Hybrid Multiplayer Mess

[Uszi]

The idea wound hinge on your monster pawns having tactical advantages or disadvantages in some situations...

So, maybe there are leaping monsters that walk on walls which will be more effective in large rooms. Or maybe there are dudes who swing giant maces very slowly, and they are best positioned right around the corner, in in dark nooks/crannies.

Also, 1v1 sounds slightly boring to me. 1v4 or 1v5 sounds a lot more interesting. Especially if you did it where the group of players running through the labyrinth could choose between a number of different classes with different strengths and weaknesses.

I do really like the idea of the dungeon master type person being able to inhabit the body of a select monster. Might make for some interesting boss battles.

 

[FarmerMonkey]

Am I wrong, or does Yahtzee chastise Brutal Legend for mixing RTS/direct control, and then at the end of the article propose the same concept as one side of a new multiplayer game?

Or maybe his point was that half of Brutal Legend's single-player campaign was a standard action-adventure game that cut over to the aforementioned design.

I actually liked Brutal Legend a lot, and I'm not a metal guy. But I do think the pre-release demo was a HUGE bait-and-switch. I just happened to enjoy both facets of the game.

 

[Something Amyss]

Hybrid Multiplayer in Mindjack sounded like a really good idea.

Right up until people gave feedback.

I do think it could be done and I like the suggestions, so I'm hoping soon we see the first GOOD hybrid multiplayer title of this sort.

 

[zjspeed]

Valve experimented with a hybrid FPS and RTS for Team Fortress 2 very early in its development.



Team Fortress 2 was to be a modern war game, with a command hierarchy including a commander with a bird's-eye view of the battlefield, parachute drops over enemy territory, networked voice communication and numerous other innovations. ... Valve had quietly built "probably three to four different games" before settling on their final design.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Team_fortress_2#Origins

 

[MailOrderClone]

I've always thought that Mindjack had gotten the multiplayer backwards. Rather then going and making competitive multiplayer where-in players would barge into other players' games and grief them to kingdom come, the mode should have instead have been made a co-operative game, where-in players would break in and play as the sidekick character whats-her-face, or as any bystander that happens to be loitering around at that moment. It takes down the partner AI problems as well as the multiplayer issues all in one fell swoop.

Which is all water under the collapsed bridge that was the rest of the game.

 

[Mosop]

There is already a mod for Unreal Tournament 3 called the haunted that has a game mode very similar to the one described, if intrested you should check it out, http://forum.i3d.net/unreal-series/58012-ut-3-mod-haunted-v3-0-updated.html

 

[Chewster]

Don't know if this counts, but the original Perfect Dark did a decent job at their multiplayer/single player hybrid attempt, where people could play as the main girl, and the other person could play as all the weakling grunts, though one at a time.

Maybe it was the localization that made it work. I think that having a few people play a team of weak thugs (who will then take over an idle one when killed) would be a fun game to play with people you can actually see and yell at.

Can't remember if that was an option in Perfect Dark for more then one opponent or not or not, but the multiplayer in that game had so many decent options, it was mind-boggling.

 

[KraGeRzR]

Savage 2 A Tortured Soul is an example of a hybrid RTS/RPG that's incredibly fun to play and never gets boring.

It's also an MMO.

 

[Zom-B]

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.

I guess then I would counter with, what is a 100% sandbox game? What is 100% RPG? Even an FPS which we might think of as easy to define in terms of a percentage value might not be so easy to pigeonhole. Many FPS games incorporate a large open world as RPGs. Does this make them less FPS or RPG?

Further, a game like say, Black Ops, which is very definitely in the FPS genre has been criticized for linear level design and not having a lot of player choice involved, and I've heard that in fact you can practically let the single player campaign play itself, and yet this game and it's predecessors sold as many, if not more copies than either Fallout game.

I don't think genre blending has any real impact on game sales or popularity. I think what it comes down to is a quality product (despite some bugs, looking at you FNV) with a compelling world and visual look will often be a sales driver and most gamers won't care if it has gameplay elements from different genres.

 

[Grabbin Keelz]

I remember Perfect Dark for the N64 having a split-screen function where the second player would control a random enemy. It was funny because as the enemy, you had the option of taking a suicide pill. So I just kept jumping from enemy to enemy making them create mass suicide so my friend could freely roam the level.

 

[Trolldor]

For those talking about Zombie master, one thing you're missing is the whole idea of the ZM only gets points as the team advances.

That said, my version of the RTS vs. FPS idea is a Batman game. Batman plays FPS style (of course) hunting down the mooks and muggers of the RTS player as they attempt to collect resources so that he can complete his super-villain plot, which he has to balance out with recruiting more bad guys or building traps for Batman, etc. As the game progresses, Batman interrogates the badguys and bit by bit learns clues as to the villain's location, eventually leading to a final showdown where both players are FPS, but villain is hopelessly outmatched (of course) unless he's got a bunch of underlings with him which might give him a chance.

..what?
An FPS batman? Really?
Talk about horrid concept.

As for Zombie Master, no you get a regular stream of resources from the very beginning. It increases as the team advances, but you are always getting that stream.

 

[mikespoff]

now that's an interesting game idea.

I'm also not a fan of teh current-gen graphics. Not because they look bad - they're gorgeous. But there is so much focus on making things pretty for the box art and promotional screenshots that they forget how to make things fun, well written and creative.

I enjoyed Borderlands partly because of its retro step in graphics - they looked good, but still looked a bit cartoony. I think replicating that level of graphics would be easier for a low-budget developer. (also, it was great that you never found yourself lost in the dark in that game).

 

[mikespoff]

I'm looking forward to a Left4Dead kind of game that doesn't involve zombies. I like the idea of an AI director, and I think that L4D has taught Valve a lot about how to make it work (see Alien Swarm as another good example). But I don't like zombie games, so I'm looking forward to something in a nicer setting with a similar director.

 

[xFullmetalx]

MindJack.....his name is Jim and you hack rather than Jack......not sure where they were going with that. Once again, another entertaining Zero Punctuation.

 

[Grouchy Imp_v1legacy]

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.

I guess then I would counter with, what is a 100% sandbox game? What is 100% RPG? Even an FPS which we might think of as easy to define in terms of a percentage value might not be so easy to pigeonhole. Many FPS games incorporate a large open world as RPGs. Does this make them less FPS or RPG?

Further, a game like say, Black Ops, which is very definitely in the FPS genre has been criticized for linear level design and not having a lot of player choice involved, and I've heard that in fact you can practically let the single player campaign play itself, and yet this game and it's predecessors sold as many, if not more copies than either Fallout game.

I don't think genre blending has any real impact on game sales or popularity. I think what it comes down to is a quality product (despite some bugs, looking at you FNV) with a compelling world and visual look will often be a sales driver and most gamers won't care if it has gameplay elements from different genres.

And highlighted in your post is a very good example of the crossover/pureblood debate. Black Ops is as close to a 100% FPS as it is possible to get, and because it didn't contain crossover elements it took a lot of flak from the critics and much of the player community found fault with it due to a lack of this that or the other, but it still outsold most other games because it appealed to the purists. Fallout 3 was met with glowing praise from reviewers and the gaming community flocked to its mass appeal, but it put off a lot of Fallout 1&2 players because the RPG experience had become diluted, and one has to wonder (taking the success of the CoD series as a template) if Fallout 3 wouldn't have sold even better if it had stayed as a thoroughbred RPG.

Thing is I'm only shouting at the incoming tide here, crossovers are here to stay. All of the points you have highlighted are the very reasons why crossovers make for a more accessable gaming experience for a wider audience, and hence why they make much more commercial sense than thoroughbred games. I agree that crossovers make sense, I guess I'm just a grumpy purist at heart!

 

[Luke Cartner]

Its strange to hear all the efforts taken to get certain games to the triple a 'big boys table' because more and more I find myself avoiding triple a games. As I have found that they are much like the popular girls in highschool (ok maybe its changed since I've been there but I doubt it) that is pretty but dumb, boring and a little bit slutty.

My point is the fun interesting games like minecraft, torchlight, zenoclash, din's curse and others dont have triple A rated graphics and usually they seem to be better games for it.

Maybe triple a developers need to put away the expensive motion capture equipment and start creating fun games again, rather than 8 hour interactive movies..

 

[Zom-B]

And highlighted in your post is a very good example of the crossover/pureblood debate. Black Ops is as close to a 100% FPS as it is possible to get, and because it didn't contain crossover elements it took a lot of flak from the critics and much of the player community found fault with it due to a lack of this that or the other, but it still outsold most other games because it appealed to the purists. Fallout 3 was met with glowing praise from reviewers and the gaming community flocked to its mass appeal, but it put off a lot of Fallout 1&2 players because the RPG experience had become diluted, and one has to wonder (taking the success of the CoD series as a template) if Fallout 3 wouldn't have sold even better if it had stayed as a thoroughbred RPG.

I don't think there's really any way of knowing for sure, but I'd have to wonder if those fans of Fallout 1&2 who griped about 3 weren't just griping that the style of the game had changed. I played either 1 or 2 many moons ago, and from what I remember, the core RPG elements of the game still remain- experience points, perks, dialogue choices and even VATS is just an evolution of the combat system.

It's too bad though, in some ways. I think just because developers can make a game a certain way, like making Fallout 3 look like an FPS doesn't mean they should. I wrote in another thread about Alpha Protocol, an ambitious game that ultimately fails because it tries to be a Splinter Cell or MGS but Obsidian didn't have the money or the time or the team or a combination of some to pull it off. But if they had scaled down their ambition and designed the game like a tried and true isometric action/RPG game like a blend between Fallout 1/2, Diablo and Lara Croft and the Guardian of Light, it may have been a better game.

I think if Bethesda had kept Fallout 3 like it's predecessors they could have made a mind blowing game, taking current graphical capabilities and applying it to that old model. I guess it would be like, speaking of, if Diablo 3 finally came out looking like Fallout 3. The uproar would be deafening. Instead, Blizzard knows what their fans want and they want to give it to them, but they'll update the look and hopefully have a great game, while still keeping the style that people know and love.

Maybe we'll be lucky and some more developers will move forwards by looking back and give us some games that aren't played from 1st or 3rd person perspective.

 

[Bloodstain]

Looks like you didn't do your homework, Yahtzee. That exact game already exists.
It's a Source mod called Zombie Master.

 

[Roughgalaxy]

I would buy that game in a heartbeat.

Hear that, developers? I will buy this game.

I'm with Gonzo! I would buy that! BUY THAT!

 

[lowkey_jotunn]

In your discussion I see two distinct problems with at least one of them already solved in the article.

Problem 1: games today are expensive, bloated things that cost millions, and take years to make, so by the time any new or hybrid idea hits the mass populace, there's an insane investment already.

Solution: Indy games, per your last paragraph. Instead of skipping right to the big-production number with fireworks, ninjas and monkeys, why not release a small scale version for the iPhone, XBLA or some other cheap market. Put the ideas out there on the cheap, see what kind of reaction you get. Using the "Yahtzee Choose Your Own Survival Horror Adventure Game" game (henceforth YCYOSHAG)as an example, you could make it a single player game, that anyone can DL and play for a few bucks... but switches to multiplayer if someone else with an iphone has the game in range. At which point it acts exactly as you described. Blammo, you've made a single- and multi-player hybrid game. If it's the next "angry birds" you can ramp it up to full scale, complete with a physics engine and jiggle physics.

Extra Credits actually posed an interesting idea on this. Big name AAA-game-producing studios should have their own "indy branch." A small subset of developers that get minor sponsorship, and total creative freedom. It would serve the very purpose mentioned above.


Problem 2: The very concept that EVERY SINGLE game must be this over-weight thing, crushed under the checklist of "gritty? check. brown? check. realistic? check. etc" before it can be taken seriously.

Solution 2: 2 solutions for 2, actually. solution 2-1: Don't. Pretty simple, eh? Hang the "standard" requirements for a game and make something different. It's scary I know, but it can work. Mirror's Edge has been getting some pub lately (or rather, it's potential sequel) and while that game was far from perfect, it did at least prove that a complete deviation from the norm can be met with modest success. Solution 2-2 (in no way related to your current review of two-worlds-too, or to a tutu) Just wait a bit longer. We've already reached the point where graphics are as realistic as they feasibly need to be. I mean, sure, we could start animating each individual hair, but that's just silly. Current gen games on the PS or XBX are as real enough that by the time the next gen of consoles are released, creating rich textured environments with realistic physics engines and all the bells and whistles should be fairly easy.