• 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/

Why SP is neccessary

dktekno

Grizzled Veteran
Feb 15, 2006
122
0
People say that they are not interested in SP in games, just MP.

I dont understand them. I have it the opposite way.

The problem with MP in ANY game, is that it makes anarchy. Especially in war.

War is not anarchy. War is about to obey orders. You cant expect anybody to obey orders in MP. They just dont do so, because none of those who are playing, are playing it because they were drafted to it. None of those who are playing it fear death. And if there is a commander, then the commander is not someone who is being listened to.

In real life, people are being drafted to war. If somebody do volunteer, they do it because they feel it is their duty. Not because they think it is funny to shoot a gun.

You could make people fear for their lives by only allowing one life. Just like in CS or Americas Army. This way people think about what they are doing, and dont just rush. But this is not enough. Because they know that if they die, they only have to wait for less than a minute, and then the round restarts.

Therefore, people has nothing to fear. They join the war because they think it is funny to shoot a gun. And they rush and dont obey commands, because they know they are not going to lose anything.

In SP, you cant accomplish the mission without obeying orders. If you dont obey the orders, you are killed, and you have to start it all over. That way you fear for your life. Especially if the game is made in such a way, that you cant save whenever you want to.

However, what is the major failure of many SP games is that the AI comrades are stupid. In Call of Duty, they say that you are a part of a team. But you are not. You are the one who is going to shoot all 500 soldiers ALONE. YOU are the one who is always chosen to rush the buildings. YOU are the one who is both drafted, volunteered, recruit, officer and general. And then you are also a part of a super elite corps. And if you get shot, you know that it is not deadly.

The concept of SP is to make people feel that they are part of a greater mission. It is more controlled.

But what SP games lack is the team work. It makes YOU be the one to do everything on your own, and your comrades are just aesthetic and cosmetic products.

What SP games should be like, is to make the player be nothing. Absolutely nothing. Never ever allow the player to move up the ladder. Let the story begin with that you are being drafted AGAINST YOUR WILL. Let the mission start with a training mission together with your comrades. Let that mission be something like hard punishment for not obeying orders.

Then, let the war be evil. Show the player the horrifying things that happen, if your rush into the no mans land.

Make propaganda. Tell the player about the greatness of the country, and show him the reality of war. Build up some relationship between the comrades, and then let the comrades get killed in the mission. Let the killings of the comrades be in such a way, that they seem like they are suffering, and you, as a soldier, cannot do anything about it, because if you do, you are being killed.

This is how a game should be. Anything else is ****.

I am tired of all this war is pure, war is heroic, war is just about a screen with big flashing icons all over the screen, war is about automatic reload. When I play a game, I dont feel like I am a soldier. I feel like I am sitting in a bunker in my home country, using a remote controller to move a killing machine around the battlefield, to kill objects, not humans.

I could play some primitive game for getting the same feeling.

What games lack is the realism. And the real orders. The real horrifying war.

This is the perfect SP game:

The game starts out by a story where you are being drafted. You try to avoid the draft, but happen to be enlisted.

You are then sent to a training camp along with 50 other people.

In the training camp, you are nothing. Firstly, you are just the guy in the middle of the row of the other soldiers. That means you watch the officer pulling someone out, to force him to do exercises. Then it is your turn and you do the same. Then you are getting back in the row, and you watch the others getting the same humiliating exercises. The first part is a large training mission. Here, everybody are humiliated, and you build up a personal relationship to the others. You get to know them.

Then you are sent out in the war. You dont start at the frontline. What you do is to be part of supporters. You start out by delivering ammunition. While you do so, you watch other soldiers comming back wounded and know what is going to happen.

Then slowly, you are moving up to the front. You are just yourself. You are nothing, and you cannot become an officer.

You are given orders, and you watch some of your closest comrades being killed in combat. The guy who helped you going through the humiliating exercises. He is laying on the ground, and is wounded. Other people try to reach him to help him, but they are killed.

There are attacks on your squad, and the majority of the killings are done by the others. You are not using your rifle to attack the enemy, nor to defend your squad, but to defend yourself, from YOUR part of the enemies. There are a lot of enemies, and a lot of them are killed by your comrades. The rest are for you. This makes you be just a litle piece in the large picture.

This is how a SP game should be.
 
dktekno said:
It should actually be one large withdrawal.

And the game should end with you being shot.

Now that's a game I would want to play, but only if I get to make some counter-attacks, most of them failing, resulting in my friends dying (you will have interacted with the squad alot, enough to get a feeling for the different characters)
 
Upvote 0
SP will always take a back seat unless you can implant a brain in every character that will act just like a human. Bots/AI do not act creatively enough to give the player the immersion or the challenge required. To combat that, developers add in scripted events but after being seen once, they lose their appeal. Not only that, but you know it was supposed to happen and this takes out the immersion of the player actually interacting with a living, breathing, world.

MP offers a different battle every single time. You are forced to have more skill and think more creatively to combat a human's thinking, not a robot's. Plus the satisfaction gained from dropping a human controlled character is far more appealing than dropping a computer-controlled one. You will have outsmarted an actual person and not a dumb, one-track-minded piece of AI.

The game you describe would be very interesting but it would get boring and not have anywhere near the mass appeal of an mp game with realistic fighting. I completely agree with you that mp games are full of anarchy and dont represent war realistically but I dont think the solution is resorting to sp. MP offers to many great features and is the future of gaming. There are paths to making players play the game in a strict way that will represent realism and they need to be utilized, not forcing the player to enter a fake world of single player.
 
Upvote 0
1944 has a good chance because it doesnt try to tell the story of one person.

Generally I like SP games very much, its just that I dont find them chalenging enough (like I play every single game on the hardest setting the first time, unless you have to stupidly "unlock" it which is stupid, I went back an played HL2 sp with no hud and crosshair to make it harder) and often they are just the same thing over and over and over, and while good ones have replay value very few (except Farcry) allow you to approach a problem differently on another play though the game, ie you only have to solve the problem once (pretty much what happens with linear games). So I'm looking forward to Crysis (Farcry had the best gameplay IMO).

SP games with a good story are also awesome. HL2 ranks up there as really pushing computer games to a whole nother level. I think a game where you got shot at the end, no matter what, might be a tough sell, but it would be very powerful ending which clearly would have to be kept under wraps until the game was released and people had a chance to play it.
 
Upvote 0
Hyperion2010 said:
So I'm looking forward to Crysis (Farcry had the best gameplay IMO).
True, but it's mostly because it incorporates stealth and huge terrain.

It already was a thrill to know you can go whatever way you want.

Sandbox games always do good, mix them with a bit of stealth and good graphics and your game is a succes... :D
 
Upvote 0
Now, this is a foggy area in my brain's memory section, but I vaguely recall there being a game plan once (game, not mod) that featured you as a prisoner, and the game worked on a real-world 24 hour clock. Your goal was to escape, but you had to do it in a very sneaky fashion, and there was a host of mundane stuff to do in the mean time during the daylight hours when the guards were up and about.

I don't think it ever made it beyond early design stages, but does anyone else remember this? Or was it just another one of the many early 90s 'golden age of gaming' brainstorms that fell flat because it was too ambitous?

I believe I read it in an issue of PC Gamer ages ago, if that helps spark anyone elses memory.
 
Upvote 0
I think you guys are being way too naive about 1944. I really hope its what they say it is but, realistically, its near impossible. They say theyre gonna recreate all of Normandy. Thats miles and miles and miles of terrain. Considering a normal map for RO and most games is less than a square mile and it takes about 3 months to make, either this game is coming out in 10 years, they have 500 mappers, or the terrain is going to be flat and boring and not historically correct.

Plus, you know how many people you would need to make this game considering they plan on adding vehicles, infantry, air, and sea (not sea?) and having all of these aspects fleshed out and realistic? Its like making at least 3 games at once from some developer who we've never even heard of before.

I really hope they do it and we all know that underground development teams can accomplish alot (Red Orchestra), but still. This game seems way too ambitious and Id put alot more money on it sucking than being the revolution of online fps's.

Oh and about HL2, please. The game is solid as hell and very fun but revolutionary? not even close. Physics had been done before, the story is linear, the graphics are awesome but not revolutionary, and the multiplayer was a 5 year old mod.
 
Upvote 0
Amerikaner said:
SP will always take a back seat unless you can implant a brain in every character that will act just like a human. Bots/AI do not act creatively enough to give the player the immersion or the challenge required. To combat that, developers add in scripted events but after being seen once, they lose their appeal. Not only that, but you know it was supposed to happen and this takes out the immersion of the player actually interacting with a living, breathing, world.

MP offers a different battle every single time. You are forced to have more skill and think more creatively to combat a human's thinking, not a robot's. Plus the satisfaction gained from dropping a human controlled character is far more appealing than dropping a computer-controlled one. You will have outsmarted an actual person and not a dumb, one-track-minded piece of AI.

The game you describe would be very interesting but it would get boring and not have anywhere near the mass appeal of an mp game with realistic fighting. I completely agree with you that mp games are full of anarchy and dont represent war realistically but I dont think the solution is resorting to sp. MP offers to many great features and is the future of gaming. There are paths to making players play the game in a strict way that will represent realism and they need to be utilized, not forcing the player to enter a fake world of single player.

we have to push forward to impove, then. HOWEVER. we suck and we cant impove the stupid AI. right?
 
Upvote 0