View more

View more

View more

Image of the Day Submit

IOTD | Top Screenshots

The latest, straight to your Inbox.

Subscribe to GameDev.net Direct to receive the latest updates and exclusive content.

One Game World, Multiple Interfaces...

Old topic!

Guest, the last post of this topic is over 60 days old and at this point you may not reply in this topic. If you wish to continue this conversation start a new topic.

39 replies to this topic

#1T e c h l o r d  Members

Posted 11 January 2012 - 04:23 PM

I predict that future Games will provide game worlds in which several genres co-exist with multiple client interfaces (that caters to a particular genre). Role-Players will play Game X as a 3rd Person RPG. Strategist will play Game X as a Top Down RTS. People who enjoy blowing things effing up with BFGs will play Game X as a FPS. This is an inspiration going into the design the Super 3D Game Platform (S3GP). I'm aiming for a 3D Client offers a configurable interface which caters to a particular genre and each genre can be be played in 5 popular game-perspectives: First-Person, Third-Person, Top-down, Isometric, and Side-Scroll.

Firstly, my strategy towards accomplishing this goal is to institute a Moderated Open Repositor (MOR). MOR is a centralized Data Repository in which Developers and Players can collaborate and share game content between themselves and their products. The goal of MOR is to simplify the management for Developers/Players to get their content into the game, and providing a layer of protection from malicious damage to games in production. MOR operation is straight forward. Contributors upload their Media Files to the MOR Host Server for review and approval. Moderators inspect files for damage, compromise, obscenities, etc. Approved files are moved to the Closed Repository (Production) for use in game.

I believe there could be a benefit to utilizing a High Level Architecture (HLA) which is a general purpose architecture for distributed computer simulation systems. Using HLA, Games can interact (that is, to communicate data, and to synchronize actions) to other Games regardless of the computing platforms. The interaction between Games is managed by a Run-Time Infrastructure (RTI). Hypothetically speaking, HLA could support two separate Games Server/Clients fused together in cyberspace to create a new game experience, sharing players and resources.

#2Morley  Members

Posted 11 January 2012 - 06:50 PM

While I think this to be a really cool game, there are a number of issues. Specifically the player interactions between the two.

Also, I do not particularly consider genre to be "FPS" or "RPG" as often there is no difference between the two. Role Playing Game simply implies you are taking on a new role.

Instead of genre(which implies, to me, scifi and fantasy and so on) think of it as the preferential style.

Now I reread what I just wrote and find it entirely bland and without purpose.

Onward ho!

I like your technical thinking on the server side of all of this, but you may need to think out the client side a bit more. Especially, like I said earlier, with interactions between players. How can the RTS players have relationships with the First Person players and so on.

Again, sorry if this is unrelated.

Now, as to content sharing, how do you plan to stream that to the other players? Are we talking downloadable maps and such? Or additions to the world? Either way, you will have to be careful with any PC game that can upload content to your entire architecture. Made need isolation during approval process (I.e entirely separate from anything involving the game serving).

This is really interesting me. Never quite thought of it that way. Continue?
Morley

Aspiring programmer, modeler and game designer.

#3T e c h l o r d  Members

Posted 11 January 2012 - 08:23 PM

How can the RTS players have relationships with the First Person players and so on.

This has been brainstormed here but the illustration gives a better picture.

#4Caldenfor  Members

Posted 11 January 2012 - 08:33 PM

Oh man, it would be sweet if the RTS players could draft their "player units" from a selected pool as a way to try and maintain some semblance of balance.

#5Morley  Members

Posted 11 January 2012 - 08:40 PM

MUCH more clear, good sir. I love the idea!
Morley

Aspiring programmer, modeler and game designer.

#6Ashaman73  Members

Posted 12 January 2012 - 12:53 AM

It has been tried before. Games like allegiance or battlefield2 combines fps/rts elements.

The biggest issues in allegiance was,that the (fps) players doesn't listen to the rts/commanders (rts layer). That's it ,it failed, because a commanders wanted to attack a fleet and commands his units to planet X, but 80% of the fleet just roamed the space to fight something else.

When you design a multiplayer game, always consider the psyche of the players first. Players aren't any programable bots, they are chaotic humans who want to have some fun, often resulting in some single individuals destroying the fun of a whole game session, a commander disconnecting to have dinner during a fiercy battle etc.. And when you want to force them into a certain direction, they just start to play some other games...

The life of a game designer is really hard sometimes

Ashaman

#7T e c h l o r d  Members

Posted 12 January 2012 - 03:16 AM

It has been tried before. Games like allegiance or battlefield2 combines fps/rts elements. The biggest issues in allegiance was,that the (fps) players doesn't listen to the rts/commanders (rts layer). That's it ,it failed, because a commanders wanted to attack a fleet and commands his units to planet X, but 80% of the fleet just roamed the space to fight something else.

That is definitely a design caveat to keep in mind when developing such a game. A possible solution could be to generate quest/missions based on Commanders commands/objectives? There are other games that used the RTS Commander/FPS Soldier format (ie: ZombieMaster), however, what I propose is broader in application. The genres I mention are just examples and are unusually associated to a particular point-of-view: FPS/First-Person, RPG/3rd Person, RTS/Isometric & Top-down. Other Genres could be Racers, Fighters, Puzzles, etc. The underlining concepts are 1) to provide multiple ways of gameplay in single game world 1b) which each having a significance on each other in that game world. 2) Provide an GUI that accommodates the gameplay.

#8MaxDZ8  Members

Posted 12 January 2012 - 04:19 AM

I honestly think this is very, very complicated. I'd have serious trouble in stuffing this in my current system.

Edited by Krohm, 12 January 2012 - 04:20 AM.

Previously "Krohm"

#9Acharis  Members

Posted 12 January 2012 - 08:36 AM

But can you design an RPG that can be played as RTS without sacrifacing/dumbing down several aspects of a great RPG? I don't recall even one instance of a designer achieving this. I guess this concept could used as an engine, so the developer can decide which client to use for his game. But all these in one game is probably an overkill.
Working on an Emperor focused, no micromanagement, asymmetric, 4X, space empire builder:

#10T e c h l o r d  Members

Posted 12 January 2012 - 01:45 PM

But can you design an RPG that can be played as RTS without sacrifacing/dumbing down several aspects of a great RPG? I don&#39;t recall even one instance of a designer achieving this. I guess this concept could used as an engine, so the developer can decide which client to use for his game. But all these in one game is probably an overkill.

RPG and RTS are close cousins through Resource Gathering mechanisms. In the RPGs the Player gathers resources to Build-up their Character. Crafting/Mining in MMORPGs are a direct form of Resource Gathering. RPGs like RIFT's use what I suspect to be RTS-inspired mechanics for their Invasions that position/maneuver units and structures to secure areas of the map destroying the lands and people of Telara.

The concept I propose herein, is for the Player to decide on which client to use to interface to game (preferably a single 3D Client offers a configurable interface which caters to a particular genre and each genre can be be played in 5 popular game-perspectives: First-Person, Third-Person, Top-down, Isometric, and Side-Scroll).

I honestly think this is very, very complicated. I&#39;d have serious trouble in stuffing this in my current system.

Its my belief that the Server/Client Engine would have to be designed from the ground up with this concept in mind, it would be extremely difficult to retrofit an existing Server/Client Engine. S3GP is designed and developed to support this concept. My design strategy is to consolidate at every level of the development process. Starting with the consolidation of the game mechanics within each Genre:
• Examine as many genres as possible.
• Identify common systems.
• Consolidate and Merge Systems that share similar features. (Some of these consolidated systems will be non-traditional or experimental.)

I'm taking a top-down approach (also known as step-wise design) breaking down a complex system to identify the broadest set of supported features. The motivation behind this philosophy is to consolidate systems starting with the most complex or elaborate systems. For example, using an Advanced Physics Engine for to provide all collision detection and physics simulation requirements.

Consolidation at higher levels can also be achieved. The Modular Entity Construction Hierarchical Sets (MEChS) is a 3D Entity Construction System originally conceived with the intention of creating various customizable static/animated 3D entities for RPGs by inter-connecting different modeled part combinations. It was realized that the system could also be employed in other genres to:
• Create whole pre-fab entities useful in other types of games.
• User Entity Customization
• Parts-based Model Packs System.

MEChS consolidates Entity Creation and Customization for RPGs, Racers, RTS, FPS, Fighters, etc into one system. Entity Creation and Customization also exist for games that normally don’t require it, which in itself can be exposed to present a new twist within the Game.

#11Xaan  Members

Posted 12 January 2012 - 02:07 PM

Hi, I'm new here

Have you heard of DUST14?

It is set in the same universe (literally, the way you mean it) as EVE Online, developed by CCP.
It is an FPS, unlike EVE Online which is a sci-fi simulator MMO (I say simulator because while it has tactical combat, a lot of players don't even touch that and specialize in mining, trading, and even just guild-type politics [which is the main force driving pretty much every other activity in the game]).

Anyhow, the way the two games interact, supposedly, is that DUST14 will take place on the surface of EVE's planets (which EVE players make use of, but cannot actually land on) and EVE's players will employ DUST14 players to fight over control of those planets (and then the EVE player can gain resources from that planet, use it to fuel his/her empire, etc.)

So DUST14 isn't out yet, and the fact that EVE is PC-only and DUST14 is console-only is worrying, it will be very interesting to see how it will play out.

#12AltarofScience  Members

Posted 12 January 2012 - 03:33 PM

Techlord, I have been designing an MMORPG with RTS elements.

I don't think you can do what you are proposing where you assign FPS players to RTS groups. Players have to autonomously agree on a leader. What if the RTS player is bad? No one will follow those orders. Games which utilize complex player interaction systems have to take players into consideration. The average MMO player has a pretty big ego. They are going to treat the game like a pug fps battleground.

#13Relfos  Members

Posted 13 January 2012 - 04:42 AM

Why not let the RTS players control a faction, while the FPS players control another?
That way there's no problems with players regarding orders, since everyone will be free to decide what to do,

#14Morphia  Banned

Posted 13 January 2012 - 10:22 AM

The average MMO player has a pretty Big Ego

Not Doubt It )
Soon this is Good Arrangement in the Game World . When player chained with notBig group He was good Thinking of situation .
If he Leader then he Extend Possible : Move , Trade , Attack or other with Group !!

RTS players control a faction, while the FPS players control another

All Players is RTS only in RPG Charachters they have differently functions . In Solo in RTS Game not necessarry Wait in
Await of Join to Group : player himself do his Game as Solo Player . Only He have a small Strong , if he want have a Biggest Strong
then he Develop his RPG Charachter in Small Danger Place ...
Game Interface Manager ^|^ Deep Space Engineering

#15ImmoralAtheist  Members

Posted 13 January 2012 - 11:42 AM

Techlord, I have been designing an MMORPG with RTS elements.

I don't think you can do what you are proposing where you assign FPS players to RTS groups. Players have to autonomously agree on a leader. What if the RTS player is bad? No one will follow those orders. Games which utilize complex player interaction systems have to take players into consideration. The average MMO player has a pretty big ego. They are going to treat the game like a pug fps battleground.

Savage 2 does mix action game (fantasy medieval, not modern) and rts. Similar to a PvP match where two teams fight each other. Difference is that each team also has a commander which sees everything top down, and can build structures, units etc. I haven't played it, but it definitely makes it look more interesting than just standard pvp.

#16Postie  Members

Posted 13 January 2012 - 04:26 PM

Have you heard of DUST14?

I believe it's actually called Dust514.
Currently working on an open world survival RPG - For info check out my Development blog:

#17Xaan  Members

Posted 14 January 2012 - 04:47 AM

Have you heard of DUST14?

I believe it's actually called Dust514.

Yep, my bad. Thanks for the correction

#18swiftcoder  Senior Moderators

Posted 14 January 2012 - 09:21 AM

Techlord, I have been designing an MMORPG with RTS elements. I don't think you can do what you are proposing where you assign FPS players to RTS groups. Players have to autonomously agree on a leader. What if the RTS player is bad? No one will follow those orders.

So let's fix that, by turning it into a free-market economy. We will call our currency 'Valour':
• Each faction has N players, N-1 of which play as an FPS 'soldier', while 1 plays as the RTS 'commander'.
• Soldiers earn a small amount of valour for each kill, and earn a large amount for completing objectives that the commander sets. The commander earns valour solely by completing RTS-style map objectives (defeat the enemy, control map zones over time, etc.).
• The game proceeds in short rounds (say, 15 minutes max). At the end of each round, the commander position is offered to the player with the highest amount of valour. if he wishes to play FPS instead, he can refuse, in which case it is offered to the next player, etc.

Now, this isn't perfect - it's just a quick sketch of mechanics off the top of my head. But I think it serves to illustrate that you can potentially create balanced systems of this nature...

Tristam MacDonald - Software Engineer @ Amazon - [swiftcoding] [GitHub]

#19T e c h l o r d  Members

Posted 14 January 2012 - 09:24 PM

Hi, I'm new here

Have you heard of DUST14?

It is set in the same universe (literally, the way you mean it) as EVE Online, developed by CCP.
It is an FPS, unlike EVE Online which is a sci-fi simulator MMO (I say simulator because while it has tactical combat, a lot of players don't even touch that and specialize in mining, trading, and even just guild-type politics [which is the main force driving pretty much every other activity in the game]).

Anyhow, the way the two games interact, supposedly, is that DUST14 will take place on the surface of EVE's planets (which EVE players make use of, but cannot actually land on) and EVE's players will employ DUST14 players to fight over control of those planets (and then the EVE player can gain resources from that planet, use it to fuel his/her empire, etc.)

So DUST14 isn't out yet, and the fact that EVE is PC-only and DUST14 is console-only is worrying, it will be very interesting to see how it will play out.

Although DUST514 is following a tried RTS Commander/FPS Soldier format (ala: Allegiance, ZombieMaster), its looks really good and I love FPS games. Perhaps, it will give PlanetSide 2 a run for my money.

Techlord, I have been designing an MMORPG with RTS elements.

I don't think you can do what you are proposing where you assign FPS players to RTS groups. Players have to autonomously agree on a leader. What if the RTS player is bad? No one will follow those orders. Games which utilize complex player interaction systems have to take players into consideration. The average MMO player has a pretty big ego. They are going to treat the game like a pug fps battleground.

That is a simplified example and one of many other possibilities. In my opinion, its all in the presentation. I'm certain there is innovation in this concept and I hope we can drive this discussion beyond just RTS Commander/FPS Soldier. Perhaps, what I'm proposing is a game for a new type of player that switches from one game style to another on a frequent basis. A Player like me who enjoys playing all types of games FPS, RPG, RTS, Racers, Fighters, etc. A Sandbox that provides multiple game-play styles and a single Client that can support them would offer greater leverage of assets for the Developer, and greater play/replay value for the Player.

#20AltarofScience  Members

Posted 14 January 2012 - 11:56 PM

Hi, I'm new here

Have you heard of DUST14?

It is set in the same universe (literally, the way you mean it) as EVE Online, developed by CCP.
It is an FPS, unlike EVE Online which is a sci-fi simulator MMO (I say simulator because while it has tactical combat, a lot of players don't even touch that and specialize in mining, trading, and even just guild-type politics [which is the main force driving pretty much every other activity in the game]).

Anyhow, the way the two games interact, supposedly, is that DUST14 will take place on the surface of EVE's planets (which EVE players make use of, but cannot actually land on) and EVE's players will employ DUST14 players to fight over control of those planets (and then the EVE player can gain resources from that planet, use it to fuel his/her empire, etc.)

So DUST14 isn't out yet, and the fact that EVE is PC-only and DUST14 is console-only is worrying, it will be very interesting to see how it will play out.

Although DUST514 is following a tried RTS Commander/FPS Soldier format (ala: Allegiance, ZombieMaster), its looks really good and I love FPS games. Perhaps, it will give PlanetSide 2 a run for my money.

Techlord, I have been designing an MMORPG with RTS elements.

I don't think you can do what you are proposing where you assign FPS players to RTS groups. Players have to autonomously agree on a leader. What if the RTS player is bad? No one will follow those orders. Games which utilize complex player interaction systems have to take players into consideration. The average MMO player has a pretty big ego. They are going to treat the game like a pug fps battleground.

That is a simplified example and one of many other possibilities. In my opinion, its all in the presentation. I'm certain there is innovation in this concept and I hope we can drive this discussion beyond just RTS Commander/FPS Soldier. Perhaps, what I'm proposing is a game for a new type of player that switches from one game style to another on a frequent basis. A Player like me who enjoys playing all types of games FPS, RPG, RTS, Racers, Fighters, etc. A Sandbox that provides multiple game-play styles and a single Client that can support them would offer greater leverage of assets for the Developer, and greater play/replay value for the Player.

It seems like most FPS team games have a commander because someone has to lead the team.
A few RTS games have a hero character that can be controlled by the player as well as the standard RTS powers. Its a bit more like action RPG mixed with RTS than FPS.
I know that The Repopulation has both an RPG and FPS control scheme for players to use depending on how they want to play and you can switch between them.
Are you going to have non human units? Will it just be hero characters controlled by fps players?
How are non player units if you have them going to work? Its pretty easy for computers to do headshots.

Old topic!

Guest, the last post of this topic is over 60 days old and at this point you may not reply in this topic. If you wish to continue this conversation start a new topic.