Alright, wrap your head around this one. Arkane Studios latest FPS, previewed in the latest Games for Windows Magazine, isn't your average first person shooter ... in fact, they're calling it a "crossplayer" FPS. In short, the single- and multi-player elements of the game are merged, so those heretofore mindless enemies -- yup, they're your fellow carbon-based mammals. It's all a little confusing (watch the videos embedded after the break to get a better idea) but the good news is it'll be confusing on both the Windows and Xbox 360 platforms!
According to a job offer on Arkane's site, the Lyon, France-based developer is looking for a programmer to "handle porting, maintaining, and optimizing the codebase for the Xbox 360 version of [The Crossing]." "Crossplayer" game called The Crossing (with knights from the Crusades) going cross-platform ... if ever there was a game that needed some Xbox Live Anywhere integration. Get on it, Arkane!
Dammit, I still haven't bought Dark Messiah of Might and Magic! Good thing this game is a long way off; I'll just be busy upgrading my crappy computer.
This will be great, once they have time to work the kinks out. I just wonder how they'll even things off. Being a PC user, there's no way the 360 can hold up in a direct FPS. And, Chris, I love the crack about the confusion. Keep it up.
You know it reminds me a lot of Perfect Dark(n64) in that how you play as Jonana and your friend plays as on of the bad guys in single player mode. But this is much bigger than that...
"It's all a little confusing (watch the videos embedded after the break to get a better idea) but the good news is it'll be confusing on both the Windows and Xbox 360 platforms!"
It is easy to make a PC more equivalent in speed as a console. Just max out the speed at which you can move your cursor to an approximately realistic speed, or at least one easily handled with analogs. That and/or assisted aiming or sticky aiming.
There isn't really any reason to get a PC, it is just losing all its exclusives to the 360. Or, I mean, there is no reason to get a 360 because of PC. Wait, I'm confused. Oh yeah, I'm supposed to be. If it is fun, I'll play it.
Fun idea, i've always loved when developers added little instances where you could command villains (Phantasy Star Online, Paper Mario 2, Fire Emblem: PoR), a whole game based around that concept might be awesome
My understanding is that if you're playing the multiplayer game, you will basically fill the role played by the normal "fodder" enemies for the single player game (e.g. the marines from HL). Someone playing the single player game will be more powerful than someone playing multiplayer, but will have goals related to the story, rather than just killing all of the enemies they encounter.
What I don't understand, is are there going to be factions of people that are playing against each other for the multiplayer, or is it all going to be "everyone against the single player guy".
I'm guessing that if you are playing as a "npc" and you get killed you will respawn as another npc. If I were a npc I would essentially be a boss since I would be tough to pass. It's a cool idea, they probably allow npc's to kill each other.
"It is easy to make a PC more equivalent in speed as a console." Not amusing. Crippling PC gamers' experience just because the console users are stuck with an inferior input scheme is dumb.
While this sounds like a cool idea, I have some concerns:
Will people "tea-bagging" or "humping" corpses add to the gaming experience, or take away from it? The advantage of having computer controlled enemies, is at least you won't find them doing anything "offensive."
What if no one is available to play against: are they replaced with bots? Will the bots be decent?
Actually this wasn't the latest issue. The latest issue talks about this new game called Frontlines: Fuel of War that looks totally awesome. It's like the upcoming Quake Wars or Battlefield or even GRAW but better. Read THAT article. The features that are going to be in Frontlines...just wow.
I hope this works. The only way I could imagine them getting enough people to participate in this game is to allow people playing as the NPCs to download a portion of the game for free. They could never play from the heroes point of view, but they could help add to the number NPCs.
"Does this crossplayer stuff make this game broken in a few years when they shut off the servers?"
Ummm no. Most certainly the game will contain normal enemy AI. I'm guessing it will work like Crackdown multiplayer is advertised as working - players can jump into and out of the game seamlessly, taking over an enemy player in the vicinity of the protagonist. When the enemy is killed you will "respawn" in another enemy player. The enemies basically become the respawn points. It would really be awesome if you could play as one of the game's bosses. Of course, I didn't read the jump link and this is a complete guess so I'm most likely off base.
To clarify, I dont mean Crackdown allows you take over enemy players. I'm just saying they would be similar by allowing players to join games that are already in progress seamlessly.
This is a horrible idea. The beauty of a scripted single-player campaign is the control the developer has to design the precise experience he/she has in mind. FF7 is one of the most rigid, linear RPG's in the history of gaming, but it's so well written, it's virtually transparent to the player that they are being led down a predetermined path. And still, it shows up on most gamers' top ten RPGs of all time list.
Also: the "behind the scenes" with the editing dork concept needs to be EDITED the f*** out.
I'm curious to see how they implement this. I really like the idea and would like to see it succeed.
But one drawback I can see would be the destruction of the story and atmosphere. For example, say you are playing an FPS in a military setting. You expect to see guards walking patrols and doing things you would expect to see in a military setting. This sets the scene, advances the story, and provides the atmosphere. If people are controlling these characters I would expect to see them running all over the place. There would be no 'sneaking' into a military base past unsuspecting guards... the human players are already going to be on their manhunt for the single player hero.
Plus, you would need confine players to certain areas (within reason). I would certainly like the enemy players to have the freedom to implement defensive strategies, but I wouldn't want every enemy from an entire level congregating at the start of a level waiting to ambush the single player.
Things they could do to help control this would be to limit the number of human enemies players. These few humans would then re-spawn into new enemies over and over as they are killed. They should also confine enemies to the areas where they are supposed to be located. It' doesn't have to be super small or anything, but if they are supposed to be in a certain building then that's where they should be.
And, obviously, spawn areas should be protected. It be a horrific failure in implementation if the enemies could congregate at a single player spawn point.
Anyway, I'm curious to see how this turns out. I think that is this game is any good it will be hugely popular on Live.
"It is easy to make a PC more equivalent in speed as a console." Not amusing. Crippling PC gamers' experience just because the console users are stuck with an inferior input scheme is dumb.
Inferior? Grape Jam is completely inferior to marmalade, if you think differently you are a dumbass. Marmalade has more fruit.
Yes, I am in the minority of people that prefer console shooters. I don't really want to try to explain why, I just like it more. Being able to aim and turn super quick seems to almost take away from the experience for me, which is probably why I'm not a PC elitist. That, and I'm not an elitist prick.
If you had a game that was built on twitch PC-style mechanics that were just mapped onto analog sticks, it would suck to play it on console against PC users. This is why Counterstrike on Xbox absolutely 100% sucked balz and Halo, Gears, Rainbow, etc. kick ass. That's the bottom line.
If you make a game with realistic turning speeds, cover mechanics, human movement speeds, realistic body physics, etc., kind of like realistic console shooters, I would gladly take on a PC gamer. Port Rainbow6Vegas over, keeping with the "realism" theme. That would be a relatively even playing field.
I think PC gamers would like it, too. My buddy, a PC-only gamer, really enjoyed Rainbow and Gears on my 360, even though he hates controllers. He's still a Battlefield nut, but it wasn't like he couldn't stand the differing style of the non-PC twitch mechanic shooters.
It's easy enough to protect the 'sanctity' of the sneaking missions. As they mentioned in the footage, THEY control when you can take over the enemy - you're in a queue prior to that.
So they just don't allow you to control the enemy until the player has been spotted.
that game looks sweet. i might actually buy a 360 for that. "if it works".
As I understand it, it has a kinda perfect dark thing where it can insert players into grunts.. but it also dynamically matches current multiplayer games to single player games. So if two teams are playing a team deathmatch level (templars vs cops) and a player needs a similar single plyer level it will merge the two.. and the cops will get a new objective.. escort the player to the other side of the map.. and the templars will be tasked with stopping him.
Then the deathmatch can continue.. and the single player moves on to another level.
But heck, i'd buy this as a normal FPS just for having ninja-like modern day nights templar. I'm a sucker for "what if" sci-fi scenarios.
