The Suspension of Disbelief is a requirement of video games, and when pulled off well, its their biggest asset.
If something seems unrealistic, or at least 'too fake', gamers lose their SoD, lose their immersion, and enjoy the game far less (e.g., Blink is unrealistic, but its a crazy alien, and Blink kinda 'feels right' for what it does.)
One thing that always annoyed me about video games, especially (but not necessarily) multiplayer, was dying. Mainly because you respawned within a few seconds. This game mechanic is actually no longer restricted to MP only, as we see with games like BioShock and Prey.
Pretty much every game I've ever seen that has respawning doesn't deal with any kind of explanation. You Just Died. Now You're Back. Go Die Again.
Its necessary that the player should not FULLY care about dying. If a player felt that dying in game was going to be similar to dying in real life, he wouldn't play the game. If theres no penalties for dying at all, you lose the suspension of disbelief, but potentially will enjoy the game more.WHAT IM GETTING AT
, is that NS2 should still have respawning the way it currently is. But change the explanation. Right now, its; You're a nameless marine. You just died. Now you're another nameless marine.
This is the future, right? How about we futurize this concept? Try this on instead: The real marines are highly trained yadda yadda, but they actually control the body of a clone. They're linked in to the clones via a matrix-like connection.
This ties off a lot of loose ends:
-It frees the subconscious 'guilt' of the player; he no longer feels like he SHOULD be caring about dying. "If I was actually this marine, I'd sure care about dying. I dont though. And I'm not going to. Oh well."
-It 'futurizes' the game; we're already on the brink of Cloning Tech. Far into the future, sure, robots may do all of our fighting, but nothing will ever compare to the simple dexterity, utility and power of basic infantry. If you can make a huge tank for $20 million, you can make a gun that a guy can carry, hide somewhere, and take the tank out. Even in the future, we'd want to use infantry; but we'd want to not lose any real people. Linked-in Clones are a very feasible solution.
-You can justify the number of marines. Looking at NS1, seeing these marines always phasing in but only with X amount of people, a realistically-minded player would say 'why wouldnt all the marines phase in at once at push with full force?' Noone asks this because the answer's obvious; its a game, you gotta respawn, and we dont want bots. But with Linked-in Clones, you could explain it by saying that 'we only have X number of Clone Operators.'
-You could justify respawn counts, like the Tickets of BF2 (should NS2 use them). You only have X number of clones. Done and done.
This idea is ONLY
for the storyline of NS2. It requires no changing of the game mechanics, and could even create some inspiration for rooms in maps. It just needs to go-ahead from the devs.
I'm trying to make my way into the game development industry, and frankly, this was an idea I was planning to make use of down the road. But dammit, i just heart NS, and want to see NS2 done right. Doesn't mean that this idea is 'how to do NS2 right' (thats up to the devs); but it could be