There should be more games where you have someone else helping you, In ''1942 you still played the other team members, so thats not the point, I tried to see how many gaurds I could get/keep together in HalfLife, I think I got three. Then had to go up a ladder...

the FPS genre can be tired but as stated above there are several standouts.

I really enjoy Operation:Flashpoint. The AI of your computer teammates can be really good at times, and I wondering as the coding gets better over the years how much they will be able to balance saving your ass with letting the enemies kill you.

UT has a great premise: gladiators...

But yes, the plots are uhmm...thin?

Re-reading the original post I think I see what he was striving for: you''re one of 100 guys all fighting the same enemy...with you being the only real person in the 100.

As in WWII...thousands stormed the beaches at Normandy- some died...some got lucky.

For myself, this type of game could be fun depending on how the game was balanced. But being "the worlds last hope" does two things a) it makes you as the player feel more important b) it cuts down the redundant work in the background.

On the flipside, if I was the only human in LARGE group of AI teammates (not Op:Flashpoint or Rainbow Six) ..say 100, a) my contribution would be diminished and b) all this extra stuff is going on that I dont see that doesnt really enhance my gameplay.

Ultimately, unless that group of 100 helping you is made up of real people, whats the point of me playing if AI does all the work?

Maybe Ive taken a trip on a tanget, but I seemed to have gotten an image from "It wouldn''t hurt to throw in a scenario or two where you are just one in a mass of bodies, having it out and hoping you are the last one alive. Or to be trapped in an inescapable death trap-- only to be saved at the last minute by the "other" hero in the game." that that is what he meant.



Alfred Norris, VoodooFusion Studios
Team Lead - CONFLICT: Omega
www.conflictomega.com

quote:

---

Original post by Vanquish
Re-reading the original post I think I see what he was striving for: you''re one of 100 guys all fighting the same enemy...with you being the only real person in the 100.

As in WWII...thousands stormed the beaches at Normandy- some died...some got lucky.

---

Medal of Honor actually starts out at the battle of Normandy...

I think it''s important for the player to be on his own sometimes in a good FPS. If it''s multiplayer, then fine. If it''s team-based tactical simulation, then fine. But I don''t want a whole bunch of super-tough AI bots hounding my steps through the level. Halo''s Marines were awesome on low difficulty settings, and sometimes I really liked that. Their banter, the feeling of large-scale combat, etc. was a welcome change from the "MC & Cortana take on the Covenant" theme of the rest of the game. But on higher difficulty levels, they served to absorb about three bullets each and then they were gone.

In Marathon, squads of humans would beam in, yell, shoot the crap out of everything in the room, take a few casualties, and then say, "Let''s get the Hell out of here!" and beam out. Made for some dramatic scenes, but they weren''t bothering you during puzzles.

What would it take to justify the presence of Mendoza and Jenkins while you''re trying to sneak past the covvies in the Silent Cartographer? They''d be meat, and so would you.

All things considered, though, I''d like to see some squad support in just about every FPS out there, but not at the expense of game design. If your game makes huge battles a possibility, then go ahead and make huge battles. But I don''t want to see a bunch of traffic on my way out of the exploding base.