Splash Damage

Is it just me or does Bongoboys t-shirt say BRNK??\

Brink's multi-singleplayer\

I'm going to start pushing for the use of the word 'mingleplayer' :)\

I'm going to start pushing for the use of the word 'mingleplayer' :)\

Okay I can see it working like this: Each map is a progression of the story in the same way that ETQW was a progressive story told through different maps. Now instead of having just text displayed during the map load to tell the story they use the actual map, objectives and other effects to let you know what's going on. This is much the same way that Reservoir Dogs jumped back and forth to tell a simple story. If each chunk is self contained enough then the order isn't entirely important. Biggest problem I guess is the same as ETQW. What if you play the rebels but security hold you off of destroying security air support. Then the next map ignores this and continues as if you had destroyed it. That would be a big withdrawal on the credibility budget. The problem them becomes. If you distance the active players enough then your main story isn't as influenced by their actions and so can progress regardless. However this clearly then pushes all the players away from engaging in the story directly. It would also be cheap to just whip out a "You failed but luckily your other rebel team succeeded in the objective" Mmmmm. Now I'm totally confused and sober. I must address one or the other. To the offy! :stroggtapir:\

The story lines of these two will diverge a fair bit, because for example, if you'd chosen to play as resistance, at one point you ensure the success of the kidnapping of a high ranking member of security. This in turn means you get information that leads to an inevitable outcome of the resistance campaign. But if you'd chosen to play security, that kidnapping is foiled, and as a result, the storyline of Ark goes a different direction.\

If the two campaigns diverge, how are you going to get security players to populate the maps later on in the resistance campaign? \

Does 'going trough the storyline together' also mean, going trough the storyline against each other?\

You just blew my mind! But no, that's wouldn't work too well. If you and I are on opposite teams, one will win and one will lose, and so our narratives can't stay in sync and we'll have to split apart. So players sharing the storyline is all about co-op party play...\

i think you mentioned before that there was 3 types of game, private public + comp i think Does comp break the story to give players the chance to do a full campaign following specific arcs. maybe following the arc of whoever wins each consecutive round, but keeping the players the same... i like dropping on the opposite team to friends on vent so i can stomp them down... having to re-join each map change would suck major for me :(... and does it just dump random players in the other team from a different game thats just finished that specific map link and lost or whatever... doesnt that need allot of players to run correctly and without massive delays between levels.. and what happens to people hosting their own servers, which team gets priority on host... doesnt it break getting fave servers, and what if the ping sucks on the following map :eek:\

Sounding like an old man, I recall my Q3 days when there seemed to be an honour code? sportsmanship? An easy win was frowned upon, the fun was always gained by playing for 20mins and a lot less about the end result. You moved teams to balance things because it made the game more enjoyable for everyone. Now it seems we're exposed to some very polar views (griefers to winners) and sitting in the fun middle ground becomes a battle.\