Quote:Original post by Rasm
1) What do you think about playing a game where the objectives change and general game modes last about 5 minutes or less? Explain what you think is bad/good about it.
Quote:Original post by Zero-51
I definetly like the idea of having a combat type game as a minigame. Because I have small periods of time to play video games, I like the idea of having something only 3-5 minutes long so I can bail out at any time, and it not have a huge effect. Minigames are also addicting, in case noone noticed. :] |
Quote:Original post by Oluseyi
I love it! I don't have the time or attention span to play lengthy and sustained campaigns in a single mode of ever-accruing tactical data. Give me encounters with set parameters, then throw me a curve frequently. A tremendous upside is that it makes this sort of game accessible to the casual gamer, a market I expect to continue growing. |
|
I agree, I find myself launching quake 3 instead of battlefield 2 just because I don't have much time and want to play something. I wanted to confirm that others do this as well.
Quote:Original post by Zero-51
Mobile Assault:
One team is given a mobile assault command module, or something of the like. They have a minute to deploy it, wherever they like. The enemy team is blinded totally at this point, for example playing a minigame type thing while they wait. After the first team deploys the command module thing, a countdown timer is started. The other team now has until the timer hits zero to attack the module. Kinda like hide n seek. |
Hmmm... this is a good idea. It sort of reminds me of counterstrike's place bomb mode, except for of course, you place it anywhere. I'm not sure blinding the player is a good way to end the game. As you describe blind, I picture the screen turning white and then dying when the other squad shoots them because you can't see. As a player I think I'd rather a) just die (possible explosion) or b) see a 'Game Over' screen. Please correct me if I envisioned this wrong.
I think game modes where you race against the clock are fun as long as their aren't too many. Allow me to tweak your idea and
let me know what you think.Nuclear MeltdownTwo squads (or more?) compete over control of a nuclear device. On start, a random team will be given control of the nuclear device. They can carry it around anywhere on the map and place it (so pick a good spot to defend). Once the nuclear device is placed, a 45 second countdown begins (which is displayed to all squads). When the timer reaches zero, the squad that placed the device is removed (airlifted/teleported?) out of the map and the nuclear explosion goes off killing everyone left behind. However, if a team manages to overcome the squad that placed it, and disable the device, they may gain control of the nuclear device. Now it is their turn to defend until the timer goes off. If you lose your entire squad, you will respawn again after X time (reinforcements anyone?). The one catch is that the nuclear device has a 5, 7, 9 or 10 (yes I'm evil[evil]) minute global timer (to prevent the game from going on & on. also not displayed), that activates each time the device is armed and stops when it changes control. When this silent timer goes off, the person who is in control of the device is destroyed while the other teams escape/survive/(win?).
Quote:Original post by Zero-51
Terrorist hunt/capture:
Two teams; they are not friendly, they are opposing each other. There are also computer opponents that are terrorists holding an objective, or some such. The two human teams have to capture the objective, whatever it happens to be. But remember, they are not cooperating in this effort. They start at two different drop off poitns, and have to attack the objective. After one has made it to the objective, the other team can follow their trail and retake the objective. It would become a fight for the neutral objective after all the terrorists are gone.
Infiltration:
This one is a bit different. You have two teams. One team is in control of a building(call this team A). They control all the security aspects of that building, including where everything is placed. The team(s) against them have to infiltrate this building, bypassing or eliminating their defenses, and get to the objective(call them team B.) Then they have to make it out alive. After they start away with the objective team A is activated and spawns at the original Team B spawn. The building now becomes team B's spawn, and team B has to take the objective out before a time limit. |
These are some nice ideas as well. They could be an improved version of attack/defend. Actually, attack/defend is sort of generic. I think I'd like to remove it an put in specialized attack and defend modes such as the ones you described.
Quote:Original post by Oluseyi
Quote:| 2) From a designers standpoint, what do you think would be an interesting game mode that requires proper coordination of a team to accomplish a task? |
Any task that involves coordination with another squad. The more other squads, the merrier! (Think about it: the landing at Normandy was effectively a large number of coordinate squads, each with a set sub-task in the larger objective.) |
Do you mean controlling multiple squads as a player? I've thought about controlling multiple squads but in a realtime game, the more you have to control the less control over individual units you have (micromanagement time). My design already takes into account that squads will be working together. Each squad is controlled by a player and thus a) includes more players in a game and b) allows more coordinated attacks because the player is essentially one squad leader of many. Most gamemodes already include plans for more than just head to head squad action.
A coop normandy(ish) map would be very fun. There would of course have to be some changes to the current game design to allow for this. Read below.
Quote:Original post by Oluseyi
Rather than the ability to pick your squad before each mission, Navy SEALs-style, give me the ability to request more men/equipment and furnish it to me as it becomes available and as deemed appropriate by the Home/War Office. This means that I may get more and better men/equipment based on my track record as well as based on how critical my current task is to the overall war effort. Immerse me in the notion that I am playing just a part in a much larger war. |
I really like this idea. This could be a whole other section to the game that would have to be picked apart and designed as well. To make it work, there would have to be entirely new option to the game that allows you to choose a non-minigame type mode. Massive battles with multiple reinforcements would take longer than 5 minutes. This type of game mode would appeal to the players that have more time to play the game and would make them feel like they've accomplished something big in the amount of time they spent.
Quote:Original post by Oluseyi
On the other hand, give me total control of my squad. Allow me to promote and demote members, set up hierarchies of authority and delegation and issue orders to any arbitrary grouping down to a pair of soldiers with one designated as "commander" (I'll always issue orders to "commanders"). |
In this other (longer) game mode you could add this as a way for players to know who's in charge of which side. Commanders could have control over anything under them directly (as if they were in their squad with shared vision etc...) but would probably issue commands to the squad leaders most of the time because squad leaders have fewer units to control, thus more time per unit.
If you were to add a heirarchy of authority in the minigame mode, I suppose it would work as well. Depending on the size of the squad though would really determine if this feature is worth it. I originally planned for 5 units per squad but depending on how the interface is designed and when I can see / play the game, I won't be sure if this number is correct. Who know's maybe a player will be able to easily handly 10 or more soldiers.
Thanks again for the replies. Keep'em coming.
Most of our obstacles would melt away if, instead of cowering before them, we should make up our minds to walk boldly through them.- Orison Swett Marden
