Get Even is a PC shooter designed to "remove the artificial boundary between single and multiplayer" - Sensationalist Headlines

[QUOTE=gokiyono;43315912]It kinda removes the single aspect of singleplayer. Actually the oxford dictionary says multiplayer is "denoting a computer game designed for or involving several players"[/QUOTE] "several" Two isn't several.

[QUOTE=gk99;43315967]"several" Two isn't several.[/QUOTE] The same dictionary lists several as "more than two but not many" :v: [editline]a[/editline] But if you look at single and multi, one means one, and another means more than one.

[QUOTE=Morbo!!!;43303745]It's a CornerShot, basically a mount for a pistol that can swivel [img]http://www.imfdb.org/images/3/35/CornerShot.gif[/img] [IMG]http://encrypted-tbn0.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcQUP7-q7fii2WK6Hgy1csnoCOQACUdQ6DQDtVpKHTyuhPb_EmSktA[/IMG] This game sounds interesting. But will each player play a protagonist/antagonist, or will it be like, someone else controls all the mooks?[/QUOTE] Wasnt this gun used by Angelina Jolie in the film Wanted?

[QUOTE=gokiyono;43315912]It kinda removes the single aspect of singleplayer. Actually the oxford dictionary says multiplayer is "denoting a computer game designed for or involving several players"[/QUOTE] Yeah, and? They're not saying that it blends multi and single player because of player count, they're talking about other aspects that you usually see in normal single or multi player games.

its made by people can fly so i have highish hopes

[QUOTE=gokiyono;43315986]The same dictionary lists several as "more than two but not many" :v:[/QUOTE] Exactly?

[QUOTE=gk99;43316483]Exactly?[/QUOTE] Two isn't single. Therefore, it's multiplayer.

this sounds like an insanely hard concept to actually do correctly to be honest

Imagine the nightmare of someone taking over the AI with hacks installed [I][B]BOSS BATTLE[/B][/I]

[QUOTE=solid_jake;43316931]Imagine the nightmare of someone taking over the AI with hacks installed [I][B]BOSS BATTLE[/B][/I][/QUOTE] hopefully this game isn't going to be as hacked as a nexon game

“Assuming direct control.” “Assuming control.” “We are assuming control.” “I will direct this personally.” “Direct intervention is necessary.” “Assuming control of this form.”

Wasn't there a game that was supposed to try the same thing a while ago named like Crossfire or something? I think it was going to be on the source engine too, but maybe my memory is fogged. Wow bad reading never mind. The Crossing looked kind of neat though, i wish it actually came out.

The argument over singleplayer and multiplayer is hilariously pathetic when most of you are used to 20 players in a single area.

[QUOTE=Monkeypunch;43317389]Wasn't there a game that was supposed to try the same thing a while ago named like Crossfire or something? I think it was going to be on the source engine too, but maybe my memory is fogged. Wow bad reading never mind. The Crossing looked kind of neat though, i wish it actually came out.[/QUOTE] The crossing [video=youtube;rvF6iRPg6-w]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rvF6iRPg6-w[/video]

[QUOTE=itisjuly;43315852]If it works by replacing AI with players when someone connects, then it is not the multiplayer we're used to. I think it would be cool to play as a weak AI soldier and when you die you get to control next alive one and so on.[/QUOTE] Wasn't that a gamemode for perfect dark or goldeneye or something? Was pretty cool.

...can we not? That 'artificial barrier' is the one thing that lets me enjoy my shooters in peace. The [i]last[/i] thing I want is more human players getting in the way of my campaign.

[QUOTE=TestECull;43325306]...can we not? That 'artificial barrier' is the one thing that lets me enjoy my shooters in peace. The [i]last[/i] thing I want is more human players getting in the way of my campaign.[/QUOTE] Disconnect from the Internet? Turn the option to be online off?? Block the game using firewall rules??? You have so many options to stop the game from being multi-player it's a non-issue.

There was an HL2 mod, the name escapes me, but I thought it had a really good idea by having one group of players play in first person, but there was another player who acted as like a sort of dungeon master by controlling enemies in an RTS sort of fashion.

zombie master.

Didn't the (awful) game MindJack have something similar to this? [QUOTE]MindJack is a third-person shooter incorporating a cover system. The player character can carry two weapons and grenades. The player can mind hack civilians and weakened enemies, controlling them as the player character while the main character is controlled by artificial intelligence. Weakened enemies can also be turned to the player's side, becoming allies. Online players can "hack" into a person's single-player campaign and take control of the AI enemies while Player 1 plays the game's story campaign. The online players may help the solo player by attacking other enemies or they can attack Player 1 themselves.[/QUOTE]

[QUOTE=Xenomoose;43316902]Two isn't single. Therefore, it's multiplayer.[/QUOTE] According to that dictionary's definition, apparently it's not. [editline]27th December 2013[/editline] [QUOTE=hexpunK;43328329]Disconnect from the Internet? Turn the option to be online off?? Block the game using firewall rules??? You have so many options to stop the game from being multi-player it's a non-issue.[/QUOTE] Unless it's published by EA :v:

But the real question is will the gunplay be any good, and will the health system be actually sensible and not pansy-arse?