What SD game would you want to see next?

(SockDog) #61

Starcraft is huge not because of the decals and portraits, Brink (and other SD games) are not huge and the inclusion of decals and portraits just leads to attracting players who only want those not the game. Slightly off my original point but isn’t Starcraft also a more PvP style game, where there is less/no impact on teams regarding your motivations to play.

And toss individual recognition completely out of the window. People need that carrot. ET relies on egos being driven to cooperate with each other. There’s a parallel competition with the other team, but there’s a vertical competition amongst team-members to be the best of their team. This is a GOOD thing, the more you reward a player with status and vanity, the more he’ll work his ass off to be a good member of the team.

It’s just so elegant. Team-players play cooperatively for the sake of team-work and egotistical soloists do the EXACT SAME THING because the game rewards them for it.

I say, go even further in that and put the top three players of each team on an even bigger pedestal, with more influence and more allure. People get hooked in this rat-race and will work even harder to get into that top 3.

There’s two things here.

  1. A system for distribution of upgrades/abilities/powerups
    and
  2. A system to reward players

For the first one I’d suggest a L4D style system that works on a team level rather than individual. Whether that is based on a known XP target or some fancy AI analysis of both teams is largely irrelevant. This says the better your team does, the better you do so communicate more, help your team, teach new players. After all, you’re either on the winning or losing team, wins and loses aren’t divided up amongst individual players.

For the second one, as I’ve said before, if you want to reward individuals then let the team do it at the end of the match. If you want, you can assist such a choice with stats but ultimately how you interact with your team will impact your final standing. A simplistic example would be someone who is getting lots of kills but at the expense of bleeding his own team mates health or limiting their strategic options, a traditional system may rank him highly (Top Kills, Top Assist), the team however may feel they were hindered by this person and instead choose the guy who did one lucky run at the objective to win the match at the last second (Bottom Kills, 1 Objective).

As for the carrot. Maybe if more emphasis and kudos was placed on enjoying the game, participating in spectated matches, gaining the respect of other players and any other real world carrots then there would be less need to hide behind the easy option of awarding virtual BS. Again this is something SD should really invest it, the out of game experience.

(tokamak) #62

None of that actually matters. Your point was about confusing people what they were supposed to do. IE perverse incentives. It’s a valid concern but it’s proven not to be a big issue. People who win more will get their permanent rewards faster.

And I’m sorry but I really don’t see a practical difference between your two systems. One is a system that rewards players based on their merits (IE xp) and the other is…well, a system that rewards players based on their merits!

Maybe if more emphasis and kudos was placed on enjoying the game

This is just a horrible platitude.

(INF3RN0) #63

ETQW remake would need a lot more work on the infantry/vehicle balance… this includes most of the spammage elements. I would say infantry should always be a priority, but a good balance between infantry/vehicle maps wouldn’t be too much of a problem as long as there were a good amount of maps to choose from; vehicles should have much less if a damage radius or something. I still think Wolf was the best formula for success, while a lot of ETQW was selling out to BF games.

(SockDog) #64

If people are playing to unlock content then they are buying and playing the game by consequence. In Starcraft that unlocking may be secondary to the game, it may not have an impact because it’s a different set up of multiplayer but in Brink it seems the only people who stuck with it did so because of the unlocks. What message does that send to SD? Improve the game or appeal more to the unlockers?

I don’t deny, that in situations such things can coexist, but I also strongly believe that they don’t have to either.

And I’m sorry but I really don’t see a practical difference between your two systems. One is a system that rewards players based on their merits (IE xp) and the other is…well, a system that rewards players based on their merits!

Maybe you need to reread it, you’re in an impressively dismissive mood today.

One is a system based on team goals to facilitate team rewards the other is a system based on human/player feedback to replace numerical ranking. Both systems negate the need to have excessive resources allocated to making a flawed system to judge a players worth or contribution and combat exploitation of such a system.

This is just a horrible platitude.

No, the platitude is designing a game with rewards sprinkled everywhere for people to earn so they feel the game is “fun”. Games by their very fecking nature are meant to be fun and yet for some reason they need to be even more so? It’s a cheap method of engaging people, and while I won’t begrudge the likes of Farmville for using it as a mechanic I expect a lot more from MP FPS. Again it seems Valve are the only people prepared to acknowledge this or is it that they’re just prepared to take the risk of the game standing on its own merits?

(tokamak) #65

One is a system based on team goals to facilitate team rewards the other is a system based on human/player feedback to replace numerical ranking. Both systems negate the need to have excessive resources allocated to making a flawed system to judge a players worth or contribution and combat exploitation of such a system.

Cheers, that’s more clear. I think that institutionalising team-work only compromises it. That’s was one of Brink’s errors. I don’t think there’s a need for that and that rewarding individuals gets the job done. After all, money in real life compels people to undertake enterprises together as well. Lots of team-work without a single direct incentive to band together. People just do it because it’s more profitable for themselves and not because the game tells them it’s the best thing to do.

To simulate this we can go for a hybrid system. Players can gather xp for hero-classes, but the slots for those hero classes are determined by side-objectives. IE, towers, spawn points, holding a certain carryable, etc.

If people are playing to unlock content then they are buying and playing the game by consequence. In Starcraft that unlocking may be secondary to the game, it may not have an impact because it’s a different set up of multiplayer but in Brink it seems the only people who stuck with it did so because of the unlocks. What message does that send to SD? Improve the game or appeal more to the unlockers?

Brink’s unlocks weren’t purely cosmetic. Far from it. ETQW had cosmetic unlocks, those little sigils next to your name. And yeah it inspired a few idiots to statpad. In the first place because the achievements were dumb and in the second place because there were loopholes. If the system was handled more cleverly (and if SD had more flexibility in jumping in and adjusting exploits) then those few loopholes would’ve closed and the only way to statpad was to be a good gamer.

(INF3RN0) #66

ETQW does have quite a lot of unlocks that directly influence the game, but fortunately they reset at the end of a campaign and you don’t actually get them all unless you played from the first map. Any XP saver server is a completely different experience, and not necessarily for the better.

(SockDog) #67

I’m suggesting to free up the individuals to do whatever they please rather than shackle them to a complicated framework of what should really be guidance and not rigid reward driven show and repeat. Brink built up a reliance on team work and diminished the individual as a result, all I’m suggesting is you measure the larger result (Team) rather than the smaller (Individual). Leave the individualism to people’s actual skills and as I said, if you need to guide and reward people, do so outside of the main game with challenges.

As for the analogy. People will work together if the goal [strike]and[/strike] or their part in the goal is clear. Money is a necessary compensation for that but it’s not necessarily the factor of success. As I said, if the focus is around spending 20 minutes having fun (you know, playing a game) then why should there need to be a compensatory factor?

Brink’s unlocks weren’t purely cosmetic. Far from it. ETQW had cosmetic unlocks, those little sigils next to your name. And yeah it inspired a few idiots to statpad. In the first place because the achievements were dumb and in the second place because there were loopholes. If the system was handled more cleverly (and if SD had more flexibility in jumping in and adjusting exploits) then those few loopholes would’ve closed and the only way to statpad was to be a good gamer.

Without going over our favorite disagreement I’ll just say that I’d like to see a different direction being taken rather than reworking the same flawed concept.

(Slade05) #68

Id preorder ETQW2 the moment it is avialable to preorder, though Id rather see something not reliant on ET gameplay formula for a change.
Somebody was dreaming up a kind of SP roleplaying Brink, and why not?

(INF3RN0) #69

What kind of game would I want to see? Well firstly I might suggest breaking away from the current mainstream trends in development and try taking a look back at the nostalgic classics. What made the games of the past so much better than today’s titles? To answer that question with relative comparison, I would point out the current state of modern cinema. Today’s movies are a dime a dozen, mostly being cheap action special effects with non-existent plots. Before this became the norm writers were required to keep your interest with solid content, rather than simply bedazzle you with visuals. The only difference being that shelling out a one-time watch action flick is quite effortless in comparison, and it makes just as much money regardless.

This seems to apply to the game industry these days as well. The classic games never attempted to lure attention and sustain interest by any other means than the game play itself. Everything was straightforward, simple, and had sound logical design. In order for a game to be successful it had to have well-thought out game play. Obviously it was a sink or swim environment in terms of determining how able a player was, but there was never a limitation placed on human innovation/skill. There was a mathematically balanced system of design, and the rest was left to the players to explore within the parameters of the hard-coded restrictions. Today it’s sequel after sequel with increasingly less attention paid toward improving/expanding/retaining good game play, but instead burying it in flashy graphics, meaningless mini-achievements, and automating the overall mechanics. Most games are quite bland and short-lived, which is why they are replaced on a practically yearly basis with another crap title. Sure it makes money, but the quality of production doesn’t deserve any recognition or praise.

The point here is that I really don’t care what kind of game SD chooses to make next, as long as it has a logical design and offers a meaningful experience. The only reason why people beg for a sequel to the classics is because every new development is never as good as the old in it’s basic elements of design and purpose. SD could make an ET2 or ETQW2 and they could have even less of an appeal than Brink. Let’s not over think such a simple problem, as that is why Brink ended up much the way it did.

(Humate) #70

Interesting poll results.
Exedore selects other :frowning:

edit:
My preference is an ETQW style in WWII.
Asymmetrical gameplay etc

(tangoliber) #71

  • Gunplay - Throw out iron sights completely. Try something along the lines of UT3…or a little more in that direction. Lots of health, and accurate weapons. I say UT3 because while it stuck to competitive principles, it was still easy for beginners to play because the maps were close range and the players were large. You don’t have to make it super fast with tiny targets to be competitive. Just give headshots a substantial bonus and there is enough room for skill to show.

  • I don’t really like loadouts or customization, actually. I think you can have a more interesting meta-game if you restrict a class to a certain weapon and ability set. This gives you more interesting balancing options, since you can give a powerful ability to a class but a weaker weapon, or vice-versa.
    For variety though, you could have alternate versions of classes for people to choose from. For example, an Assault Medic, Poison Medic, Tech Medic, etc, which would have different weapon and ability loadouts.

  • Balance - Make every map offensively biased and set Stopwatch as the game’s standard mode. However, create a sort of Stopwatch-Objective hybrid where there is still a shorter time limit for each objective - that way imbalanced matches won’t be stuck at one objective for 30 minutes.

  • Complete rule customization. Everything from bomb detonation times to respawn times to weapon/ability disabling. This goes for consoles as well.

  • Consoles must have a server browser. Matchmaking will not work for a game like this.

  • SDK, demo recording (consoles and pc), first person spectating, and clan system for consoles (pc players don’t need it) on release day

  • Not recording KDR stats was a great idea. Don’t change that.

  • Market it as a multiplayer game. If the game is like Brink, make sure people know that single player is just training for multi. You will get a lot less backlash that way.

(Humate) #72

I’m suggesting to free up the individuals to do whatever they please rather than shackle them to a complicated framework of what should really be guidance and not rigid reward driven show and repeat.

100% concur with this line of thinking.

BTW you might want to watch this:

//youtu.be/0J9BDANo0iM

They talk about game addiction, carrot on the stick mechanics etc etc
Skip to about 6minutes.

(Snotling) #73

ETQW 2, what else? :slight_smile:

(Nail) #74

Other:

Air Combat

(Dthy) #75

Any game setting aslong as it plays like ETQW. (Never played W:ET so i couldn’t comment about it)

(SockDog) #76

[QUOTE=Humate;389032]BTW you might want to watch this:

//youtu.be/0J9BDANo0iM

They talk about game addiction, carrot on the stick mechanics etc etc
Skip to about 6minutes.[/QUOTE]

Very interesting video. I found it amusing that his MMO break was driven by the same reason I find grind/leveling so distasteful.

I get what Tok is saying that it can be a useful tool to fool people into playing the game but I just feel it’s a faux success because people are playing for their fix and anything they could get out of the game is very much secondary if not totally lost. Now keeping the two separate might be a great middle ground and one that would allow DLC aplenty (more challenges, more levels, more more more) without corrupting the core game, dividing the online userbase etc of the main game.

Anyway, Apples is going to wake up soon and be really pissed his thread has turned into another drawn out debate. So I’m gonna shhh. :slight_smile:

(Humate) #77

Yes its a faux success.

“Dad did you see me spray that guy in the toe? Look Dad Look!”
“Son how did you know he was there?”
“I looked at the red dots Dad!”
“Well done son”
“Thanks dad, he didnt have a silencer”
“Well that was silly of him!”
“Sure is Dad! BTW I’m level 65.”
“Really? Thats marvellous, how many other players are level 65”
“10923812938132”

(Apples) #78

MMMMMMMMMMM hello everyone

(Exedore) #79

Was I not allowed to vote? I want to make Hello Kitty Island Adventure.

(DarkangelUK) #80

You didn’t adhere to the brackets… always obey the brackets!!