Community Question: Multiplayer Game Modes

(.Chris.) #41

Objective/Stopwatch mode is great and the prefered mode but sometimes I want to play a bit of CTF or similar modes (powerball!!!) without having to play another game, other games have different movement styles, different weapon styles and such. Brink with CTF would have been awesome and all that talk about it affecting the core game was/is bollocks.

(tokamak) #42

There’s only a need for other game modes if the objective mode can’t deliver.

(.Chris.) #43

Objective mode isn’t the same as other modes.

(SockDog) #44

Had Brink had other modes the player base may still be here while SD worked Objective to perfection. Likewise maybe SD wouldn’t need to make Objective so immediately accessible if it wasn’t the ONLY way to play the game. In short, if Objective is so freaking awesome then people will play it, making it the only choice and forcing people is exactly the reason why Brink was accessible to the point of abandonment.

Anyway rant aside. Game modes. I voted for everything but C&H and TDM, those just never tickled me that much. One thing is not to just plonk in vanilla CTF, or plain old DM. You guys are creative and talented, stamp your mark on the modes, make them your own while keeping the original flow. That said, you’re a small team, maybe reach out to established modders or startup devs early, give them the tools to make some of this stuff and include it in the retail release.

Some other modes

Defrag
JailBreak
Freezetag
Instagib

(tokamak) #45

Come on, you just know that’s not true. The issue doesn’t lie with the objectives, it’s the combat that sucks, so any game mode you fling at it just won’t stick.

(.Chris.) #46

The weak combat doesn’t explain the maps though.

(.FROST.) #47

My opinion is, why not as many game-modes as possible? And I don’t want to discuss the pros and cons of the more team-based and the less team based modes. In the end everybody plays what he prefers. If a game provides most of the standard game-modes people will stay with it. If a game only provides one mode, only a percentage of players will stay.

The paradox thing is, that SD went multi-platform to reach more players, but passively excluded players wich weren’t so much into the objective gameplay. And I allways say, I really became to like BRINK very much, but some additional game-modes wouldn’t hurt. If you are a teacher you can force people to learn this and that stuff because the audince can’t leave. But in videogames its a whole different story. I like the obj mode, but sometimes I just want to know who’s the man(Elimination, DM). Another time I want a more symmetrical gameplay(capture and hold, capture the flag). Or just a mix of good ol’ DM and teamplay, wich makes, taddaaa, TDM.

Consider how reliefing it would be to not have to think about an obj at all, when you are Res in Resort or Sec on CC. This relief alone would allready be fun. It would mean, that even if you can’t leave your spawn you don’t necessarily lose. Because if the opponents can’t reach you, they can’t kill you, and if they can’t kill you they won’t win TDM either. Actually if you “smart nade” them from inside the spawn you could even win. That doesn’t sound like much fun, but beeing spawn-trapped whilst your mission time is ticking also sucks. Aside from that, “capture and hold” of more than 3 sites would also mean 0.0 spawnrape since there wouldn’t be enough players to concentrate on only one area.

Additional gamemodes would also alter the way you look at the maps. And even though DM/TDM are almost kind of foul words in this forum, those modes would actually losen up the whole game and how people play it. No choke points, people would fight on the whole map all the time. You’d have to expect opponents everywhere, not only near the obj. And so on and son.

(SockDog) #48

The issue lies with expecting a single mode to bear the burden of selling an entire game and retaining the playerbase. And come on there are more issues with Brink than just the combat being off. Short of you not being interested in other modes and fearing resources would be wasted I’ve yet to hear an argument from you as to why allowing people to play other modes (and so make the game financially viable for long term support) is a bad thing.

@Frost - Other game modes wouldn’t necessarily have to use the same maps or all the same mechanics of the other modes. You include what works for that mode to make it play the best.

(tokamak) #49

Even that wouldn’t be an issue if the core mechanics worked. It’s easy to apply your own pet peeve to Brink and point it out as THE cause of failure, but in the end it’s simply people being dissatisfied with the way the game plays, it’s not the quantity of content or the variation offered, if a shooter can’t deliver the shooting then nothing else helps.

I’ve yet to hear an argument from you as to why allowing people to play other modes (and so make the game financially viable for long term support) is a bad thing.

You visit a truly excellent restaurant, after you tasted that perfect wine and some incredible starters, the waiter hands you two menu cards. One is for the spectacular dishes made in-house and the other is a Mac Donald’s delivery chart. Now what would that say about the confidence the restaurant has in their own food?

You don’t just waste resources, you also waste players and your displayed passion for type of game you’re making. A shooter is more than just it’s own sandbox with it’s own slightly different parameters and it’s own slightly different collection of guns and maps.

Objective mode is where the true innovation happens, it’s where new weapons, vehicles and tools are invented and it allows for completely different environments to be set in. The objective mode is still at it’s infant stage, it needs so much more research and experimentation. Objectives are still too static, the next step is the map geometry changing along with the process of a mission. It calls for more complexity and that in it’s turns calls for a more intuitive overlay so everyone can understand and participate.

There are developers that want to keep polishing an existing formula and there are developers that want to redefine genres. A developer that attempts both is like the artisan restaurant offering big macs on the side.

(SockDog) #50

By having a single game mode you have a single set of core mechanics working in a single way. It’s not about adding more modes to make the game bigger, it’s doing so to widen the area of appeal, and lessen the impact of any shortcomings (and yes I’ll accept some shortcomings could impact every mode, but that’s not the rule), increase the retention in the game and make it more successful and therefore supported better.

Even if Objective mode was perfect Brink would have still faced a niche audience simply because it’s been proven that the mode is just a hard sell for many other players. Frankly I’d rather SD included CTF, TDM, DM and rolled in the filthy profits than they kept holding their hands out for insufficient funds to make a game

You visit a truly excellent restaurant, after you tasted that perfect wine and some incredible starters, the waiter hands you two menu cards. One is for the spectacular dishes made in-house and the other is a Mac Donald’s delivery chart. Now what would that say about the confidence the restaurant has in their own food?

But this is just you being a snob again. :slight_smile: Your appreciation of other modes isn’t in question here, it’s whether the inclusion of those modes would benefit the game as a whole. Now let me draw my own analogy where the waiter hands you a menu and it has a single item on it, you try it but it’s not to your liking. You don’t go back there again. Eventually the restaurant shuts down.

Conversly the restuarant offers the same single item as the house special and then other items of equal quality but different flavours. You initially pick something you’re familiar with from the regular menu but happy with the quality you come back again a week later and try the house special. It’s a little salt and you have the balls to tell the chef as much, the next week you come back and try another regular menu item, they’re still great and the chef stops by your table and says he’s changed his recipe and asks you to try again… get the picture?

You don’t just waste resources, you also waste players and your displayed passion for type of game you’re making. A shooter is more than just it’s own sandbox with it’s own slightly different parameters and it’s own slightly different collection of guns and maps.

You mean the players that don’t play Brink anymore or the players who didn’t buy ETQW?

Objective mode is where the true innovation happens, it’s where new weapons, vehicles and tools are invented and it allows for completely different environments to be set in. The objective mode is still at it’s infant stage, it needs so much more research and experimentation. Objectives are still too static, the next step is the map geometry changing along with the process of a mission. It calls for more complexity and that in it’s turns calls for a more intuitive overlay so everyone can understand and participate.

There are developers that want to keep polishing an existing formula and there are developers that want to redefine genres. A developer that attempts both is like the artisan restaurant offering big macs on the side.

Again, I understand you see the value in Objective mode and none in others. The problem is that ETQW and Brink have arguably failed because their ONLY offering is objective mode and any flaws within that mode are game wide flaws. Adopting some snobbish highground doesn’t sell games or make a design successful.

If I have to be blunt I’d say I prefer SD payroll objective mode by retaining players with more accessible modes (with their own spin) than they continue to release compromised products due to budget limitations and worse ride over their own reputation to score cheap pre-release sales.

(tokamak) #51

Yeah I already regret picking it as a fancy restaurant, that’s how I see it but it should work the other way around as well. The analogy would still work with Burger King or Pizza Hut offering Mac Donalds on the side. Quake suddenly trying to do class based objectives would be the same thing and would displease the quake fans.

. The problem is that ETQW and Brink have arguably failed because their ONLY offering is objective mode and any flaws within that mode are game wide flaws.

Arguably indeed, Brink failed to deliver as a shooter and ETQW lack of widespread popularity is due to poor marketing and a really unfavourable release window amidst big franchises. No amount of other game modes would help their sales by even one iota.

(SockDog) #52

My point was a restaurant offering a single dish is risking a great deal, it had better be good and it had better be right first time. Offering more choice means people are more likely to find something they like and come back more often, usually to try something else. Your attitude seems to be that you need to force people to eat the single item and they’ll damn well enjoy it while ignoring the reality that you just can’t do that. It also seems to count on the fact that the other choices are of a lower quality, this is your opinion jading your perspective.

Arguably indeed, Brink failed to deliver as a shooter and ETQW lack of widespread popularity is due to poor marketing and a really unfavourable release window amidst big franchises. No amount of other game modes would help their sales by even one iota.

I don’t disagree those were aspects but I would argue that inclusion of other modes in both games may have seen them reach higher levels of success. Again, I’d rather see SD create a popular franchise with a shameless CoD clone IF it also allowed them to exert even more resources on the Objective mode.

This aside it did get me thinking about another modes. Specifically that it would perhaps be an easy fit to scale the complexity of the objective modes.

So at one end you have your RTCW class based game, in the middle a W:ET/ETQW non persistent perk type game and the far end a Brink style persistent character type game.

(tokamak) #53

Your attitude seems to be that you need to force people to eat the single item and they’ll damn well enjoy it while ignoring the reality that you just can’t do that.

Yeah that illustrates it quite well. Objectives may need some acquired taste, it’s something that people will feel compelled to play, to give it some time. Part of that compulsion can be gained from the lack of alternatives.

(SockDog) #54

But I’m saying allow them time by keeping them playing the game in other modes and taste taste taste along the way. You seem to think that people will just keep tasting something they don’t like until they like it. That’s just wrong, people will give up and go play somewhere else, who buys a game to be bored or frustrated by it? Ultimately even if they only play DM SD will benefit from extra sales, which is more money they can invest in the objective game or an SDK or whatever.

I just don’t understand why you act so threatened by stuff you deem as inconsequential. It’s like the stink of such low game modes would somehow affect your enjoyment of the objective gametype. Such elitism is pretty sad and doesn’t benefit anyone.

Again, a popular game is a rich SD. A rich SD, I am sure, would invest money into stuff they want to play not just stuff they have to make to pay the rent. But by all means, keep pushing for Brink 2.

(mortis) #55

Objective is best, but stopwatch is second best!

(tokamak) #56

[QUOTE=SockDog;380315]But I’m saying allow them time by keeping them playing the game in other modes and taste taste taste along the way. You seem to think that people will just keep tasting something they don’t like until they like it. That’s just wrong, people will give up and go play somewhere else, who buys a game to be bored or frustrated by it? Ultimately even if they only play DM SD will benefit from extra sales, which is more money they can invest in the objective game or an SDK or whatever.
[/QUOTE]

Brink was a success in sales (and again, more modes wouldn’t have made it a bigger success).That’s what frustrated me the most about it. It (and thus objective mode) had every chance to shine but a coward aproach to the customer base ruined it.

(SockDog) #57

It’s not cowardice, it’s not wanting to throw your company under a bus, I understand their motivations and I think we’re all in much better positions to criticise with nothing on the line. Gaining wider appeal with other more accepted modes and then nurturing their own objective mode in the exact way they want is to me a great compromise.

Anyway, enough of that. Wanted to throw a few more ideas in here that have been said before but might get noticed a little better here.

Make warmup a mode in itself, at least as a selectable option. This will alleviate some of the boredom while waiting for a server to fill. Something like DM or a survival type mode, largely brainless stuff. Keep it fast paced so it can be cut down to 5 minutes max.

I guess consoles will get their lobbies but at least on the PC allow a P2P type warmup lobby where you can do the above but also set up a game and then transition to a server once your ready to go.

Challenges. Said it many times but these were just great and exactly what should be used to teach the concepts of objective mode in more precise terms. Expand on these, make them a co-op mode (with unlocks and leaderboards), don’t be submissive, keep all the good kit in there so people have to play through them and learn what the game is about. IMO this is where you teach, so you can do it once or people can go back and practice, keep the objective mode pure game and not simplistic to ease learning.

(tokamak) #58

[QUOTE=SockDog;380456]It’s not cowardice, it’s not wanting to throw your company under a bus, I understand their motivations and I think we’re all in much better positions to criticise with nothing on the line. Gaining wider appeal with other more accepted modes and then nurturing their own objective mode in the exact way they want is to me a great compromise.
[/QUOTE]

It’s a risk to break from a very successful, award winning formula by installing something else something completely untested that you think has a wider appeal. It’s also not recognising the reasons for ETQW’s lack of success, which were external. SD knows how to make amazing shooters that are played by millions, they broke away from that which cost them dearly.

(VG_JUNKY) #59

It’s a risk to break from a very successful, award winning formula by installing something else something completely untested that you think has a wider appeal.

Um i dont know where u getting this from, but other gamemodes like DM & TDM have been tested before by other devs & have brought them great success & still do. Brink was originally advertised to a deverse audience ( it was said many times that this could be played the way u wanted to play ), many of which were from other non-SD shooters. So how would adding more modes, but still focussing most of there time in the objective mode damper the experience?

SD knows how to make amazing shooters that are played by millions, they broke away from that which cost them dearly.

They know how to make amazing shooters for PC… adding popular gamemodes from console shooters wouldn’t have hurt anything…

(tokamak) #60

I don’t think I can comment on that any further without repeating my initial points.