What do you think multiplayer should be?

[csmighty1]

For many years now, multiplayer for games has mostly consisted of deathmatch, team deathmatch, capture the flag, objective type maps, and a slew of variations. Does anyone ever get bored of playing multiplaer just because it's always "the same?" I was wondering if any of you have ever came up with a really good multiplayer idea that you thought would be really fun to play.
My idea is for a multiplayer game to be almost like a single player game. By this i mean for two teams (obviously) to duke it out but in more of a single player campain. For example, In Call of Duty the first map would have Allies parachuting out of a plane and landing on the ground. Meanwhile the Nazies would be trying to kill as many Allies as they can while they're in the air. Then the Allies would advance and try to take over a city or town and the germans would defend it. (This sounds alot like Assult for Unreal tournment but hold on) Then if the Allies overtook the base, the new map would be the outcome. If the allies overtook the city then the new map would be the allies leaving the town and taking out various anti aircraft guns which the germans would have to defend. But if the germans have won the parachuting map, then the allies would have to invade europe through Normandy and the germans would be the defenders. Thus multiplayer would be a new game because the players would feel more encouraged to help win the battle so that they may win the entire muliplayer game. For example, If the germans invaded England and overtook it, then the germans could advance to America when the battle would be fought there, and then if the germans won that match then germany would be the supream power and the Allies would lose. Vise versa, if the Allies overtook Berlin, the Allies would win the war and that team would win the game.
I know this would take along time to beat if you wanted to play multiplayer but these battles could go on for days, maybe even months if there were enough maps. You could mark the server you were playing in as a favorite and when you join, the server would give you a brief summary of what had happened (who won which map and how it affected the outcome) and you would be put back into "the war" while being informed of the past events so you won't be confused.
That was my idea, anyone else have suggestings? opnions?

 

[Dedalus]

there's already a game like that and it's been out for a while. it's called Planetside (www.planetside.com). although it doesn't quite work out how you'd expect, the weapons are subpar, the graphics are terrible, the every game is laggy, there are still numerous bugs etc

there's also Sven co-op. you and a group of human players take on a number of enemies and progress through huge maps.

then there's Desert Combat, which in my opinion is the best battlefield simulation to date.

i think deathmatch is pretty much dead. i tried deathmatching a while back but it just doesn't have the appeal anymore. team games are far more rewarding.

 

[Champ]

As Dedalus pointed out, some Massive Multiplayer Online Games implement this feature. An example that fits with CoD would be World War II online

http://www5.playnet.com/bv/wwiiol/index.jsp

A real fun game, graphics is outdated though, but it's the gameplay that draws. Monthly fee though...

 

[csmighty1]

don't I feel silly....don't like monthly fees though

 

[pat_thetic]

As Dedalus pointed out, some Massive Multiplayer Online Games implement this feature. An example that fits with CoD would be World War II online

http://www5.playnet.com/bv/wwiiol/index.jsp

A real fun game, graphics is outdated though, but it's the gameplay that draws. Monthly fee though...

I play that game to, whats your name in-game?

 

[Champ]

It's champy... I play those axis sons of bitches :-D

 

[Farrowlesparrow]

I like the idea of story driven multiplay. The only problem is, is that a lot of people dont stick to the rules. Simply because there is no punishment for breaking them, or i should say, no consequences like accidently getting yourself killed. If people treated story driven and "realistic" games more like real life situations, then it would adda lot to them. For instance, can you imagine your favourite FPS where every "main" character is a human being. Halflife for example....Headcrabs and such would be computer controlled, but grunts, barneys gargs etc would be human. Ok, so whoever got gordon would have the coolest place but still if the idea was considered when making a game, it could be fun.

 

[Champ]

That's the downside... Not enough discipline... And that's where squads come in the picture. Organized groups that are able to do the more complex things.

 

[Sprafa]

AA has the perfect reward/punishment system.
You get busted fo teamkilling an lose honor. You start off with 9 anf if it goes lower (2 teamkills) you can't play on most servers. And to get a new account tks ages to train a new caracther...

 

[Farrowlesparrow]

I dont just mean with regards to team killing. I mean stuff like "heroes". People who try to be lone gunmen and just run off guns a blazing. Theres a place for that...its called Hollywood.

If people where, as champ said, disciplined, then it would be a whole lot more fun. Not only can they achieve things much more efficiently, but being part of a team is much more fun. There isnt the same competition for "frags" ina team, because everyone contributes to the victory, no matter how many kills you get.

 

[ComradeBadger]

Unreal II XMP. It's the win. Quite simple eh?

 

[Dedalus]

badger, you downloaded the community bonus pack? it's pretty sweet.

 

[dawdler]

RTSS, that's all I can say. Real Time Strategy Shooter. Add 128+ players support and huge maps and its a MMORTSS
Warcraft 3 with every unit being a player, and another being the commander. Savage is a very... basic... example of how its done though. 2nd or 3rd generation RTSS games when they figure out a good control system will be sweet indeed.

 

[Varg|Hund]

RTSS, that's all I can say. Real Time Strategy Shooter. Add 128+ players support and huge maps and its a MMORTSS
Warcraft 3 with every unit being a player, and another being the commander. Savage is a very... basic... example of how its done though. 2nd or 3rd generation RTSS games when they figure out a good control system will be sweet indeed.

This gave me an idea...
What of an enomous Warcraft III map, with thousands of players playing at the same time (and no unit limit), forging alliances, fighting, and building.
And when you went offline, your 'realm' would be put in stasis, and nobody could attack it until you're online again.

 

[dawdler]

This gave me an idea...
What of an enomous Warcraft III map, with thousands of players playing at the same time (and no unit limit), forging alliances, fighting, and building.
And when you went offline, your 'realm' would be put in stasis, and nobody could attack it until you're online again.

Exactly, that's why I'm talking about 2nd or 3rd generation
I mean, *somebody* will probably do this sooner or later. Its a totally unexploited genre, and so easy to design (cause you already got the base layed out to you, Warcraft, C&C, whatever RTS game, etc etc).