×

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!

The Crossing - A New Way to FPS?

Zonk posted more than 7 years ago | from the if-it-works dept.

First Person Shooters (Games) 184

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?

cancel ×
This is a preview of your comment

No Comment Title Entered

Anonymous Coward 1 minute ago

No Comment Entered

184 comments

Single Player... Vs Multi (0, Flamebait)

Buzz_Litebeer (539463) | more than 7 years ago | (#17712558)

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.

Re:Single Player... Vs Multi (4, Insightful)

MuChild (656741) | more than 7 years ago | (#17712652)

Yeah, but that will only be true until they get used to the new style. Ultimately, I bet it will produce a player that can fight in both styles equally well.

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.

Re:Single Player... Vs Multi (3, Insightful)

FormulaTroll (983794) | more than 7 years ago | (#17712736)

Don't be an ass. There are plenty of subpar online players as well, and undoubtedly plenty of people who excel at FPS but would rather not be bothered by the hacks and cheats and immature behavior that flourishes in so many of the multiplayer venues, so confine most of their playtime to the single-player games and/or maps.

Re:Single Player... Vs Multi (2, Insightful)

Thraxen (455388) | more than 7 years ago | (#17712806)

You do realize that there are many of us that play both, right? I always complete the single player campaigns in any FPS as well as participate in multiplayer.

that is why... (1)

wickedsteve (729684) | more than 7 years ago | (#17713104)

..."they're beefed up, heavily armored, and heavily armed."

Re:that is why... (3, Interesting)

Buzz_Litebeer (539463) | more than 7 years ago | (#17714492)

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.

Re:Single Player... Vs Multi (1)

tedgyz (515156) | more than 7 years ago | (#17714196)

That is an over-generalization. I play single player campaigns AND multiplayer. I don't kick ass in all MP games, but I am very respectable in some.

I'm going with Flop... (3, Insightful)

le0p (932717) | more than 7 years ago | (#17712580)

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...

Re:I'm going with Flop... (4, Insightful)

shadowcabbit (466253) | more than 7 years ago | (#17712670)

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?

Re:I'm going with Flop... (2, Insightful)

Kelbear (870538) | more than 7 years ago | (#17714460)

The skill matching mechanism better be top notch. It will suffice to say that I am good at FPS games. I would have a blast as the Elite. But god save the poor bastard who has me spawn into their story-game. They will be tea-bagged to hell and back for hours. *Ahem* /could be/ I mean. I would never do something so crass, and I certainly wouldn't repeat such an action until the victim becomes fed up and quits the game forever in frustrated anger.

But it is indeed a valid possibility that these developers may want to take into consideration.

Re:I'm going with Flop... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17712850)

I have to agree. It sounds good in theory, however as stated if they wanted to play against other players they would play online. This would be more of the game for hard core FPS players who find single player too easy and want a challenge more than a game for the average player who plays single player mode to avoid getting killed 100 times a minute in a multiplayer mode.

Re:I'm going with Flop... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17713140)

Easy fix: when playing single-player, you don't see the names of your opponents, nor can they send you comments, etc. Holy shit, I should be in game development.

Like Roleplaying... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17714844)

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.

Re:I'm going with Flop... (1)

Kelbear (870538) | more than 7 years ago | (#17714996)

Also, hearing: "Oh YEAH baby! dese nuts in yo MAYYOOUUUTTHHH!!! UNF! UNF! UNF!" from the enemy ninja-assasins might break the atmosphere of a singleplayer storyline pretty quickly.

Balance for profit. (4, Funny)

Remus Shepherd (32833) | more than 7 years ago | (#17712608)

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.

Re:Balance for profit. (2, Insightful)

drinkypoo (153816) | more than 7 years ago | (#17712796)

One player -- who probably is not a die-hard PvPer -- against a swarm of PvP-savvy opponents?

But the experienced players are going to be playing the single player's gimpy opponents. Presumably they will be handicapped somehow according to difficulty.

Griefers & ratings system (3, Insightful)

PIPBoy3000 (619296) | more than 7 years ago | (#17712802)

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.

Re:Griefers & ratings system (1)

Psiven (302490) | more than 7 years ago | (#17713476)

If you were running the server can't you just kick and ban ther griefer? Mani's admin mod makes it easy to do this.

Re:Griefers & ratings system (1)

Thorizdin (456032) | more than 7 years ago | (#17713692)

The griefer specter regularly gets raised in these kinds of discussions, but my first question to you is more practical. Do you really let a child that's too young to read play FPS games? While there might be some that aren't rated Teen, I doubt the the under teenage market is really what the the developers are after. ;)

Re:Griefers & ratings system (1)

glebfrank (58922) | more than 7 years ago | (#17713928)

Are you also too young to read? The GP stated clearly the kid was playing soccer.

Re:Griefers & ratings system (1)

Thorizdin (456032) | more than 7 years ago | (#17714162)

As an example of why this kind of thing might be cause for concern in an FPS, which is what the entire discussion is about. Perhaps you might want to re-read the OP or perhaps try ginkoba, I hear it does wonders for those with wandering mental focus. ;)

Re:Griefers & ratings system (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17714520)

He never said such a game was going to be played by his kid either.

Other players (1)

PIPBoy3000 (619296) | more than 7 years ago | (#17714574)

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.

Re:Griefers & ratings system (2, Informative)

gumpish (682245) | more than 7 years ago | (#17715012)

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.
That seems like a reality-altering lesson to learn - that there are people who derive enjoyment from inflicting suffering on others. Griefers are just one notch above serial killers. Sadism should be a punishable thoughtcrime.

Re:Balance for profit. (2, Informative)

flitty (981864) | more than 7 years ago | (#17714020)

This idea is no different from the PVP quests in WOW (on a PVP server) rather than running in and killing a bunch of "stupid" creatures to capture a point, they leave it up to the other side to defend the point. Sometimes, it's rediculous (30 oppostion camping lower level areas), and sometimes there are no other players defending. I think that if this game is beta tested enough (make sure balance exists, safegaurds against griefing, etc.) it could be a great game. All depends on the publisher.

Sounds awesome in theory (0, Redundant)

master_kaos (1027308) | more than 7 years ago | (#17712612)

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.

How would you balance for skill? (3, Insightful)

sinij (911942) | more than 7 years ago | (#17712646)

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.

Re:How would you balance for skill? (2, Insightful)

Thraxen (455388) | more than 7 years ago | (#17712942)

I think it's a safe assumption that the game will be playable offline as well. So I'd have to assume that most people who just want to play through the story will have that option. So you will likely have people purposely taking on the additional challenge of human controlled enemies in the story mode. Thus, it wouldn't surprise me to see a fair number of the skirmishers getting their asses handed to them because, due to opinions like yours, they thought they were going to have some easy prey to take down. I agree with a comment someone else made... I think you will have people who want to prove themselves in a 1 vs everyone challenge playing the single player.

Ugh (5, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17712658)

I'm really looking forward to being spawn-camped in single player.

Hmmm... (3, Funny)

kitsunewarlock (971818) | more than 7 years ago | (#17712660)

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".

Its been done before (2, Interesting)

simm1701 (835424) | more than 7 years ago | (#17712668)

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!!

Re:Its been done before (4, Interesting)

Chris Burke (6130) | more than 7 years ago | (#17712858)

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.

Re:Its been done before (0, Troll)

Osurak (1013927) | more than 7 years ago | (#17713706)

$_="Slashdotter";$syn="OTT";s=^..==;sub _{print shift||$_};s!ash!Perl !i;s=$syn=ack=i;tr-d-H-;_"Just Another ";_ fixed

Re:Its been done before (1)

simm1701 (835424) | more than 7 years ago | (#17714916)

Thankyou - my own fault for vanity - I had decided after the fact that the ott looked better in uppercase for the well known acronym - forgot to fix the regex in the process

Can you say... (3, Interesting)

PieSquared (867490) | more than 7 years ago | (#17712678)

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.

Re:Can you say... (4, Insightful)

somersault (912633) | more than 7 years ago | (#17712840)

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.

Re:Can you say... (4, Insightful)

PingSpike (947548) | more than 7 years ago | (#17713134)

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.

Re:Can you say... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17714654)

>And why shouldn't the players work together? ...

reading the above post and I had to wonder, will the AIs that take the place of the baddies when no human plays are around be even upto par or will they be brain dead as no time or effort would have been spent on it?

On a side note, this whole idea reminds me of a old quake TF map of protecting the VIP/president from asasins. (the TF before the crappy HL TF:Original)

one person has no attack, a few assins and the rest body guards. works well on a reasonablly filled map, but having 4 people was a joke. even worse if the VIP was a noob/ 12 y'o that kept getting killed for going outside their allowed area.

Ain't that good? (2, Insightful)

Wooky_linuxer (685371) | more than 7 years ago | (#17713408)

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).

Re:Ain't that good? (4, Funny)

GeckoX (259575) | more than 7 years ago | (#17713688)

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!

Re:Can you say... (3, Insightful)

Harlequin (11000) | more than 7 years ago | (#17713760)

There are ways to mitigate the ambush factor. For example, confine opponents to certain areas (that are smaller than the levels). Allow all the NPCs in each area to congregate (I mean, that's a strategy they should employ). I think some sort of real time balance system would also be helpful. Maybe make the NPCs weaker the higher the percentage of real humans there are. Maybe balance the levels assuming all NPCs will be human controlled and add extra computer bots if there aren't enough humans playing. Maybe use some sort of skill ranking for people who control the NPCs and have that determine how many NPCs there are on a level (or which types of NPCs they can control... as you play the NPCs more, you can become bigger and badder creatures).

What seems key in this type of game is getting people to actually sign up to play as an NPC. I think they should offer a free client that lets anyone play as an NPC while only people buying the game can be the hero. They could limit the power or level of NPCs used with the free client to lure people into buying the full game.

Re:Can you say... (1)

PingSpike (947548) | more than 7 years ago | (#17714304)

I actually wanted to play the NPC, mainly because I always played a dedicated defenseman in CTF style games and enjoy working with a teammate. You can't take away the things that make being the NPC enjoyable and then expect that giving the client away for free will get them to play it. Just because a game is free, doesn't mean people are going to want to spend their time playing it when its not any fun.

They just need to design the levels and balance properly. Make so that if all the characters huddle up in one room, they leave several other vital entrances open. The trouble with this is it tosses regular singleplayer aside. I remember thinking it would be fun if the game thief had a multiplayer mode that had humans playing the guards. (There's actually a UT mod that does just that) But the trouble is, a human representing the AI guards in that game would never completely work. Those humans would expect there to be a thief around. And they would know what he was after. You'd have to change the gameplay to work with this. (For the record, I don't know if that mod was any fun...I couldn't find any populated servers when I tried it)

Re:Can you say... (1)

Odin_Tiger (585113) | more than 7 years ago | (#17715168)

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...

How much PvP FPS'ing have you done? Because to me, that plan sounds a lot like, "Ok everybody, what we're going to do is all cluster together in one big clump at a bottleneck. That way, the other team won't have to worry about running low on 'nades, because they'll be able to pick us all off in one go, and they won't have to fear getting shot, since they can lob the 'nade into the bottleneck and then duck back into cover. So who's with me?"

Duel-Coop (2, Interesting)

IMarvinTPA (104941) | more than 7 years ago | (#17712694)

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

Re:Duel-Coop (2, Informative)

xenocide2 (231786) | more than 7 years ago | (#17713888)

I don't know what it's doing on a site called "unrealnation", but there is a mirror [unrealnation.com] , I think.

Re:Duel-Coop (1)

IMarvinTPA (104941) | more than 7 years ago | (#17714630)

That's me!
Good job!

This was before I got my bigfoot e-mail address apparently.

Sadly, the mod didn't get particularly popular. But it was a fun experiment.

IMarv

I had an idea for this type of game (4, Interesting)

Some_Llama (763766) | more than 7 years ago | (#17712698)

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..

Re:I had an idea for this type of game (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17713232)

Re:I had an idea for this type of game (1)

Some_Llama (763766) | more than 7 years ago | (#17713982)

Yeah, that's the basic premise, didn't know about this mod previously, thanks for the link.

Re:I had an idea for this type of game (1)

vaderhelmet (591186) | more than 7 years ago | (#17714718)

A similar idea is part of a multiplayer gametype in Perfect Dark Zero (Xbox 360) and is just about the only cool part of the game. But yeah, it's ideas like that that make gaming more fun. All too often unique ideas are considered too "new" to implement on a full scale. A sad fact in today's gaming industry. Which is why I give props to Valve for hir^H^H^Hbuying a team of college students for the game Portal. Of course it's a tiny side piece of the new Half-Life episode, but it's more mainstream than most ideas in its genre.

Re:I had an idea for this type of game (1)

Lehk228 (705449) | more than 7 years ago | (#17713386)

not entirely the same, but http://www.urbandead.com/ [urbandead.com] allows you to play as a zombie or human, zombies just spend action points to get up, while humans turn into zombies and have to be revivified with a syringe by another human player.

dedicated zombie players can get the ability "brain rot" to eliminate the chance of being revivified against their will except in certain buildings when a generator is running.

Re:I had an idea for this type of game (1)

Ricken (797341) | more than 7 years ago | (#17713698)

That's a really superb idea! I would really _love_ to play that kind of a game with a bunch of friends, I can picture myself Far Cry-ish environment and freedom with your idea and it would be more fun than almost anything!

You should seriously consider sending your idea to some of the great developers out there. No wait, you _must_ do it.

Re:I had an idea for this type of game (3, Interesting)

CAIMLAS (41445) | more than 7 years ago | (#17714084)

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.

Re:I had an idea for this type of game (1)

PingSpike (947548) | more than 7 years ago | (#17714424)

I've played zombie mod (and still do) but its horribly flawed for a number of reasons. First of all, its not a traditional zombie kind of game. The zombies are fast, virtually unkillable and are played by smart humans. The result is somewhat interesting, but it doesn't really follow the concept of a zombie infestation game. I don't think you can make a game where being the zombie is all that fun. I mean, it sucks being a slow stupid zombie. But thats what AI is for.

I encourage you to check out Killing Floor, a mod for UT2004. The game isn't perfect and its a bit of a chore to find and join a server, but it can be a hell of a lot of fun. Its the closest thing to what I was looking for in a zombie game. The zombies are mostly slow and pretty tough, but there's different types. There's nothing quite like being backed up to an elevator door, loading one shell into your shotgun before firing it because they've gotten so close...praying that the elevator gets there soon and that its not full of more of them! I had some tense rounds in that game.

Re:I had an idea for this type of game (1)

crabpeople (720852) | more than 7 years ago | (#17713954)

The exact game you are looking for exsists as a mod for halflife 2. The maps are prefixed with ZM_ for zombie mod. One person starts off as the zombie and has to knife other people, who then become zombies. The goal is to get to a high unknifeable place and defend it till the time runs out or all the zombies are dead. Alot of the maps are crap, but Ive almost jumped out of my chair a few times when you turn around and theirs a zombie thats been silently following you for who knows how long.

Depends (2, Insightful)

bogie (31020) | more than 7 years ago | (#17712714)

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.

Re:Depends (1)

JFMulder (59706) | more than 7 years ago | (#17713900)

Given there's already agamer rating system on Xbox Live, this would seem like the perfect solution to your problem.

Asymetric multiplayer (1)

Chris Burke (6130) | more than 7 years ago | (#17712774)

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.

North vs. South (1)

Jad LaFields (607990) | more than 7 years ago | (#17713192)

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.

Perfect Dark (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17712828)

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.

Re:Perfect Dark (1)

Vampyre_Dark (630787) | more than 7 years ago | (#17713184)

I enjoyed that mode. I guess if you found it boring, you didn't put as much into it? I can imagine deathmatch not being much fun either with a group of sluggish players who all found it boring.

over-elaborate? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17712848)

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...

Depends on the level of the skirmishers (1)

xTMFWahoo (470364) | more than 7 years ago | (#17712862)

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.

The flip side (2, Interesting)

Sefert (723060) | more than 7 years ago | (#17712886)

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.

Re:The flip side (1)

pionzypher (886253) | more than 7 years ago | (#17713628)

This is a game where if the hero is exceptionally good or except crappy, it's gonna suck.

As opposed to now? I've friends who only play online because the ai is sufficiently sucky that they beat the game in no time. Yet my brother or father suck so bad that they usually give up on fps games relatively quickly.

I agree that this idea has a stink of probable failure, but it could be a boon for those who are tired of lame ai but want to play a good storyline mode fps.

Re:The flip side (1)

jandrese (485) | more than 7 years ago | (#17713726)

Everybody is worried that the opposition is going to be filled with elite PvP players just looking to gank n00bs, but I suspect the opposite will happen a lot. There will be plenty of players with no idea what they're going playing the grunts and you'll see the grunts shooting their buddies and falling off of cliffs a lot.

Re:The flip side (1)

und0 (928711) | more than 7 years ago | (#17714930)

In "Metal Gear Solid: Subsistence" you have the sneaking mission: one plays Snake and the others seven try to stop him. The seven are quite weak individually, if they are in a smaller number, they are progressively stronger. Who kills Snake will be the next hero. It's usually fun, until you find ladder climber...

Balance issues (1)

CheechWizz (886957) | more than 7 years ago | (#17712998)

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.

Everquest tried it briefly (5, Insightful)

nahdude812 (88157) | more than 7 years ago | (#17713024)

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).

Re:Everquest tried it briefly (4, Interesting)

LoudMusic (199347) | more than 7 years ago | (#17713296)

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.

Re:Everquest tried it briefly (1)

Ponzicar (861589) | more than 7 years ago | (#17713676)

You're forgetting two other things that happened. People also decided to help players (giving them a human controlled pet)or attack other monsters.

Re:Everquest tried it briefly (1)

bill_kress (99356) | more than 7 years ago | (#17713768)

Sorry, but your post didn't sound very imaginative--more likely is that EQ's attempt wasn't very imaginative. They probably just stuck players in the parts of existing monsters which, as you pointed out, won't work (Especially in a RPG like EQ--a FPS would be a better target)

You would, of course, have to restrict monsters to a certain area, and you'd have to remove the AI "Buffs".

You'd have to change the rules quite a bit for monsters...

Perhaps you could only move to a harder area by defeating a set number of players. This would give you a goal at least.

I'm sure monsters would come up with better techniques like luring and surrounding PCs, taking better advantage of land layout and fixed gun emplacements (The monsters have time to prepare, a PC comes onto the scene without any locational advantage). Monsters could sacrifice themselves deliberately when (and only when) it would place the player at a disadvantage.

Perhaps each player-monster could control a team, allowing the player to kill more monsters than there are human enemies.

Monsters could be more RTS--building and maintaining buildings to manufacture and upgrade monsters.

Many games make a level easier after you have failed it a couple times--the challenge in this game would automatically vary randomly.

I dunno, there are bugs to work out but it's nowhere near as bad as you describe.

Asymmetric goals. (1)

not-enough-info (526586) | more than 7 years ago | (#17713816)

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.

Auto-Nerf (1)

way2trivial (601132) | more than 7 years ago | (#17713968)

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.

Re:Everquest tried it briefly (3, Informative)

Artaxs (1002024) | more than 7 years ago | (#17714062)

You can already play an overmatched pitched FPS battle in America's Army. One of the Special Forces maps -- "Assault". Side A has 24 players armed with only a smoke grenade and an M4 with no scope, while side B is just 6 players, but they are given AR-249 "saw" machineguns and 6 boxes of ammo. Side A has to parachute into the battlefield, and side B gets a bunker to hide out in. Of course, AA is a more "realistic" FPS game where one shot to the noggin or two/three bullets anywhere kills you (or you can bleed to death from a single gut wound) so it still boils down to tactics and reflexes. This new game sounds like it's more suited to the HALO kids with the "heavily armored" quotes and the like. Off-topic, I've often wondered why the Army didn't make the soldiers more durable in their game. It's way too easy to die to be an effective recruiting tool. ;)

Re:Everquest tried it briefly (1)

BecomingLumberg (949374) | more than 7 years ago | (#17714856)

Actually, I saw a special on this (on either MoJo or INHD) about a month ago. Enlists are encouraged to play the game, quite a bit. The idea is to have current enlists interacting with the general population, promoting the benefits of Army life [don't read politics into that statement, I am representing the Army's desires...]. According to the show, it has been quite effective for them.

Re:Everquest tried it briefly (1)

baalz (458046) | more than 7 years ago | (#17715030)

Well, seems like pretty much all those problems can be solved by having a well designed (yeah, I know that's the hard part ;) ) cross game for the "monsters" to be playing. You don't want the "monsters" to be sitting around waiting for the "real" players to show up so that they can "play their role". You want to have the "monsters" engaging in their own game, which the "player" has to thwart in order to meet his own goals. Just as an example of what I'm talking about, imagine you've got a game of capture the flag going on, and then a "meta-player" shows up with uber equipment who's task is to grab both flags at once. He's got uber equipment but he never respawns so if you can kill him he'll be gone at which point you want to still be in a position of advantage over the other team, but if he does get both flags at once the game is over so you'll want to work together to a certain degree with the other team. That's just a (probably crappy) idea off the top of my head, but it illustrates what I'm talking about. If you want an idea like this to work, you have to basically have two different games going on, just expecting some people to sit around and play an AI role is indeed doomed to failure.

Irritating (1)

Tainek (912325) | more than 7 years ago | (#17713076)

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

Re:Irritating (1)

magicchex (898936) | more than 7 years ago | (#17714352)

I imagine that if you were killed while playing "NPC", you'd be respawned and get to attack again. The number and locations of respawns would be dependent on the specific level.

"The Diamond Age" Ractives (1)

Dunx (23729) | more than 7 years ago | (#17713098)

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.

Man on a mission (1)

nuggz (69912) | more than 7 years ago | (#17713158)

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.

Jedi Master Mode (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17713168)

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.

Flop (1)

shoptroll (544006) | more than 7 years ago | (#17713188)

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.

Ranking system? (1)

ksm2552 (958809) | more than 7 years ago | (#17713226)

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.

Re:Ranking system? (1)

bcmm (768152) | more than 7 years ago | (#17713608)

Alternatively, NPC skill could be unpredictable. That would also be realism.

Don't hate the PKs, give them what they want (4, Interesting)

Squiggle (8721) | more than 7 years ago | (#17713240)

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.

Re:Don't hate the PKs, give them what they want (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17714780)

PK's are fags, end of story.

Re:Don't hate the PKs, give them what they want (2, Interesting)

Kelbear (870538) | more than 7 years ago | (#17714918)

You may or may not(probably not) have heard of Natural Selection. A HL1 mod. This pitted teams of Marines against teams of Aliens. The marines begin with rifles, while Aliens begin with teeth and the ability to walk on walls and ceilings. When playing in the RTS/FPS hybrid mode where a commander builds a base and commands players like units in an RTS, the players received all upgrades, armor, ammo, and weaponry from the commander, or would otherwise begin equipped with just the basic equipment. Aliens have no commander, but receive points for killing marines and structures in order to evolve to higher lifeforms.

What would happen is that Aliens spend most of the game as the fragile but damaging Skulk, but then they may encounter a marine that the commander stacked resources on, and is now decked out in Heavy Armor, and a Heavy Machine gun. And it would take the entire team zerging that one marine only to get blown away countless times before finally whittling him down.

And who gets the credit? The one who killed the marine. That's not very satisfying for the other 7 or so aliens who helped you bring the super-powered marine down. And it wasn't all that fun to run into inevitable doom, knowing that you'll die, but just hoping to wound the enemy just enough to get them several ambushes down the line. It involved a lot of waiting to respawn and a lot of just running. A chore to get strangers to work with you on ambushes instead of just charging in and giving away everyone's position.

This is just one rare situation in that game, and is NOT representative of Natural Selection as a whole. But when this occurs, I think it parallels the idea of a single uber-player up against a horde of weak "NPC" players. It's not very fun for the "NPC" players who get reamed by such odds, and kill credit is only given to one NPC.

I think you've got the griefer role reversed (1)

jchenx (267053) | more than 7 years ago | (#17715082)

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).
I don't think you quite understand the mentality of your average griefer. It's not that they like having more power, or enjoy beating up on people. Rather, they get joy out of causing grief to others. In team games, that can mean being a total ass and team-killing, or causing havoc and preventing your team from doing well, etc.

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. :P

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.

Could work if it's not an open system (1)

Viperion (569692) | more than 7 years ago | (#17713372)

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.

This is old (1)

CODiNE (27417) | more than 7 years ago | (#17713960)

Perfect Dark... year : 2000.

Re:This is old (1)

steveo777 (183629) | more than 7 years ago | (#17714286)

That's exactly what I was thinking. We played that game a lot. Eventually I got so good at it that my roommates would no long play with me. So we started doing multiplayer vs. main. This mode was a lot of fun because we could put it on any difficulty and my roommates wouldn't get so angry when they could kill me quicker and join up against me. They got lots of respawns, I got none.

I had this idea a few years ago... (2, Interesting)

Samurai Cat! (15315) | more than 7 years ago | (#17714080)

...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.

Madden has this also (1)

the computer guy nex (916959) | more than 7 years ago | (#17714288)

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.

here's an idea (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17714292)

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.

Counter-Strike (1)

Enderandrew (866215) | more than 7 years ago | (#17714546)

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.

RTS? (2, Insightful)

MindStalker (22827) | more than 7 years ago | (#17714762)

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.
Load More 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>
Sign up for Slashdot Newsletters
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...