Splash DamageBlogCommunity Question: Multiplayer Genres of Choice

Splash Damage Blog

Community Question: Multiplayer Genres of Choice

Community, there's a huge amount of choice out there when it comes to games. Being a multiplayer-focused company, we're very interested to find out what sorts of games you like to play when you're craving a bit of competitive (or cooperative) online action. So, without further word-fluff, here's this week's Community Question:

What genre(s) do you currently play the most to get your multiplayer gaming fix?

We've got a list of the most obvious choices in this week's Community Question poll for you to vote on. We'd also love to know what games you're currently into, so please mention them in your replies.

78 Comments

Voted shooter when I could play online, currently loving BL2 (RPG with FPS elements?)
Posted on 26 October, 2012 - 18:50
I guess nothing can beat a few good games of AoE2. Not a lot of shooters out there that hold me playing for years.
Posted on 26 October, 2012 - 19:52
Currently I'm really enjoying Dawn of War 2. The netcode is crappy and the community is dying but it's such a great hybrid between an RTS and a MOBA. It's hard to describe the appeal. Unlike SC2 where they player has exact control over his units, in DoW the fights are harder to control, yet, at the same time the stakes of the matches are much higher. Every unit that survives a fight comes back stronger and stronger. A levelled up unit is worth so much more than the mere resource cost, losing it really feels like a punch in the stomach. That's the kind of concept I'd like to see more in shooters. If a player grows and becomes stronger while alive then it truly feels like he lost something when he dies. It really puts more tension and emotion AND need for teamwork in a game.
Posted on 26 October, 2012 - 20:55
Borderlands 2 here at the moment, dipping into GW2 when I feel the urge.
Posted on 26 October, 2012 - 21:16
I play shooters mostly, when I want a change of pace I'll dabble in racing games with my wheel or get my game on with some 2D fighters. And yes I'm also balls deep atm in Borderlands 2.
Posted on 26 October, 2012 - 21:20
Dont really play anything anymore, but shooters and strategy. BF3 / SC2 are the last games i bought.
Posted on 26 October, 2012 - 22:20
Well, if anything, then always prefer a good and nicely layed out story single player over any multiplayer. Multiplayer games and story are hard to combine it seems. The last games i enjoyed were Borderlands 2, Starcraft 2, Assasins Creed (Series), along with Wolfenstein: Enemy Territory (old, but still nice). SC2 and Enemy Territory seem to be that 'multiplayer type', but personally i think focusing solely on multiplayer as a game company does not really widen your possibilities to make a good game (guess i dropped the bomb there :D). Also: i probably said it in a last thread and am going to repeat. I would prefer many things from Borderlands 2 combined with Enemy Territory (FPSRPG type). I don't know if another WW2 shooter will do it, but these would be some elements i'd combine, because i am pretty much clueless about other good multiplayer game types. Basically i would be only interested in RTS and FPS. Also, and i really forgot that. Arma 2 DayZ. The whole shooot and loot thingy ? Really enjoyed that.
Posted on 26 October, 2012 - 23:05
Forgot to add - only play MP.
Posted on 27 October, 2012 - 00:56
Nothing really, I've gone back to single player games. Nothing has kept my interest long enough. DayZ, promising but buggy and hard to get into, perhaps the standalone will rectify that. CS:GO, bought because was cheap was fun but hasn't drawn me in at all. Tribes Ascend, free and fun but again didn't wow me to keep playing. Hawken, tried alpha and was fun but yet again didn't draw me in. I've got lots of games to go through on Steam so it's not a big loss, currently having blast with Anno2070 :)
Posted on 27 October, 2012 - 10:39
- Strategy only for the story/SP - Shooters only for the MP if it's really good, but i get bored really soon. The only shooter that i played after i get bored to get all the Steam Achievements was Brink :D, for TF2/others i cheated to get most of the achievements, after that i lost interest in them. The harder it is, the most time i will play it. If is "holding hands, catching butterflies and picking flowers" i will play the SP and uninstall it. - MOBA - nope, tried but didn't like it. - MMO - very very rarely - Racing - very very rarely - Sports - only FIFA and NHL - manager mode. Win everything with AZ Alkmaar and Ajax in FIFA, and Boston Bruins/Philadelphia Flyers in NHL. After that i will lose interest in them. - RPG and stuff - if the story is somehow good i will play it regardless of the graphics/bugs/art/length/etc. The funny part is that after i finish a RPG game i will not care about future DLC or adons. The exception to this rule was Diablo 2 and Morrowind :D. - Web Games - Action (commando like) and Adventure/RPG at work when i get bored :D
Posted on 27 October, 2012 - 13:39
Main genres for a multiplayer fix for me is (in no special order) Strategy / RTS , Shooter & Racing Atm im currently playing / into..... FPS: Mechwarrior Online ET / ETQW Borderlands 2 The Hunter Strategy : X3: Terran Conflict (Heavily modded) Cities XL Simcity 4 (Heavily modded) RTS: Rome Total War (Modded) Medieval 2 Total War Empires Total War StarCraft 2 Dark Reign Racing : Rfactor (heavily modded) GTR Evolution (heavily modded) I-Racing Nascar 2003 Thats about it I think, I have periods where I'm stuck playing 1 of those games for at least a week without playing any of the others.....:cool: I guess I should also point out that i've been playing a few of those for upwards of 10 years because they are just that good...... Its also probably partly because there has been a lack of any games that have beaten / bettered what they provide imo. Case in point for me is Dark reign and Simcity 4 ......no games have come out that do what they do better imo(even tho I DO play SC2 I still prefer Dark reign's playstyle, and cities XL whilst good, is just missing some great things SC4 did so well) :penguin:
Posted on 27 October, 2012 - 18:32
FPS of course, primarily L4D2 campaign simply because it removes a big chunk of the epeen and balancing issues we've discussed so many many times. The fact this free weekend has seen peak players jump from 9-10k to 45k and you can still join a game with total noobs and play through whole campaigns shows some undeniable strengths of the way the game works (that's not to say it isn't a hell of a lot tougher to play as a result but it's still playable!). It's also excellent at making a team work together with very few 4th wall shattering mechanics or bribes. I'd heartily recommend SD play a few campaigns this weekend while the noob level is high. In the other category: Open world/emergent games such as Minecraft and DayZ. Seems there is plenty of scope for this type of gameplay to be explored and incorporated into a more traditional FPS multiplayer game types. Not so much a game genre but I also like passive multiplayer. Things where your friends (or strangers) compete on things like scores, Audiosurf comes to mind as do game like Burnout Paradise. Maybe not enough to hang a whole game off of but it's nice if incorporated well (aka Brink Challenges).
Posted on 28 October, 2012 - 00:45
The only player versus player multiplayer games I play now are shooters.
Posted on 28 October, 2012 - 03:25
FPS of course, primarily L4D2 campaign simply because it removes a big chunk of the epeen and balancing issues we've discussed so many many times.
Except that it uses a scoreboard and except it's not competitive.
Open world/emergent games such as Minecraft and DayZ. Seems there is plenty of scope for this type of gameplay to be explored and incorporated into a more traditional FPS multiplayer game types.
Agreed.
Posted on 28 October, 2012 - 09:28
Oh ffs, here we go again.
Posted on 28 October, 2012 - 10:29
Quick, I'll derail in a different direction! Sometimes I like to play League of Legends. Mobas aren't too awful if you're pro with the /ignore chat function!
Posted on 28 October, 2012 - 10:47
Oh noes! Discord on a discussion board!
Posted on 28 October, 2012 - 11:18
Open world/emergent games such as Minecraft and DayZ. Seems there is plenty of scope for this type of gameplay to be explored and incorporated into a more traditional FPS multiplayer game types.
[video=youtube;OSmlrPcXumc]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OSmlrPcXumc[/video]
Posted on 28 October, 2012 - 11:22
Starforge has the physics but now it needs geology and ecology so the environment becomes more meaningful to players. That's the real future of such open world sandbox games. In a future game a faction of players will be starting their own underground mining operation while fighting off an opposing faction, they will hit on a magma rift that causes an eruption which wipes out a nearby forest located on the mountain hill and a mudslide will flood a nearby base occupied by the opposition. The ash cloud will lower the temperature in a wider region and locational acid rains will change the the quality of the nature it lands on causing certain animals and plants to go extinct while the added fertilisation will attract new species. All of that procedural and none of it scripted. Implementing a complex natural world in which the action by players have consequences that will ripple through to a larger scale means that there's many different motives and ambitions players can have that will be directly conflicting with the aspirations of other players. Players will fight to complete enterprises they conceived by themselves and other players will try to stop them because such enterprises will compromise their interests.
Posted on 28 October, 2012 - 11:34
Currently playing: Enemy Terrirtory: Quake Wars...because it's just too damn good! (Ps. Join Taw :D ). Xonotic is also fun. Previously I was into World of Warcraft.
Posted on 28 October, 2012 - 12:17
Voted for shooter, because I still play a little ETQW.
(Ps. Join Taw :D ).
You will never catch me alive! :stroggtapir:
Posted on 28 October, 2012 - 12:26
You will never catch me alive! :stroggtapir:
WANTED: Rex! Dead or Alive Alive: $5. Dead: $10 :armadillochase:
Posted on 28 October, 2012 - 14:03
Tribes Ascend and League of Legends. The odd Portal 2 coop here and there. And when in a weird mood my friends and I play a game of Worms Reloaded, C&C Generals, Empire Earth, or, lo and behold, Liero Xtreme :)
Posted on 28 October, 2012 - 16:38
kicked $15. banned $20
Posted on 28 October, 2012 - 18:38
Except that it uses a scoreboard and except it's not competitive.
There was an underlying point to my praise of L4D2 that went beyond merely stating SD should do the same. Specifically that the game encourages teamplay and reliance to the point that if people do play selfishly it stands out, jeopardises the team and ultimately gets them abandoned. It's clear with Brink that they want something similar in their games but it didn't quite work. Closer study of L4D2, and I'm not trying to patronise, may help them achieve that. For example you could offer passive buffs if you are within (and stay within) a certain radius of a player class. This would hopefully encourage players to stick together rather than rambo off to their deaths. Seems a much better idea to me than actively clicking players at random to buff them before they run off to their death or bribing people with you know what.
[video=youtube;OSmlrPcXumc]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OSmlrPcXumc[/video]
Yes, I saw this yesterday and it looks very interesting. For them specifically I just wonder if they're going to be able to add any gaming meat to those nutritious bones. :)
Posted on 28 October, 2012 - 22:46
I like FPS and Strategy. So, Natural Selection 2 is pretty much the ultimate game for me. Favorite RTS is R.U.S.E. Favorite non-strategy multiplayer FPS is Killzone 2.
Posted on 29 October, 2012 - 01:20
I like FPS and Strategy. So, Natural Selection 2 is pretty much the ultimate game for me.
I've been playing that a fair amount since the last build optimized it to the point that I can decently run it on my fairly low spec rig.
Posted on 29 October, 2012 - 02:09
There was an underlying point to my praise of L4D2 that went beyond merely stating SD should do the same. Specifically that the game encourages teamplay and reliance to the point that if people do play selfishly it stands out, jeopardises the team and ultimately gets them abandoned. It's clear with Brink that they want something similar in their games but it didn't quite work. Closer study of L4D2, and I'm not trying to patronise, may help them achieve that.
Oh I completely agree that players should be able to boost each other and thus let a team become greater than the sum of its part. I just think that Brink did this in a too explicit fashion. Staying together and pressing F on each other regardless of what´s going on is great teamwork but it doesn't require much insight or skill. And in a way L4D is similar to that extend. L4D is more about not being a dumbass than it is about being clever.
Posted on 29 October, 2012 - 11:36
FPS mainly, currently playing CS:GO which is a sad reflection of how bad the FPS multiplayer genre is at the moment...still occassionally play Brink and RTCW. Got back into Company of Heroes a few weeks back and played till i got to a level that I was consistently humped... :), very occassionally play Dirt3 and Fifa (with the lad). as an aside, on the L4D comment - I'm fairly sure there was a reasonably developed competitive scene, though to be honest I lost patience with the game fairly early on and only logged about 30hrs on L4D2.
Posted on 29 October, 2012 - 13:12
Oh I completely agree that players should be able to boost each other and thus let a team become greater than the sum of its part. I just think that Brink did this in a too explicit fashion. Staying together and pressing F on each other regardless of what´s going on is great teamwork but it doesn't require much insight or skill.
The boost isn't my point, just an example of implementation. It's that there can be passive drivers that promote better teamplay rather than bribing or filling the screen with clutter. Again, it's about changing the path rather than constantly repaving it and expecting to get somewhere else.
And in a way L4D is similar to that extend. L4D is more about not being a dumbass than it is about being clever.
This raises the question, 'why are you playing this game?' Many games are simplistic (to use your definition) but are great fun to play and have excellent longevity. You seem to feel this need for depth often at the cost of accessibility and fun, while not directly related this video kind of covers that approach. [video=youtube;FRTsl1jCqq8]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FRTsl1jCqq8[/video] BTW - I believe you're meaning to write 'extent' although L4D does extend me quite a bit. :)
Posted on 29 October, 2012 - 13:48
Remember that all but 3 of the special infected classes will stun and kill an individual player over time should an attack connect and not be interrupted. That is the most significant element keeping the survivor team together and it is extremely heavy handed in implementation. It's hard to translate into the comparatively vanilla format of two teams of players shooting at each other.
Posted on 29 October, 2012 - 15:59
Well I'm not arguing for realism though, I just want games that reward ingenuity and creativity. That's why I play games and ET really pioneers the way these two skillsets are rewarded. L4D only partially does that by letting players play the zombies.
Posted on 29 October, 2012 - 16:12
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=FRTsl1jCqq8 Even though he has some valid points there, I must say I really, really hate nay-saying from the bottom of my heart, especially because he's all wrong and he even shows us the evidence but says something different. The one moment he shows us the giant leap between Doom and Half Life 2, the next moment he shows us a(in his opinion) not so giant leap between two Halo games. That's bias. Then he states how expensive games are getting; well, if they'd have tried to make Crysis(with the same fidelity level) 10 years before they actually made it, it would have cost them probably 5-8 times more, or even more than that. So actually technologies are getting cheaper and cheaper. But the most important thing he forgot: People like to have good and affordable hardware. That's only possible if there is a mass market for that stuff. But the mass market will only be there if people feel the need to buy the newest hardware. But people wouldn't buy that stuff if there wouldn't be the proper software(or video medium) for that. And if people don't do that we'd still pay a fortune for a 1GB harddrive. But it's not only the PCs and consoles that profit from that, but all the other technical "toys" as well. My first TFT for example was 600 Euro and it is only 19" the next one cost me 360 Euro, a 24" monitor and the last one was 320 Euro, a 24" monitor with integrated 3D Vision, together with one pair of glasses. And Half Life 2 is still very pretty; I installed it a couple weeks ago. But it only looks so good because they've put so much effort in that game back then. I don't know what kind of problem he has, but if a developer/publisher earns more money than he had invested, then everybody wins. The more Jobs are available in the computer-game industry the better. Thousands and thousands of talented people want to work there, but they also need their bills to be paid. Millions and millions buy photorealistic AAA games and enjoy them. That doesn't mean, that it is entirely forbidden to play games like "Retro City Rampage", "Hotline Miami", or "Pixel Boy". It's the variety that is so unique to video games. No other medium has so incredibly much variety than computer games, not nearly. Maybe he should found something like "Dogma Games", or something. And the question is not if "we" will ever be able to completely copy his world in every facet, it's only a question of WHEN. 10years, 20years, 100years, 1000years, 10000years??? Doesn't matter, technical advancement doesn't stop only because you are dead. Remember those nay sayers, saying, no way digital photographing will ever be as good as analogue photographing? Well, I guess we all know what happend. Frickin advancement happend. Some guys said, men will never ever be faster than the speed of sound, others have said, that our earth isn't a sphere. My advice to all those guy, BE OPEN FOR EVERYTHING AND NEVER SAY NEVER, BECAUSE IN HUMAN HISTORY EVERYTHING THAT MEN COULD REALISTICLY IMAGINE TO ACCOMPLISH MEN HAD ACCOMPLISHED SOONER OR LATER AND YOU DON'T WANNA BE THAT POOR LITTLE GUY SITTING OUTSIDE IN THE RAIN WITH A DONKEY MASK ON HIS HEAD WHEN EVERYBODY ELSE IS SITTING INSIDE, CELEBRATING HUMANITIES NEWEST ACHIVEMENT. God do I hate those nay sayers.
Posted on 29 October, 2012 - 17:53
Remember that all but 3 of the special infected classes will stun and kill an individual player over time should an attack connect and not be interrupted. That is the most significant element keeping the survivor team together and it is extremely heavy handed in implementation. It's hard to translate into the comparatively vanilla format of two teams of players shooting at each other.
I wouldn't say it was heavy handed, it's just blood obvious. I think the distinction is that you're not stopped from doing it or bribed in some way for not doing it. It's a natural way to solve poor behaviour or make certain behaviours more risky. When you screw up you might learn and blame yourself, correcting your behaviour, or you may blame your team for not backing you up. End result however is you know that when you're not with your team the chances of something bad happening is greater. I gave the example of a distance based passive buff. Maybe you could likewise give penalties (or a nicer name as not to scare players) for being away from the team. Perhaps a Covert Op would have a cloak that's 100% effective around one enemy player but as the number grows the more observable they become. This would allow them to stalk stragglers on the enemy team but also be compromised if the enemy works in units. Of course I'm getting stuck here on location/team based things but there are other subtleties that valve employees through design that could benefit a team vs team type game.
Well I'm not arguing for realism though, I just want games that reward ingenuity and creativity. That's why I play games and ET really pioneers the way these two skillsets are rewarded. L4D only partially does that by letting players play the zombies.
Well this is going to lead into a tired argument so lets leave it there. Again, I mentioned L4D2 because of it's design choices and how they drive player experiences.
Posted on 29 October, 2012 - 19:14
Yes, so realism is completely irrelevant, we both were already on the same page. @Frost, that's a great video but I think it's worth mentioning that COD MW1 and MW3 are nearly identical looking while being 5 years apart. Five years further back, COD3 is from a completely different era. So although we can blame the recession and we can blame the xbox360 determining the pace of the market, we can also just say that MW3 has hit the sweet spot when it comes to graphics versus performance. I'm still blown away by MW3's graphics that run really smoothly on high settings on my 5 year old PC. And isn't that refreshing? I don't really need games to look better than that. They've already tricked my brains in accepting it, they no longer need to work at bridging what's being displayed and what it needs to actually represent like five years ago. If game developers no longer need to invest in looking more realistic than MW3 then they can start being more fun, more interact able and mroe fantastical than MW3. Gamers simply no longer want games to look better. They're happy with their Gears of War, Borderlands and Halo. It's fine as it is. What they will care about is being able to do more cool stuff, like Portal 2, or Planetside2 or well, I guess a lot of folks looked forward to Brink's parkour... Anyway, I look at this: http://www.digitaltrends.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/11/The-Everything-Guide-Everything-you-need-to-know-about-Call-of-Duty-Modern-Warfare1.jpg or http://newbreview.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/10/gears3_beast_thrashball-jpg.jpg And think 'jup, that's cool, now let me shoot at things'. A totally different feeling then the enormous thrill of seeing UT2k3 run for the first time on my friend's pc. Going from UT99 straight into UT2K3 was such a milestone, it wasn't just about having more pretty things to look at, it was also wondering about what would be next and how cool games in the near future were going to look.
Posted on 29 October, 2012 - 21:48
If game developers no longer need to invest in looking more realistic than MW3 then they can start being more fun, more interact able and mroe fantastical than MW3. Gamers simply no longer want games to look better. They're happy with their Gears of War, Borderlands and Halo. It's fine as it is. What they will care about is being able to do more cool stuff, like Portal 2, or Planetside2 or well, I guess a lot of folks looked forward to Brink's parkour...]
Absolutely my opinion. My problem with the video above was only his "photorealistic no good, real photorealism will never happen, or animations won't ever match the realism of the graphics(wich is ridiculous)" bla bla. But actually I don't buy games because they are just photorealistic. No matter what, but Mass Effect for example(imho one of the absolute very best games I've played so far) is not photorealistic, yet it looks just gorgeous and "real"(wich is not necessarily photorealistic real). Same with Brink(although utterly different art-style), there are things that look realistic, even photorealistic sometimes(though low resolution blows that illusion if you are less than 2-3 meters away from the respective object*), but overall it's highly stylized and much, much more apealing to me than anything else with a desperately realistic look to it. But like with traditional arts you have to first understand reality before you can make your own, convincing version of it. Look at the Source engine for example. At first it was mostly about realism, but now you got games running on that engine wich are everything but realistic. Like TF2 and Dota 2 wich looks just fantastic btw.(and I'm not even remotely a Fantasy guy, but that game looks so absolutely amazing. I even thought about buying it just because of the graphics....so beautiful). *The Hope(ship on CC) looks especially realistic(when you look at it from where the gate is/was)
Posted on 29 October, 2012 - 23:34
Well, frost, you're also missing the major point about the art assets necessary in attempting to achieve that style. These photo-realistic environment goals are necessarily either dependent on repetition of the same props or following a limited corridor. This is about the artists making the assets. It is tangential to technology and some day may be able to be circumvented more successfully than it can at present by the same (one reason the rage engine texture system is exciting). The style currently holds back the scope of ambition for other aspects of the game, such as scale or player agency to accommodate better fidelity. Mid-far future or mid-far past are likely the best settings to attempted photo-realism at the moment because they allow for a more believable gap between game environment and real environment because the setting already establishes that the player has little comparisons to draw with real experience. Thus, they can partly excuse art asset limitations. As an aside, photo-realism is an idiotic goal, even ignoring all technological and development constraints. Imitated photographic limitations like lens flare and low depth of field make sense when the player is supposed to be looking through a glass camera lens in the game or in screenshots advertising that the game looks just like a photograph. That's a fairly limited range of sensible usage.
Posted on 30 October, 2012 - 01:42
Coop Shooter PayDay The Heist. This small dev team OverKill got this right. Fun game...fav map Green Bridge..they make this look easy http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8A8TYGbkMAU
Posted on 30 October, 2012 - 01:54
Well, frost, you're also missing the major point about the art assets necessary in attempting to achieve that style. These photo-realistic environment goals are necessarily either dependent on repetition of the same props or following a limited corridor. This is about the artists making the assets. It is tangential to technology and some day may be able to be circumvented more successfully than it can at present by the same (one reason the rage engine texture system is exciting). The style currently holds back the scope of ambition for other aspects of the game, such as scale or player agency to accommodate better fidelity.
Reality also consists of repetition; even though no two parts in the real world are exactly identical, billions and billions of things do look ALMOST the same. In a way that those things are visually indistinguishable from each other. New cars, paper-sheets, eggs, most of the stuff you can buy in a department store, or any store at all, blackbirds, screws. knobs, chinese people:wink: No, seriously, there's so much repetition in this world, but in computer-games it's just more. They don't have to make everything look absolutely unique, they just have to reduce the amount of repetition. And I think they are doing this more and more successfully. Like they've done it with Rage.
Posted on 30 October, 2012 - 07:49
Not a wall of text and probably been said already, but i agree with "realistic graphics are not so important". It rather restricts you in a certain way. I liked for example a colorful Saints Row 3rd or Borderlands 2 cel-shading much more than BF3. But BF3 was also impressive in a way. However, it seems some/many people are not liking e.g. cel-shading that much. EDIT no clue if true or representative, but i heard some bitching about it here and there, on streams, forums, etc. Would be interesting to start a new survey :)
Posted on 30 October, 2012 - 08:12
Not a wall of text and probably been said already, but i agree with "realistic graphics are not so important". It rather restricts you in a certain way. I liked for example a colorful Saints Row 3rd or Borderlands 2 cel-shading much more than BF3. But BF3 was also impressive in a way. However, it seems some/many people are not liking e.g. cel-shading that much. EDIT no clue if true or representative, but i heard some bitching about it here and there, on streams, forums, etc. Would be interesting to start a new survey :)
I totally love Borderlands and its style, have the GOTY* from the first part and the Vault Hunter ed. from the 2nd one. You are not alone acQu. But look at the Steam stats, they'll tell you the same. BL 2 is still one of the 10 most played games at the moment. *~100hrs ingame
Posted on 30 October, 2012 - 08:24
I just had quick look around my office, there isn't much repetition here beyond 4 power sockets, 2 fluorescent bulbs (the 3rd one isnt working) and stuff my colleagues have also raided from the stationary cupboard, to create a room like the one I'm currently in would take absolutely ages, 1000s of unique assets for one single room, buildings tend to have more than one room and worlds tend to have more than one building. Though he was quite quick to dismiss photorealism ever happening it wasn't the point of the video, he was more saying why bother? I don't think he's saying we shouldn't strive for better visuals but rather aiming for photorealism seems a bit of a waste when we can do so much more interesting things with games. @ acQu, I still remember when Zelda Wind Waker was announced... Yet years down the line it's well regarded for it's visuals that still hold up rather well today.
Posted on 30 October, 2012 - 08:25
Definitely. Same for WoW. 7 years old or something, the areas that were out back then still look terrific today. And it didn´t even have the post-processing going on in Wind Waker or TF2. I also guess that if the game industry itself lets the whole photo-realism go, that 3D card manufacturing will change as well. The performance may be still increase but there will be less need for things like tessellation and reflection and shadows and such. If you can use the resources to develop architecture for those kind of things and then instead use those resources to create cards that are better at physics and large malleable gaming worlds and what not. More practical cards and less focus on cosmetics so to speak. Man, gaming is really starting to look like legitimate art-form now. We've had the renaissence, discovered there isn't much else beyond realism and are slowly starting to take steps towards impressionism and expressionism.
Posted on 30 October, 2012 - 09:40
Man, gaming is really starting to look like legitimate art-form now. We've had the renaissence, discovered there isn't much else beyond realism and are slowly starting to take steps towards impressionism and expressionism.
Right right, but why does everybody seem to pretend one excludes the other? There are enough talented people out there to produce whatever they like most. If it's ueber realism or 8bit top down games. It's not like we can't have both. And trying to force-feed the audience with exclusively "artistically ambitious" games isn't the "right path", neither is it chasing down the pot of photorealism at the end of the capabilities of momentary hardware. And everybody can have his opinion or not, but one thing is just for certain, either you like it or not, the striving for photorealism will never stop, even if it [U][SIZE=3]TOTALLY[/SIZE][/U] doesn't make sense from a gameplay standpoint. And no, again, I personally don't need photorealism, but arguing against it is like arguing against the need for another smartphone, tablet PC, or e-book reader, etc., etc., We don't need another smartphone every two weeks, but it just happens and it will go on happening regardless what our opinions are. It's a waste of time to talk about the pros and cons of something that has allready so much variety to it like computer games. You can't even test/play them all. Look at the crazy amount of indy-games at the moment, opposed to the few AAA wich are actually striving for a photorealistic look. They are so few. And just think about it, would you like to play MW if it would have the look of Minecraft? Makes no sense right? You may argue, why do we have to play such games anyways? Well, don't ask me I've never played a MW game in my entire life, but millions of people seem to have a lot of fun playing it, as well as CSGO wich is, imho, more photorealistic than it is not. It's not like the dev-studios of AAA games are using resources wich are desperately needed somewhere else to produce impressionistic and expressionistic and artistically ambitious games. Crytek will never produce a 2D platforming game. But one bazillion indy developers do. Isn't that allready enough?
Posted on 30 October, 2012 - 11:41
I think physics is definitely the next area to develop on - back when Far Cry came out I was stunned with the havok engine. I remember in particular shooting the rope that held up a weight bag in one scene, and then watched it roll down the sandy beach (with a little unrealistic pistol shooting help) - that latter point sums things up, shooting a weight bag in real life wouldn't make it roll, but in the game world it did and it was the better for it. we can't interact with the virtual world to anything like the same extent as the real world so making one element 'uber realistic' will always jar and could easily make things boring from a game perspective. Much better to be consistent and ensure the underlying game is aided by the development (be it in graphics, physics or interaction/control).
Posted on 30 October, 2012 - 12:46
Couldnt get myself to read all the posts tbh I come here because i Play FPS Games so my vote is on Shooter. Couldnt care less about all the other kind of games
Posted on 30 October, 2012 - 13:47
I think physics is definitely the next area to develop on
Yeah, that's true. I think they haven't cared enough for physics in the last couple years[SIZE=4]* [/SIZE]and they are quite well behind their actual capabilities. And as much as I like Borderlands, especially the physics of liquids there are below acceptable, especially because they look so disconnected from the overall artstyle. Other effects(e.g.fire) in BL are great, but liquids..not so much. Generally spoken, if we would measure animations and physics on the current graphic standard I'd say it would look like this: graphics(as a measure bar)= 10/10 animations=8/10 (facial animations in particular= 6/10) physics=5/10 Of course this could differ greately from game to game, but that is my personal, overall impression of the current priorities and results of the "medium" to AAA gaming industry. [SIZE=4]*[/SIZE]At least in the games I've played.
Posted on 30 October, 2012 - 14:24
Oh and the idea that you need huge design studios to create impressive graphics is dated as well. Hawken and Natural Selection prove otherwise. http://imgur.com/a/ZP9QV Natural Selection still has an air of indie cheapness but the post-processing in both games really help in hiding lower production values.
Posted on 30 October, 2012 - 15:54
Hawken is maybe a better exception to prove the rule. Natural Selection was released 10 years ago, tomorrow.
Posted on 30 October, 2012 - 16:39
http://imgur.com/a/ZP9QV
Wow, game ( http://www.naturalselection2.com/ ) looks great, gameplay appears to be quite interesting too. How could I've missed that? And it's basically coming out today, WTF!? Thnx Tokamak for sharing.
Posted on 30 October, 2012 - 17:05
There seems to be well over a hundred full servers already, hours before release. Very irritating. Go away, hipsters D:< *stalks back to quake wars* edit: launch trailer.
Posted on 31 October, 2012 - 01:58
oh zerg in an fps!
Posted on 31 October, 2012 - 02:02
Played a few NS2 matches last night. It's nice seeing all the servers and new players. Every server I've played on has people giving advice and explaining things... It's a good community. Every match is fun... even losing is fun. There are a lot of different narratives that can arise naturally from the game.
Posted on 1 November, 2012 - 03:53
Played a few NS2 matches last night. It's nice seeing all the servers and new players. Every server I've played on has people giving advice and explaining things... It's a good community. Every match is fun... even losing is fun. There are a lot of different narratives that can arise naturally from the game.
Just bought it; why even bother? There's nothing(FPS wise) out there, that is even remotely as great[SIZE=4]* [/SIZE]as NS 2 anyways. Can't wait to fry some Kharaa butt. [SIZE=4]*[/SIZE]fresh, atmospheric, innovative,etc.... PS: Made up an NS 2 Thread in the Off Topic section(Just saying).
Posted on 1 November, 2012 - 04:19
Hi,Pc Games Call Of Duty:United Offensive Multiplayer GooD... Splash is a New Business Was? Wolfenstein:Enemy Territory, The Same as Free Download
Posted on 2 November, 2012 - 19:27
The only mp game I really play apart from FPS (I really hate TPS) is StarCraft 2, and even that seldom. FPS games are just the right **** for me that brings the most pepperonis on my ass :)
Posted on 2 November, 2012 - 21:43
The way you can build walls in NS2 is very interesting and is exactly the kind of stuff that would be interesting to see in an SD game. Provided that the maps have enough possible corridors (think ET not Brink) then it would be very interesting if the defending team actually had to chose where to position their (limited) barricade resources in order to cut off certain routes so they can focus on other paths instead. Area control is the most interesting thing that shooters can adopt from other genres. W:ET featured this the most out of all SD games. ETQW had it but the different choices you could make didn't have as much weight as in W:ET. This dimension also adds enormous replay value to a game. A few clever maps and the ability to lock down a limited amount of paths (or make the enemy at least work very hard for them) gives more variety than having a large quantity of maps.
Posted on 3 November, 2012 - 12:20
Depressingly, probably stupid little Wii minigames. Such is the result of getting married!
Posted on 8 November, 2012 - 10:21
Brink to me is the best multiplayer FPS you could make and I've played ALOT of multiplayer FPS's. Then again if I didn't think so I wouldn't be on this site unless I was sucking ET's dick or Brink's. Make another Brink, but with new everything. At the very least keep the SMART engine. Good luck SA. Hope to see another great game and hope RAD soldiers will be decent fun.
Posted on 12 November, 2012 - 06:37
Brink to me is the best multiplayer FPS you could make and I've played ALOT of multiplayer FPS's.
Was ETQW among them?
Posted on 12 November, 2012 - 08:18
Must be a Troll Account
Posted on 12 November, 2012 - 09:34
... Good luck sa...
SA... S...A.... A.... #charz
Posted on 12 November, 2012 - 10:17
[SIZE=3]Brink to me is the best multiplayer FPS you could make and I've played ALOT of multiplayer FPS's.[/SIZE] Then again if I didn't think so I wouldn't be on this site unless I was sucking ET's dick or Brink's. Make another Brink, but with new everything. At the very least keep the SMART engine. [SIZE=3]Good luck SA[/SIZE]. Hope to see another great game and hope RAD soldiers will be decent fun.
Good luck Sash Amage! If this is not a troll account I'll eat my flame posts...
Posted on 12 November, 2012 - 15:15
What the ****'s MOBA?
Posted on 12 November, 2012 - 23:11
What the ****'s MOBA?
Massively Online Battle Arena. Example: League of Legends
Posted on 13 November, 2012 - 02:03
SPLASHDAMAGE - What's up? :rolleyes: Why this poll? But if you really know exactly what we want? - Many players from ET:QW are former ET-player - Many players from BRINK are former ET-player - Many RTCW players now play ET - Tens of thousands players are still loyal to ET Why do you do it so complicated when the answer is so close? Why reinvent the wheel when you can improve it? Sometimes is the simplest and most obvious, even the best! Why is there COD 1,2,3,4,5 etc.? Why is there BF1,2,3, etc.? and many others The risk to create a new game is much bigger and costs more money than making a good game (ET) even better so... I expect to the 10-year anniversary of ET, the message from you: "SD starts working on ET2 !" (I have voted "shooter") greetz :wink:
Posted on 13 November, 2012 - 17:38
Agreed, we need another slice of ET life nao!
Posted on 14 November, 2012 - 07:23
Is not going to happen for reasons outside SD's control. SD doesn't own the rights to ET, they could do it but they prefer to be independent. They also don't own Brink but Brink is a spoiled title anyway so that's not a problem. In any case, with Paul's ambition for vertical integration SD is going to have to come up with something else.
Posted on 15 November, 2012 - 17:43
It doesn't necessarily have to be branded ET and I wouldn't discount SD Bethesda turning down a brown envelope stuffed full of cash if SD was to want to licence it anyway. As I mentioned before, SD floating the concept as a kickstarter is probably a better option for them because despite everyone saying they want ET2 the reality is that even if SD delivered, it would still be met with criticism by the existing userbase and scepticism by the CoD massive.
Posted on 15 November, 2012 - 18:37
I am playing... Killing Floor Left for Dead I & II Dead Island Pay Day - The Heist First 3 are Zombies coop games. All are coop multiplayer games. I dont play the Versus game type in L4D I & II.
Posted on 18 November, 2012 - 02:18
going away from etqw is a mistake in my point of view. i will try to explain why, with considerations from 3 games (the ones i know): 1st - counter-strike everybody is suposed to know how this game is played. but if you ask them: mouse acceleration or no acceleration ? you will come to the conclusion that there is no optimal solution. and this fact is the base for the beaty of it. 2nd - wolfenstein:enemy territory again, well known game. simple question: what is more important, xp or kills ? you will get everybody arguing without getting to a final conclusion. so, again, you have no optimal solution. and you may add the question made for counterstrike without reaching any conlusion also. 3rd - quake wars:enemy territory adding to the fact that the questions made before still have no optimal solution, there is another one to add here. crt or plasma screen ? is those previous games you knew the crt screen was better, even if you would get smaller sizes/resolutions. but now, having a higher screen size (and higher resolution) can really improve vehicle handling. so, like before, no optimal solution for this one also. 3 questions, with 2 possible answers for each, and you get 8 total possiblilities (2^3). meaning any etqw player falls into one of those 8 categories. its like the player DNA, something you cant change (screen) or will not change (acceleration, and xp vs kills). and you cant really say that one type is better than other. it depends of the game situation.
Posted on 21 November, 2012 - 16:09
I share the opinion with this edxot guy. 1st - counter-strike Everybody who knows this game is supposed to know it. But if you ask the terrorists: A or B spot? You will come to the conclusion that there is no optimal solution. And this fact is the base of CS. 2nd - wolfenstein:enemy territory Again, a game all ET players know. Simple question: What is more important, looking at your rank or doing objectives? You will get everybody arguing without getting to a final conclusion. So, again, you have no optimal solution. and you may add the question made for Counterstrike without reaching any conlusion also. 3rd - territory quake: enemy wars Adding to the fact that the questions made before still have no optimal solution, there is another one to add here. Small speakers or 10.1 surround system ? In those previous games you knew the small speakers were better, even if you would get cheaper ones. But now, having a 10.1 Surround System (and 3000€ less in your pocket) can really improve mine handling. So, like before, no optimal solution for this one also. 3 questions, with 3 possible answers for each, and you get 7 total possiblilities (2*4). meaning any WoW player falls into one of those 9 categories. It's like the player RNA, something you cant change (yourself) or will not change (your mind). And you cant really say that one type is better than other. It depends on the game size.
Posted on 22 November, 2012 - 00:18
rex, how many trolls have you made this week already ? and now, all this work because of me ? i am touched
Posted on 23 November, 2012 - 06:16
Currently playing: Enemy Terrirtory: Quake Wars...because it's just too damn good! (Ps. Join Taw :D ). Xonotic is also fun. Previously I was into World of Warcraft.
Too play Xonotic with my CF mates (Drealor and SnaKe), pretty fun and fast game.Also play sometimes BL2.
Posted on 23 November, 2012 - 08:34
rex, how many trolls have you made this week already ? and now, all this work because of me ? i am touched
I guess the same amount as you.
Posted on 24 November, 2012 - 03:34
going away from etqw is a mistake in my point of view. i will try to explain why, with considerations from 3 games (the ones i know): 1st - counter-strike everybody is suposed to know how this game is played. but if you ask them: mouse acceleration or no acceleration ? you will come to the conclusion that there is no optimal solution. and this fact is the base for the beaty of it. 2nd - wolfenstein:enemy territory again, well known game. simple question: what is more important, xp or kills ? you will get everybody arguing without getting to a final conclusion. so, again, you have no optimal solution. and you may add the question made for counterstrike without reaching any conlusion also. 3rd - quake wars:enemy territory adding to the fact that the questions made before still have no optimal solution, there is another one to add here. crt or plasma screen ? is those previous games you knew the crt screen was better, even if you would get smaller sizes/resolutions. but now, having a higher screen size (and higher resolution) can really improve vehicle handling. so, like before, no optimal solution for this one also. 3 questions, with 2 possible answers for each, and you get 8 total possiblilities (2^3). meaning any etqw player falls into one of those 8 categories. its like the player DNA, something you cant change (screen) or will not change (acceleration, and xp vs kills). and you cant really say that one type is better than other. it depends of the game situation.
Well I have the "solutions". 1. Players with mouse acceleration in CS are probably "casual players". 2. XP is nice to have to gain unlocks but you can't win the game without kills. 3. Type of screen doesn't matter as long as it has a high (120+) Mhz.
Posted on 24 November, 2012 - 09:14
...... Every unit that survives a fight comes back stronger and stronger. A levelled up unit is worth so much more than the mere resource cost, losing it really feels like a punch in the stomach. That's the kind of concept I'd like to see more in shooters. If a player grows and becomes stronger while alive then it truly feels like he lost something when he dies. It really puts more tension and emotion AND need for teamwork in a game.
good point :penguin:
Posted on 30 November, 2012 - 01:03
Brink,Dota 2. in the near past was -Borderlands1/2,L4D2,Homefront
Posted on 30 November, 2012 - 01:18