Poll: Would a "World War" Game be Possible?

[Diceman]

See now, a while back on Cracked.com, someone suggested a game that could be, but probably never will, and dubbed it 'World War Omega'.

The concept was simple. It's a cross between COD and an MMORPG, and you have your character in modern day settings, in what is a literal world map. Namely, Earth's world map. Every country, every building etc. etc.
You can have countries surrender and have real time wars with thousands upon thousands of people in one giant PvP match using any weapon we have today.

The thing that's been bugging me is, is this really possible? Granted, a WORLD map, might be a tiny bit too big realistically. Hell, even WoW doesn't have a map THAT large (yet).
But WoW does have a huge map, and thousands of people on a single server. They have battles, raids and instances for various missions all run on separate things.

So what if it wasn't the entire world? What if it was, say, one state in the USA. Or England. You can have planes, trucks, tanks, cars, boats, bikes and anything else you feel like. And you're all armed with whatever.
Even if we set the logistics of how the game would actually work, how long it'd take to program everything and all that, do you think it's literally possible for a game like to exist? Just assume it's not a high-graphics game like most FPS's try to be, and more like average MMO's.

Would it take WoW's amount of servers to keep it running? More? Less?
Any other thoughts?

EDIT: I forgot to mention that Extra Credit happened to mention their thoughts on a possible MMOFPS. http://www.escapistmagazine.com/videos/view/extra-credits/1906-The-Future-of-MMOs

 

[RatRace123]

I don't think so, it sounds way too big, too many variables, that and even with MMO graphics or dated graphics shooters are more fastpaced and would be more prone to slowdown than typical RPG combat.
Maybe in the future we can pull this type of game off, but for now it's beyond our grasp.

 

[Nouw]

Heh I think about a game like this all the time.

Well to my share my thoughts, Grass Box-Sandbox.

Sandbox would be like as OP said, one huge map.
Grassbox would be lobbies,rooms and matches like Online FPSs.

Of course if I was ever to create a game like this, in that age it would be possible. Now? Not until the next generation of consoles or everyone has a super-computer I don't think so.

If the graphics were retrorish and the game simple enough, maybe.

 

[JourneyThroughHell]

Heh I think about a game like this all the time.

Likewise.

I would think it should just be a seriously scaled-down version of the map with the most important landmarks and basically sole stand-ins for tonnes of same scenery in the world.

That way, the world is nice and little.

But the game still seems impossible:

1) What is the punishment for death? If you immeadiately respawn, what kind of war is that?

Granted, you could use the BF2 "tickets" system but that brings me to:

2) If a country loses, what do all of its soldiers do? I'd assume they want to continue playing.

3) So, if you recreate the whole map, you'll be definitely facing the problem of misrepresentation of real-life numbers.

There are a lot of people in Europe and U.S.A. - many can be expected to be playing. There are also a lot of people in Africa - but I don't really see them playing.

And, of course, there are a bunch of other design problems not to mention a lot of technical ones.

 

[Merkavar]

a world war game, no. a large coutry game maybe.

i would like to see a game similiar to what yuor talking about. maybe a large country with multiple factions all fighting for land and control etc

 

[zfactor]

That sounds fun, but the lag would be aweful...

(I haven't played WoW, and probably never will, so correct me if I'm wrong) All WoW servers need to send are player positions and player actions. It is constantly updating the position mapping (or database or whatever the servers keep) and then refreshes the actions once a second or so. That means when you tell your character to do something, it waits until the next cycle to do the action, syncronizing everyone's actions. The combat would be turn based (which it is from what I've seen) with characters alternating between attack and defend every cycle. Well, that's what I think it would do...

FPSs, on the other hand, need to be constantly refreshing the player actions and positions (and orientation). So that's actually a bunch of data: x,y,z map coords; x,y,z orient coords, and any actions (firing, grenades, reloading, melee attack, etc.). That's why FPS servers (well the newer ones) support a smaller number of players (12-32) than MMOs (hundreds). Player would need to have massive bandwith or dedicated data lines (so LAN) for it wo not lag.

It's really a logistics problem because FPSs have a hard time with hundreds of players... Oh and graphics cause individual computer lag, not systemwide lag (if one person's game is running at 10fps, it would make him lag, not the whole game. But the server might try to balance out the pings and indirectly cause system lag...).

But ignoring the data transfer issue, it would be a great game. I would buy it, just to see hundreds of people battling it out in downtown chicago. And I would be a sniper, just to let you know. My problem has always been a lack of targets, but with hundreds of players, that wouldn't be an issue!

 

[Nouw]

Heh I think about a game like this all the time.

Likewise.

I would think it should just be a seriously scaled-down version of the map with the most important landmarks and basically sole stand-ins for tonnes of same scenery in the world.

That way, the world is nice and little.

But the game still seems impossible:

1) What is the punishment for death? If you immeadiately respawn, what kind of war is that?

Granted, you could use the BF2 "tickets" system but that brings me to:

2) If a country loses, what do all of its soldiers do? I'd assume they want to continue playing.

3) So, if you recreate the whole map, you'll be definitely facing the problem of misrepresentation of real-life numbers.

There are a lot of people in Europe and U.S.A. - many can be expected to be playing. There are also a lot of people in Africa - but I don't really see them playing.

And, of course, there are a bunch of other design problems not to mention a lot of technical ones.

Time to let loose my ideas *Evil Laugh

1)Perhaps X deaths=Death. 100=WIA 1000=MIA 100,000=KIA. Or maybe it depends on if you stay in the entire game (Shit idea but can/could be tweaked). Maybe it depends if you win.

2)If a country was to lose, they could join another country, become Mercenaries/terrorists or start a gang/clan/organization under their name.

3)Not sure how to counter that, not a programming person >.>

And about the countries, perhaps under a continent. But I'll be damned if New Zealand becomes part of Austrailia >.>

 

[Diceman]

I don't think so, it sounds way too big, too many variables, that and even with MMO graphics or dated graphics shooters are more fastpaced and would be more prone to slowdown than typical RPG combat.
Maybe in the future we can pull this type of game off, but for now it's beyond our grasp.

Indeed, you are quite right.

Heh I think about a game like this all the time.

Likewise.

Yup, me too

Well to my share my thoughts, Grass Box-Sandbox.
Sandbox would be like as OP said, one huge map.
Grassbox would be lobbies,rooms and matches like Online FPSs.

Of course if I was ever to create a game like this, in that age it would be possible. Now? Not until the next generation of consoles or everyone has a super-computer I don't think so.

If the graphics were retrorish and the game simple enough, maybe.

I like the thoughts of that. A mix of the two would be quite pleasant, but I'm mostly trying for the sandbox first to see if that'd work.

I would think it should just be a seriously scaled-down version of the map with the most important landmarks and basically sole stand-ins for tonnes of same scenery in the world.

That way, the world is nice and little.

But the game still seems impossible:

1) What is the punishment for death? If you immeadiately respawn, what kind of war is that?

Granted, you could use the BF2 "tickets" system but that brings me to:

2) If a country loses, what do all of its soldiers do? I'd assume they want to continue playing.

3) So, if you recreate the whole map, you'll be definitely facing the problem of misrepresentation of real-life numbers.

There are a lot of people in Europe and U.S.A. - many can be expected to be playing. There are also a lot of people in Africa - but I don't really see them playing.

And, of course, there are a bunch of other design problems not to mention a lot of technical ones.

While I would agree with the whole "landmarks only" idea, it really doesn't lead much credence to the whole "world" part. It's like with C&C telling you, you MUST invade Paris with just the Eiffel Tower there. It seems shoddy.

1. I've yet to work that out. Personally, I was considering it more as a really long raid style game. You have (for the sake of argument) a certain amount of life for your 'team' (or country, army, whatever) and once that is up, everyone is dead and the others win. There are other options, but personally I like this best.

2. They could either join another country or maybe start their own? Or maybe countries just restart after a certain amount of time? Or they become part of the country that beat/invaded them. Only way to get your country back? Rebel!

3. Yes, you are indeed quite right with that. It would be much better to have a scaled down map, but with 1k+ people there, it'd get a little crowded if it's too small...

 

[Vault boy Eddie]

A game like that would require too much communication, and as we all know, 99% of communications in online games is some 13 year old chap informing everyone that they are of the african american persuasion. Aside from that, it would take a lot of time and patience organizing attacks, and theres always gonna be people rushing off by themselves all like Rambo on a six pack of 5 Hour energy drinks.

 

[Merkavar]

1) What is the punishment for death? If you immeadiately respawn, what kind of war is that?

i would think a instant respawn sstem would work but not anywhere near the front line and definately not near where you died

2) If a country loses, what do all of its soldiers do? I'd assume they want to continue playing.

the players join the conquering side. they are like spoils of war

3) So, if you recreate the whole map, you'll be definitely facing the problem of misrepresentation of real-life numbers.

maybe let people join which ever side they want but not alow factions to get so large compared to others.

 

[Diceman]

A game like that would require too much communication, and as we all know, 99% of communications in online games is some 13 year old chap informing everyone that they are of the african american persuasion. Aside from that, it would take a lot of time and patience organizing attacks, and theres always gonna be people rushing off by themselves all like Rambo on a six pack of 5 Hour energy drinks.

So... exactly like real war then? xD

 

[JourneyThroughHell]

Time to let loose my ideas *Evil Laugh

1)Perhaps X deaths=Death. 100=WIA 1000=MIA 100,000=KIA. Or maybe it depends on if you stay in the entire game (Shit idea but can/could be tweaked). Maybe it depends if you win.

2)If a country was to lose, they could join another country, become Mercenaries/terrorists or start a gang/clan/organization under their name.

3)Not sure how to counter that, not a programming person >.>

And about the countries, perhaps under a continent. But I'll be damned if New Zealand becomes part of Austrailia >.>

Well the X deaths=Death idea is an unfortunate one that leads to the fact that the most devoted players get their character killed simply because they play a lot.

An alternative would be having a number of human resources (respawns) that depletes with every death of any soldier from the nation.

 

[Corkydog]

Moving beyond this, I sometimes wonder what it'd be like to have a meta-game, where your character is born, and from there you choose what kind of game you want to play. You pick the perspective (first, third, top down), and the overall look of the HUD and such things. Then you play. Want to race? Buy a car, find a street race, and do it. Want to race realistically? Buy a really nice car and sign up for amatuer race events, then rise through the ranks until you get to F1. Want to play sports? Play the sport. Become the coach to control the whole team, instead of just the one. Want to shoot shit? Join the army, or pick up a gun and RAMPAGE. Becoming a criminal, an adventurer, a spy, a general (RTS), police officer, or just being a sim would be as simple as applying for the job. The gameplay elements are emergent and adaptive, so some options wouldn't be immediately available. The kicker is that if you want to start over, pick a new game type to play, you just have a kid, and start all over as the next generation.

This would obviously be a huge, huge, massively difficult concept to turn into any kind of profitable game.

But wouldn't it be cool?

(upon reflection, this could almost turn into a new platform for games. Instead of developers making games, they write expansions for new roles in the game world)

 

[Something Amyss]

If it's an FPS, I'll pass.

Probably nto possible yet though.

 

[JUMBO PALACE]

Sounds like the Chromehounds multiplayer just as an FPS. It's basically FPS risk, which is something I've wanted for a long long time. The constant battle over territory in a persistent online space is a pretty cool idea, and is something that should be in multiplayer more often.

 

[SL33TBL1ND]

The difference between WoW and an FPS is canned animations. When you attack something, you click it and it just plays some saved animations over and over. That's why Global Agenda is really laggy.

 

[Vault boy Eddie]

A game like that would require too much communication, and as we all know, 99% of communications in online games is some 13 year old chap informing everyone that they are of the african american persuasion. Aside from that, it would take a lot of time and patience organizing attacks, and theres always gonna be people rushing off by themselves all like Rambo on a six pack of 5 Hour energy drinks.

So... exactly like real war then? xD

Touché fella, lol. I also forgot to mention the millions of people whining about hacks would make the servers melt.

 

[Johnnyallstar]

The logistics of such a game would be mind boggling. Possible? Not right now, but maybe someday, and there would be serious issues involving rank, leadership, and such. It's a nice concept, but ultimately would probably fall apart.

Imagine trying to keep the idiotic 12 year olds on XBL regimented and in order. That's what I thought.

 

[SturmDolch]

Funny thing is, this is what I thought Battlefield: Vietnam would be when my friend was describing it to me. Then I bought it and was disappointed. Then I played it and was hooked, and now the Battlefield series is my favourite on the PC.

/digression

The game could work. But it would take a big studio to make it. This game would cost a lot of money if it was to be good. It would require a studio to take a huge financial risk, too, as they do with any MMO. And big studios don't necessarily like taking risks when they can play it safe and be guaranteed money, i.e. yearly CoD games (I'm guilty of buying some).

As you said, a world map would be entirely unrealistic. I think it would be a good idea to start in a region, and then release more regions in expansion packs... It would be interesting to see this game. People would have to take on roles, some defending cities. Perhaps eventually they would add some sort of city management, or even civilians.

 

[JourneyThroughHell]

maybe let people join which ever side they want but not alow factions to get so large compared to others.

Well, then we're facing the language barrier in case the factions in the game are nations. Not everyone knows English.

While I would agree with the whole "landmarks only" idea, it really doesn't lead much credence to the whole "world" part. It's like with C&C telling you, you MUST invade Paris with just the Eiffel Tower there. It seems shoddy.

1. I've yet to work that out. Personally, I was considering it more as a really long raid style game. You have (for the sake of argument) a certain amount of life for your 'team' (or country, army, whatever) and once that is up, everyone is dead and the others win. There are other options, but personally I like this best.

2. They could either join another country or maybe start their own? Or maybe countries just restart after a certain amount of time? Or they become part of the country that beat/invaded them. Only way to get your country back? Rebel!

3. Yes, you are indeed quite right with that. It would be much better to have a scaled down map, but with 1k+ people there, it'd get a little crowded if it's too small...

While, yes, it doesn't really give much credibility to the games' representation goals, most of the world is pretty boring and same.

Can you imagine how many lifeless, nothing-around roads there are?

1. Well, yeah. Battlefield 2 respawn tickets.

The only problem is that there would always be jerks who'd just run around comitting suicide and intentionally depleting, so there needs to be some kind of a limit.

2. Well, then where do they get the additional tickets after their country counquered? Balance issues.

3. Well, of course. I never said small as Rust or Shipment or anything.

But there are more than seven billion people in the world, and even they don't inhabit every part.

It would be really wasteful for 1000+ people to be the only ones in a gigantic world.