Future of multiplayer games

[yellowperil]

What do you think is the next big step, particularly in first-person shooters? So far we have games with enclosed maps with a limited number of players (max 32 usually) like CS, UT, Q3 etc. and those with big maps like Tribes 2 and BF1942 but not as good close quarters gameplay. I was stoked when I heard about WWII Online supporting 1000s of players but I don't need to remind how that turned out. It would be cool to be able to have that kind of interaction in a large-scale battle setting. Also most games are run-and-gun but don't really emphasize taking cover or coordinated teamplay that much (the Tom Clancy games are an exception). Is it because people just prefer fragging to tactics?

Boring Saturday afternoon with no car

 

[Amused]

Pain generators. You should feel pain when you get hit.

 

[rh71]

Originally posted by: Amused
Pain generators. You should feel pain when you get hit.

Lawsuit generators? What ?

 

[yellowperil]

Originally posted by: Amused
Pain generators. You should feel pain when you get hit.

LOL, when the rumble pack just isn't enough

 

[wQuay]

The future came out 4 years ago. Tribes 1

 

[Ferocious]

I'm still waiting for a game to surpass Quake 2.

 

[UNCjigga]

I think the next big thing in multiplayer gaming is a game that doesn't require you to be on your computer to play. For example, an RPG that allows you to sync missions etc. to your Palm/PocketPC (low graphics, mostly text/menu driven stuff.) Or a game that allows you to socialize with your guild/fellowship from IRC/IM/mobile phone while they are IN the game. This gives you more freedom to play without binding you down to your desk or to a particular network connection. You could play a few minutes during your commute to work, another few minutes on a plane etc. This also ensures you're more willing to pay a monthly fee!!

 

[blurredvision]

Originally posted by: yellowperil
Also most games are run-and-gun but don't really emphasize taking cover or coordinated teamplay that much (the Tom Clancy games are an exception). Is it because people just prefer fragging to tactics?

To answer this particular question, here is what I think. I don't think it is that people prefer straight up fragging over team tactics.

It's just that we don't have the means to coordinate team efforts at the moment. In order to play a team game like it should, the most important thing you need is communication. On the PC, the keyboard is pretty much the only option we have at the moment, and it's just not fast enough. You can't spot and enemy and proceed to type it out. Once you're done, you're either dead or they've moved on, and are nowhere near where you reported them first. XBOX Live has this solved with voice communication standard on all games, but console controllers just suck for first-person shooters, which is really the only genre worth playing in teams. We have programs like Roger Wilco and TeamSpeak, but these require too much coordination for the ordinary gamer. You have to set up a server for the voice, everybody connects, and then everybody connects to the game. Also not everyone is even aware these exist.

We need for games to include voice support built in to the game. I'm actually suprised this hasn't been done yet, as it's safe to assume almost every gamer out there has a microphone. If not, I'm sure they could spare $5 for a cheap one. This could be limited to broadband gamers only in a particular game, to reduce lag issues. Even lowering the player count could be done. 4v4 w/voice would awesome on Medal of Honor.

The second thing you need for team tactics is like-minded people. Granted, there are those who like to just frag, but in order for a team to work, everyone has to know their role. You can't have rogues running out on their own, it defeats the whole purpose of teamwork. I'm sure they create some kind of filter for servers that emphasizes teamwork over frag-fests. This would be very hard, though, to keep out the asses who like to ruin everyone else's experience.

Hopefully within a couple of years we'll see some of these changes made to games to allow for greater teamwork to be played out. I would rather play with a skillfull team anyday than run around by myself. I've had the opportunity to play with some great players on Ghost Recon. We used TeamSpeak, and ultimately had a great time. It was the best multiplayer I've ever played.

The third thing

 

[NewSc2]

Originally posted by: WoodchuckCharlie

Originally posted by: yellowperil
Also most games are run-and-gun but don't really emphasize taking cover or coordinated teamplay that much (the Tom Clancy games are an exception). Is it because people just prefer fragging to tactics?

To answer this particular question, here is what I think. I don't think it is that people prefer straight up fragging over team tactics.

It's just that we don't have the means to coordinate team efforts at the moment. In order to play a team game like it should, the most important thing you need is communication. On the PC, the keyboard is pretty much the only option we have at the moment, and it's just not fast enough. You can't spot and enemy and proceed to type it out. Once you're done, you're either dead or they've moved on, and are nowhere near where you reported them first. XBOX Live has this solved with voice communication standard on all games, but console controllers just suck for first-person shooters, which is really the only genre worth playing in teams. We have programs like Roger Wilco and TeamSpeak, but these require too much coordination for the ordinary gamer. You have to set up a server for the voice, everybody connects, and then everybody connects to the game. Also not everyone is even aware these exist.

We need for games to include voice support built in to the game. I'm actually suprised this hasn't been done yet, as it's safe to assume almost every gamer out there has a microphone. If not, I'm sure they could spare $5 for a cheap one. This could be limited to broadband gamers only in a particular game, to reduce lag issues. Even lowering the player count could be done. 4v4 w/voice would awesome on Medal of Honor.

The second thing you need for team tactics is like-minded people. Granted, there are those who like to just frag, but in order for a team to work, everyone has to know their role. You can't have rogues running out on their own, it defeats the whole purpose of teamwork. I'm sure they create some kind of filter for servers that emphasizes teamwork over frag-fests. This would be very hard, though, to keep out the asses who like to ruin everyone else's experience.

Hopefully within a couple of years we'll see some of these changes made to games to allow for greater teamwork to be played out. I would rather play with a skillfull team anyday than run around by myself. I've had the opportunity to play with some great players on Ghost Recon. We used TeamSpeak, and ultimately had a great time. It was the best multiplayer I've ever played.

The third thing

No PC game has voice supprt? What about Counterstrike?

 

[blurredvision]

Originally posted by: NewSc2

Originally posted by: WoodchuckCharlie

Originally posted by: yellowperil
Also most games are run-and-gun but don't really emphasize taking cover or coordinated teamplay that much (the Tom Clancy games are an exception). Is it because people just prefer fragging to tactics?

To answer this particular question, here is what I think. I don't think it is that people prefer straight up fragging over team tactics.

It's just that we don't have the means to coordinate team efforts at the moment. In order to play a team game like it should, the most important thing you need is communication. On the PC, the keyboard is pretty much the only option we have at the moment, and it's just not fast enough. You can't spot and enemy and proceed to type it out. Once you're done, you're either dead or they've moved on, and are nowhere near where you reported them first. XBOX Live has this solved with voice communication standard on all games, but console controllers just suck for first-person shooters, which is really the only genre worth playing in teams. We have programs like Roger Wilco and TeamSpeak, but these require too much coordination for the ordinary gamer. You have to set up a server for the voice, everybody connects, and then everybody connects to the game. Also not everyone is even aware these exist.

We need for games to include voice support built in to the game. I'm actually suprised this hasn't been done yet, as it's safe to assume almost every gamer out there has a microphone. If not, I'm sure they could spare $5 for a cheap one. This could be limited to broadband gamers only in a particular game, to reduce lag issues. Even lowering the player count could be done. 4v4 w/voice would awesome on Medal of Honor.

The second thing you need for team tactics is like-minded people. Granted, there are those who like to just frag, but in order for a team to work, everyone has to know their role. You can't have rogues running out on their own, it defeats the whole purpose of teamwork. I'm sure they create some kind of filter for servers that emphasizes teamwork over frag-fests. This would be very hard, though, to keep out the asses who like to ruin everyone else's experience.

Hopefully within a couple of years we'll see some of these changes made to games to allow for greater teamwork to be played out. I would rather play with a skillfull team anyday than run around by myself. I've had the opportunity to play with some great players on Ghost Recon. We used TeamSpeak, and ultimately had a great time. It was the best multiplayer I've ever played.

The third thing

No PC game has voice supprt? What about Counterstrike?

Does it? Oh, I never played Counterstrike. From what I've heard of it, there's not much teamwork in that game anyways. Just a bunch of cheaters.

 

[yellowperil]

Yeah I noticed CS plays a lot better when people are using their mics (correctly, not just to DJ or sing).

 

[LiekOMG]

Originally posted by: yellowperil
What do you think is the next big step, particularly in first-person shooters? So far we have games with enclosed maps with a limited number of players (max 32 usually) like CS, UT, Q3 etc. and those with big maps like Tribes 2 and BF1942 but not as good close quarters gameplay. I was stoked when I heard about WWII Online supporting 1000s of players but I don't need to remind how that turned out. It would be cool to be able to have that kind of interaction in a large-scale battle setting. Also most games are run-and-gun but don't really emphasize taking cover or coordinated teamplay that much (the Tom Clancy games are an exception). Is it because people just prefer fragging to tactics?

Boring Saturday afternoon with no car

What you described sounds a lot like Planetside. Of course, we'll have to wait a few months to see how that game turns out. Still, it looks like its going to be a lot of fun.

 

[sandorski]

Darkspace is a good Multiplayer game that has 100's of players playing in a constant battle for control of the Universe(Metaverse). I've never subscribed to actually join in on the fun, but it's the type of game that I think is destined to be the future of Multiplay.

I've been playing a lot of BF1942/RtR(ever since getting it 3ish weeks ago) and it's quite awesome. If a server is setup right a battle can really be varied having teams dominating then waning and over again during the course of the battle. Most servers, IMO, don't setup very well though, too often the team that dominates first will win, which kinda makes it suck when it happens. I was on a server last night playing Gazala where domination changed 4 or 5 times between the teams taking over an hour to play and it was a real blast.

Anyway, I'd love a BF1942 type game which would be a constant battle on a global scale, having 1000's of players, and having a very tight control of players on teams. In order to force teamplay, each player has a very specific task(ie: you can't just jump into the nearest vehicle ala BF1942 and play) and a very specific area of operations(similar to BF1942s battle area, though specific to a player and not just the map). As a player proves themselves on the battlefield, they would be promoted in rank giving them opportunity to acquire the ability to operate armour, planes, etc and perhaps even to rise to positions determing strategy and what not. A game like this is a fantasy of mine.

As mentioned previously though, a standardized voice communication(through DirectX) capability would be really nice, though I still haven't a headset or anything.

 

[TranceNation]

'


starcraft still owns

 

[rh71]

UT still roXoRs my SoxOrs (or however you do that).

 

[Pr0Hawk]

Multiplayer games have been the same for awhile. You have your starcraft/warcraft style games which are a little different, then you have your counter-strike FPS kind of games. I am getting bored with these two styles of multiplayer gameplay.

I think if they make a GTA3 kind of multiplayer game. You are just 1 person in a big huge city. There are trains, cars, airplanes, stores, malls, gas stations, and every other thing that there is in a real life city. Then you would have to start your own gang or join one and go against other gangs to gain more land. You could do street races, gang fights, or any other way to gain more land. There would be other things to even it out but this would be a sweet game if they could make it online.

I think the thing that stops creators from making games like that online is lag. It would be too much to handle. Oh well, gotta live with what we have for now

 

[PCMarine]

I'm quite interested in Planetside. I hope it turns out as great as the hype is.

 

[MaTTCNA]

I always wanted to play Quake 3 with a BB gun and a SmartBoard.