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?

7 of 184 comments (clear)

  1. Can you say... by PieSquared · · Score: 3, Interesting

    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?
  2. I had an idea for this type of game by Some_Llama · · Score: 4, Interesting

    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..

    1. Re:I had an idea for this type of game by CAIMLAS · · Score: 3, Interesting

      It exists already as a counter-strike: source mod. It's not very fun, whether because they made the game wrong, or because it doesn't scale well to a FPS game.

      Think about it: zombies need to be shot once, in the head, to die. A person needs to be bitten once anywhere to turn into a zombie. That seems pretty one-sided, when you consider that zombies 'in real life' don't coordinate, whereas the players will coordinate as zombies. It'd get pretty monotonous: you'd either be trying to avoid zombies, or you'd be trying to hide, sneak, or race up to get someone.

      Here's the only way I can see it working: zombies are slow shamblers, except when they get near 'meat' they have a burst of speed/energy due to their desire. Say, just as fast as a human's 'walk' speed, but they don't have a 'run' speed like the humans. They can also become faster by eating meat. Humans would have stamina, so they could only outrun for a short distance; they'd have to rely on other tactics, like shooting and hiding. All of this would require a fairly complex game world, with lots of rooms, buildings, cabinets, and various other places where both humans and zombies could hide.

      Zombies could bite the humans, but the humans wouldn't turn right away; it would depend on how much damage was caused. They might be able to get an antidote, or at least prevent themselves from turning (suicide), if they're fast enough and respawn as a human. This respawning could obviously be prevented by injuring them enough, fast enough, to kill and turn them quickly (group tactics, coming from behind, etc.). Zombies, if shot in the head, would die, but then they would respawn at another location.

      --
      ~/ssh slashdot.org ssh: connect to host slashdot.org port 22: too many beers
  3. Re:Its been done before by Chris+Burke · · Score: 4, Interesting

    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!!

    I imagine that part of the reason was that at higher levels the stakes are higher and thus you'd be more likely to get a friend to throw the match, making it easier. Or it was just a chapter from the Standard MMORPG Designers Manual, where you torture your players in part by designing really cool features that you never expand enough to be anything other than a minor sideshow.

    --

    The enemies of Democracy are
  4. Don't hate the PKs, give them what they want by Squiggle · · Score: 4, Interesting

    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
  5. Re:Everquest tried it briefly by LoudMusic · · Score: 4, Interesting

    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. Sounds like improvement to me, and exactly what they're looking for. They want the traditional AI characters to be more realistic, do things out of the ordinary.

    The best AI I've played against (the list is short) were the levels in Half-Life where the Marines in the warehouses. They would alert each other and lock down the target, hailing the player with grenades and machine gun fire. If the same units were human controlled and locked into only playing that one particular room, or building, while main character players were streaming through there one after another, it could be lots of fun. The game for the marine players would be to see how many main characters you can kill off. It'd be like goal tending in soccer.

    --
    No sig for you. YOU GET NO SIG!
  6. Re:that is why... by Buzz_Litebeer · · Score: 3, Interesting

    To put this mildly, when I was in college I would watch my room mate play through medal of honor allied assault, and he was extremely poor at it. If I had been one of the enemy soldiers with as little hitpoints as they have and all the modifiers against them in easy mode, I would have taken him down.

    Thats the issue I see with this game as it comes out. Even if the single player character is "awesome" if they weaken the little henchman characters to the point were skill no longer matters, then the game will be fun for neither party. The stronger player character will simply mow through them regardless of how much they suck. If the better player on the NPC side is truly a lot better, say me vs my room mate or maybe my Dad or something, then the person playing the single player part of the game will not enjoy themselves.

    My original post was not flame bait either.

    --
    If you don't vote, you don't matter, so don't waste your time telling me your opinion