if u wanna bounce ideas off me on aim, im down el' presidente' data

but ya... lots of games are being built around eyecandy, and pulling people in. not around keeping people playing (thats the same way word-of-mouth spreads, +better gameplay)

bump: Starcraft mmofps

matches and tactics taken as perfectly as possible from the rts game. Each side has a commander and he controls players with the same interface. When you logged on to battlenet you would enter a pool of online players, and you could highlight any games you would be willing to join. This can be done prior to or during a match, and if you want you can spectate while you are waiting.

You'd have stats like in BF2 and personal preferences so you would be more likely to get a melee than a ranged, or ground/air etc.

There are probably a ton of problems with this, but I think it would work out so you wouldn't have to wait for ever to get into a game. The likely problem is there being too many matches (commanders) than fps players. Maybe blizzard could work out a stamp-of-approval for commanders, so you would have to get a one-time approval of a GM in order to be a commander.

By far this is my most anticipated computer game.

Originally Posted by ChowTOdust

bump: Starcraft mmofps

matches and tactics taken as perfectly as possible from the rts game. Each side has a commander and he controls players with the same interface. When you logged on to battlenet you would enter a pool of online players, and you could highlight any games you would be willing to join. This can be done prior to or during a match, and if you want you can spectate while you are waiting.

You'd have stats like in BF2 and personal preferences so you would be more likely to get a melee than a ranged, or ground/air etc.

1. Figure out how to provide a MASSIVE online persistent world with the never-ending assortment of **** to do/grind... but also have FPS action without it becoming monotonous - "**** to do" must include content for large groups, small groups, individual cowboys and also solo farmers. This also must include both tactical challenges and strategic challenges.

2. Provide channels for hard-core, organized PvP while also making room for cowboys and casual players. A strong pickup group system for more focused pvp matches is vital to any successful FPS even an MMO (planetside was missing this and just gave a persistent world with a never-ending huge battle without the more focused, instanced "matches" folks desired)

3. Provide complex economics and market opportunies, along with "Real Value" web portals where folks can trade **** for real money. Design the game with this reality in mind, trying to balance things around emergent market dynamics. Build strong "crafting" and professions into the game and grounded the market in emergent economic systems.

4. Allow a strong UI mod system and perhaps a "moderated" option for folks to make "tournament" levels/maps for PvP. Literally give community the tools to make PvP areas but then have some form of review/rating system where only high quality, enjoyable maps get tossed into the public realms for PvP availability. You could do that using a "test" or "review" server/instance. The odds are a lot of amazing artwork would take place, but only a handful of maps would really get a lot of playtime. The important part is making the opportunity available and allowing customers to get into full participating and involvement. If you want to get serious about FPS gaming then ignoring the opportunity to harness the "mod" community is a bad move.

5. Make the world itself dynamic with options for players to build and control elements of the world within clear, fair terms. That means a clan/guild could perhaps take over or build an outpost with its own vendors and trainers. Perhaps they could even be allowed to sell unique clan crafted items (crafting could be designed around a set of parameters rather than around specific "recipes").

6. Include means for limited advertising in order to minimize subscription fees and to best invest in new content.



Eventually... somebody is going to make an MMOFPS that will basically kill the FPS genre. There will be another "WoW" type MMO in terms of popularity, perhaps even bigger. Maybe not in the next 2-5 years but eventually... it's inevitable.

Originally Posted by SniperOmega

i
but ya... lots of games are being built around eyecandy, and pulling people in. not around keeping people playing (thats the same way word-of-mouth spreads, +better gameplay)

I know this isnt popular to say... but i disagree with this popular myth about game development (at least for PCs and FPS). Sure, game devs are trying to make games look pretty. They have to. It's expected. However, NONE of them are ignoring gameplay. THey bust their asses to provide solid gameplay and even some try to make innovative gameplay. I just dont believe there is a higher % of ****ty games now than there were in 2000, 1995, 1990, 1985, etc. I think there are in fact more games (and more quality games) out there in any given year than previously.

However... the fact is... for online gamers, they JUST WONT BE ****IN SATISFIED because they hold up new games to their experiences of their youth. We expect the games to keep us interested... when the truth is our interests are as much about the past as the present. We're jaded and expecting games to provide us something we have a part in providing. We are part of the "having fun" formula and no game by itself can accomplish that. The most popular games in human history seem to often be the most simple, repetitive games with a range of both solo and social challenges. However, they ARE just games. We expect more than a game from games...

Almost every online gamer has a "first love" game where they really got into online gaming and they unfortunately then hold up all other games to match that experience. The truth is, they are all just ****in video games... and having "fun" isnt merely about the game. It's about US as well.

I used to joke about kids standing around on the playground arguing about whether they want to play Kickball 1.0 or Kickball 2.0, deciding which is more fun. If you sit around the elementary school yard arguing about what game is most fun... there comes a point when you just simply forgot how to have ****in fun during your limited time. Kids have fun doing ANYTHING if they want to.

Meanwhile, we are getting older and expecting Kickball 5.0 to provide the same entertainment Kickball 1.0 provided... without acknowledging our role in "having fun."

No, i think we are being unfair when we say all the new games suck, arent good gameplay, etc. There are new, younger gamers playing and LOVING these games. We're just jaded.

(ok, sure, there are also some ****ty games and lots of companies doing formulaic development to take low risk "intellectual property" and crank our crud... but that has ALWAYS been going on.)