Hybrid Multiplayer Mess

[Doomcat]

Really, people keep saying Zombie master, but while that was a decent concept and i had fun for a while, the survivors were WAY too strong, or the zombies had WAAAY too good positioning at points in maps, for it to be of any consequence...so anyway.

He was talking of a game where its one on one...and really, this idea sounds AWESOME to me, a one on one game of surviving human versus...whatever it is (zombies are cool, but you might want something more versitile...)

It was mentioned you have settings, medieval dungeon...sci-fi spaceship...alternate plane of existance...hell, these are all things you could do, with varying monsters and weapons available to both players.

Say you're in a medieval setting, lets say the player is playing a jack-of-all-trades type fighter, thus he can use weapons like: Swords, Bows, Crossbows, Flails, Axes, maybe a flintlock pistol depending on how "medieval" we're talking, and magic. and the enemies could be something like: Knights, Wizards, Assassins, Pirates, Zombies, Vampires, and Dragons, hell look in a 3.5 Dungeons and Dragons rulebook at random, you should come up with SOMETHING interesting.

and of course, in a sci-fi spacecraft you would have different weapons, and enemies to fight. maybe you want something more survival-horror like, but...if you gave the player the right lightings and settings, you wouldn't be too bad off.

this would be awesome in my book

 

[MrGalactus]

Brink is based around this whole idea.

 

[DanDeFool]

Dammit Yahtzee, this already exists. It's called Battleswarm.

http://www.battleswarm.net/game/

 

[Anacortian]

How about this? Take Dungeon Keeper, but let the heroes be playable. Add an LFG mechanic to help move things along. Let the hero characters be upgradable and customizable. I could see people getting into such a game for either solely the hero or solely the dungeon side of things. I would try both, because I honestly cannot tell you which experience I would prefer more in such a game. I could, however, tell you I would thoroughly enjoy either.

 

[Slinker07]

There is acutally a mod to half-life 2 called Zombie master that made was a mix of rts and... "zombie survial FPS"? One guy had an rts view over the whole map and dropped zombies of diffrent kinds at special locations. And the other players tried to survive and complete diffrent tasks given on the map. It was actually really fun, and the whole rts part worked well, I even preferd playing that part. Was really rewarding to outsmart all the other players and watch them die. But L4D sort of killed the whole thing. Doubt there is many servers left playing it.

 

[Eiv]

Dammit Yahtzee, this already exists. It's called Battleswarm.

http://www.battleswarm.net/game/

yup, the sypnosis to the game says it all "Battleswarm: Field of Honor is a breakthrough new Combat Strategy game that pits First-Person Shooters against Real-Time Strategists in epic online battles."

good find

 

[UberMore]

While the idea is sound, all you'd have to do is drop everything you've got round the first corner, wait and then flood the player.
Then again, that's just from a basic point of view. With time and money, and a lot of rush-filters, this game would be excellent!

 

[duchaked]

NO WAY
Nolan North would be voicing the whacky main character, DUH!

lol but I'm interested in a campaign/multiplayer cross
if I'm done and bored with the single player, I can hop into someone's game (if it's open) and try to screw with them...that does sound really fun

essentially like in L4D if I got to control one of the zombies (from the lowest to the highest)...which it sorta had??
but zombies done carry guns

 

[Preston_r]

I'd just like to chime in with the "I'd play that game good sir, why, I would even pay with it with some sort of currency. That sounds like a jolly good game."

 

[SL33TBL1ND]

There's another hybrid game: The Nolan North Career Simulator.
You do QTEs to make your copy of Nolan North say the right one-liners, and then the console prints out a paycheck at the end of the session.

Spoiler: Bonus points if you make Nolan speak to Nolan.

 

[KrazyKain]

this game already exists, its a mod for halflife called zombie master... sure its not single player but it has a coop fps team and one RTS dude controlling all the zombies in more or less the exact way described here.

oh if you don't necessarily want survival horror, there is also iron grip: the opression

 

[Vault101]

I dont quite get what yahtzee was saying about motion capture, does EVERY game use it? because I never found it noticible except for Mass effect

 

[Dectilon]

"...and with Brutal Legend, RTS and literally anything else."

Brutal Legend was a great RTS/Flight Sim/Hockey/Turn-based RPG.

Demon's Souls did the single player/multi player-hybridization well though. For instance, having a boss be the summoned soul of a dead player is a pretty awesome idea.

 

[Grouchy Imp_v1legacy]

So the basic proposal at the end there was for a Space Crusade/Space Hulk type of game? Well I suppose a modern reboot couldn't hurt...

Overall though I'm not a fan of crossover/hybrid games, simply because they tend not to include enough of a genre to satisfy the fans of the genres involved. An RPG/FPS game (lets say Fallout 3) doesn't have enough RPG elements to cater to the RPG crowd, and the combat mechanics aren't tight enough to appease the diehard FPS gamer. Compromise just sells both sides of the arguement short.

Funny, cause Fallout sold a shit ton of copies. So, not sure that argument about appeasing genre fans is sound....It applies to you, but doesnt damage the community.

And yet a metric fucktonne of praise and money was heaped on it.

I think there's a flaw in your argument.

interesting. i find that the RPG elements of Fallout 3/NV are fairly deep and that the FPS elements were just tacked on. Really, most of your combat should be done using VATS and the only time to play it like a traditional FPS is when you're either saving your AP or you're out of AP. Aside from that, while the RPG elements may not have been as in depth or expansive as the hardest of the hard core RPG players wanted, I don't think anyone purchased either Fallout game (and there were a lot that bought one or both, myself included) that expected any sort of polished or top tier FPS experience.

I understand the point you're making, but I think perhaps Fallout was a poor example.

Right, for the sake of convenience I'll try and respond to these at the same time. I know I didn't go into the depth my example perhaps needed, so let's try and fix that now. I did not say F3 was in any way a bad game. What it did very well was appeal to a large audience by taking elements from popular gaming genres and fusing them together. This undoubtedly resulted in the mass appeal that contributed to its success, as most people who played the game found many features to their liking. Understand that I'm not bashing F3 for this, the gaming industry is, well, and industry these days and developers have to look for the largest return on their investments.

What I was trying to get across was the idea that if you make a game (for example) 40% RPG, 30% FPS and 30% Sandbox you will appeal to all of the demographics you cover, but will not give a 100% experience to any of them. So, to [user]draythefingerless[/user] and [user]InterAirplay[/user], this was what I was really driving at - the idea that whilst crossovers appeal to nearly everyone they very rarely fully satisfy anyone. To split a gaming experience even 90%/10% is to let one side or the other miss out on a 100% game.

@[user]Zom-B[/user], I find it interesting that you bring up FNV as well as F3. The FPS system in F3 was fairly rudimentary (kind of reinforcing my point about crossovers) but the system was vastly improved in FNV, especially as far as ADS aiming was concerned (a strength literally highlighted by Boone's companion perk). I agree with you that no-one buys a Fallout game looking for an FPS experience, but it is certainly possible to play it like one.

In closing then, people: I'm fully aware of the mass appeal of the crossover. By splitting the percentages of the experience over several genres developers ensure a game that most people will go crazy for and will literally fly off the shelves. But the very act of trying to cover all the bases means that no genre gets the attention it deserves. Yahtzee himself covered this in his AvP review where he accuses the developer of spreading themselves too thin (and certainly with AvP he was bang on the money). I picked F3 (and FNV now that [user]Zom-B[/user] brought it up) specifically because I enjoy it (them) as a gaming experience, but one (ones) I wished were just a little more focused. Of course, crossovers by their nature can never be focused, and I suppose that's my problem with them.

 

[Trolldor]

Yahtzee never played counter-operative on Perfect Dark I take it?
One player took control of Joanna, the other of the various fodder/npc enemies.
It worked quite well I think. I had a lot of fun with it.

Secondly, Yahtzee has essentially described "Zombie Master", a Source Mod where there are set environments the ZM can manipulate to trigger traps or spawn a horde, as well as spawn points where they can choose from a number of different types of zombies to spawn.
And all these is balanced and managed through a sort of 'resource' system.
Lovely birds-eye view too.
The humans work as a team, in first-person (shooter) mode, to achieve a number of various objectives and ultimately escape.

In fact there are a number of mods, including some for Starcraft II, that blend this sort of thing.
Would it work as a triple A title?
I think, yes, provided it had the support and development it needed.
Blizzard spent over a decade on Starcraft II, and how much money did they invest in it?
Maybe they might consider making an off-shoot game of Terran vs Zerg, with the Terrans being FPS and the Zerg being RTS controlled?

Edit: Also, Fallout wasn't an FPS. The contribution of 'player skill' to aiming was your ability to put the crosshair over your enemy. Burst firing didn't help, no recall to account for.
It was a first or third-person perspective, which is what a lot of people seem to COMPLETELY MISS. It was no more a FPS/RPG hybrid than it was a TPS/RPG hybrid.
It wasn't an "X-person shooter" hybrid at all. It was an RPG that allowed first and third person perspective.
The RPG elements were the entire core of combat and environment interaction.
Is Myst an FPS hybrid because it uses a first-person perspective too?

 

[draythefingerless]

So the basic proposal at the end there was for a Space Crusade/Space Hulk type of game? Well I suppose a modern reboot couldn't hurt...

Overall though I'm not a fan of crossover/hybrid games, simply because they tend not to include enough of a genre to satisfy the fans of the genres involved. An RPG/FPS game (lets say Fallout 3) doesn't have enough RPG elements to cater to the RPG crowd, and the combat mechanics aren't tight enough to appease the diehard FPS gamer. Compromise just sells both sides of the arguement short.

Funny, cause Fallout sold a shit ton of copies. So, not sure that argument about appeasing genre fans is sound....It applies to you, but doesnt damage the community.

And yet a metric fucktonne of praise and money was heaped on it.

I think there's a flaw in your argument.

interesting. i find that the RPG elements of Fallout 3/NV are fairly deep and that the FPS elements were just tacked on. Really, most of your combat should be done using VATS and the only time to play it like a traditional FPS is when you're either saving your AP or you're out of AP. Aside from that, while the RPG elements may not have been as in depth or expansive as the hardest of the hard core RPG players wanted, I don't think anyone purchased either Fallout game (and there were a lot that bought one or both, myself included) that expected any sort of polished or top tier FPS experience.

I understand the point you're making, but I think perhaps Fallout was a poor example.

Right, for the sake of convenience I'll try and respond to these at the same time. I know I didn't go into the depth my example perhaps needed, so let's try and fix that now. I did not say F3 was in any way a bad game. What it did very well was appeal to a large audience by taking elements from popular gaming genres and fusing them together. This undoubtedly resulted in the mass appeal that contributed to its success, as most people who played the game found many features to their liking. Understand that I'm not bashing F3 for this, the gaming industry is, well, and industry these days and developers have to look for the largest return on their investments.

What I was trying to get across was the idea that if you make a game (for example) 40% RPG, 30% FPS and 30% Sandbox you will appeal to all of the demographics you cover, but will not give a 100% experience to any of them. So, to [user]draythefingerless[/user] and [user]InterAirplay[/user], this was what I was really driving at - the idea that whilst crossovers appeal to nearly everyone they very rarely fully satisfy anyone. To split a gaming experience even 90%/10% is to let one side or the other miss out on a 100% game.

@[user]Zom-B[/user], I find it interesting that you bring up FNV as well as F3. The FPS system in F3 was fairly rudimentary (kind of reinforcing my point about crossovers) but the system was vastly improved in FNV, especially as far as ADS aiming was concerned (a strength literally highlighted by Boone's companion perk). I agree with you that no-one buys a Fallout game looking for an FPS experience, but it is certainly possible to play it like one.

In closing then, people: I'm fully aware of the mass appeal of the crossover. By splitting the percentages of the experience over several genres developers ensure a game that most people will go crazy for and will literally fly off the shelves. But the very act of trying to cover all the bases means that no genre gets the attention it deserves. Yahtzee himself covered this in his AvP review where he accuses the developer of spreading themselves too thin (and certainly with AvP he was bang on the money). I picked F3 (and FNV now that [user]Zom-B[/user] brought it up) specifically because I enjoy it (them) as a gaming experience, but one (ones) I wished were just a little more focused. Of course, crossovers by their nature can never be focused, and I suppose that's my problem with them.

Dont clinge yourself to Yahtzee so hard. And specially dont clinge yourself to labels such as FPS or RPG. Labels can ruin an experience. Look at what it does in the music industry. People will listen to genres or bands instead of listening to the musics themselves.

 

[Grouchy Imp_v1legacy]

>snip<

Dont clinge yourself to Yahtzee so hard. And specially dont clinge yourself to labels such as FPS or RPG. Labels can ruin an experience. Look at what it does in the music industry. People will listen to genres or bands instead of listening to the musics themselves.

But in any industry (music, gaming, literature etc) there need to be lines. Not labels, per se, but certainly definitions. Without defining characteristics to seperate out different forms and styles any medium is in danger of devolving into a samey morass as it absorbs all the individuality from its genres and works.

 

[Common Knowledge]

RTS and literally anything else.

Although they're rare there are games that do manage to blend RTS with another genre. The Horde springs to mind which was a PC game from the mid 90s in which the game was divided between fortifying a village and 3rd person hack and slash. I think Dungeon Keeper could almost be included as well since you spent most of the game in an overhead perspective but could also possess creatures and go off exploring.