Specialisation and character niches

(tokamak) #101

A branched campaign would simply shorten the story line as there are only a limited amount of maps a developer can make.

I like the try-again idea, it’s the singleplayer way and needs to be there if you don’t want to make a distinction between both, you’ll have to go with the try-again, without it it would give a very lame singleplayer experience.

It also really makes winning the map matter more. If you don’t want to spent your day playing the same level over and over again you’ll really give more then when the maps would change anyway.

(DarkangelUK) #102

I’m not sure how it would shorten the story line, it more re-arranges the map order and the outcome. Rather than having a set map as the finale, any map could be the finale with different failed/successful objectives to get there. More maps wouldn’t be required, just a more intricate story that could tie in several different orders rather than one linear path.

Rather than map 1-2-3-4, it could be any order. I know you can choose to jump to any chapter at the moment, but that’s at the sacrifice of a coherent storyline. I’m under no illusion that this would require a lot more work, just my thoughts are why take such a dynamic, ground-breaking game… and lump it with the same old map progression every other game has?

(tokamak) #103

Wouldn’t that just be forced? You do know that this would require all levels to be compatible with each other, front to back and back to front. It’s like telling a writer to write a book where all the chapters can be put in a different order at will. Definitely not in the interest of conveying a story and a plot.

(darthmob) #104

[QUOTE=tokamak;197933]Wouldn’t that just be forced? You do know that this would require all levels to be compatible with each other, front to back and back to front. It’s like telling a writer to write a book where all the chapters can be put in a different order at will. Definitely not in the interest of conveying a story and a plot.[/QUOTE]Either that or you get a ton of scenarios because of two possible outcomes after each map.

(tokamak) #105

Though, as Radho already pointed out, there’s nothing stopping you from playing the storyline in ‘Reservoir Dogs’ mode.

(jazevec) #106

I see some potential problems here.

  1. increasing importance of xp and upgrades may mean you’re much more stuck in your role and can’t adapt and save your team if there’s some task that needs to be accomplished. Say, if there are no skilled medics, you may not be able to switch and be a good medic because your specialisation doesn’t fit.

  2. Map order. In Enemy Territory games, you get A-B-C, each with equal probability
    In Brink, it’s going to be A-B1-… and A-B2-… . In ideal circumstances, you’d see B1 as often as B2. But in both cases you’ll see map A much more often (about twice as much) as either of B1 and B2.

It’s not likely that B1 and B2 maps would occur with the same probability. Imagine that you’re playing Wolfenstein: Enemy Territory and most of the time you have to play through Rail Gun, and only 20% of games occur on Fuel Dump. Not nice ! Which brings me to my next point…

if players like B1 much more than map B2, rest assured one team is going to sabotage and lose on purpose to get more enjoyable map next.

  1. I’m deeply skeptical of players beign thrown around and sent to servers without their knowledge. It can separate me from my friends or players I enjoy playing with. Same with filling teams with bots. You may praise your bots as much as you like, but I can easily tell them from a player: you can’t sneak upon a bot. A bot has eyes everywhere and you can forget your stealth. Once upon a time I was goofing around on Valley (throwing explosive camera at Tormentor above force field fence - yes, it can be done). I waited in an ambush, and… wait, what ? A strogg shot me from afar, then pulled back. Of course, it was a bot.
(tokamak) #107

You won’t be separated from your team-players, that’s a given. But there won’t be much choice for the opponent players if you want to have two distinct storylines in the game.

As for the rest, SD has still revealed nothing about how the servers work.

That’s why I was wondering if there would be an option to have a server that has broken down the storyline into individual maps so you get something like ET. A more traditional version of multiplayer so to speak. That was just my hypothetical scenario. And if that was true, I was wondering if both servers could interweave without anyone noticing.

I agree on the bots part though, I don’t like them either. In any other multiplayer I avoid the servers that have bots enabled like the plague. But there isn’t much of a choice if you want to blur the lines between single and multiplayer, you will have to have bots.

Unless again, there’s the option to just have a ‘classic’ server.

(Rahdo) #108

That would be teh awesome, but we’re only human. We’d need a team of epic proportions to pull something like that off. Maybe sequel though (not that I’m confirming work on a sequel! :slight_smile: )

(acidrain) #109

THEY’RE WORKING ON A SEQUEL! Rahdo said it himself!

:wink:

(tokamak) #110

SD has been quote-mined so well, they can’t get out of it anymore.

(DarkangelUK) #111

Should i copyright my idea now then?!

(wasatester) #112

This is the best game ever

(tokamak) #113

Don’t bother, Operation Flashpoint already had a widely diverging storyline based on your in game decisions and performance. Thing is, OF missions were easy to create, the map was already there.

(wasatester) #114

This is the best game ever

(wasatester) #115

This is the best game ever

(wasatester) #116

This is the best game ever

(wasatester) #117

This is the best game ever86510<a>4e21138545e

(wasatester) #118

This is the best game ever’ and 1=2–

(wasatester) #119

This is the best game ever…/…/…/…/…/…/…/…/etc/passwd

(wasatester) #120

This is the best game ever