Beta

Slashdot: News for Nerds

×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

An Early Look at Killzone 2's Multiplayer

Soulskill posted more than 5 years ago | from the apparently-you-shoot-things dept.

First Person Shooters (Games) 47

Giant Bomb takes us through the multiplayer mode of upcoming first-person shooter Killzone 2 from Guerrilla Games. They explain how you gradually unlock more ranks, weapons, and classes as you find success. They also say you should expect different modes of play to be thrown at you after every victory: "The big thing to 'get' about Killzone 2's multiplayer is that the game isn't really broken down by game types, like team deathmatch or capture the flag. Those styles of gameplay are instead integrated at a higher level. Each map and each match is capable of serving up five different objectives. And the game serves these objectives to you on the fly. So you might join a game and get thrown into a Body Count mission, which is the game's take on team deathmatch. If one side hits the kill count or if time expires with one side ahead of the other, the leading side wins that mission and earns one point. After a brief respite from mission-based activity, the game launches into the next thing."

cancel ×

47 comments

I hope they have a solution for the old problem (1)

Opportunist (166417) | more than 5 years ago | (#26735353)

With multiple objectives given, the easiest one (or the most profitable one) will be the only one to be accomplished. When it's easier to slaughter the enemy to win, capture-the-flag will not happen. Likewise, if it's faster to capture and hold all objectives because kills don't matter too much, capture the flag will be the only (real) game mode with killing taking a backseat.

While I'm ranting, in what way is this different from the standard play style of the Battlefield series?

Re:I hope they have a solution for the old problem (2, Informative)

Derekloffin (741455) | more than 5 years ago | (#26735407)

As far as I'm aware, there is no choice of objectives given. You are always on just 1 objective, but as each one is completed, or times out, another is given out at random. So, there never is the potential for a team to ignore objective X in favor of the easier objective Y.

Re:I hope they have a solution for the old problem (1)

Filik (578890) | more than 5 years ago | (#26737459)

Sounds like Enemy Territory, with its multipart missions.

Re:I hope they have a solution for the old problem (1)

Secret Rabbit (914973) | more than 5 years ago | (#26735419)

Well, just from the summery, it doesn't seem as though the player necessarily has a choice. It's like a randomised mission that gets assigned rather than chosen.

Re:I hope they have a solution for the old problem (1)

RogueyWon (735973) | more than 5 years ago | (#26750209)

You might think so, but this isn't always how it works out, at least on the public servers. I've been staggered by the degree to which "average" players in objective-based team games can suffer from tunnel vision and consistently miss obvious ways to win.

This was often noticable in old online fpses like Counter-Strike and Team Fortress classic, but if you really want to see it in action, you can't get a better demonstration that World of Warcraft's battlegrounds (which I used to play quite heavily, but have given up on altogether, largely for the reasons outlined below).

For the uninitiated (and unaddicted), a few words of explanation are probably due. World of Warcraft has a number of avenues for player vs player content, but the most widely-played of these are the Battlegrounds. These are large-scale objective based team battles, which reset every time they're won (with the winning team getting increased rewards, though losers also get rewards depending on how well they played). Back when I was playing these, there were four battlegrounds (a fifth has since been added, but I've not even been into it), which follow structures already established by online fpses:

- Alterac Valley is a 40vs40 "assault" style battle, where each team needs to capture towers and graveyards (effectively spawn points) on a path to the enemy base and, once there, kill the enemy general, who is essentially a PvE boss.

- Arathi Basin is a 20v20 classic 5-points capture and hold battle. The more points you hold, the faster your team's score rises.

- Eye of the Storm is a combination of 4-points capture and hold with 1-flag CTF; the sides compete for control of 4 towers and for a centrally positioned flag which can be captured at any friendly tower. The more points you hold, the faster your team's score rises, with capturing the flag granting a small score bonus.

- Warsong Gulch is classic 2-flag capture the flag. The first team to capture the enemy flag 3 times wins.

Now, assuming that the sides are evenly balanced in terms of numbers, there are fairly simple schemes for winning the first three of those (Warsong Gulch is a bit more of a scrum). In particular, there is a very simple formula for winning Arathi basin and Eye of the Storm; capture 3 points, ignoring the one(s) most accessible from the enemy's base and turtle at them and you will almost inevitably win. I've done these battlegrounds hundreds of times and this rule almost inevitably holds true - you should only ever get a close battle when both sides have realised this. A guild team who realise this can dominate these battlegrounds all day.

But how often does it happen with a "public" team? About 1 time in 4. Maybe 1 time in 3. A large majority of players have absolutely no ability to prioritise goals. Having secured their initial "3 points" goal at the start of the battle, they squander it by pressing on for an indefensible position right next to the enemy base, allowing for a counter-attack, or they weaken their defence in Eye of the Storm by making pointless e-peen runs for a flag whose score value isn't significant enough to tip the balance in all but the most closely fought of 2 towers vs 2 towers games. They see a clear goal in front of them and rush towards it without asking whether or not it makes sense to do so. I knew it was time for me to get out of the Battlegrounds scene when I found myself yelling at the screen "NO, YOU IDIOTS, DON'T RUN FOR THE $£%*£^&"£^£"&*("%)!" FARM YOU LEPEROUS LEMMINGS".

Given that I have similar recollections from my time with BF1942 (though that was more directed at having half of a 20 man team queueing up at the runway for the entire battle in the hope of grabbing one of three plane spawns) I can't imagine that this will be any different. Most players will still throw logic to the wind and do whatever their goldfish-like attention span drives them towards.

No splitscreen? (2, Interesting)

godfra (839112) | more than 5 years ago | (#26735425)

Why are there no games on the PS3 that have an offline split-screen option? I merrily bought 4 controllers hoping that Haze etc would offer offline bot-enabled deathmatch action but so far have been severely disappointed.

Am now considering picking up a 360, as when mates come round we can't blast eachother in the old N64 style :/

Can any 360 owners provide examples of games for their system which are good for this?

Re:No splitscreen? (1)

Xest (935314) | more than 5 years ago | (#26735493)

I think Ghost Recon Advanced Warfighter 1 & 2 offer coop/competitive multiplayer 4 way split screen as does Rainbow Six Vegas and I think all the Call of Duty series offer competitive 4 way split screen. I don't think Blazing Angels 2 should be dismissed either, it's quite a good fun arcade style shooter, it's certainly funny flying round in Spitfires, Zeros and P51s etc. trying to shoot each other down ;) In terms of non-shooter retail games, then Thrillville is good for a laugh and provides lots of different game modes (particularly the bikes mini-game is fun), Viva Pinata: Party animals, despite an inititally rather childish look is actually quite fun with a few people as well as it has a very mario kart-esque racing mode and lots of decent mini games.

If you want coop then check here:

http://www.co-optimus.com/system/1/XBox_360.html [co-optimus.com]

Note though that that list doesn't include Live arcade games. There's loads on live arcade that's rather good for this type of thing too, notably Geometry Wars 2 for starters which really is good fun 4 player with friends.

Re:No splitscreen? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26735563)

Also Castle Crashers, for good old-fashioned Final-Fight-esque co-op multiplayer. It supports four local players.

Don't try to play it online though, the lag is horrendous.

There used to be major issues for offline games as well (in particular save data loss), but now that the game has been patched, it seems to be free of such bugs.

Re:No splitscreen? (1)

powerlord (28156) | more than 5 years ago | (#26747441)

Warhawk also allows up to 4 player split screen, on-line or off-line.

Neat part also is that one game-disk can be used to start multiple consoles for a LAN game.

One game disk, one TVs, two consoles, up to four players.
One game disk, two TVs, two consoles, up to eight players.
One game disk, three TVs, three consoles, up to twelve players. ...
(keep going till you hit 32 players)

I always figured a two rooms, with one TV/Console per wall, and four players around each console could make for a killer LAN party.

Split the teams into two rooms so that people can "naturally" yell to communicate with team-mates without the other team overhearing.

Put a third "munchies/drink" room between the two rooms so that people can mix with the other team, and get food.

Of course I don't think I could fill one of these myself since most of my friends are on-line and scattered to the four winds, so I'm glad that the internet lets us have "virtual LAN parties" :D

Re:No splitscreen? (1)

tepples (727027) | more than 5 years ago | (#26735497)

Why are there no games on the PS3 that have an offline split-screen option?

I guess they're rare on the PS3 for the same reason they're rare on the PC: game publishers want to sell four copies of the same game.

Re:No splitscreen? (1)

Canazza (1428553) | more than 5 years ago | (#26736289)

Actually, the reason they're rare on the PC is because it's very rare that you have more than one control device plugged into your PC.

USB hubs (1)

tepples (727027) | more than 5 years ago | (#26736701)

Actually, the reason they're rare on the PC is because it's very rare that you have more than one control device plugged into your PC.

But why is it so rare to have one gamepad in each of the two front panel USB ports, or more if you use a multitap [wikipedia.org] ? If the answer has something to do with crowding around a 17" monitor, every TV over $300 at Walmart* has a 15-pin VGA port.

Re:USB hubs (1)

Hokie06 (986634) | more than 5 years ago | (#26736979)

Its probably because most people don't want to haul their computer out into the living room to hook it up to the tv.

Or that typical interface for almost every PC game is keyboard and mouse. Yes you can use a controller, but most PC gamers don't. Not to mention a keyboard and mouse isn't the best interface while sitting on a couch.

Of course PC gaming has always been a one person to a box thing unlike consoles, with a few exceptions I can't think of.

Laptops, HTPCs, and small developers (1)

tepples (727027) | more than 5 years ago | (#26738523)

Its probably because most people don't want to haul their computer out into the living room to hook it up to the tv.

Blogs report that laptops outsold desktops in 2007 [treehugger.com] and in 2008 [blogspot.com] . Several companies sell slim desktop PCs that would work well as a second set-top PC for the TV room; I believe this setup is called home theater PC [wikipedia.org] . Why haven't PC game publishers taken advantage of these?

Or that typical interface for almost every PC game is keyboard and mouse.

Why is this the case, and why must it continue to be?

Of course PC gaming has always been a one person to a box thing unlike consoles

This brings me to another question: Say a company wants to develop a fighting game, a party game, or something else where putting all players' characters in one view is desirable. But the company isn't yet big enough to become an authorized developer on PS3 or Wii. What would you recommend?

Re:Laptops, HTPCs, and small developers (1)

Toonol (1057698) | more than 5 years ago | (#26742141)

It's not that spendy to get into WiiWare development; I think it's only a few thousand. You do need to get Nintendo's buyoff, however. Microsoft has something similar with it's XNA development, that might even be free, but I don't know much about it.

If you're willing, you could whip something out in Flash, and make a browser game for a Wii. Flash recognizes all four Wii controllers. That's easy, but it's harder to make money from.

Re:No splitscreen? (2, Insightful)

quantumplacet (1195335) | more than 5 years ago | (#26735609)

just cuz the random game you bought didn't offer that feature doesnt mean the system doesnt have any games that offer it. in the future i would read a review first or, you know, look at the back of the box before you buy the game. both resistance games and COD5 offer offline split screen. im sure there are more, but those come immediately to mind.

Re:No splitscreen? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26739167)

Fyi: Resistance 2 only has 2-play split screen co-op. No 4-player split screen competitive. I thought it would, because the first did, and bought the game, but ended up returning it.

Also, COD5, does _not_ have 4-player either, but COD4 does (and it is excellent).

Re:No splitscreen? (1)

godfra (839112) | more than 5 years ago | (#26739813)

COD4's 4way splitscreen competitive is fun, but you don't get bots or the ability to take your splitscreen guest online (as in WarHawk), so it's not great when there's only 2 of you playing.

After doing a fair bit of reading I've discovered that Free Radical was recently bought up by Crytek, so hopefully TimeSplitters 4 will come out on the PS3 and show everyone how it should be done. I just want a flashy TS2/GoldenEye clone for the PS3 which goes good with 3 mates and a case of beer. The graphics wouldn't have to utterly strain the console's processing power.

I'd rather not shell out for a new console to get this really, having given it some thought...

Re:No splitscreen? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26736219)

Haze offer 2 players to share split screen. But that is a bit tricky. It's actually single player campaign, but second player joins in (on the same PS3, of course). another game that has nice split screen is Full Auto Battlelines 2.

Re:No splitscreen? (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26736669)

Sell the ps3, buy a wii. You'll have hundreds of shovelware titles where you can sit around and play N64 level games.

Re:No splitscreen? (1)

godfra (839112) | more than 5 years ago | (#26739875)

I considered buying a Wii but the the games still seem to be going for the cutesy angle. I'm after something a bit more hardcore, but with good 4 player split screen offline with bots.

So far the consoles just seem to be trying to replicate PC online gaming. As I already have a decent PC for CS:S, L4D etc, that's not really what I was after :/

Re:No splitscreen? (1)

Toonol (1057698) | more than 5 years ago | (#26742165)

Good advice, bro, except for the part about N64 level games.

I'm not trolling (1)

jgtg32a (1173373) | more than 5 years ago | (#26736893)

I have a little theory about that and it will most likely get modded troll but here it goes.

The current generation of consoles are underpowered.

HD TVs are now standard. SD TVs run at 480i (640x480@30) HD is at least 720p (1280x720@60).
Most console games this generation run around 720p and rely on upscaling to get the frame to 1080p. I say around because one upscales horizontally and the other vertically, so each console actually uses some funky resolution and uses its scaler to get to the appropriate resolution.

Now then think back to Halo 3, remember how the graphic were reduced when you played multiplayer. The Xbox wasn't powerful enough to render everything for 4 different cameras.

Now then some of that can be attributed to rough SDKs that all launch games have, so it will improve but I don't think that it will overcome the hardware's limitations.

I think that is why there aren't more split screen games because devs don't want to have to scale down the graphics to support it.

Re:I'm not trolling (1)

flitty (981864) | more than 5 years ago | (#26738333)

It has nothing to do with "underpowered". You want to make your game "teh shiney" as possible (see Killzone 2 render videos), so you push the hardware as far as your development team can get it to go. Now, pushing any hardware as hard as possible, trying to do that 4x will always tax your console beyond it's limits, because you were pushing the limits in the first place.

So, do you dumb down your graphics so that multiplayer looks exactly like single player, or make single player as good looking as possible, and dumb down multiplayer, or take the Killzone approach, and rely on online play, without using that development time to make decreased rez bitmaps and all the processing tweaks to make co-op work smoothly.

With how prevalent online play is, any 3d shooter should be online only. this isn't 2002 anymore and we don't need to lug 4 xbox's over to someones house to play halo.

Re:I'm not trolling (1)

Toonol (1057698) | more than 5 years ago | (#26742249)

I totally agree. Since, regardless of the power of the console, you're going to use it all (more or less efficiently) on the single player game, splitscreen multiplayer will always be too taxing. Stuff will have to get cut. If pretty/shiny is the primary focus of the game (and that is the primary focus of most FPS), the developer might not want to allow the option.

Same thing applies for the argument about better consoles allowing better AI. I think that's a crock, since once the AI is brought to merely adequate, all further resources will be devoted to making wood splinter from bullets more realistically. Nearly every PS3 or 360 game could be ported to the PS2 or XBox or Gamecube with nothing changed but graphical downgrades... gameplay could be left unchanged.

Re:I'm not trolling (1)

tepples (727027) | more than 5 years ago | (#26758889)

Now, pushing any hardware as hard as possible, trying to do that 4x will always tax your console beyond it's limits, because you were pushing the limits in the first place.

If your game has any sort of level of detail management, it's already using simpler meshes and smaller textures for far-away objects.

With how prevalent online play is, any 3d shooter should be online only.

Would you count Zaxxon, Space Harrier, Star Fox, and Ikaruga as "3D shooters" under this definition?

this isn't 2002 anymore and we don't need to lug 4 xbox's over to someones house to play halo.

So if people are already visiting for other reasons, how should I go about adding video games to the party? Parents and sitters like to save money. This means buying one console, not two or three identical ones, and games that either split the screen or put all characters in one view.

Splitscreen Is Trickier Than Expected (1)

EXTomar (78739) | more than 5 years ago | (#26739425)

Regardless of software and platform, supporting split screen is often trickier than network play. You are literally loading the system to perform twice as much work for half of the output. Two views with full scene transformations need to be calculated. Two rendering pipelines plus shader processing must be supported. And so on... It isn't that it is impossible but it is often more trouble than it is worth especially given the demands of gamers on modern graphics engines. They could spend a lot of time tweaking the game to perform at a certain frame rate at a certain resolution and have to come up with completely separate tweaks for split screen.

The way the demographics break down as well have been trending away from "couch multiplayer" to "network multiplayer". I'm disappointed if a game doesn't support online multiplayer but never surprised if they skip the split screen multiplayer.

Re:No splitscreen? (0)

ObsessiveMathsFreak (773371) | more than 5 years ago | (#26739993)

Why are there no games on the PS3 that have an offline split-screen option

Simply put, free online Play.

Notwithstanding party games, most multiplayer titles are more suited to net play than local co-op. FPS games and indeed most other 3D games suffer from the unenviable problem of split screen, which is a serious technical and ergonomic problem. It is much easier for a developer to forgo local split screen in favor of online play nowadays. So they will offer the online mode in preference.

Except.... you have to pay $50 a year for a "Gold" account to play Xbox games online.

Microsoft claims 17 million Xbox live users, but they have so far refused to say how many of those have a "Gold" account. It would be interesting to find out. I know a few people who will not pay to play online purely as a matter of principle. I know more who simply cannot, or are unwilling, to afford the additional cost. I think it's safe to say in any event that there are a LOT of Xbox owners that are not playing on the Live servers, and we haven't even considered people who have purchased Xboxes but are not online at all.

So, if you are a developer for an Xbox title, forgoing split screen in favour of net play is not a realistic option. Halo succeeded, in spite of a lack of net play; Indeed some say because of it. If you are making an Xbox shooter, you have to take into account that people are not necessarily going to be playing online and that there is every possibility they will be playing with friends in the same room.

On PS3 however, PSN is free to play online. I don't think there is a single game that charges players an additional fee. In addition, the PS3 has built in wireless, which reduces the inconvenience of of wiring up the console for net play, and makes it that more likely to be found upstairs in a bedroom than downstairs by a sofa. The net result is, the majority of people with a PS3, will probably end up using the online multiplayer. In addition, the PS3 firmware does not even support multiple users logging in at one time(Though LittleBigPLanet seems to have gotten around this somehow).

Faced with all this, I think many PS3 developers have, tragically, forgone offline split-screen. The only split screen capable titles I can think of, only offer the option online. Offline co-op games, like LittleBigPLanet, do exist, but do not support in game trophies for the second player, reducing the rewards of the experience.

Having said that, Co-op play is moving online more and more. The latest Resident Evil 5 and Mercenaries 2 have shown that developers favour online campaign co-op to split screen. While this is a nice feature, so was offline Co-op back in the day. It's a shame to see it being left by the wayside, especially since the both the quality of internet connections, as well as the people on the other end, is not a guaranteed factor.

Re:No splitscreen? (0, Redundant)

TrancePhreak (576593) | more than 5 years ago | (#26742393)

Gears 2 has really good local multiplayer options, but it's only 2 player splitscreen I think. Halo 3 has 4 player splitscreen, but no bots. DOOM on XBLA has 4 player local co-op.

Re:No splitscreen? (1, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26743847)

How about Resistance 2, Little Big Planet, MotorStorm: Pacific Rift, MLB:08 The Show, GT5P, Wipeout HD.

Awesome! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26735447)

So, let me get this straight. Killzone looked at the current FPS market and thought "You know, if we could find a way to take away the user's choice of what kind of game to play, that would sell like hotcakes!"

Mario Party and WarioWare (2, Insightful)

tepples (727027) | more than 5 years ago | (#26735503)

So, let me get this straight. Killzone looked at the current FPS market and thought "You know, if we could find a way to take away the user's choice of what kind of game to play, that would sell like hotcakes!"

Or they looked at minigame collections such as Mario Party and WarioWare, saw that those sold like hotcakes, and tried to adapt them to a first-person shooter environment.

Re:Mario Party and WarioWare (1)

Canazza (1428553) | more than 5 years ago | (#26736351)

Nintendo ARE looking into branching the Wii into more hardcore gaming areas...
Give me Super Mario Deathmatch and i'll be happy - so long as I get to ram a Koopa Shell into Toad.

Re:Mario Party and WarioWare (1)

tepples (727027) | more than 5 years ago | (#26736723)

Give me Super Mario Deathmatch and i'll be happy - so long as I get to ram a Koopa Shell into Toad.

Nintendo at least has Super Mario Twisted Metal, and it's called Mario Kart.

Re:Awesome! (1)

Xest (935314) | more than 5 years ago | (#26735507)

I'd hope that it's done like Ground War in Call of Duty 4 (it switches between capture and hold and team deathmatch, but CoD4 drops to lobby between rounds) whereby you select that particular playlist but can alternatively choose a playlist that only has one game mode.

It sounds very much like it's taken a lot of hints from Call of Duty in this respect, the game modes, the levelling up and unlocking thing etc. the only innovation here seems to be removing the drop back to lobby between game modes although even there it does so to load a new map, whereas here you'll be on the same map all the way through by the sounds of it!

As you say though, I'd hope that they haven't done this no drop back to lobby at the expense of removing choice else it's a step backwards rather than a step forwards.

Re:Awesome! (1)

Have Blue (616) | more than 5 years ago | (#26745441)

Halo 2 and 3 have essentially the same system and they *do* sell like hotcakes.

Still working? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26735485)

Killzone 2 has been in development for more than 5 years. They should rename it Killzone Forever.

I hate this design idea. (1)

Sj0 (472011) | more than 5 years ago | (#26735845)

I've always hated this idea.

Some people either spend more time or are more naturally gifted, thus are more capable in the game. The game rewards these people by....making them more deadly?

It seems to me that you're locking people out of the game that way. The best players become nearly unkillable with all the bonuses, special weapons, insane classes, and such they get for being the best players, and the new players become nearly impossible to level, because they're competing against the aforementioned best players.

Re:I hate this design idea. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26736217)

I think the idea is that players become more versatile and flexible, but not necessarily more powerful.

In terms of Team Fortress, a newbie would perhaps only be allowed to play as a Soldier to get to know the game. More advanced players are also allowed to play an Engineer, who can be just as useful, but require the player to be more intimately familiar with the game.

Also, these games usually try to match you up with players of your own skill / experience level. A game like Killzone 2 will probably have enough online players to pull that off pretty well.

Re:I hate this design idea. (1)

Sj0 (472011) | more than 5 years ago | (#26736279)

TF is a good example of why I'd be against this design. When I started playing, all the best players had all these special weapons that gave them bonuses. I'm already crap at the game, now I'm dealing with players who get upgrades because they're better than me?

In theory (1)

jgtg32a (1173373) | more than 5 years ago | (#26736991)

The special weapon in TF2 are side grades not upgrades, for the most part. Some yes they are upgrades because of how you would actually use the weapon, ie the Heavy's gloves.

Besides there are servers you can go to that will unlock all of the upgrades for you.

Re:I hate this design idea. (1)

Swordsmanus (921213) | more than 5 years ago | (#26737195)

You clearly don't know the game very well. TF2's special weapons are not truly upgrades. They're balanced in comparison to the standard weapons. They all have drawbacks compared to the standard weapons for the benefits they give. The majority of the "upgrades" have very situational uses. You'd know this if you took a trip to GameFAQs and read the equipment guide here -

http://www.gamefaqs.com/computer/doswin/file/437678/50550

Re:I hate this design idea. (1)

ObsessiveMathsFreak (773371) | more than 5 years ago | (#26740137)

The best players become nearly unkillable with all the bonuses, special weapons, insane classes, and such they get for being the best players, and the new players become nearly impossible to level, because they're competing against the aforementioned best players.

Enter handicaps. 20v30 man matches. Speed/damage/health bonuses for outmatched noobs. Etc, etc. Not that I think that Killzone or indeed any FPS game will EVER implement such a system.

FPS games tend to degenerate into being _all_ about the frags. Frags are everything and any other aspect of the game comes second place to running up behind someone and killing them as quickly as possible. It's a system that locks many people out even without bonuses. To be fair, the bonuses/XP systems seen nowadays encourage players to keep playing. At least you have a measure of progress.

TF2 and Warhawk show the way. There needs to be more to online competitive multiplayer than simply frags. Players need to be able to bring something to the table other than sniping and run and gunning. There needs to be a variety of tactics and abilities to keep gameplay fresh and to prevent overpowering specialization.

Re:I hate this design idea. (1)

TrancePhreak (576593) | more than 5 years ago | (#26742421)

While I think the idea of getting stuff over time is fun, I agree about the balance issue here. For instance, my PS3 is out being fixed, unlikely to be back by the time this game is released. After I get my PS3, I will be only a couple weeks behind, but because of the unlocks I will likely not be able to climb my way up.

Jack of all trades.. (1)

TwoSeven (1077371) | more than 5 years ago | (#26735915)

This really isn't so different then what we have now in every other FPS. Its like a standard server that cycles gamemodes (which are already not very popular) except that you don't even get to change maps now between modes.
So, you're stuck with one map thats been bastardized to handle all of these different play styles? Yuck.
Speaking from personal experience developing a shooter: It is very, very, hard to make a map layout that plays well in both say, capture the flag and counterstrike style "die and you're out". Typically you make compromises with the design to support both modes and wind up with something thats only average at both, instead of exceptional at one or the other.
As a thought exercise: imagine trying to play CS's "bomb mode" on team fortresses' 2forts....

Re:Jack of all trades.. (1)

Canazza (1428553) | more than 5 years ago | (#26736327)

no need to imagine, it exists... although it's one of those godawful gungame maps and it's pitch black [fpsbanana.com]

AA got it right (1)

cvd6262 (180823) | more than 5 years ago | (#26736847)

I'm replying to a couple of threads here...

1. On the multiple-objectives idea, America's Army got that dead right. The most popular map (Pipeline) had three possible end-games: Capture three minor points, one main point, or kill the opposition. Plenty of games (and even maps within AA) don't achieve this balance, but it is possible.

2. On leveling up good/persistent players to the detriment of noobs, AA's honor system is almost perfect: More play and success give you more honor. Honor can be filtered on each server (e.g. newbie servers for people under 30 honor, elite servers with honor over 50) and is only used to determine who gets first pick of the classes.

Check for New Comments
Slashdot Account

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...