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?
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.
I can't wait. The Hobgoblin of story-based FPS is that predictability of the NPCs. Even when they're pretty smart, you can count on them to behave in certain critically flawed ways. Or, they're un-realisically fast and impossible to deal with.
Not to mention, re-play will be much more interesting.
I'm really looking forward to being spawn-camped in single player.
I'll disagree here. How many masochists are going to jump at the chance to be in a "one vs. everyone else" setup? The role of the Elite will attract the attention and interest of those who feel they're the best of the best, and can back it up. Sure, people who have no business playing FPS games online (like, oh, I don't know, me) will try it, get frustrated, and give up; but to be honest, for those people who've ever played Counterstrike and thought "screw my teammates, I can plant the bomb/rescue the hostages all by myself", this will probably be their dream game.
Anyway, didn't Splinter Cell do something similar, with a "one spy versus the rest of the counterterrorists" game mode?
"Why Subscribe?" Good question...
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..
Just sounds like it'll make the game more realistic to me - why shouldn't the enemy stick together and guard strategic locations? This does sound like a cool concept, having 2 levels to play on in one game (serious / throwaway). You can kind of do that in some online games already (not that I play MMORPGs, though I have mudded a few times, and I like CS with the warcraft mod :p ), but this sounds like a fun experiment. Of course if the gameplay sucks balls then nobody is going to play, and it will be pretty difficult for newbies to play against experienced players (as with most games I guess), no matter which side the n00b is playing.
which is totally what she said
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
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!
I'm going to have to assume that the games levels will be designed so that there isn't only one entrance to a vital area...thats been a hallmark of good DM maps for years now, there's no reason to abandone it.
And why shouldn't the players work together? They want to win and they have a common goal. Its makes a lot more sense then the standard moron AI most games have where they wait to fight you in order so that you don't get overwhelmed.
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
Paraphrase:
It'll suck because the fictional heroes aren't realistic.
But if they based it on this particular fictional hero it'd rock!
Conclusion:
You're not making any sense man!
No Comment.