Phoenix Arrow said:
Good morning blues said:
Seriously? But FPS games these days are all so similar - they're almost all extremely linear, and they almost always take place is restricted quarters. I think that the success of CryTek's games should be evidence that there's a lot of space for innovation in the FPS genre.
I don't mean all of them are dramatically built space marines, I mean with these sorts of games there is a relatively small scope for ideas. I mean, where's the line between a shooter and an adventure game with guns like say Tomb Raider? Generally, a shooter can be too wacky either or it will just be labelled a joke game or a novelty by the die hard fans of the genre. Therefore, there must be a limit on how far you an stray from the norm in these games before they blend into a different type of game.
Might sound a bit jumbled but it is 3am so cut me some slack.
And I don't think that's a bad thing. Fanboys are going to be pissed off no matter what a developer does. There were actually people who threatened to boycott the Orange Box because Valve changed the look of the Hunter after making the trailer that shows up at the end of Episode One. I think if a game is good and people get exposed to it, it will succeed; gamers don't need to be divided along genre lines.
RebelRising said:
fix-the-spade said:
easy enough: Larger scale.
I realise that there are technical problems with this. But I want massively multiplayer to cover more things than role playing games.
The two extremes I can think of are a Gran turismo style endurance race, but with a full 48 car grid, each with two or three drivers who have to swap in and out at the pit stops, much like real endurance racing Giving a 144 player racing game.
The other place it could really work is FPS games. Imagine joining a server with a Far Cry 2 or Fallout 3 sized map, populated by a thousand or so humans. granted it would need set factions and some way of getting the battle scaled down. such as giving different units specific objectives, which could change as other members of your team either succeed or fail to complete theirs. Not to mention a way of dealing with team killers (give them their own faction maybe).
I find the idea of epic, unscripted battles lasting several hours quite appealing.
I want something like what you said. Call of Duty 4 laid out a good foundation for this; so now if it could have the sort of GTA-type freedom, it could quite honestly be fantastic. A life-sized city with every door openable, every vehicle controllable and every rooftop available.
My main gripe with CoD 4 multiplayer is the fact that, while there were some good spots for sniping, you always had a lot of space to cover, but were very vulnerable as being a still-moving, stationary target. In a multiplayer game, every skyscraper and cellar should be playable.
Actually, this is one of the reasons that I could never really get into the Battlefield games: the maps were gigantic, but there were only up to 64 players. A few times, I crashed my car, and had to choose between committing suicide and trudging across open land for 10 minutes without seeing an single other player. We've all also seen this problem in multiplayer games where you can't respawn (and the game instead functions in 'rounds'); there will only be one player left on each team, but the map is too big, so they're both running around looking for each other, and they can't find anyone to fight.
Basically, if you're going to have multiplayer maps with lots of nooks and crannies, you need to have a lot of players, or else nobody is ever going to see anybody. We don't really have the technology to deal with that sort of thing right now.
