Please create an account to participate in the Slashdot moderation system


Forgot your password?

Crysis to Feature 10 Hour Multiplayer Matches 89

Via Joystiq, an article on the InCrysis site about the multiplayer modes of the Crysis PC game. The jawdropping title seems to mostly be offering the same-old same-old ... except when it comes to the 'Power Struggle' mode. From the Joystiq post: "To successfully destroy the other team's HQ, you'll have to harness the power of alien technology. Randomly generated throughout each map are various crash sites where players can scavenge for alien cores. These energy sources can be used to transform your team's arsenal into weapons capable of achieving victory. However, you'll first have to build up that arsenal by capturing structures that manufacture basic weapons and vehicles -- and you'll also have to provide the manufacturing materials. Apparently, it can take up to 10 hours to launch an attack capable of winning a Power Struggle match. In-game, this feels like days, as one full day/night cycle is completed in two hours. Which means, yes, Crysis' multiplayer will feature dynamic light cycles as the icing on the cake."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Crysis to Feature 10 Hour Multiplayer Matches

Comments Filter:
  • But... (Score:5, Funny)

    by Prometheus+Bob ( 755514 ) on Tuesday August 22, 2006 @05:38PM (#15958634)
    My attention span doesn't last tha....OHH! SHINY!
    • Re: (Score:2, Insightful)

      On a more serious note, I don't think 10 hour FPS fragfests for one game is the best idea. Unless you're part of a clan, you're going to have people that just can't dedicate that amount of time to one game and are going to be coming on/off too much to feel like a real team.
      • by iocat ( 572367 )
        I've played some epic 10-flag CTF matches in Halo 1 (Bloodgulch) that lasted 4+ hours. They were **awesome** although more of a twice-yearly than weekly event (of course, w/ Halo 1 you have to lug TVs to your LAN party). I think games with endurance modes are awesome... Anyone remember Infogrammes' 24-Hours of Le Mans Dreamcast game? The 24-hour mode was great (although you could save when you pitted).
        • We were doing some 8 on 8 CTF on the snow stage in Halo 2 (don't know what it's called, but it's got the two castles. After half an hour and numerous failed attempts to make any points, we just gave up. It was boring. Very boring.

          1.Get oversheild
          2.Get Active Camo
          3.Get Flag
          4.Get Fragged
          Step four has many, many varieties. Occationaly you'll have a 'diversion' in which case everyone just waits for a floating flag half way down. Or a flag riding on a warthog meeting with rockets.

          • by iocat ( 572367 )
            Yeah, Halo 2. That's where you went wrong. Halo 2 is only ok. Halo 1 has better balance, more fun phsyics, better graphics, and in general offers a better -- if substantially less convenient -- multiplayer experience, especially on Blood Gulch, with all weapons and vehicles turned on.
            • Oh, I totally agree that Halo 1 was better. Certain weapons had the advantage in certain terrains. Which was great. In Halo 2 they seemed to over optimize every weapon and really diminished their abilities. I don't agree about the graphics, though. I'd say they're on par. They're just different styles. 2 was just shinier, which got annoying quick.
  • 10 Hours? (Score:4, Funny)

    by Slaryn ( 986308 ) on Tuesday August 22, 2006 @05:39PM (#15958642) Homepage
    Holy wow... 10 hours to take down an enemy base? They should add "For former WOW users only" to the box.
    • by Anonymous Coward
      It's UP TO 10 hours, which basically means they just implemented the ability to set really high time limits. I doubt most matches will take that long - I've done my share of beating UT Assault maps in under a minute :)

      Still, its an interesting idea to have an endurance-type FPS rather than being all about high-speed killing.
    • Re:10 Hours? (Score:4, Insightful)

      by aldheorte ( 162967 ) on Tuesday August 22, 2006 @06:11PM (#15958840)
      Please, Eve takes the cake on this one. Let's say you want to take down an enemy starbase. Here's how you do it:

      1. Identify the supporting player operated structures (think 'starbase camps') in the same system.
      2. Bring a huge fleet and force them into 'reinforced mode' one by one.
      3. Wait however many hours it takes for their shield reinforcement fuel to run out (12, 24, 36 hours, who knows) while preventing them from refueling it 23/7.
      4. Now attack the starbase - I don't even know how long that takes.

      So, time to take any enemy system putting up resistance... probably around a week or so. Maybe two. Oh, yeah, and it will take a fleet worth about $30,000 U.S. to do it and you'll probably suffer $10,000 U.S. in losses if the enemy is putting up resistance.
      • Re: (Score:1, Informative)

        by Anonymous Coward
        You do realize that they can't refuel a control tower while it's n reinforced? Even if it is refueled afterwards, it can't go reinforced again till it's regained 50% shields.

        You can put it into reinforced, logout for x hours -30 minutes and will probably do just as well as if you'd camped it the whole time.
      • WTF, virtual ships are worth $30,000US now? And I thought level 50 wizards selling for $1,000 in the early days of EQ was bad.
        • by Taevin ( 850923 ) *
          Well, he was talking about a fleet of ships... but really I would take the numbers he said down by a power of ten. Last I heard, ISK goes for about $160USD per billion ISK. I could see losing about $1,000USD in dreadnoughts and battleships if you were attacking well-defending starbases and the defenders were organized. Of course the defenders stand to lose well over a billion ISK just in the starbase and structures alone, not even counting the defense fleet.

          I agree with the GP though, EVE takes the ca
        • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

          by Andy Dodd ( 701 )
          No, he's talking about the combined resources of a fleet of players.

          To be more clear, I recall the description by a player of one of these major sieges as involving a count in local of 300-500. That's 300-500 players from both sides, so assuming an approximately half and half distribution on the low end of that count, you have 150 people on one side. Divide $30k by 150 and you get an average value of $200 per person.

          Hmm, at the current exchange rates (100 million ISK for a $15 game time card) that seems a
      • Can I join your corp? Right now I'm just a manufacturer/trader but would like to be involved with a corp that can teach me more.
      • Well, so it's really just like war in real life: costly, drawn out, and tedious.
      • by deviceb ( 958415 )
        I played that game just long enough to see that thoes kind of tactics would be used in the higher tiers. I am all about having a fantasy or shooter that relies on FPS style skills to take out enemys. (kinda like Oblivion except MMO) -waiting for this game to come out.
    • by prator ( 71051 )
      You don't like spending all your free time in Alterac Valley?
    • ... a complementary do-it-yourself catheter kit!
  • I heard a few of those lasted over 24 hours.
    • Longest battle I was in was 10 hours, but there were several that went for multiple days (on the largest three servers). Mine, blackhand, is in the top ten, but it still didn't have the population to sustain a 40-on-40 battle for 72+ hours at a time.
      • AV ran for 6 days straight on my server (Uther) one weekend where it was both a game holiday weekend for AV, and a real life holiday weekend (Thanksgiving I think?). The round started some time on Wednesday morning, went through the entire holiday weekend and into Monday & early Tuesday. I'm guessing some college kids missed their classes after Thanksgiving, and even probably some people called into work sick. At that point it was a grudge match. Alliance ultimately won when enough horde dropped out
    • Yes, but an important difference is that Alterac Valley wasn't really designed to last that long - it's just that several hours of progress could be wiped out in less than 10 minutes by a small well organised team of 5 people if the opposing team doesn't respond (which happens more times than I care to recall). In this case, it sounds like ten hours of cumulative progress will be required to finish a round. The fact that they designed for this number troubles me. A 4 hour AV was beyond my tolerance, this is
    • AV doesn't take that long. A small group of 5~10 players 'going commando' can easily destroy the momentum of an opposing team. The only reason you don't see that happen often is because mob rule usually takes over. "Hey guys, lets charge right up the middle! Two or three guys against 20 or so people will really make a difference!" 3 hours later. "How come we are still where we were 3 hours ago?"
  • Although this seems like a really bad thing, I have to ask: how many of us have a game for 10 hours straight? My first marathon session occured with the Command and Conquer series, Red Alert to be specific. I think that there are lots of games that require many hours to beat.

    In general this game seems to be more of the same. Slow news day.

    • Except this is just 1 multiplayer match. C&C campaigns took hours to beat, but the single player mode can be saved. Even then, the hardest of maps didn't take 10 hours to beat (atleast, not for me).

      Online multiplayer can't really be saved, then resumed.
    • by Canthros ( 5769 )
      Not since the first pass of KotOR 1, I think. Never with an FPS that I can recall. I just can't justify wasting an entire day or night to that sort of thing.
  • by Kesch ( 943326 ) on Tuesday August 22, 2006 @05:43PM (#15958664)
    -Feed cat
    -Take over enemy base
    -Feed cat again
    • Correction (Score:3, Funny)

      by p0tat03 ( 985078 )
      - Feed cat
      - Breakfast
      - Take over enemy base
      - Soil your adult diapers while camping out at the sniper's nest
      - Continue taking over enemy base
      - Feed cat again
      - Dinner
  • Awesome!

    So its basically an RTS/FPS game like Helix Core was meant to be. You play thru FPS and you have the objective of collecting resources, taking them into the structure - upgrading your weapon and then fight your way to victory. That is what an RTS is all about BUT this time you do it thru an FPS perspective and you don't control AI.

    That's cool. Although Helix Core would've been cooler...
    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      Yeah, it's so cool it's been done [] twice [] before, at least.

      Just how is this any different than Natural Selection or Tremulous?

      Oh, right. 10 hour matches.
      • by j235 ( 734628 )
        My longest NS game was an 8v8 12 hour game on ns_bast in NS 2.0. The old bast was awesome :)
    • Re: (Score:1, Insightful)

      by Anonymous Coward
      Savage [] was a pretty fun RTS/FPS.
    • Speaking of this hybrid genre, it's a shame people seem to have forgotten about Activision's remake of Battlezone. Take somewhat campy Cold-War-goes-hot-off-Terra storyline, add simple, intuitive interface (especially if your joystick has a high-hat), toss in vehicle customization options (insofar as weapon loadout goes - scouts, for instance, have slots for two cannons and one missile weapon), and cherry with multiplayer (including option for straight-up arena play).
      If I recall, this came out back in '98
  • This game has been out aleady and requires less than 10 hours to take over a base.
    • No it only takes 2 at Interlink facility while you throw yourself at purple spandex wearers who due to their weapons simply farm you and you finally win not due to combat skill but simply, the base runs out of power. Wow, exciting.
  • by CowsAnonymous ( 697884 ) on Tuesday August 22, 2006 @05:55PM (#15958759)
    ...only 10 hours?
    • by Morrigu ( 29432 )

      Anyone conquering the world in less than 24 hours isn't challenging themselves. :)
  • by Frag-A-Muffin ( 5490 ) on Tuesday August 22, 2006 @05:56PM (#15958767) Homepage
    Do you people actually have 10hrs of spare time you can just sit down and play straight through? Don't you people have to work? Eat? Poo? Spend "quality time" with the wifey?

    Right, this is /., what was I thinking.

    And what happens if some of your teammates can't play that long. I can imagine for most people this experience is gonna suck as people constantly drop out midway through a game. Only the hardcore'est of hardcore is going enjoy this game to its fullest.

    I played WoW, and I didn't quit it because I got bored, I just didn't have the time to put in it. This game sounds just as ridiculous. Maybe that's why I like CounterStrike so much. You can hop on, play for a half-hour or so, and leave. (And NOT have to worry that the kids who aren't working are collecting bigger and badder ass weapons to kill you even worse tomorrow).

    Or maybe I'm just getting old. :\

    • Nah it's not just you, I feel the same way. I left WoW for the same reason; I just can't handle the 5 hour raid time that I needed to put in. Basically it's come home from work, eat while playing WoW, sleep, work etc. and I just didn't like it.

      I'm trying to find games that I can play for short periods of time and still get enjoyment. FPS drains me too much (it requires a lot of attention). One day I'll find the perfect game. Or maybe make it myself.

    • by kfg ( 145172 ) * on Tuesday August 22, 2006 @06:24PM (#15958917)
      Don't you people have to . . .Poo?

      For every engineering problem there is an engineering solution []

    • Don't you people have to work?

      Not on weekends.


      You've never eaten while watching TV before? People can eat while playing games as well. They are the ones that randomly run into static environmental objects or who stand still for 30 seconds at a time and don't actually say anything in team chat as they start moving again.


      Well if I'm not eating, I don't see this as being a problem either.

      Spend "quality time" with the wifey?

      If 'the wifey' can't live with you spending 10 hours defending the world from alien invaders, maybe you married the wrong person. I mean, it's her future you're working to ensure here. Those aliens aren't going to roll over and die all on their own. Unless they catch a cold or something.
    • Do you people actually have 10hrs of spare time you can just sit down and play straight through? Don't you people have to work? Eat? Poo? Spend "quality time" with the wifey?

      Right, this is /., what was I thinking.

      And what happens if some of your teammates can't play that long. I can imagine for most people this experience is gonna suck as people constantly drop out midway through a game. Only the hardcore'est of hardcore is going enjoy this game to its fullest.

      That's not even the worst of it. TFA mentioned

      • Just don't camp the spawn points

        I consider easy-to-camp spawn points to be a design issue with the map.

        On maps that I design (for CoD:UO), I try to strike a balance between it being possible to spawn-kill (a valid part of FPS tactics in my book) while making it possible for a team to drive off a spawn-killer. That means spawn area designs that:

        - Don't spawn everyone in the same location (in maps where there are distinct "sides")
        - Spawn players in locations that are mostly sheltered with some cover
    • "Do you people actually have 10hrs of spare time you can just sit down and play straight through? Don't you people have to work? Eat? Poo? Spend "quality time" with the wifey?"

      If you have a GOOD wife, she'll bring you liquid meals (eliminating the need to poo) and change your catheter bag throughout the match. And she'll do it barefoot.
    • Two hours overtime at work and you can fit that in easy.
  • Note to self:

    1) Get little brother a copy of Crysis.
    2) Check off the "never see him again" item on your todo list.
    3) Celebrate.
    4) Market to others in same predicament.
    5) Profit?
  • Hi,

    well, after a multiplayer match of more than 5 hours i would surrender my base willingly to anyone. Starving out the enemy seems to be a workable solution here.

    Perhaps i missunderstood someting, but i considered games a recreation. I'm already angry at Blizzard for needing to many people and too much time to even sniff at the high end content in the game. Be sure, i won't be playing a multiplayer match for 10 hours.

    What's the next move of the gaming industry?

    • Perhaps involuntary conscriptions... B
    • by SuperKendall ( 25149 ) on Tuesday August 22, 2006 @06:13PM (#15958852)
      Perhaps involuntary conscriptions... Before my mental eyes, i see press gangs scanning the streets and forcing hapless retirees into their virtual armies

      I just had a vision of the same people that use malware to take over computers for botnets, to use those same computers to force the users to play Crysis for ten hours before they have access to their computer and files again.

      OK, perhaps it's not good but it would be funny.
  • I think this will be a welcome relief from the seconds-long matches of CounterStrike!

    It seems like I've always wanted a game where players work together for multiple goals before achieving victory. I guess someone else thought the same.

    And players will be able to make more friends in the games when they have to work with their teammates for long periods of time. Think of it as a very long golf tournament with teams: you can get to know your teammates while you're waiting to tee off, or in the case of the

  • That sounds pretty interesting... I had a game of Civ IV with my brother over the summer, where we started it sometime early in the afternoon, and didnt finish it till about 4:00 the next morning, only breaking for dinner and a few other small interuptions. We must have played a good 10-12 hours.
  • by MadLep ( 61542 ) on Tuesday August 22, 2006 @06:26PM (#15958926) Homepage
    One of the problems with these kinds of games already, is that public servers tend to get unbalanced quickly. The players on the winning team keep playing, and the players on the losing team quit. New players join, and usually get put on the losing team because they have fewer numbers.

    This is bad enough with games that run for 30 minutes - who is going to want to play for 10 hours when it's obvious at hour 2 that you're going to get spanked badly?
    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      by Sigma 7 ( 266129 )

      One of the problems with these kinds of games already, is that public servers tend to get unbalanced quickly. The players on the winning team keep playing, and the players on the losing team quit. New players join, and usually get put on the losing team because they have fewer numbers.

      There's a quick fix available to cut down on this sort of problem. If team loadouts appear to be lopsided by numbers, give a very slight damage boost to the weaker team or some other subtle advantage. Naturally, this should

  • by Enoxice ( 993945 ) on Tuesday August 22, 2006 @06:43PM (#15959030) Journal
    Everyone seems to be over-reacting. The teams aren't set and have to be kept when the game starts, people can join/leave/switch teams as they will.
    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      by tnk1 ( 899206 )
      Yeah, but I'd like to join a game with some hope of bringing it to a conclusion while I am still there. I don't want to start a game and then *know* I will likely not see the end of it, or worse, see my good team devolve into a useless set of idiots/nubs as the people I started with cycle out. That stuff was semi-tolerable in Alterac Valley with WoW because you were earning PvP kills and reputation points even if you didn't play to the end. Here, the only point is getting to the end or racking up some ki
      • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

        by interiot ( 50685 )
        People play 80-hour single-player games... the urge to accomplish something short-term is satiated by being able to level-up, or gaining access to a new level, etc.

        Or think about it in the context of World War 2. No single person could have won WW2... that doesn't mean that there weren't individual achievements that were difficult and gave people great satisfaction...

        • In single player games the game won't go on when the player is not playing. You won't mis any of the action.
          From the description of this game mode the game could last way over 10 hours when the teams are balanced. A simply CTF game with a cap of 3 can last a couple of hours.
          • by interiot ( 50685 )

            You miss some of the action when you stop playing an MMORPG to go to sleep. Granted, many MMORPG's don't fundamentally change while you're sleeping, but it seems like as game universes grow, there will be simulations on a longer time scale that have substantial changes.

            I don't think they're describing a game that extends the length of the game by balance... It's more that it simply takes time to achieve the goals, and there are many goals to achieve in sequence. (eg. even if the Allies had a clearly s

    • That only makes it worse. 5 hours into a 10 hour game, and suddenly you realize you are 45 minutes behind the other team. Who is going to want to join that game on the losing side? Who is going to stick around for another 5 hours for assured loss?
  • Wow 10 hours, wonder if it will have anti-adiction codeing in.
  • That's nothing. There have been Alterac Valley matches in World of Warcraft that have gone well over 24 hours. It wasn't at all unusual to join the battle 12 hours in, play for a couple of hours, disconnect for dinner, rejoin and find the same battle still raging. This, of course, is before the massive reduction in the number of NPCs which has turned the place in to a 2 hour win, guaranteed - so long as you're horde and on our server, of course. Alliance really do suck.
  • so wouldnt this still be less time then the time spent in a single period by a WoW player?
    i guess this promotes more time for showering and maybe a normal social life.
    but i wont hold my breath
  • This game is going to have light cycles! Yay!

  • It's all well and good until someone asks... "Best two out of three?"
  • "X MMO already takes Y hours to do Z, where Y is greater than 10!"

    MMOs don't count, since their business model pretty much thrives on protracting the amount of playtime put into the game. The longer it takes to do something, the less often people will be able to do it, the longer they'll have to keep paying for the game in order to do it more than once.

    "You don't have to play all 10 hours!"

    I can imagine that individual games will have "lull" periods, say about 3 hours in, where no new players want
    • either that or it could be more like a campaign of multiple smaller battles where the total outcome could take 10 hours but each individual battle could be more like 2 hours. Though I'm speaking entirely out of my ass on the subject.
  • I'm in an instance, can you call me back tomorrow?
  • This game sounds suspiciously like another FPS, RTS game I know.... ... Only I can invade the Alien base in 1hr, not 10.
  • by Quizo69 ( 659678 ) on Wednesday August 23, 2006 @12:55AM (#15960392) Homepage
    If a game is designed to last that long, why not build in a five minute break every hour, with associated game world countdown etc?

    Alternatively, have safe houses/bunkers where players can go (neutral ground?) to park their characters while they go for a toilet break, quick meal etc?

    The more like an extended real life op the game becomes, the more you will have to build in some means of fatigue management. In a first person shooter environment this would be even more important that RPG style games where you can often have your units on a form of autopilot, harvesting, building etc.
  • I remember spending nights playing Enemy Territory, just because I wanted to earn just "one more star". So instead of playing a quick match, I quit after I got General - at 3 o'clock or worse.
  • Then about 9 hours in you get disconnected because of lag
  • Right before the big seige your about to spearhead for your team in the 9th hour...
    your significant other wants to show you what they got from Victorias Secret, and asks you, "Do you like the pink ones on me?"
    Chaos ensues...
    • by deviceb ( 958415 )
      bah, that would not have stopped me raiding back in the Everquest days. I would have said, "can you not see i'm the only CC doing the job proper here, ..wait till we wipe!"
  • Or there could be some confusion in the pipeline and its actually 10 minutes, not ten hours...

    And just as frustrating as lag would be playing for 9 hours and 59 minutes only to have a CS-style team autobalance leave you a victim of the onslaught you have spent the last day masterminding.

    Now that would suck.
  • If you don't want to take part in a game that could potentially last 10 hours, just play another multiplayer game mode that doesn't. What's the problem?
  • Guys, if you have read some of the press related to the game type 'Power Struggle', you would understand that it runs on a basic economy. You do things that garner points, and these points allow you to buy items or research new technologies. The person running the server decides the pace of this economy. Right now at GC the economy is sped up to the amount that players start with Nanosuits, and someone can buy a nuke within ~10 of playing well.

    10 hour games are for the really hardcore guys out there, Crysis

Can anyone remember when the times were not hard, and money not scarce?