|
Multiplayer-centric videogames have always struggled, like a valleygirl, to stand out amongst the crowd. They are inwardly insecure about their core values. Unfortunately instead of accentuating their natural beauty, it is a habit of certain videogames to doll themselves up with tacky dress and loud makeup.
The Western-themed third-person-shooter Lead and Gold is an apt and timely example. One of their modes asks the players to cut into their deathmatching by carrying powder kegs to destroy obstacles and then to pick up gold and bring it to a point to capture.
As the guys at Giant Bomb led me to believe in their video preview, and as I went on to confirm, players would much rather sling lead than carry things.
Asking players in a shooting game to perform tasks that don't involve or support their shooting activities is -- well, it's lame. It's not fun. Should the player choose to pick up the gold the game may have a small chance of becoming a "Run while protected by teammates and score a goal" experience, but it is much more likely, and at the forefront of a player's mind, that it should become a "Pick up the item that makes me unable to shoot, wherein I get absolutely vanquished" experience.
Strangely this same sort of mechanic worked in Unreal Tournament 2004 with their Bombing Run mode -- essentially a game of football where a tackle is a bullet to the brain and passes are shot out of a gun.
So this is to say that slightly non-shooty game modes are not ruinous (or more broadly, non-core-mechanic modes) but are rather finnicky in their design. The thing that made ball-carrying in UT2K4 compelling was that it was actually a lot like shooting.
A popular tactic for ball carriers was to "pass" the ball to an enemy assailant, shooting it at them. The enemy would be forced to catch it and the passer would blow him away with a rocket and continue on his way with the ball.
In Lead and Gold you must opt into a slow, dangerous, un-fun mechanic that renders you helpless. So -- most people don't do it. Because most people don't do it, new players don't see it happening often. Even if you lose the match, you had more fun blasting people. And that's the point, isn't it?
Another example of this sort of dissonance are the objectives in Rush mode in Battlefield: Bad Company 2. I'll compare it to the more traditional Battlefield mode of Conquest.
In Rush there are two M-COM stations to be blown up by an attacking team. The defending team must prevent this or be pushed back to newly opened sections of the map with more M-COM defend points in them, until they lose their last two stations and the game.
What happened in the beta was less than fun. At the time about three slabs of C4 would destroy an M-COM station. So while the defenders were trying to play Battlefield, an attacking team would send an ATV packed full of explosives to each M-COM station and detonate them. Sometimes this would happen in under a minute, and the defenders would be pushed back.
Conquest on the other hand has players capturing flag areas around the map which deplete enemy points or, in Battlefield-ese, "tickets". I consider this mode the more successful because, rather than having attackers forgo combat to conduct the "strategy" of blowing up an M-COM station, good combat is rewarded with control of a point in Conquest. Being good at shooting, in the game about shooting, lets you win the shooting game. In Rush, players with an expanded explosive pack will just run into buildings, throw six packs onto the M-COM box and detonate themselves. That, or they will detonate the building the station is in to destroy it.
It's a pretty simple concept. Build objectives that reward expertise with the core gameplay; don't build systems that reward forgoing the core gameplay. Otherwise the dominant strategy will either be to forgo the core gameplay for an objective win, or to ignore the objectives.
The worry is always that shooting itself is not always fun. Capture the flag is a fun mode because it gives you impetus. "Oh man, they just took the flag! Where is he? Down in the basement? Get down there and cut him off, I'll get up top and snipe him!"
But we've all also been in that CTF match where nobody leaves the base. Then, an hour in, after the time limit, one sneaky Rambo from the enemy team gets the flag and wins the game. You just spent an hour guarding some dumb flag, barely shooting at anyone, and then you lost because some guy was really good at running away from you. That sends a really weird message to someone toting a rocket launcher: "The LEAST important thing you can do right now is be good at shooting rockets."
Team Fortress 2 is a hallmark of design here. Their Gold Rush mode has players guarding a mine cart into enemy territory in a bloody tug-of-war. Their objectives center combat rather than say "Yeah, we know it's easy to shoot guns these days, so, uh, why don't you try carrying this bag through a hail of gunfire -- fun right?"
|
But, going back to Plunder mode diminishing the power of particular characteristics of your normal play such as plunder does by decreasing your movement speed and only allowing you to fire your secondary weapon works rather well. This I believe is due to the risk reward factor.
"I am going slower and I can't use a primary weapon, but it's okay because I'm trying to be the hero."
Additionally, in such modes it's essential to have an escape route from your "hero's journey". In plunder, that being throwing the treasure.
Good post! And great timing, we are iterating on the multiplayer mode of our game right now. So thank you for reminding me of this. It is easy to let your mind wander from the core gameplay when trying to grope for ideas to add value to a product.
I don't have access to a PS3 any more, (will soon!) so I haven't played Uncharted 2. I like the idea of giving a burden and just *restricting* the ability to do damage. Pistols have always felt like skill-shots in shooters, I assume it's similar in Uncharted 2. They get the chance to both carry the flag and finish off enemies (or score headshots).
Most sort of carry-the-burden modes allow you to drop what you're carrying (ala Halo's, uh, skull mode? Halo has funky esoteric mode names). But I think that's almost an admittance of "Yeah, you need to be able to drop this -- because having this really blows."
Any time when you take away control from the player, you're going to make them mad. Removing their ability to shoot and making them carry things is just one way of doing that. Left 4 Dead is an exception to this rule, as the entire gameplay experience hinges off of rescuing helpless teammates.
Shooting people attacking your flag carrier usually results in: a dead flag carrier, and then you pick up the flag from beside his corpse after the enemies are all dead. Repeat. In Lead for Gold this happens incredibly quickly: pick up bag of gold amidst gunfire (which never stops) -- proceed to have all enemy guns focused on you. I imagine that's why VIP modes have sort of disappeared. Too many VIPs in Counter-Strike have been obliterated by players with AWPs.
Left 4 Dead has the "I'm trapped by a monster" state and the bleed-out state. Nothing is immediately lethal, so people can help teammates who might be rendered helpless.
And speaking of Left 4 Dead, although it's not tied into an objective system, they do allow you to carry gas cans and propane tanks. You can still melee, but it's very "I am weak now, but protect me and I'll carry this big bomb somewhere to help out". It's not terribly different, but it's allowed to exist with less criticism because it's in no way focused on as an objective, and becomes a neat optional action to perform.
This is why deathmatch modes are so popular, they focus on the games core mechanics and don't require players to work as a team in any other fashion than, "kill the other guys first". Modes like rush have a larger degree of flexibility and required teamwork. For the most part, unless the defenders do something stupid (like have no engineers, not use mounted guns, all run away from the base etc), they have the edge over attackers. The attackers need to move together, use tanks for cover, minimize vehicle downtime (spawns) etc. To do this players need to be very aware of their team, tanks that drive off without gunners will be killed by infantry b4 they can be of any use, helicopters that just kamikaze into a building fail their main purposes of harassing the opponents emplaced weaponry, and dropping troops in, people who drop in without a medic will just count as extra losses etc etc.
Overall the point is modes like rush demand teamwork, from complete strangers who care for naught but their own success. By no means is rush a bad game mode, and has a lot going for it. It forces people into known areas and so there is usually more action at any time than there is in conquest, additionally theres far less running from point to point and you usually see far more of your team, and are more likely to be restocked or healed at any given time.
A final point I'd like to raise, and this is a particular failing of BC2. At no point is it mentioned the MCOM stations can be defeated by regular arms fire, so many people rush in rather than bombarding the stations (sometimes rushing is correct though so hey). Additionally the spot mechanic is never taught to players, and is critical to gaining the most xp, and in warning team mates of an approaching enemy. In fact many people take the UAV thinking it to be no more than an aerial turret, rather than using it as aerial surveillance. So it's key, that if you have some quite mode specific mechanics, that you inform you're players about them.