Does anybody really feel there is anywhere for Multiplayer to go from here?

I say this because people have been complaining BF3 is the same as BC2. Where do MP games go from here? I think there really isnt anywhere to go from here. I think games like BF & MAG have done just about everything a military war game can do.

BF was light years ahead of every other online shooter for years. MP in genral has no where to go from here. I ask anybody this : What do you do when you've added every single thing that encompasses war [customization, teamwork, massive sized maps, huge amount of players, land/sea/air vehicles, destruction, etc]? What do you do when you've added everything? That is where BF is at . . . . its at the top, at its peak.

People complain about cod for the fact that it has more potential but yet sticks with being the most unplayble, broken MP experince ever created. The gameplay has a ton of ways to go though. BF however has been king forever. What seperates one BF title from the next does not come down to gameplay as the gameplay has been fully realized a long time ago.

What seperates one fps game from the next all comes down to feel, presentation, atmosphere, actual mechanics & the way its played [strategy]. Gameplay remains the same throughout all fps games.

What BF3 does different is the mechanics & the way its played. Its a much more realistic, hardcore BF than ever before. BC2 almost played like a cod game where you could run around doing 360 no scopes & such. Now a sniper has to play like a sniper rather a frontlines beats with a ghillie suit for example. Many tweaks to the formula have been made. You will still have the same tools, etc as past BFs so for the most part its the same gameplay. BF cant be attacked for that though since its still light years ahead of everybody else.

I think people are just blind to what MP actually is. Mp was a mode designed to let people shoot at each other over objectives or a place on the scoreboard. There is only so much that can be done with that. ALL the weapons, abilities, vehicles, war toys, etc have been added. Everything has been done. MP reached its full potential a long time ago. Dont expect it to every change, ever. It will be the same as it is now even 10 years from now.

Ive seen the last few ideas that can change MP a little bit from games like StarHawk & UC3. UC3 has moving maps [fighting to take over a moving plane], StarHawk has the ability to manipulate & move map pieces to where they see fit. I think thats it. I dont think much else can be done with MP.

Like i said what seperates one fps game from the next all comes down to feel, presentation, atmosphere, actual mechanics & the way its played [strategy]. Gameplay remains the same throughout all fps games.

Does anybody else see this? Does anybody actually have any good ideas on what else can be done with MP or has MP hit its peak?

It happened for awhile where I asked myself the same question:

Then Left 4 Dead came out and changed everything.

Outside of a few instances of brilliance (Left 4 Dead, Splinter Cell, COD4, and Gears of War 2), multiplayer has pretty much become creatively bankrupt.

there is so much left to do in multiplayer.

the biggest thing i see is a prevalence of the idea that there should be a single player mode that tells a story and then a multiplayer mode where people just shoot each other or whatever. developers need to be doing more to bring the two together.

then theres the ol' reliable co-op mode. the majority of the time the 2nd player either steps into the shoes of a preexisting character that would have been the same (or better) character without a real person pulling the trigger or a new character spawns out of nowhere and highlights even better the game's lack of any need for another person. coop should be more than another trigger. it should come from a conceptual need rather than a "i can play with a buddy too!" whim.

the dark/demon's souls games have done interesting things combining classic multiplayer modes with rpg character decisions, portal 2 created a slightly more complex buddy relationship between coop players, and racing games are starting to integrate races into persistent worlds. these are the sorts of ideas that developers should be looking at, but they are in the vast minority.

No one has still surpassed tribes

When people start innovating the gameplay rather than just improving the graphics. That includes just adding new weapons or new modes that use those new weapons. Like Half Life 2. The gameplay used simulated physics as a part of the gameplay. Many other games have done this, but it's a good example. Echocrome requires you to change the map view to progress. The cover system popularized by Gears of War.

My personal idea, although not too out there, would be Halo: Ninja Gaiden Black style.

there is so much left to do in multiplayer.

the biggest thing i see is a prevalence of the idea that there should be a single player mode that tells a story and then a multiplayer mode where people just shoot each other or whatever. developers need to be doing more to bring the two together.

then theres the ol' reliable co-op mode. the majority of the time the 2nd player either steps into the shoes of a preexisting character that would have been the same (or better) character without a real person pulling the trigger or a new character spawns out of nowhere and highlights even better the game's lack of any need for another person. coop should be more than another trigger. it should come from a conceptual need rather than a "i can play with a buddy too!" whim.

the dark/demon's souls games have done interesting things combining classic multiplayer modes with rpg character decisions, portal 2 created a slightly more complex buddy relationship between coop players, and racing games are starting to integrate races into persistent worlds. these are the sorts of ideas that developers should be looking at, but they are in the vast minority.

LoG-Sacrament

[QUOTE="LoG-Sacrament"]

there is so much left to do in multiplayer.

the biggest thing i see is a prevalence of the idea that there should be a single player mode that tells a story and then a multiplayer mode where people just shoot each other or whatever. developers need to be doing more to bring the two together.

then theres the ol' reliable co-op mode. the majority of the time the 2nd player either steps into the shoes of a preexisting character that would have been the same (or better) character without a real person pulling the trigger or a new character spawns out of nowhere and highlights even better the game's lack of any need for another person. coop should be more than another trigger. it should come from a conceptual need rather than a "i can play with a buddy too!" whim.

the dark/demon's souls games have done interesting things combining classic multiplayer modes with rpg character decisions, portal 2 created a slightly more complex buddy relationship between coop players, and racing games are starting to integrate races into persistent worlds. these are the sorts of ideas that developers should be looking at, but they are in the vast minority.

BranKetra

[QUOTE="BranKetra"][QUOTE="LoG-Sacrament"]

there is so much left to do in multiplayer.

the biggest thing i see is a prevalence of the idea that there should be a single player mode that tells a story and then a multiplayer mode where people just shoot each other or whatever. developers need to be doing more to bring the two together.

then theres the ol' reliable co-op mode. the majority of the time the 2nd player either steps into the shoes of a preexisting character that would have been the same (or better) character without a real person pulling the trigger or a new character spawns out of nowhere and highlights even better the game's lack of any need for another person. coop should be more than another trigger. it should come from a conceptual need rather than a "i can play with a buddy too!" whim.

the dark/demon's souls games have done interesting things combining classic multiplayer modes with rpg character decisions, portal 2 created a slightly more complex buddy relationship between coop players, and racing games are starting to integrate races into persistent worlds. these are the sorts of ideas that developers should be looking at, but they are in the vast minority.

fl4tlined

[QUOTE="fl4tlined"][QUOTE="BranKetra"]Yes. I haven't played Demon or Dark Souls, but the multiplayer sounds interesting. Coming into another player's world and taking his life to restore your own (as far as I know). Pretty wicked.BranKetra

[QUOTE="LoG-Sacrament"][QUOTE="BranKetra"]Yes, I read that in the Dark Souls thread. Pretty cool. It reminds me of Monster Hunter, only a mostly single player experience. Unless other players attack each other a lot.BranKetra

[QUOTE="BranKetra"][QUOTE="LoG-Sacrament"] i like to equate the multiplayer options in demon's souls to good, bad, and neutral. will you help people, hurt them, or leave them be? it sounds like a simple choice. it is, but having other people rather than npc's feel the effects adds a bit more to it. in dark souls, theyve expanded the options to encompass the 9 DnD alignments with covenants. you might only attack players that trespass on your covenants home base, gather goods from any player you can find, share helpful spells, punish sinful players, or other sorts of things. LoG-Sacrament

there is so much left to do in multiplayer.

the biggest thing i see is a prevalence of the idea that there should be a single player mode that tells a story and then a multiplayer mode where people just shoot each other or whatever. developers need to be doing more to bring the two together.

then theres the ol' reliable co-op mode. the majority of the time the 2nd player either steps into the shoes of a preexisting character that would have been the same (or better) character without a real person pulling the trigger or a new character spawns out of nowhere and highlights even better the game's lack of any need for another person. coop should be more than another trigger. it should come from a conceptual need rather than a "i can play with a buddy too!" whim.

the dark/demon's souls games have done interesting things combining classic multiplayer modes with rpg character decisions, portal 2 created a slightly more complex buddy relationship between coop players, and racing games are starting to integrate races into persistent worlds. these are the sorts of ideas that developers should be looking at, but they are in the vast minority.

LoG-Sacrament

Thats why Left 4 Dead is so amazing to me. It matchs a narrative that you actually change (not like the gimmicky RPG's where you make choices)

it' still limited. But L4D and it's sequel are like the only games where player authored story telling actually makes sense. In a shooter like Battlefield, it's like "i shot this guy and then we captured the point and then I died and respawned and got in a heli etc"

With L4D it's like "We were JUST about to get onto the escape helicopter, which took HOURS to come. My best friend was still crawling his way slowly to the heli as he had been badly wounded from a hunter previously. As he was just in the copters reach, a stray tank wacked him hard and got him down. I decided not to leave him, and so despite the other 2 calling it 'a suicide mission' I ran, popped a bit of adrenaline, and popped that mofo. I gave my hand to my buddy, and promised that I would never let that happen to him again"

okay a bit dramatic, but do you see what I mean?

[QUOTE="LoG-Sacrament"]

there is so much left to do in multiplayer.

the biggest thing i see is a prevalence of the idea that there should be a single player mode that tells a story and then a multiplayer mode where people just shoot each other or whatever. developers need to be doing more to bring the two together.

then theres the ol' reliable co-op mode. the majority of the time the 2nd player either steps into the shoes of a preexisting character that would have been the same (or better) character without a real person pulling the trigger or a new character spawns out of nowhere and highlights even better the game's lack of any need for another person. coop should be more than another trigger. it should come from a conceptual need rather than a "i can play with a buddy too!" whim.

the dark/demon's souls games have done interesting things combining classic multiplayer modes with rpg character decisions, portal 2 created a slightly more complex buddy relationship between coop players, and racing games are starting to integrate races into persistent worlds. these are the sorts of ideas that developers should be looking at, but they are in the vast minority.

OB-47

Thats why Left 4 Dead is so amazing to me. It matchs a narrative that you actually change (not like the gimmicky RPG's where you make choices)

it' still limited. But L4D and it's sequel are like the only games where player authored story telling actually makes sense. In a shooter like Battlefield, it's like "i shot this guy and then we captured the point and then I died and respawned and got in a heli etc"

With L4D it's like "We were JUST about to get onto the escape helicopter, which took HOURS to come. My best friend was still crawling his way slowly to the heli as he had been badly wounded from a hunter previously. As he was just in the copters reach, a stray tank wacked him hard and got him down. I decided not to leave him, and so despite the other 2 calling it 'a suicide mission' I ran, popped a bit of adrenaline, and popped that mofo. I gave my hand to my buddy, and promised that I would never let that happen to him again"

okay a bit dramatic, but do you see what I mean?

MP could branch off into other games other than FPS.

RPG MP games would be awesome. WKC has it, but it gets stale after a while.

[QUOTE="OB-47"]

[QUOTE="LoG-Sacrament"]

there is so much left to do in multiplayer.

the biggest thing i see is a prevalence of the idea that there should be a single player mode that tells a story and then a multiplayer mode where people just shoot each other or whatever. developers need to be doing more to bring the two together.

then theres the ol' reliable co-op mode. the majority of the time the 2nd player either steps into the shoes of a preexisting character that would have been the same (or better) character without a real person pulling the trigger or a new character spawns out of nowhere and highlights even better the game's lack of any need for another person. coop should be more than another trigger. it should come from a conceptual need rather than a "i can play with a buddy too!" whim.

the dark/demon's souls games have done interesting things combining classic multiplayer modes with rpg character decisions, portal 2 created a slightly more complex buddy relationship between coop players, and racing games are starting to integrate races into persistent worlds. these are the sorts of ideas that developers should be looking at, but they are in the vast minority.

LoG-Sacrament

Thats why Left 4 Dead is so amazing to me. It matchs a narrative that you actually change (not like the gimmicky RPG's where you make choices)

it' still limited. But L4D and it's sequel are like the only games where player authored story telling actually makes sense. In a shooter like Battlefield, it's like "i shot this guy and then we captured the point and then I died and respawned and got in a heli etc"

With L4D it's like "We were JUST about to get onto the escape helicopter, which took HOURS to come. My best friend was still crawling his way slowly to the heli as he had been badly wounded from a hunter previously. As he was just in the copters reach, a stray tank wacked him hard and got him down. I decided not to leave him, and so despite the other 2 calling it 'a suicide mission' I ran, popped a bit of adrenaline, and popped that mofo. I gave my hand to my buddy, and promised that I would never let that happen to him again"

okay a bit dramatic, but do you see what I mean?

I reckon games should focus more on their uniqueness than trying to be a movie all the time. It works in some games, but we need less cinematic, more player authored stories

This topic seems to come up quite often.

Yes, absolutely, without a doubt. As I said before, saying that multiplayer has nowhere to go is like playing Super Mario World and thinking all single player games in the future of gaming will be just like it.

The multiplayer experience is changing all of the time.

One problem with Multiplayer is that there is a limit to what happen set up you have have. It can only be turn base or ATB like CoD. This cuts out a number of game play setup.

I feel the same way.

No matter what MP does in a game, it will die. How many people will be playing that cool MP component of that cool game in 10 years when the community has dried up, and the new generation has come? NONE (With the PC, MP could survive...)

Reality is, MP does not last. What is the point of spending so many resources on developing a portion of the game that only ends up being a temporary addition?

Granted, MP has its place. But Single Player has its place as well. Why must every single-player game have a temporary multi-player mode?

Yes i feel like multiplayer can go further devolpers just need to be creative i mean it is there job and allSaintJimmmy

but my point was that i think we've done everything that can be done. I think MP only has so much potential & that potential has been fully realized. Once you fully fleshed out everything that encompasses combat/war & any type of unique flavor there really isnt any where to go from there.

MP is just a mode to be competititve against people The mode itself only has so much potential & i think we have hit its peak. There really isnt much else that can be done with it.

You expect developers to be creative but yet MP is a mode that only allows so much creativeness. There's a reason all MP is the same now. Developers really only have a small pool of elements to take from for MP [amount of players, map sizes, streaks, abilities, weapon types/war toys, vehicles, customization, mode types, challenges, ranking, destruction, style,etc) every dev takes fom this pool. There is nothing else to add to this mode.

People forgte MP is a just a mode. The mode itslef has a limit to it. The mode itself does not lend itself to keep progressing. Single player will continue to progress & change but i feel MP is done. It had a good run but people expect MP to be more than what it is. You expect developers to be creative but there just average people with a passion for gaming. They have no more creativness than us. if we oursleves cant come up with any new ideas then you cant expect them to. Thats why im asking people what else can be added to Mp.

MP is competitive mode based around combat. Once you done everything that encompasses war/ combat the gameplay has nowhere to go from there. Its wierd when people expect BF to add things to the gameplay but yet it has all the weapon types [ land/sea/air vehicles, grenade types, weapon types/snipers/machine guns/rockets, uav/iedmelee, etc} it has everything that you could possible do in real war/combat. So what can you add to something that has already added everything?

That's where MP is at. Its like making a pizza with every topping in the universe but people expect there to be more toppings? You can change the pizza, the formula but in the end it has added everything already.

Again i will ask does anybody have any real ideas?

It's all the same spawn kill die over and over.

I'd like to see a game where players make up a huge portion of what would've been NPC's. Take DCUO for example. I haven't made it real far into the game. I think I'm only a level 20 and I've got a lot of missions still to do. It would be neat if you were playing a super hero. You had to go after a villian but they had a bunch of other villians/henchmen guarding him/her. Those henchmen would be played by players rather than NPC's. The problem would be if people stopped playing the game. Then someone who just started playing would only be playing with a few others until a certain level and that's depending on if anyone else is still playing.

It should go backwards, back to skill based death match. Health, weapon and armor pick ups. Strafe jumping. Duel oriented. Dedicated servers.

how to make an infinite thread:

step 1- ask a question

step 2 - ignore all responses

step 3 - repeat question

step 4 - repeat steps 2 and 3

Well i have a few ideas like:

An Online Console Pokemon Game

[QUOTE="OB-47"]

[QUOTE="LoG-Sacrament"]

there is so much left to do in multiplayer.

the biggest thing i see is a prevalence of the idea that there should be a single player mode that tells a story and then a multiplayer mode where people just shoot each other or whatever. developers need to be doing more to bring the two together.

then theres the ol' reliable co-op mode. the majority of the time the 2nd player either steps into the shoes of a preexisting character that would have been the same (or better) character without a real person pulling the trigger or a new character spawns out of nowhere and highlights even better the game's lack of any need for another person. coop should be more than another trigger. it should come from a conceptual need rather than a "i can play with a buddy too!" whim.

the dark/demon's souls games have done interesting things combining classic multiplayer modes with rpg character decisions, portal 2 created a slightly more complex buddy relationship between coop players, and racing games are starting to integrate races into persistent worlds. these are the sorts of ideas that developers should be looking at, but they are in the vast minority.

LoG-Sacrament

Thats why Left 4 Dead is so amazing to me. It matchs a narrative that you actually change (not like the gimmicky RPG's where you make choices)

it' still limited. But L4D and it's sequel are like the only games where player authored story telling actually makes sense. In a shooter like Battlefield, it's like "i shot this guy and then we captured the point and then I died and respawned and got in a heli etc"

With L4D it's like "We were JUST about to get onto the escape helicopter, which took HOURS to come. My best friend was still crawling his way slowly to the heli as he had been badly wounded from a hunter previously. As he was just in the copters reach, a stray tank wacked him hard and got him down. I decided not to leave him, and so despite the other 2 calling it 'a suicide mission' I ran, popped a bit of adrenaline, and popped that mofo. I gave my hand to my buddy, and promised that I would never let that happen to him again"

okay a bit dramatic, but do you see what I mean?

time travel. easy everytime a round ends, RANDOM TIME!

bases in rush destroyed? RANDOM TIME!

Medieval wepons suck? M4A1!!!

Sadly, with CoD Elite and BF3's Battlelog, a lot of games will be focusing (copying)on integrating social networking features into games more and more. I couldn't care less about these kinds of things.

I'll start by saying: Just making something true to life ( or just adding more stuff) is not what makes good multiplayer.
There is a reason CoD doesn't have destruction and vehicles. Because it draws away from the experience. Battlefield has plenty of ways to go. And most of them are backwards. Making something as true to life as possible has nothing to do with how good or successful an MP game is.
It's all about interface, experience, accessability and fun factor. I would argue that battlefield is the game that has still failed to capture this.
Games like call of duty, will indeed be a very similar experience 10 years from now. Because the core gameplay is perfected.
There is nothing that needs to be done, the engine is perfect, the controlls are perfect, the only things to change are minor.
This does not mean MP games have nowhere to go. I predict we will see more games moving to more old school styIe, But more likely, since the gaming genre is generally becoming mainstream, the industry will start over. Games like call of duty and battlefield will stay in the spotlight, but indie developers with less intention of sheer profit will make MP titles for the more niche market of dedicated gamers.

There's only one type of MP I can think of that hasnt been done in any game before (or at least none that I'm aware of).

Players spawn at different ends of a huge map. Every player has the same objective; Retrieve Object "X" and Extract it. Players start off with only basic weapons, etc. but as they progress through the map they can find better gear and vehicles.

However, the players aren't in a team, so the first man to get to "X" and extract it wins. But, working completely on your own is extremely hard, so players would be recommended to negotiate an alliance with at least one other person. Why? Because "X" has computer-controlled guardians (ie. bag of money has cops protecting it, etc.) looking after it, and random events are also a possibility in the game world (wild animal attacks, etc.), not to mention others trying to get to "X" aswell. This would give the game a nice blend of competitive AND cooperative gameplay, along with a story to each retrieval scenario.

There would be a time limit on each scenario, and a variety of different scenarios. And of course, it would give your average FPS some variety in gameplay, allowing players to be creative and find different ways to get to the objective.