MMOFPS, Terrain Engines, and Squad-based Coops
by Matt Fairfax · in Game Design and Creative Issues · 04/07/2003 (9:21 am) · 6 replies
I have dreamed of playing a MMOFPS since I first started teaching myself to mod Half-Life back in '99 with the intention of linking a series of servers, so I have been watching the development of Planetside with great interest for the last few years. I was accepted into the beta last week and, aside from it sucking up an unhealthy amount of time, it has gotten me thinking about a few things:
First, while rolling terrains and expansive vistas are nice, are they really necessary for most games? I find that far more of my time in Planetside is spent running, driving, or flying over empty (aside from ground cover decoration) terrain and that almost all of the action takes place in or very near to the bases and I have to ask myself is it really necessary for my video card and computer to be loading and displaying all of that useless geometry while I waste my time traversing it. Sure, render the hills around the base but beyond that I could really care less. I would honestly be happier with smaller more focused arenas on the scale of the terrains in Unreal Tournament 2003. The "massive" part of MMOFPS doesn't have to come from having a massive world, rather from have massive amounts of people sharing the world. Only a small percentage of those people will ever be in one location at a time anyway.
Secondly, while I am a diehard FPS fan, I often find myself bored with the genre. I mean, I can only kill so many people for so long before it starts to get repetitve. I rarely play Quake 3, UT, or UT2K3 anymore b/c every match has begun to "feel" the same as the last. Sure, they all play differently but they all fall into the same basic patterns. Teamplay does help to mollify this repetitive feeling a bit, especially when you are playing with a group of friends, but eventually this too can become stale. Even Planetside's gameplay boils down to attack base, capture base, defend base, lose base, repeat.
What I'd really like to see is more cooperative story-driven games, especially with more than two players in mind. This could take the form of a great cooperative singleplayer game like Halo, but it could also be a series of multiplayer missions where your squad's accomplishment or not of certain goals would be reflected in the next mission. For example, suppose one mission is to defend a bridge into a village against an encroaching force. If your squad holds the bridge then in the next mission you find yourself defending the town against a force coming from the other direction. If not then you find yourselves trying to take back the town. Several such missions linked together in a series could span a story arc while keeping the fun and excitement of team-based multiplayer. This isn't a new concept. In fact the example is paraphrased from a description of Team Fortress 2 I read long ago. However, I have yet to see something like this done yet.
As an aside, Planetside seriously feels like they ripped some of the Tribes 2 code and updated it for MMO, even down to the concept of "alarm" lightmaps.
First, while rolling terrains and expansive vistas are nice, are they really necessary for most games? I find that far more of my time in Planetside is spent running, driving, or flying over empty (aside from ground cover decoration) terrain and that almost all of the action takes place in or very near to the bases and I have to ask myself is it really necessary for my video card and computer to be loading and displaying all of that useless geometry while I waste my time traversing it. Sure, render the hills around the base but beyond that I could really care less. I would honestly be happier with smaller more focused arenas on the scale of the terrains in Unreal Tournament 2003. The "massive" part of MMOFPS doesn't have to come from having a massive world, rather from have massive amounts of people sharing the world. Only a small percentage of those people will ever be in one location at a time anyway.
Secondly, while I am a diehard FPS fan, I often find myself bored with the genre. I mean, I can only kill so many people for so long before it starts to get repetitve. I rarely play Quake 3, UT, or UT2K3 anymore b/c every match has begun to "feel" the same as the last. Sure, they all play differently but they all fall into the same basic patterns. Teamplay does help to mollify this repetitive feeling a bit, especially when you are playing with a group of friends, but eventually this too can become stale. Even Planetside's gameplay boils down to attack base, capture base, defend base, lose base, repeat.
What I'd really like to see is more cooperative story-driven games, especially with more than two players in mind. This could take the form of a great cooperative singleplayer game like Halo, but it could also be a series of multiplayer missions where your squad's accomplishment or not of certain goals would be reflected in the next mission. For example, suppose one mission is to defend a bridge into a village against an encroaching force. If your squad holds the bridge then in the next mission you find yourself defending the town against a force coming from the other direction. If not then you find yourselves trying to take back the town. Several such missions linked together in a series could span a story arc while keeping the fun and excitement of team-based multiplayer. This isn't a new concept. In fact the example is paraphrased from a description of Team Fortress 2 I read long ago. However, I have yet to see something like this done yet.
As an aside, Planetside seriously feels like they ripped some of the Tribes 2 code and updated it for MMO, even down to the concept of "alarm" lightmaps.
About the author
I am a Game Designer at PopCap who has worked on PvZ Adventures, PvZ2, Peggle Blast, and Bejeweled Skies. I am an ex-GarageGames employee who helped ship TGE, TGEA, Torque 3D, and Constructor.
#2
It is entirely online, skill-based. Characters are not saved from session to session, but that doesn't matter, since there aren't special items, or levels.
We plan to have multiple, multi-step, goal-driven campaigns that bring your team through a variety of combat situations against an opposing team.
04/07/2003 (2:39 pm)
We are developing Bloodstar in a similar vein, except as a medieval, close-combat, skill-based (twitch) game.It is entirely online, skill-based. Characters are not saved from session to session, but that doesn't matter, since there aren't special items, or levels.
We plan to have multiple, multi-step, goal-driven campaigns that bring your team through a variety of combat situations against an opposing team.
#3
Im not sure why, but EVERY CO-OP game Iv played has ALWAYS been Fun & has kept be playing for hours. Its alot like counter-strike in one sense, It Co-Op Squad based MOD. In my mind this is why this game has been so popular, & continues to be popular, Even these days.
The moral of this post? MAKE MORE CO-OP GAMES!! =).
05/20/2003 (10:20 am)
Co-Op is a damn nice idea. I love going to LAN's & playing a game like Serious sam 2, Or Raven shield 3, Why? Because heaps of people, are playing on the same team, doing missions.Im not sure why, but EVERY CO-OP game Iv played has ALWAYS been Fun & has kept be playing for hours. Its alot like counter-strike in one sense, It Co-Op Squad based MOD. In my mind this is why this game has been so popular, & continues to be popular, Even these days.
The moral of this post? MAKE MORE CO-OP GAMES!! =).
#4
1 game that could have really benefitted from co-op story multiplayer was Deus-ex, which didn't have it and from what I understand isn't going to have it in Pt2 either (fools!).
Oddly enough, if anyone saw the Cyan booth at E3 last week, Myst 4 is going to be a multiplayer game!!! They've redeveloped the world to be true 3D and people will be able to journey though the "ages" in concernt, trying to solve the puzzles together (no more gathering in teams around 1 PC and yelling out instructions at the person with her hand on the mouse). They're going to be a subscription based service now where you will be downloading new ages as they become available for 12 bucks a month or what not.
As for massive terrains with nothing to look at as you travel from here to there, personally, if there's NOTHING to look at, then I agree you may as well put up a "loading" bar and load the next map, but there are a couple of games on the horizon (dark and light, most notably) which has 15,000 square miles of RICHLY detailed terrain which is not broken into zones but rather buffers a circumferance around the player as they walk, so you're never "loading" anything.
It looks totally great and as someone who loves "getting lost" in a game, I find the freedom to roam VERY exciting in a game. If anyone played infogrames Outcast (about 2 years ago) which used the voxel engine from delta force, that game was VERY engaging and the maps were HUGE (albeit a little pixelated). However, I'll always take worse graphics and richer gameplay over yet another completely realistic crate in yet another completely realistic warehouse... PLEASE... LETS BOYCOT THE CRATES IN THE WAREHOUSES!!!!!
05/25/2003 (12:55 am)
Co-Op story based gaming, a la the patched System Shock 2, which allowed up to 4 players to go through the entire story of the game together, or Neverwinter Nights (which isn't an adventure, strictly speaking, but it has some elements of adventuring, though it's pretty straight ahead RPG) are REALLY fun and it's a crying shame that the game community hasn't taken this to heart. The really odd thing is that Quake 1 HAD cooperative multiplayer, but all the subsequent clones (half-life, unreal, quake 2, 3 etc. etc. etc.) have converted cooperative to mean a "showdown" with other players where you run around 1 map "cooperating" with some players and killing the others.1 game that could have really benefitted from co-op story multiplayer was Deus-ex, which didn't have it and from what I understand isn't going to have it in Pt2 either (fools!).
Oddly enough, if anyone saw the Cyan booth at E3 last week, Myst 4 is going to be a multiplayer game!!! They've redeveloped the world to be true 3D and people will be able to journey though the "ages" in concernt, trying to solve the puzzles together (no more gathering in teams around 1 PC and yelling out instructions at the person with her hand on the mouse). They're going to be a subscription based service now where you will be downloading new ages as they become available for 12 bucks a month or what not.
As for massive terrains with nothing to look at as you travel from here to there, personally, if there's NOTHING to look at, then I agree you may as well put up a "loading" bar and load the next map, but there are a couple of games on the horizon (dark and light, most notably) which has 15,000 square miles of RICHLY detailed terrain which is not broken into zones but rather buffers a circumferance around the player as they walk, so you're never "loading" anything.
It looks totally great and as someone who loves "getting lost" in a game, I find the freedom to roam VERY exciting in a game. If anyone played infogrames Outcast (about 2 years ago) which used the voxel engine from delta force, that game was VERY engaging and the maps were HUGE (albeit a little pixelated). However, I'll always take worse graphics and richer gameplay over yet another completely realistic crate in yet another completely realistic warehouse... PLEASE... LETS BOYCOT THE CRATES IN THE WAREHOUSES!!!!!
#5
fomportal.com
09/16/2007 (2:24 am)
I know this is an old thread, but look up a game called "Face of Mankind".fomportal.com
#6
Fun.
09/16/2007 (8:46 am)
Haven't read the replies, but I'll quickly say that I definately agree about multiplayer games becoming stale. My dream game concept (a SF FPS...) was based around a lengthy campaign where you'd play as a member or leader of a squad. The multiplayer would then mainly involve replaying campaign missions with playrs taking the roles of either the human or alien soldiers, and having objectives, etc. Other missions that didn't make it into the campaign would be included in the multiplayer, so what you have is instead of a standard lineup of deathmatch, CTF, and team deathmatch, you're playing individual story-driven scenarios with a group of others.Fun.
Torque Owner Christopher Dapo
Weither you believe it or not, this was the main focus behind my design for Project Redeath.
Even though it will allow a player to go ahead on their own in single player mode, it's main focus is to bring organized story and cooperation between players in MMOFPS style, all while scaring the hell out of everyone who plays it!
Many new things will be introduced. Story elements will be achieved by a RPG feel towards all the playable characters, but focused on action and decision making and without skill values (zelda-like adventure might be the prefered term here, but it focuses on actualy playing out the role of each character). Scare elements will be presented in the tried and true methods as well as some very creative new ways, most notably will be the Interactive Cut Scenes, called Join Points, where you will advance the story in realtime amongst your friends in the game! Weapons will be creative yet very realistic due to the setting it's located in. Levels will be large enough to be enjoyable and plan to take on some interesting aspects of level design. There will be an option to switch from First- to Third-Person modes as well. Also, vehicular combat will be a new advantage to players as well! One more good thing that will make gamers happy? When you die, unless it was by 'messy' means, you come back to haunt your friends untill your blown away!
All this and there will be a technical 'ending' to each game when a player has achieved victory by defeating the last boss (yes bosses as well)!
Project Redeath is only the project name and is not final.
It will come one day! You can bet on it! ;)
- Christopher Dapo ~ Ronixus