The one thing that can make a game thrive for years and years after it's release date is it's multi player. After everyone has beaten the game, gotten all the achievements, or is tired of all those amazing features, multi player is what keeps the game living. My question to you is, what makes or breaks a game's multi player? What makes it fun after the 1000th match? I personally believe the player model animations are what do it. Every good multi player game I have ever played had great player model animations. Rag doll effects play a huge part in games such as halo, because when you shoot somebody in the head they flip backwards making the kill SO much more satisfying. The speed and size of the character plays a huge part too. Games like quake or socom make your character run 20 miles an hour, so you don't use cover at all which isn't fun to me. Games like Gears of War or Call of Duty use perfect speeds for their games, and make it more realistic. Not only that, but with good player model animations, you can see what the other players are doing on their screens such as looking in a specific direction or reloading, which gives it the feeling that you are playing against a person not a 3d pixilated being. I got the idea for this thread after seeing the new multi player gameplay of FarCry 2. I was very disappointed to see that the running animations left a lot to be desired, among the terrible player model graphics. Watch at 2:50 on the boat. You'll see what I mean. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Mm7gvfR4YKc
Personaly, I think that it's the weapons and Maps that make or break a game. I'll take Halo 3 and Gow as examples for this and some UT3. In Halo 3, most weapons have abilities that overlap a lot. For instance, the Carbine and BR. Both weapons are essentially the same but more people use the BR as there is less chance of missing due to the 3-shot. In GoW, no two weapons have overlapping abilities. For example, the lancer is more of a close combat weapon then the longer range of the Hammerburst. Due to the Lancers rapid fire, the weapon is more suited for close combat as at long range, it's very hard to keep every shot on target. That's without talking about the chainsaw. On maps. Personally, I find maps in Halo 3 to be boring. No map has one special factor that makes you change your strategy for it. In UT3, I remember there being a map that had a control point. In genaral, that wouldn't of changed much of my strategy but the control point had one special feature. It spawned the most powerful vehicle in the game if captured and held for a minute(?) That really made you think about wether to go there or continue as usual. It doesn't have to be that much of a change. It could be like a change in Bullet Marsh where you couldn't go into the dark for fear of getting eaten by the Kryll. Adding the light switch made it more in depth as well. If only EPIC made it more dangerous to get in the dark...
To me. Far cry looks really bad. Graphics wise its not great, and Playing wise it looks like it will fail compared to COD4. Even though the mapmaking may be very good, they didn't spend enough time on the rest of the game. I believe Far Cry one was for the Xbox when i played it, and this doesn't seem like much of an approvment.
Those animations were not that great. The player was side stepping but his feet weren't moving. Hopefully that was a beta running and not the end product. I think the key to any game being replayable is player movement. If your movement in any game is very restrictive, the game will get old. What makes halo such a fun game is how maneuverable each player can be. This opened the game up for things such as crouch jumping or equipment jumping. It really opens up game play and changes the possible outcomes of a game. Changing up games is another obvious answer. Bungie is always changing up their playlists in order to keep things fresh. If you want your game to last now a days, you have to be willing to make adjustments after the game has been shipped.
Thats very true.Now with all this new technology ,features ,and so many games.Game designers have to keep updating,changing,or adding stuff to their game to keep the people playing. I think the multiplayer depends on weapons,map,and graphics. The weapons are basically the main character of the game also.Although maps might change weapons do not.The weapons in the game will never go away.So I think most multiplayer weapons should vary from each other which I think Halo 3 does a nice job ,because they have classes.Human to covenant.With some weapons replacing others but then the one class has the 'idol' weapon and such. Maps are also a big feature.I like how bungie has forge so they can change maps for matchmaking which will make gameplay different in some cases.But then again Halo 3 maps are mostly close quarters or extremely large.I like Rainbow Six Vegas 2 because they have their own close quarters map and large maps. Graphics are basically key.What would a character be without all features ,a gray 2D figure.If the graphics are bad that means the people who buy the game aren't going to be alot. And one other thing is probably quick match or matchmaking.Halo 3's matchmaking is probably the best with its easy to maneuver level system EXP and playlists.Its pretty much organized.
It seems that most of halo 3s maps were made SPECIFICALLY to look dirty, rusted out, and sickly. I rather play on Ivory tower than any halo 3 map. I want to see something beautiful waged with war, not something that looks like a piece of crap straight out of the package. The guns are part of the player. If every gun has crappy sounds, or doesn't have that "crunch" it could destroy the game. The guns are like your virtual hand in the gaming world, so it has to look and feel nice. Great job pointing that out. Looky. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZegNKizjLwg Yes player movement is huge too. I want to feel like I can do anything I want in a game that I could do in real life. It also makes it feel more real. If you can do machinima with it, it's probably good.
i think that if a game has the ability to play with more than one person on the same xbox it gives more people have a chance at playing and possibly buying the game(like halo, unlike cod4) when my freinds come over they all wanna play cod4 on xbl, but we can only play on local. we play like 4 games on cod4 then we switch over to halo. its bad advertising/marketing techniques that made cod4 worse than halo, because all my friends have halo cuz they came over to my place and tryed it out. you couldnt really do that with cod4 cuz there arent as many maps/players to kill on loca. halo also has the ability to have co-op campaign, most games do accually but cod4 doesnt. i sound like im trying to make ppl to hate c0d4, but im not becuase i love it! i think it is more realistic and kinda more fun than halo in gamplaywise, im just saying it suxs when u have friends over. i think thats what makes or breaks a game.
IMO it's balance that makes a game. The thing I like about Halo is that every weapon has its strengths and weaknesses, they have a specific context where they should be used. If someone's using a rocket lawnchair you simply jump when they fire. If someone is using a shotgun you either draw them into the open or lob grenades, etc. There is no overpowering weapon in the game. Sure someone may get a sword spree but that is probably just because everyone else rushed to them. Even if someone gets say 10 kills with a power weapon it doesn't mean their team is undoubtedly going to win by any means. "Realistic" shooters often suffer overpowered weapons due to the fact that its hard to adjust weapon damage when you only have a very small amount of health. A prime example of this is the AWP in counterstrike, it deals huge damage and is fairly accurate in the hands of a skilled player.
An overpowered weapon is a weapon that has near omnipotence when used to perfection. This can be seen in the sniper. These weapon is overpowered. In Halo, and many ther shooters, the sniper is very overpowered. When using a sniper, you should be killing people left and right at long range, easily enough at mid range and at close range you should be dead. In Halo, way too many people have confidence at CQB sniping. THIS SHOULD NOT BE THE CASE. If you have have a sniper and they get close to you, you should be praying for a miracle. Shooters consider their weapons overpoweredness differently then in other games. You have to think of a situation, put two enemies and give them weapons. Put both of them to perfect. And then think of the outcome. Let's do this now to the sniper. Long range. Sniper v Shotgun. Sniper wins. Medium range. Sniper v Shotgun. Sniper wins. Short range. Sniper v Shotgun. Coin flip. <--- The problem. We can add obsticles and the sutch but they'd come out the same. Lethality. End of. This is what seperates many games. In those 'realistic' shooters, weapons are balanced by changing their range and bullet spray. Not their damage to a large degree.
Well, there is alot of things that make a game great, especially the way all the parts come together. But i am certain of one part - what breaks a game. Everything can be fantastic, but if the balance is horrible, then noone will play it, because it will make like suck for everyone. Seriously, look at Halo 3. The rocket has 2 shots per clip. Its a one hit kill, but is slow to reload. The BR has a large clip but takes some skill to use effectively. The laser is incredibly powerful but has a charge lag, is incredibly visible, and cannot be given more ammo. Just keep in mind its not just weapons. Spawning points, character models (like the whole spartan vs elite thing in Halo 2), vehicles, etc. all play a role. Even control points and such on a map. Balance will destroy a game. There are plenty of things that make a game great, but the one thing that will absolutely kill a game, will make a game unplayable no matter what, is balance.