Howdy, Stranger!
It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
Quick Links
Is a good MMO shooter really too much to ask for
Aeander
Member LegendaryPosts: 8,061
There aren't that many MMOFPS or MMOTPS titles on the market. And they all, without exception, stand out only in their mediocrity.
Defiance is a bad experience with no real claim to fame and a lack of compelling content.
Planetside 2 offers theoretically endless replay value and infinite experiences, but, in practice, generally devolves into spawn camping on one side or the other. From weeks of playing it, I could count the number of good battles I got into on one hand. Couple that with poor management and service.
Firefall is a headless chicken. It has no direction and does not stand out from the crowd. In its current iteration, it is nothing more than an overly-restrictive grindy themepark.
It's about time that this young, promising subgenre received a real title. Blowing away this "competition" would be a cake walk. I don't care if the game emphasizes PvE or PvP. Give it a good art direction. Give it a good story. Make it have actual replay value. Just make something good.
Comments
Where's the any key?
In my personal opinion,
out of all the mmofps/tps out there Fallen Earth and Hellgate had the most potential to be a sweet MMO shooter/rpg, and both fell flat on their faces. The other ones mentioned by the OP have short term fun because they all focused on the wrong priorities and left a lot of quality of life content/features out of the game and now its too late.
Planetside 2 right now is the most fun IMO but that is just a more massive version of Battlefield so theres not much to do other than shoot, fly, ride and capture, rinse and repeat.
I think so.
There is too much variation in technology that players have, to make this kind of setting less than stellar.
Consoles all have the pretty much same hardware. The only variation they deal with is internet connection.
PCs have so many variations, that internet connection falls quickly down the list. Motherboards, RAM, Video cards all affect the speed at which this kind of action gameplay can be played.
Then, if you want real massive fights/battles, each player added adds the possibility for lag.
There are ways around these, like lower graphics and not much variation in equipment, but generally speaking, PC action games over the net hardly works as hoped.
- Al
Personally the only modern MMORPG trend that annoys me is the idea that MMOs need to be designed in a way to attract people who don't actually like MMOs. Which to me makes about as much sense as someone trying to figure out a way to get vegetarians to eat at their steakhouse.- FARGIN_WAR
Define "good shooter?"
My family and friends all play Team Fortress 2 now and have giggling hysterics and joy unending. My roommate still plays Halo. I don't do shooters. What does one consider "good" in a shooter? How many kills you make? The pvp? Endless beautiful environment? Immersion? Military garb, command troops, and a sergeant screaming spit in your face? Or being thrown in a wilderness by yourself to kill baby dragons and rescue the half naked barbarian princess? I'm clueless.
As far as I can see there are only really 3 FPS/TPS mmo's (which aren't piles of unplayable shit), on the market: -
Basically, I think you want the impossible.
The best shooters are all about skill and superior play and you don't get that in RPG type games, especially MMORPGs, where gear, builds, cheeseball maps/rules, and all of that combine to make the matches more about grief and less about competition.
The best PvP is about competition. Having lots of extra factors beyond skill and knowledge just distorts everything.
This is probably why I find MMORPG PvP in general to be crap. It's something best enjoyed by those who enjoy griefing or tolerating grief, and almost never about decent competition.
This is why I think the best MMORPG PvP ever was done in original EQ, where it was pretty much an afterthought and left on its own. You could play on PvP servers and do just about whatever you wanted, with zero attempt at balance, and zero impact on the rest of the (more important and focus of the) game.
Premium MMORPGs do not feature built-in cheating via cash for gold pay 2 win. PLAY to win or don't play.
At no point did I mention gear. In fact, I'm a horizontal progression guy. I would be completely happy to have a great MMO with no levels and no gear - only player skill and build customization (with or without a class system).
Has nothing to do with the aesthetic theme. A "good shooter" could be anything from bows + crossbows to the future and everything between, if not an entirely unique setting.
Now, a "good" MMO shooter is going to be based around four pillars:
Appearance
No, appearance =/= graphics. A good MMO needs to be able to run on a wide range of pc's. It has a lot more to do with art style. Firefall is hideous. Planetside's terrain looks good but its characters look horrid. Defiance gets it the closest, but even it is rather bland.
A good art style is in itself built on some basic pillars:
Clean
Sleek - avoids excessive bulk in character models and most technology (ie: not Firefall)
Varied
Goal-fitting - Only drab if it's a camouflaged military setting or stealth game. Vibrant otherwise.
I will stand by the opinion that "painterly" / "impressionistic" is the best art style for most purposes and all graphics quality levels. It's simple, distinctive, vibrant, and leaves an immediate, typically positive impression.
Longevity
The standard MMO style of longevity is vertical progression with incrementing, level-based content. This is sub-optimal for the FPS and TPS subgenres, as they are resource-intensive and don't complement a model that requires excessive land mass content. Plus, in general, these tend to be PvP-oriented games and thus benefit from a lack of vertical progression. It is, however, entirely possible to create a good MMO Shooter based on vertical progression - it just hasn't happened yet.
The best way to create longevity is through replayability. It uses fewer resources and, in the end, lasts longer than a model based on quantity.
For PvE games, that's going to mean dynamic content. GOOD dynamic content. Lots of dynamic content concentrated into a reasonable amount of space (anywhere from 1-5 zones, so long as the quality of said content is good enough). Every bit of that content is going to need to be enjoyable, so we're looking at a sandbox design, not a themepark. Raids are, of course, important, and they must be worthy of being replayed on their own merits. I personally do not think that a PvE-focused shooter can work without being a class shooter - there needs to be team-based roles for compelling, replayable gameplay to happen.
For PvP games, we're still looking at a sandbox design. It's okay to have an instanced arena for organized, competitive play, but an MMOFPS demands open world pvp, such as what is in Planetside 2. The trick here is in making said content balanced and encouraging the proper types of fights. That's not an easy task, and, if failed at, will result in Planetside 2, where most fights are either choke-point blindshot wars, ninja capping, or spawn camping.
I would actually say that Planetside 2 has TOO MUCH content. By this, I mean that the maps are too large and that there are many of them. This is the top contributing factor to ninja capping and grotesquely unequal fights that lead to spawn camping on one side of the other. Why? Because armies are spread thin. Not just to reasonable sizes, like firefights of 10-30 players per side. No, paper thin on most of the map.
Sidegrades, Not Upgrades
For a shooter to really work, skill must be the deciding factor. That means that the game must rely on replayability and progression through horizontal means.
Build customization - the more, the better
No weapons tiers - While perfect balance is impossible, weapons must be comparable and competitive.
Appearance unlocks to create an identity and show off your progress.
And, of course, no pay-to-win.
Granted, this is a lot more important in a PvP title, but it lends itself to a better, more sandbox-oriented game regardless.
Customization
Appearance-wise (more important in a TPS) - There doesn't need to be a lot of customization. You don't need advanced sliders. You don't need 30 presets. But there better be a solid selection of facial features and hairstyles (let's say a minimum of 5 and 10 respectively), and they best look good.
Performance wise -
This is more important and easier to process on the user's end. You need build customization. You need choices. You need a large number of weapons to choose from. Let's set the absolute minimum weapon selection at 10. Make sure you've got all your basics covered. The more choices you have and the more tactical decisions you are required to make in your weapon selection, powers, and passives, the better.
Destiny has succeeded in aesthetics and (PvE) map design, but seems to, at a beta player's impression, fall short in build customization and depth.
Planetside fails in art style, appearance customization (which isn't terribly important, as it's an fps), and map design. It does succeed, however, in progression and longevity.
Defiance fails at maintaining longevity, which may well be the most important pillar.
Firefall PROFOUNDLY fails at all of the above, save, perhaps, for build customization, where it actually has a fair (but not spectacular) amount of depth. Oddly enough, it has a fair amount of facial customization despite the bad artstyle this is framed in.
Wildstar does not have shooter mechanics. It has some horrible hybrid system with telegraphs everywhere.
"If I offended you, you needed it" -Corey Taylor
What about Fallen Earth? Too old school? Last time I tried it, it certainly seemed to be much more well rounded....
What are your other Hobbies?
Gaming is Dirt Cheap compared to this...
What about PS2? It is essentially what you just described.
For every minute you are angry , you lose 60 seconds of happiness."-Emerson
With the closing of MAG, I too want a nice large scale multiplayer shooter.
But the question comes,
What do you define as a MMOFPS or MMOTPS?
I would like something thats a cross between Planetside 2 + MAG + Starhawk.
Philosophy of MMO Game Design
I like PS2, but I am not going to lie. I hate how they made the medic class. Man. Medic in FPS is my favorite role next to close combat fighter.
I played that in MAG.
Also it lacking in the spec department. Even MAG had a better spec system than both PS2 and Dust514.
Philosophy of MMO Game Design
MMO Shooters are TERRIBLE. They are so clunky and sloppy.
I want a MMO Shooter that performs as smooth and accurate as Quake Live or Call of Duty 4.
Screw that. There is only Unreal Tournament. (The earlier titles, not 3).
Or Timesplitters 2- to this day the most fun I have had in a multi-player shooter.
Here really is a good opportunity for a nice historical game, WW2 online had a great idea but it sadly didn't work out as I hoped it should.
But yes, a good MMOFPS game would be nice indeed. Maybe that Rainbow 6 game that is in development?