• Please make sure you are familiar with the forum rules. You can find them here: https://forums.tripwireinteractive.com/index.php?threads/forum-rules.2334636/

Single Player Mode Discussion (Merged Threads)

Jump to latest Follow Reply
Sort by date Sort by votes
V

ViViD

Grizzled Veteran
Dec 2, 2005
584
26
#1
I know you guys wanted to release a single player game, but need to stall it due to over reaching timeframes.

But I thought I add this now, being a big single player fan of games, I am always astounded by the fact that you have to win everything to get to the end. (Unrealistic)

I would love to see a more realistic campaign where objectives can be lost and it effect the campaign. Rather then a very linear and scripted storyline.

For instance, say you take an operation like D-Day you have 20 maps in it your first battle is pegsus bridge with the objective to hold the bridge. You play the Officer in charge, you fight with your men, trying to hold the bridge but this time you fail. This impacts the next game where the gemans get reinforcements later as your getting off Juno beach into the town, you may win or lose here.

Then we rush over to playing a private in the rangers trying to knock out the guns, but you fail, this impacts omaha beach assault where the gun fire is stronger then it would of been if you didn't take ohama beach due to the extra firepower and this puts pressure now on the other beaches etc etc etc. Wow you single handedly lost D-Day <wink>

I know it sound complicated but replayability would be nice, cause of differing alternatives. Also I think it would add a totally different approach to the game and would be the next step in single player gaming.

Plus with this method you base it around operations, Kursk, Moscow, etc and you could bring out packs every 5-6 months this would really retail well for you and give you a good money base.

I believe Far Cry touched on this aspect but, really never achieved it. This would make RO Single Player stand out from the mirade of Wolfienstien clones.

I know this is a long way off but perhaps you can add it to your future designer brain
 
#2
Another thing, I remember in one of the UT2007 demos they talked about how in this engine you could render and creat huge and detailed cities where the player could travel around without load times. All that was needed was 1 long load time at the start.

Well What if when/if you use that engine you created these massive type maps. Like rendering the whole stalingrad or sectors of it at once and leaving the player free to travel the city in the various offensives and defensives. Or instead of all the detail a city needs. Render the massive battles of Kursk.
 
Upvote 0
#4
Actually, a single soldiers (or Squad's) actions in a war shouldn't even have an impact on the campaign.

This is the way I play RO offline now - I have the maps sorted by date (as much as possible) and play trough them one after the other, each map just once. What ultimatly matters is staying alive, so you shouldn't be able to respawn a 100 times. You may not always reach your mission goal, but try to live and fight another day.
 
Upvote 0
#6
ViViD said:
I know you guys wanted to release a single player game, but need to stall it due to over reaching timeframes.

But I thought I add this now, being a big single player fan of games, I am always astounded by the fact that you have to win everything to get to the end. (Unrealistic)

I would love to see a more realistic campaign where objectives can be lost and it effect the campaign. Rather then a very linear and scripted storyline.

For instance, say you take an operation like D-Day you have 20 maps in it your first battle is pegsus bridge with the objective to hold the bridge. You play the Officer in charge, you fight with your men, trying to hold the bridge but this time you fail. This impacts the next game where the gemans get reinforcements later as your getting off Juno beach into the town, you may win or lose here.

Then we rush over to playing a private in the rangers trying to knock out the guns, but you fail, this impacts omaha beach assault where the gun fire is stronger then it would of been if you didn't take ohama beach due to the extra firepower and this puts pressure now on the other beaches etc etc etc. Wow you single handedly lost D-Day <wink>

I know it sound complicated but replayability would be nice, cause of differing alternatives. Also I think it would add a totally different approach to the game and would be the next step in single player gaming.

Plus with this method you base it around operations, Kursk, Moscow, etc and you could bring out packs every 5-6 months this would really retail well for you and give you a good money base.

I believe Far Cry touched on this aspect but, really never achieved it. This would make RO Single Player stand out from the mirade of Wolfienstien clones.

I know this is a long way off but perhaps you can add it to your future designer brain
Click to expand...

Rather a difficult timeframe for release there, but otherwise VERY good ideas!
 
Upvote 0
#7
Helmut_AUT said:
Actually, a single soldiers (or Squad's) actions in a war shouldn't even have an impact on the campaign.

This is the way I play RO offline now - I have the maps sorted by date (as much as possible) and play trough them one after the other, each map just once. What ultimatly matters is staying alive, so you shouldn't be able to respawn a 100 times. You may not always reach your mission goal, but try to live and fight another day.
Click to expand...
Now THAT is a brilliant idea. Your objective is to keep your ass alive. DUH! Its not about pwning those enemies, its about capturing an objective etc. without getting killed.

Toms hardware had something on how games were getting to be too easy, like there was no such thing as "game over" well guess what, when you die, GAME OVER MOTHER ****ER!!!111 So I think it would be pretty cool that have a game like that.

EDIT: Oh, and a note on the UE3 engine. You DO NOT need 4-6 gigs of ram becuase leves are streamed dynamically into ram using the ksimnet (or whatever) scripting language. Theoretically the could mean that the devs could create a "ongoing" war that determined where your "commander" sent you on the giant map. Essentially when you would die you would respawn, but as a brand new soldier at a different, possibly random location. You could start as a (im using the US for this one) paratrooper in the 101st and then once you kicked the bucket (or didnt) your actions would determine your next objective when you say, landed on the beach at normandy. Sure you'd have to have some really good AI to fight all those battles and it would take years to make the map, but it would be one unbelievably awesome game!
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0
#9
I would love to see a single player game like this, where it's not scripted. It'd be fun to finally see what would happen if Germany DID take Moscow and then continued to push forward.

Fighting in Siberia sounds like a lot of fun.
Maybe we could add Japan too :p
Nothing wrong with a little historical fiction as long as there aren't UFOs floating around.
 
Upvote 0
#10
Yoshiro said:
Henry, just because I love to burst your buble. There is no limit on UE 3.0 map sizes, because the engine comes equiped with Streaming technology by default and you can put togeather as many maps as you want to to create one giant map. Epic is doing this themselves for their new Conquest gametype.
Click to expand...
Hmmm... No worries on bursting my bubbles... ;):D (sorry for being such an asshat.)

So they did remove the map size limit? Hmmm...
Well nice to see those lazy men at Epic's actually did change at least one thing on UE3.0 in a year time. :p

But streaming doesn't always mean there aren't map size limits, look at the Source Engine for instance... Even at version 7 it can stream enormous area's.
But it's limited. And no, I don't believe modders have access to that.
Only developer who bought licenses, Arkane Studios which is working on Dark Messiah of Might and Magic can make enormous area's.
Yes Dark Messiah of Might and Magic is powered by the Source Engine...
 
Upvote 0
#11
SgtH3nry3 said:
Hmmm... No worries on bursting my bubbles... ;):D (sorry for being such an asshat.)

So they did remove the map size limit? Hmmm...
Well nice to see those lazy men at Epic's actually did change at least one thing on UE3.0 in a year time. :p

But streaming doesn't always mean there aren't map size limits, look at the Source Engine for instance... Even at version 7 it can stream enormous area's.
But it's limited. And no, I don't believe modders have access to that.
Only developer who bought licenses, Arkane Studios which is working on Dark Messiah of Might and Magic can make enormous area's.
Yes Dark Messiah of Might and Magic is powered by the Source Engine...
Click to expand...

What do you mean? Tripwire can do anything with their "copy" of UE3. If it wouldn't have the ability to stream maps, they could always code it in.
 
Upvote 0
#17
Your right one squad doesn't lose a war, but looking at the smaller actions of one company say pegasus bridge for example if that objective failed, pegasus bridge would of been lost. There was no reinforcements they landed in on gliders.

What your simulating is your squad is the efforts of the entire company, if your squad is failing more then likely your company is. Therefore objectives are not met. Therefore they impact on the rest of your surrounding environment.

These days in games you kill 90-100 men just yourself in a singleplayer mission, which is laughable in a real war. So I always imagine that when i am playing it is the companies efforts which kill more men.

As for moddable, I would love to but unfortunately I don't have the ability or the time, but definately have the ideas <smile>

To me your death reflects the inability to complete the mission, but because your not playing one character and multiple different ones you then move on to the next mission.
 
Upvote 0
#19
Stick a fork in single player games...they are done.

Snoozefest. Face it...I'd rather play a World War 2 first person shooter with a bunch of guys from all over the world. Then sit in my basement and play with a bunch of computer generated dudes.

lets have Conquest gametype for multiplayer games.

MP for the win.


Viva la Multiplayer revolution!

PS. Halo 2 is the perfect example on how to make a shitty single player and a shitty multiplayer. Why people bought it i will never know. People should buy RO. Maybe if we had duel wielding ppsh41 and sticky grenades.
 
Upvote 0
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom
Back
Jump to latest Follow Reply
Jump to latest Follow Reply
Community News
Forums
Merch
Menu