Getting my game on

[rowyn]

Lut and I were talking about getting a new computer game to play. We used to play computer games together a lot, but we haven't liked any of the same ones for the last several months, so we haven't been playing together.

The problem is, one or both of us (usually me) is burned out on most types of computer games. Here's what we don't want:

• First-person shooters (e.g., Doom, Tribes, Counterstrike)


• Competitive head-to-head games (Starcraft, Warcraft)


• Competitive team games (see above, only played in teams)


• Leveling MMOGs (EverQuest, City of Heroes, World of Warcraft)


• Puzzle-based MMOGs (Puzzle Pirates)

So ... what's left?

I'm vaguely considering "Guild Wars", which is something of a cross between two of the game types I'm burned out on -- "Competetitve team" and "Leveling MMOG". However, it at least has the virtue of no monthly fee. And, well, maybe this one will be different. I did enjoy EverQuest at one point in my life, after all.

The last game we both enjoyed and didn't burn out on was Magic: the Gathering Online. We played that until it went out of beta, at which point it became hideously, insanely expensive and we quit. It's a competitive game, either head-to-head or team, but for whatever reason we didn't have the same problems with it that we often have with competitve games. Or maybe we just didn't play it long enough for those to crop up. I rather wish there was an equivalent-style game to M:tG that wasn't hideously expensive, but unfortunately so far as I know, no such game exists. An online version of Jyhad only with a flat monthly fee instead of charges for packs of cards would be way cool.

Anyway -- any one have any suggestions?

Comments

Doom!

[jordangreywolf.livejournal.com]

Actually, that might well have been - but that was well before I ever had access to a "LAN" or to a computer with a fast enough hook-up to take advantage of it. The first cooperative game that I ever got to play was with "Marathon 2"; one problem with that sort of play is that you can't save your place, and if anyone dies, that's it, and you either all stop, or the remaining players keep going. (There wasn't any option to restore to your "last saved position" or even to start the same level over with the missing player put back in.)

With games like Doom or Marathon 2, it was probably easier to code, because everything was divided up into very strict "levels" anyway. Someone reaches the end point, pulls the switch, and everyone goes to the next level.

With Half-Life, I can see how it'd be a bit more difficult. Even though there were numerous points in the game where you simply COULD NOT turn back - so it wasn't entirely contiguous - there were very few obvious breaks to designate a "new level". You had the option of going back through areas, sometimes, to pick up some ammo laying about, to use that health charge-up that you didn't need earlier, etc. Since there was no lever to pull or condition to meet to move the players along, I can see how it'd be problematic to figure out when everyone gets shoved into the new play area. (Maybe one person is arbitrarily the "leader", and whatever zone he's in is the current zone - so if anyone else is tagging behind, they're automatically yanked into the new area when a new zone is loaded.)

A truly nifty system would allow for players to roam about the play area, perhaps in different zones at any given time. "World of Warcraft" is the first system I've seen to allow anything like that - and it requires a dedicated server to handle the "play world".

As for Doom 3, I really don't know whether it allows for cooperative play. I haven't shelled out the money for it yet. Besides, even if cooperative play WERE possible, I sincerely doubt that Gwendel would ever be interested in playing it with me.