Hybrid Multiplayer Mess

[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.

 

[lowkey_jotunn]

Oh, and while I'm thinking about it, this hybrid-concept is exactly what turned me off of the game we're currently whoring around here: Rift.

I played for a couple of weeks in the open beta. On several occasions, I'd be doing the standard MUMORPUGER thing of "kill 10 of these, collect 42 of those" only to come back to town and find it severely over-run with hostile NPCs, usually many many levels above me. All my quest NPCs were dead, I couldn't do a damn thing about it. The absolute nadir of the whole experience was when the NPCs started spawn camping. The enemy AI was literally standing in the graveyard insta-gibbing everyone as they tried to rez and flee for their pitiful lives. It all felt, as Yahtzee would say, like "a legitimized form of griefing." It feels like all the worst things about multiplayer are being forced into even the non-multi-player aspects of the game.

The part that bothered me the most, the game already HAS multiplayer. "World of Warcraft had a dual faction system, therefore everyone else has to." And lo Yahtzee's clairvoyance is truth, and thus Rift has a dual faction system. Admittedly I really didn't get deep enough into the game to know if the battlegrounds were any good (or if Rift had even bothered to change the name) but the presence of 2 factions along with servers marked "PvP" was a pretty good indication that if someone wants to get teabagged while they level, it's an option. And if they don't... HAHA TOO FUCKING BAD.

 

[vxicepickxv]

The balance of power idea between tradition heroes and traditional villains when both are being played by a player is tricky one. Some board games have done it well, like Descent: Journeys in the Dark [http://boardgamegeek.com/boardgame/17226/descent-journeys-in-the-dark] in which one player is the evil Overlord and up to four players are the heroes. It balances the four buffed-up heroes against the Overlord's fodder monsters quite well. (Does less well with fewer players, though, it's really optimized for a 5 player game.)

That's the most accurate game that I've seen that fits his description, but it's not the only one.

There are a couple of other games, well in particular modes for games, that could also fall into this category. Vampire The Masquerade:Redemption had a mode for multiplayer, featuring a single GM and up to 3 or 4 players. Neverwinter Nights had the DM mode, and could be used within specialty built in universes, creating unique stories. Of course, the games mentioned all have limitations, but people can figure their way around them.

 

[d45h]

So - a game where one player uses points to populate a randomly generated "Dungeon" with monsters, like for example, Dragons, against which players are pitted... Pray, what would we call such a game?

 

[Mr Binary]

That's an awesome idea for a game. You'd really have to think about where you move so you don't make the enemy stronger while at the same time you can't styay still for two long or the monsters will find you. That would be a tense and thrilling game to play!

 

[Janne36]

The game Yahtzee described is just like tabletop game called Space Hulk. I am shocked that no one has brought it up yet. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Space_Hulk

 

[irani_che]

RTS-ers and FPS-ers are pretty different animals when you get to hard-core levels, look at yahtzee.
any game that tries to put them in a battle like this begs for griefers

 

[MasterKirov]

No, I'm thinking more in terms of a game where the evil player drops baddies or groups of baddies RTS-style, with short-ish twenty minute matches, like some version of Left 4 Dead where a human player takes the place of the AI Director.

Y'know, there's actually a few little Indie mods like this. Case and point, Zombie Master (Requires Vanilla HL2)

http://www.zombiemaster.org/

 

[Kargathia]

The "insert MP into SP" thing actually has been done decently already, by Napoleon: Total War. Actual choice when you use the drop-in battle, combined with rather bad battle AI actually gave the game quite a bit more replay value.

Edit: that, and do people still remember Battlefield 2 for the Xbox/PS2? It let you swap between allied characters at will by targeting them and hitting the button. That concept is something that probably can be worked on, and possibly be made to also include an RTS overview.

 

[Zetsubou^-^]

that rts game sounds interesting... i know he said survival horror, that would probably mean limited healing for the lone survivor. what would be the survivors balance to that? much tougher than enemies wouldn't be very scary, so probably short lifespan on mobs. advantage in attack and speed would go to the survivor, so the enemy player would have to use various/mutiple mobs wisely and strategically.

the last thing would be game modes.the two i see working best would be a rush to the end, or a continuous fight. either could be timed to put pressure on both players.

 

[Cymen]

The game he suggests sounds like the Mod called Zombie-Master...
Check it out, it's pretty fun.

 

[ezeroast]

what ever happened to yahtzees game? The space one.

 

[lukness]

If you haven't heard about the indie game Spy Party currently in development it is kinda like what he's talking about. It's a one on one multiplayer game where one person is a spy in a party (obviously) having to do specific tasks while pretending to be in AI. The other player is a sniper who has one bullet to shoot the spy. Both players are playing such a different game that it feels like one player but you always a re aware that at the other end of that laser sight which ever end your on is a real person trying everything they can to be smarter than you are. It creates an an atmosphere of extreme paranoia for both players. The spy worrying about if that last move was to clunky or to direct. The sniper franticly searching for that one mistake and tricking himself into seeing it every where.

 

[Ravenkeeper]

Yahtzee's game idea rougly describes Space hulk (WH40k board game. that spawned a few rather unimpressive computer versions in the 90s)
But I always liked the concept, so I wouldn't mind seeing it as a fully fledged, competent computer game. =)

 

[nemchenk]

The game idea Yahtzee proposes is very close to Doom: the Boardgame, which itself is clearly influenced by Descent, Space Hulk, and others. Works very, very well as a boardgame, and I imagine with a similar "isometric" viewpoint as Alien Swarm it would work equally well as a video game.

And because the "overlord" in Doom gets points for monsters based on elapsed time rather than player movement, it creates a nice tension for the players -- stay put and heal up, knowing that every moment will make their further progress more difficult, or keep pushing forward and open new areas, getting closer to the finish without a pause for breath.