If I ruled a virtual world . . .

9 Dec 05

It's weird. Every time I see a negative review of a game I put in the holiday game guide, I feel a twinge of guilt. I suppose that's true any time you put something up as worthy. Someone else may use that recommendation and not like it. It's only natural to blame you. Don't worry, you don't have to blame me. I've already taken out the middle man and assumed the guilt for you. Maybe someone will send me a guilt easing note some time telling me how appreciated the recommended gift was. I'm not holding my breath.

I saw Game Ogre's article on MMOFPS' thanks to Slashdot. Inspired by hope in Huxley, they wax eloquent about the potential of the genre (or is that a subgenre?). I disagree with part of their vision though. For a FPS to succeed in the MMO world, the game can't be ruled by the twitch kings. Yes, in a single player game, it's great that one player can take on an army. When the army is made up of online gamers, it stops being fun for almost everyone except the best.

I still say that the best way to go is more tactical gaming. Build on Battlefield 2's success. Give a greater rank structure. As the ranks go higher, give them more power to dole out commands and rewards. Let's take an example. How about a fictional history where America responds to the invasion of Afghanistan with conventional military force. Both sides agree to force limits and no nukes to prevent escalation.

You log on, starting out as a private. You choose your side and basic kit. You sign up with a platoon leader and are choppered to the front. You might start with pitched infantry battles with light vehicles. If you do well, your platoon leader can reward you with a M-60 or better armor. Leaders can also recommend promotions once experience thresholds have been reached as well as recommending awards.

Above the platoon leaders, junior officers might be able to get light vehicles, artillery support or supply drops. They can also promote and approve lesser awards. Above the platoon officer, you might have company grader that can get heavier vehicles and close air support as well as give tactical orders and relay strategic commands. Next up, you could have field grader officers who can dole out special kits like special operations, sniper kits and convert companies between infantry and mechanized. Above that you could have a command group coordinating air assets, sea power, artillery and implementing operational orders. At the top, there's a senior command staff that sets operational plans, acquires assets for those operations and is responsible for winning the war.

Players have the option to jump from platoon to platoon. So if you want to try tanks, you sign up. However, if your group keeps goofing around or ignoring orders, those tanks might be taken away and given to a successful platoon that might already be full. Or if you stray too far from air support, you might find your platoon be decimated by enemy choppers. You can be kicked from a platoon and go lone wolf, but you'll be doing it with a basic kit and making little impact. I'd imagine you'd have to make lone wolves so they couldn't team kill.

You'd probably need some RPG like stats that could be increased with experience in addition to command points to gain in rank. They'd be small bonuses and probably spread across a variety of skills. Perhaps you could even allow dynamic allocation based on the needs at hand.

That's my vision. By giving context and meaning to the battles, they get more intense. The flexible command structure could keep the game interesting for everyone. Of course, teamwork is rewarded in many ways. We'll see how the industry actually goes.

Jason