HAL_Laboratory
Member
Why are people so pissed about online? Most of the games in their portfolio that made them famous have lacked an online component. And the ones that do go online are generally pretty crappy.
-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
This week's dirty magazine news begins with Nintendo Dream!
- Thread starter duckroll
- Start date
A Black Falcon
Member
Pureauthor said:
Random stats? What exactly do you mean? There are PC RTSes and TBSes with levelling up, stat growth, items, hero characters that carry over across the campaign (and sometimes the rest of their armies too, though that's more rare; ones that carry over across multiplayer games in PC strategy games are even more rare than that, but DO exist, not that it would have to do that in a console strategy game either...), damage ranges ("5-9 damage per hit", etc) instead of just hard stats, etc, etc... there is the issue that console TBSes/SRPGs usually have ALL the characters having levelling, stats, etc, instead of just leaders, but that's just a matter of scale, and even there there are PC equivilants... yes, SRPG certainly have strong RPG influences, but still. Saying that they are so different from TBSes that online would not work is absurd.
The only serious concern (issues of levelling, items, etc. can be dealt with without much trouble) is the fact that turn-based games are slow in multiplayer. Turnbased strategy games try to deal with this in many ways -- time limits for turns, making the game simultaneous turn (still turns, but everyone moves at the same time) or real-time, etc -- but it is always an issue. Still, that certainly shouldn't be enough to make the whole subgenre ignore multiplayer...
lordfroakie
Member
HAL_Laboratory said:
Like FF12 and Front Mission Online(Japan Only)
Jonnyram said:Oh crap, you left out the worst news, duckroll.
The question box, where Nintendo's PR team answers questions from the public is gonna be discontinued in Feb
:O
What?!
Come on!!!
Any Japanese gaffers or gaffers who know japanese, force nintendo to make SE rethink the wi-fi from them 2 games!! HURRY!!! Turn in them questions!
A Black Falcon
Member
HAL_Laboratory said:
One of the easiest ways to tell a console gamer apart from a PC gamer is to see if they insult online gaming or not... while console games have had online play since the '80s (or early '90s at least), very few people have actually played them online (Xbox Live? Sure it's popular, but compared to the total number of console gamers, the number who have actually played online games is surely small...), something not true about PC gamers.
... of course, free online services could by some be seen as bad -- if someone is still playing Starcraft seven and a half years later, are they buying your newer games (not an issue for Blizzard when they make an average of less than one product a year of course)? Is that why Starcraft and Warcraft III still have better/more varied online modes than any other games in existence?
... nah, that's because no one else wants to go to the trouble to make a map editor like the Starcraft and Warcraft III editors, but that's a different issue... anyway, the point is that I don't think that that's a valid argument, and neither should the companies. Though it does present a question -- what is the best way to have an online mode in an SRPG? I mean, obviously the answer is not we got in the multiplayer modes of the GBA Fire Emblem games. You need a strategy map portion, that's the key to the game, not the battles. So... do you start players with default-level units (selectable before the battle? Maybe have a certain set number of levels to distribute to the team of your choice for each battle or something?), or do you start from the bottom and have them level up in some fashion (so that you stratify the online mode so that people need to play players about the same point in the game to be equal to them, until they max out the characters that is)? Keeping stats (wins/losses/etc, the more the better.
) is the usual online-game answer to levels/game progression in a single-player game, and it's a reasonable one I think.
A Black Falcon
Member
dp
Kintaro said:
That might be true if not for the fact that Square Enix is treating the DS more seriously than any publisher except Nintendo, with more high-profile, high budget titles from talented teams than anyone could've expected.
It's not exactly like they're scrimping here. But they don't include one particular feature and half the Nintoons act like they're the new Ubisoft.
BrodiemanTTR
Member
ethelred said:
What? Last week's thread was a snorefest.
Pureauthor
Member
BrodiemanTTR said:
Darn, you're quite right. Excellent observation.
Chris Michael
Banned
Pureauthor said:
Qui right indeed!
Pureauthor
Member
It's not nice to edit other people's posts, Chris.
BrodiemanTTR
Member
I meant the official "Dirty Japanese news" thread.
Chris Michael
Banned
BrodiemanTTR said:
Who says he was referring to that thread in particular anyway?
A Black Falcon said:
The major problem with PvP in a console-style SRPG is that your power is directly tied to the amount of time you've spent building up your characters, rather than just player skills. Even worse, in many cases there is no reasonably easy to hit cap on just how strong you can make your characters by grinding. I have no idea how Front Mission the 1st works, but to take Final Fantasy Tactics as an example, you could abuse the Level Up/Level Down trick to max out the stats of all your characters, at which point you would be guaranteed to beat a conventional team, assuming halfway competetant job setup and player skills, since every PC of yours would get four turns before your opponent could move. With a pure strategy game like Starcraft or Civ, everyone starts off on equal footing (except maybe starting location), so this time issue is moot. Warcraft III has levels on your heroes, but IIRC everyone starts from scratch in mulitplayer games, so again all players are on even footing.
The second problem is that sRPG have abilities that aren't balanced at all for PvP and would be absolutely broken to the point of ruining the gameplay entirely. To continue the FFT example, when everyone has hit max stats they'll all degenerate to playing 5 characters with Excalibur/Ribbon/Chantage/Maintenance/MP Switch/Move MP Up setups. That way, no one can be statused, you need to hit someone at least twice per round to inflict actual damage on a target, and if kill off an entire team in a single round, they'll all revive automatically. I don't know about you, but that sounds horrible to me.
The closest PC analogy I can think of is Diablo II PvP. Time investment is a huge issue (need for unique equipment in that case), and the different classes are so wildly imbalanced that the player community had to invent a huge number of self-imposed rules to get something resembling balance.
In summary, you could make an sRPG that multiplayer is viable for, but you'd have to design it from ground up to be reasonably balanced and have stat caps that can be reached without too much time spent. Front Mission the 1st is a port of an existing game, though, so that probably wasn't a viable option. The other option would be to make the multiplayer co-op missions instead of PvP. That's a nifty idea, but it probably wouldn't have the same long-lasting appeal as a classical strategy game like Starcraft or Civ.
Online makes no sense in Front Mission 1, it's not going to be missed at all.
Maybe if they made something from the ground-up that was tailored for online play, that would be cool.
Would be cool in Mana, but I'd rather play online to complete than co-op. I laugh at shit like playing Contra co-op online.
I do think the idea of a Fire Emblem online would be cool, but again it would have to be made for online and not just tacked on to a single player storyline. eg. You'd be able to play each of multiple empires / groups so people aren't playing the same characters against each other (yeah there are always more characters than you can use, but most of them suck anyways and people just use the cool ones).
m
Maybe if they made something from the ground-up that was tailored for online play, that would be cool.
Would be cool in Mana, but I'd rather play online to complete than co-op. I laugh at shit like playing Contra co-op online.
I do think the idea of a Fire Emblem online would be cool, but again it would have to be made for online and not just tacked on to a single player storyline. eg. You'd be able to play each of multiple empires / groups so people aren't playing the same characters against each other (yeah there are always more characters than you can use, but most of them suck anyways and people just use the cool ones).
m
A Black Falcon
Member
hinode said:
Not as much lasting appeal... no, probably not. Console SRPG strategy games, like most console games, are not as deep and complex as PC titles, and in the strategy business complexity and depth is key. Oh, they are challenging, very challenging at times, but the base gameplay of a FE or Tactics game doesn't have the depth of a Starcraft, or even of a X-Com (to mention a PC gaming example of a Tactics-ish title). They also do have structures heavily based around levelling and getting equipment and abilities for a specific, often named (either just the leaders with the others as randomly generated/generic figures or the whole group, depending on the game) characters, and those things wouldn't work very well online.
As I said before, you'd need to fundamentally change that... use default equipment or have a separate set of equipment that you can custom-equip but which doesn't give you bonuses (Guild Wars style perhaps -- all stuff has penalties that negate the bonuses, making it possible to have lots of equipment available without breaking the basic concept of a low level max that sets up a balanced playing field for multiplayer), get rid of levelling or just have it be an option depending on the settings you choose or something and instead have the focus be on your stats as a player (like all the stuff Battle.net compiles for your account for SC/WC3)... thinking of a game that people will play long-term instead of just progress through, finish, and buy again next year when you release the next one does require somewhat different thinking, but I wish console strategy game developers would start thinking that way. I know that they could do good online modes in at least some of these games if they tried, and it's frusterating that they aren't trying...
I'm sure there would be a way (or ways) of making an online console RPG-influenced strategy game without making it into a straight strategy/wargame like Advance Wars. How hard would it really be to modify Ogre Battle/Ogre Battle 64 for online play? Maybe just make levelling up be really fast, Warcraft III style, rebalance the skills (as you say, everyone just using the same single-player-max-level strategy all the time would get boring, you need better balance), use larger maps, change a few other things, and you've got a pretty good online strategy game... or not that way and do something else instead, but it could definitely be done, and done well.
Co-op modes would be much easier to implement since it would require no change of the rules, of course. Would they last as long? Maybe not, but co-op games can be great... both co-op and competitive would be best, though.
Something like this would probably be the best solution, if anyone could ever convince Japanese console developers that people actually want to play online games in a functional manner... something like the DS online service would be a total failure for something like this (or anything else either, but that's a different issue). You need to be able to talk to the other players, make friends lists with people you meet in the game, have a map editor and a custom mode to play those maps on, keep track of stats and be able to look at people's records and stuff, etc... like any good PC multiplayer title does.
... yeah, that's a long way off, sadly.
The problem with online, heck, even local wifi enabled TBS games is that they tend to last quite long. Which goes against most handheld game designs which focus on short pick up and play sessions. Do you really want to go online on your DS only to face tons of quitters? ie battery ran out, player has reached his travel destination, etc. This could be even worse than quitters in Mario Kart as you could be playing well over an hour only to have this happen
There are several ways to solve this issue though. Primarily, do what Civilization PC does - offer a save state option. If the game has really long turns you can also do some kind of "play-by-mail" variant where after each turn you send the data to your opponent - see Chess, VGAPlanets, Civilization. I'd rather developers of TBS games look into this option, where of course you still need wifi to send the data.
There are several ways to solve this issue though. Primarily, do what Civilization PC does - offer a save state option. If the game has really long turns you can also do some kind of "play-by-mail" variant where after each turn you send the data to your opponent - see Chess, VGAPlanets, Civilization. I'd rather developers of TBS games look into this option, where of course you still need wifi to send the data.
Galactic Fork
A little fluff between the ears never did any harm...
Tempy said:
This is actually a really good idea. Maybe allow for a couple games at a time. You could get home, pop the cart in, make your moves and send it over wifi. Very relaxing. I'd love to see this in the next Advance wars or AoE for the DS.
SRPG PvP is a really bad idea. Well not a bad idea, but I really doubt Square Enix is going to devote months of dev time to making a balanced and good SRPG online multiplayer mode.
There's a reason why SRPGs basically do not have multiplayer modes to begin with (and the ones that do, just have a gimmicky take your party and battle a friend's party mode, which is retarded and can only be used for bragging rights)
There's a reason why SRPGs basically do not have multiplayer modes to begin with (and the ones that do, just have a gimmicky take your party and battle a friend's party mode, which is retarded and can only be used for bragging rights)
nelsonroyale
Member
DSJammy said:
nelsonroyale
Member
Hell is where you will be playing it!adg1034 said:
THERE YOU ARE!!!neo2046 said:Rumors (low credible)
1) new Gundam game for PS3
2) Bandai x Koei , new Gundam game that using Sangoku Musou engine (for PS2 likely)
3) new Chrono project
DQSword
OMG! AWESOME NEWS!!!
Too bad I never finished trigger
neo2046 said:ccff7
thank you
looking good.