What would be the perfect MMOFPS for you?
Submitted by Oculus on Tue, 11/20/2007 - 5:26pm.
What would be the perfect MMOFPS for you?
Mine: Call of Duty 4, except with a persistent, huge world and available as an Xbox360 game with dedicated servers instead of 360 servers. Your allowed to build an army (clan) of X amount of soldiers composed of sections/platoons/companies/battalions where you go around and attempt to conquer and hold sections of land or resources. Your allowed to join an existing force if you like, and break off and form your own as well.
This game would be hard to make, but addictive as coca-cola, and I'm almost glad it doesn't exist.
My perfect MMOFPS would be.... fun.
BF2 is similar to what you described, Oc. I've been in 32 v 32 BF2 matches with gameplay that's still very similar to CoD4. We had a general who would command squad leaders who would commend squads who broke up into 4-5 man teams. Squads could talk amongst themselves but only the leader could talk to anyone up the chain. The whole chain of command aspect of the game was very cool...but it kind of broke down when you played in public matches.
You like calling in Airstrikes, Radar, and Helicopters in CoD4? Imagine being able to access that interface at any time to call in supplies (ammo, health kits, guns) that would parachute down from the air. Or imagine calling in satelite image scans, thermal scans, and UAV scans. Or calling in a mortar strikes to a certain area.
I wonder how a FPS would work on a much larger scale with 100's v 100's or even 1000's v 1000's. I'm guessing that public players without much allegiance to any side would result in a massively lop-sided victories on all but rare occasions. Gameplay would probably suffer and I would guess that the game would turn into a mini-RPG with people not fighting at times...kind of a virtual world like Second Life.
In that case, maybe the developers would have to implement NPC's and AI to encourage everyone to fight and to continue to fight. Or perhaps they've have to setup some kind of economy to encourage people to hang around. I mean, we don't really have a volunteer Army here in real life. We pay citizens to be in our Army. There's an established economy. We are dealing with economies in video games now. Counter-Strike has had it for ages. H2 had it was visible player ranks. H3 has an expanded version of the H2 ranking system. CoD4 has a ranking system. It's designed to increase replay value in the game.
-----
Ron Paul cured my apathy: r3/\O¯|ution
Shadowrun.
Ooh. A FPS and RPG in one...with massive battles. That would be entertaining.
I forget that BF2 is not the latest BF title. BF2042 is out. Unsure what changed between BF2 and BF2042. Perhaps there are more server slots for massive battles.
-----
Ron Paul cured my apathy: r3/\O¯|ution
Agreed, BF2 is a cool concept. Close, but BF2 and BF2142 dont have a persistent world. I have played 2142, and it's essentially a big-big team battle with squads and a general. If I had enough friends who played it, that'd be a blast to play.
Shadowrun has the economy going for it, but each game is a set timeframe in a non persistent world. Part of the thing I thought was cool in WoW was the huge explorable world but I just couldn't get into the gameplay from a standpoint of how you interacted with and fought enemies. ShadowWorld of Warcraft would be freaking sweet.
I guess It's hard to imagine how to work out a style of gameplay mixed with the MMO part of it. Your right rap I think they might have to add AI battles or something to keep people busy, however It would be even cooler if there were a way to leave AI completely out of the mix. But 2nd life does come to mind. Lopsided victories/defeats would be a real thing to deal with, considering that there's the possibility to have 1 large faction that dominates the entire world (on a particular server) What would be my incentive to join up and start my own faction and compete when they've already just about dominated the resources on that world (server).
Maybe mini games would have to be introduced to put focus on smaller squads. Say, at particular times during the course of the life of a server, particular items are placed in the world for everyone to fight over. Not sure how that would work.
Consider if you could have AI take over your responsibility of defending your captured territory. You could have artillery, infantry, air support, water support defending what you've taken. The only way to gain or lose ground would be to physically be there controlling your character. When your away from the game, you could monitor your territory through a web interface to make sure the AI is doing it's job. AI might only be able to defend your territory for so long before people then get a chance to attack it. Sortof a giant game of Risk in FPS mode.
----------------------------
"Oculus is just this guy, you know?"
Post new comment