people are obsessed with "skill." Skill usually involves taking the most numerically powerful/useful/"best" weapon in the game and perfecting aiming with it to the point of stupidity (e.g. the AK-47 in CS or the RL in Quake). These folks, if they end up filling the Skirmisher role, will probably find the "best" Skirmisher weapon and do exactly this, then compete for who can be the first to get the killing headshot on the Elite.
What I feel that they _intend_ is for casual gamers to go into the Skirmisher role _knowing that they have basically no chance of winning against the Elite._ They'll fight and fight and, as mentioned, occasionally take down an Elite. The problem is that most casual gamers, I believe, don't play the multiplayer portions of these games (they definitely don't after the games have been around a few years and all the 1337 kiddies have twinked out their skills)--and they don't play the multiplayer much precisely because they believe they have no chance against people who play so much of these games. Rather, the casual gamer will be attracted by the single player portion and thus the level playing field offered when they have a bunch of extra health and better weapons than the Skirmishers.
I will give them that the dynamic has some merit. It will be _very_ interesting to see how it plays out. If nothing else, it's an excellent way to get out of having to push the A.I. envelope. I am highly disappointed to see that they're trying some inane matching for the non-story missions (please let me pick my own servers), and also that there may be a queue as a result of this (i.e. you're forced to wait fifteen minutes before you can play the next level because no servers are free). I'm also sad to see that the game looks like it's following the counterstrike-style "cops and terrorists" system--although they say it takes place in different dimensions or whatever, I have the feeling I'm going to see a lot of FAMAS (which is OK, I guess) and AK-47s (of which I'm completely sick and tired). That, however, is another rant entirely.
Sounds like a cross between Counter-Strike with god mode and double armour and money cheats on.
I think these guys are doing the same thing, but it sounds a little more thought out. The wikipedia article on left4dead is a good overview.
...are two examples of where something like this was implemented. In AvP, there was a multiplayer mode where the human or the predator had to fight off a bunch of aliens. The aliens died easy, but they re-spawned continuously and could jump onto / off of the walls and stuff. Each class had different vision modes which influenced how you played as well. Good times.
o r_(computer_game)#Screenshots
... coupled with the different game-play modes (Defend the Base v. Conquer the Base, then switch sides), you got pretty close.
... to go back in time and play Tribes2 again would be a little slice of heaven.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aliens_versus_Predat
Tribes2 also had the idea of radically different armor classes and a greater ability to choose your role (from Heavy + Mortar + Missiles to Light + Sniper + Cloaking)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tribes_2#Armor
The neat thing about Tribes2 was how time and cooperation was a factor. If you had 6 heavies, they would take 20 minutes to get from one side of the map to the other. If you had 5 heavies + 1 light + a Troop Carrier, you'd get across in 1 minute. So there was this time-based and skill-based economic incentive for people to play differing roles (are you good at base-raiding? be a heavy. suck at it? pilot troop carriers. sneaky? shocklance and cloak-pack. twitchy? light armor + laser-rifle. not enough flag-runners? suit up with a light + energy. too many flag-runners? grab a medium armor and missles to support your flag-runners.) *sniff*
--Robert
In any serious FPS, the +150ms actual live on-location Korean kids would have playing on a server in North America would come close to evening out the 'ub4rl33t' no-sleep-just-games advantage.
Pre-teen Korean-American kids, that's where your real threat is. Of course, I've come to think that the 'net neutrality' debate will end up boiling down to "Gen-X gamers with enough money to buy low pings vs Gen-Y gamers with faster reflexes but no money = fair."
Makes a lot more sense that way, until you start considering spoiled Gen-Y gamers who have rich parents that buy them fast connections. D'oh.
"We have to go forth and crush every world view that doesn't believe in tolerance and free speech." - David Brin
More fun would be if the "Elite" players were playing FPS and the players playing the "enemy" had some freedom to see what's going on and could maneuver the NPCs. I thought of this when I fist started playing RTS games and FPS games. (Wolfenstien 3D and Command HQ, still one of the most fun RTS games, no building mobs and rushing.)
That was already a feature in Perfect Dark. This is a little different since it's online. I sort of had that idea in the past, but it wouldn't work so well because 90% of the time you'd have to play as some generic henchman instead of the main player.
"When the atomic bomb goes off there's devastation...but when the atomic bong goes off there's celebraaaaation!"
But they're not going to want to put one person against a pile of people - the killing blow would be way too random if the group won, and if the single player is successful, their whole team just got owned. That'd be way too frustrating.
Nah, they'll probably make the game be about you, as the single player, assisting some kind of an ongoing war that, without you, would be a slaughter by the enemy's overwhelming forces. Make the teams inherently unbalanced, and then put the combat monster on the weaker side.
I could see myself playing as a marine in Halo while someone else played as Master Chief, and we were all against a pile of people playing elites. That'd be fun. But I wouldn't want to be one of 30 little guys with needlers trying to avoid being routed by the crazy cyborg.
Actually, hey Bungie, I have an idea for you...
I have read a Russian cult novel a few years back, that at it's core, had a full virtual-reality game, and in the sequel, the game was upgraded to have humans playing the monsters as well, except they made the entire game team-based. The novels were written by Sergei Lukjanenko.
When quake arena was launched most of people did not understand the "multi-player only" idea behind it.
;)
:)
Now most of FPS are this "multi-player only" way. Call of Duty, Battlefield for instance are a multi-player games, even when in solo mode. During solo gaming other characters are controlled by IA whether they are friend or foe.
"The Crossing" brings that sort of innovation. Indeed it can be a flop. Not because its idea is bad, but because people might not be prepared and then just dismiss the idea because they dont understand it. But in a few years I am sure it will be adapted to plenty of other game. Just like that "multi-player only" concept.
Face it, a FPS is just not as thrilling against IA than against humans. But on the opposite solo experience provides the sensation of being THE hero. A traditional online FPS cannot provide that experience because the game must be balanced to please everyone. How can everyone be Splinter Cell's hero playing the same game ? Shadows would be too overcrowed
Even in MMORPG against environment (PVE) you cannot provide this balance between challenging situation and character development.
With "The Crossing" you can be THE hero of the story, be overpowered, and still confront challenging foes who have innovative in their tactics.
And if you still want not to encounter a human being, you still have the choice not to buy that game
Therefore "The Crossing" proposes a great idea, let's see how it is implemented...
The world belongs to those who get up early. - I'm far from being the king of Earth then
it could be a nice diversion...but it would be extremely difficult. On the other hand, one that wins in such a game could be extremely proud.
The maps would have to be made in such a way that the player can not easily be trapped though. Think about pacman: what would have happened if ghosts were controlled by humans? not many players would get past the first screen...
...a way around having to write better AI?
How will the skirmishers react when after they finally score a kill, the elite hits the "quickload" key?
Sounds like a re-hash of the old "king of the hill" rules for . Except they seem to want that action in the single player maps. Nothing like end-game content rushing up to meet you when you exit the train. Eh, Gordon?
My prediction:
This game's gonna Floating Point Operation in a big way. Part of what makes most single player missions viable is the NPCs behave akin to the story - guards watch their post and instruments, maintenance workers maintain stuff, drivers have a load of cargo to take somewhere. When you spawn in place of an "NPC" - you're first and only thought, much like in MP deathmatch, will be Kill Player1 = win. You don't have to guard rooms, you don't have to perform any duties involved with the place you're guarding, you can all gather into one giant death squad and just mow the poor "hero" into oblivion.
Oh, and this is nothing "new" per say - you could play Perfect Dark on the N64 much the same way, one or more guys could play the bad guys and would spawn as the underpowered NPCs. It posed a couple of problems:
1. In a modestly difficult single player FPS - there are several encounters where adding even a single intelligent being to the opposition would spell out a maddening series of failures. Dumbing encounters down to where intelligent beings don't overpower one side is going to spell out for few to know scripted encounters.
2. If you give the bad guys any fun toys, players will abuse the hell out of them. If they are basically all grunts with the same low powered weapon, they won't be any fun to play.
3. Despite the AIs best intentions, sometimes you end up as an NPC that's not going to be part of the action for quite some time. Maybe the hero isn't going that way, maybe the door's locked, or there's a big mountain between you to. Here's a design issue - if you let someone swap characters, they can effectively reposition their entire "army", effectively again eliminating that appearance that creatures exist in the game with more purpose than to kill our hero. If you don't allow swapping, and he gets stuck behind a door or something, he's out of the action.
So in conclusion, this idea isn't innovative, it just died a quiet death a while back, and is now about to be beaten like the dead horse it is.
You can get 15 minutes of fame, but you can go down in history for infamy.
http://games.slashdot.org/games/06/03/09/2211203.s html
Would make a hell of a game.