Halo MMO: The Clues
The existence of a Halo MMO is an ongoing rumour, but how likely is it?
It's a safe bet that if anyone was going to be able to pull off a successful MMOFPS, it would be Bungie and Microsoft with a version of Halo. Of course it might just be on 360, but why wouldn't [...]
The existence of a Halo MMO is an ongoing rumour, but how likely is it?
It's a safe bet that if anyone was going to be able to pull off a successful MMOFPS, it would be Bungie and Microsoft with a version of Halo. Of course it might just be on 360, but why wouldn't MS try to tap into the Blizzard millions with a cross-platform version? This is more than wishful thinking: the clues are out there. No, they really are.
News Reader wrote:
It's a safe bet that if anyone was going to be able to pull off a successful MMOFPS, it would be Bungie and Microsoft with a version of Halo.
spoodie wrote:Giant battlefield games are bound to happen, probably the next big step in multiplayer FPSs. I'd prefer to see something from Dice though.
Joint ops used to be able to handle 150 players, those games were properly fucking epic, not sure how well it'd transfer to the slightly less camo-wank beef game style though.
They were talking about a giant battlefield PS3 FPS game on the radio the other day.
It's kind of a logical step - sort of like the sieging and territory control PvP stuff in existing MMOs, which rather feel like they were inspired by Tribes. Tabula Rasa was almost there with the areas that would fall to the enemy and with the FPS-style gameplay.
I don't know how much fun it would actually be to play an all-out deathmatch game with those proportions, but while Tribes was probably ahead of its time, games like BeeF and TeeF have shown that the world is ready for goal-orientated teamplay, however simply making bigger maps and plopping more players in a Quake Wars type game wouldn't be ideal.
The problem is that there are either too many or too few players clustered together on big maps, so a possible solution might be to have seperate, but linked areas.
One simple example might be a ladder of fighting pits, where you battle your way to the top. Another might be split into towns groups of players battle for. In both, battles would be fought simultaneously and the outcomes reflected on a "world view" which would constantly change. Perhaps more resources (ie: players) could be sent to retake difficult areas.
Another thing that would be good was if there were more than two sides to choose from. This has only really been done in RTS games so far, but a notable exception was the original TeeF, which had a 4Fort map with red, blue, green and yellow teams, but was let down by usually having too few players on each side.
My description is starting to sound a bit like an RTS where the individual troops are all players, but that just illustrates that it's almost irrelavant whether the players are battling using FPS-style controls or MMO-type ones - the larger goal is the same. There doesn't have to be a commander, if all the players know what their goals are, infact the commander role would be rather a dull one, like watching an RTS play itself while you picked a side and shouted at your troops.
FatherJack wrote:They were talking about a giant battlefield PS3 FPS game on the radio the other day.
It's kind of a logical step - sort of like the sieging and territory control PvP stuff in existing MMOs, which rather feel like they were inspired by Tribes. Tabula Rasa was almost there with the areas that would fall to the enemy and with the FPS-style gameplay.
I don't know how much fun it would actually be to play an all-out deathmatch game with those proportions, but while Tribes was probably ahead of its time, games like BeeF and TeeF have shown that the world is ready for goal-orientated teamplay, however simply making bigger maps and plopping more players in a Quake Wars type game wouldn't be ideal.
The problem is that there are either too many or too few players clustered together on big maps, so a possible solution might be to have seperate, but linked areas.
One simple example might be a ladder of fighting pits, where you battle your way to the top. Another might be split into towns groups of players battle for. In both, battles would be fought simultaneously and the outcomes reflected on a "world view" which would constantly change. Perhaps more resources (ie: players) could be sent to retake difficult areas.
Another thing that would be good was if there were more than two sides to choose from. This has only really been done in RTS games so far, but a notable exception was the original TeeF, which had a 4Fort map with red, blue, green and yellow teams, but was let down by usually having too few players on each side.
My description is starting to sound a bit like an RTS where the individual troops are all players, but that just illustrates that it's almost irrelavant whether the players are battling using FPS-style controls or MMO-type ones - the larger goal is the same. There doesn't have to be a commander, if all the players know what their goals are, infact the commander role would be rather a dull one, like watching an RTS play itself while you picked a side and shouted at your troops.
All those words, and you didn't mention planetside once. Well done!
*PS needs to happen on the PS3. the Terran Republic WILL rise again, bitches!*
Halo MMO: The Clues
