Enemy Front’s Surprising Singular Multiplayer Mode - Enemy Front - Xbox 360 - www.GameInformer.com
Switch Lights

The lights are on

What's Happening

Enemy Front

Enemy Front’s Surprising Singular Multiplayer Mode

We’ve already taken a healthy look at the single-player portion of Enemy Front and now Stuart Black, the creative director behind the game, has given us some insight into how multiplayer will work.

In a surprising revelation for a first-person shooter with online multiplayer, the team at City Interactive is focusing on one mode, and it’s not your standard deathmatch. The mode is called Conquest, and it’s a team based multiplayer mode where two teams work against one another to capture points in a corridor like level, as Black describes it. The corridor design of the stages, as opposed to the open environments typically seen in other online shooters, plays into the overall design of Enemy Front. Players are being fed into team versus team shootouts, as opposed to multiple miniature skirmishes happening all over the map. It’s all about playing tug-of-war with the front line of battle along the level.

This corridor-like level design helps play into the combat that limits the need for quick 180-degree turns. By funneling players into these isolated team versus team battles, you will spend less time moving from point to point, and more time aiming and shooting.

Black explained how much he hated leveling systems when it comes to online multiplayer. "I want a multiplayer game that I can pick up and play anytime," said Black. You won’t be collecting experience to unlock perks or new weaponry. The idea that Black has for the multiplayer, is that anyone should be able to hop on at any time as often or infrequently as they want, and have the same advantage as everyone else.

Email the author , or follow on , , , and .

  • Sounds like a step backwards...
  • So multiplayer will have one made, one type of map, and no type of customization? AND he's trying to compete against Call of Duty, Halo, Battlefield, etc? Bad choice bro
  • hmm might be playing with fire

  • Maybe this will be Stuart Black's time to shine; as the developer mastermind he believes himself to be, or as an egotistical idiot who doesn't know what a good game is. Lack of mutilplayer RPG elements spells repetitive and uncompelling to me, though.
  • Sounds like a great idea...for about fifteen minutes. Battlefield 3 has a couple maps where everyone is in one hallway chucking frags and trading bullets. While it's fun for a little bit it becomes to feel like a cheap thrill.
  • He lost me on the lack of player progression and leveling, and I'd be willing to bet I'm not in the minority. Bad Choice.
  • not bad
  • This sounds horrible you will die every 2 seconds if its just corridors and no level progression........this just sounds bad

  • This is utter nonsense...

    I will openly admit that sometimes I am frustrated by the repeated long travel times one will encounter on the large Battlefield 3 maps, for example... but just about EVERY OTHER shooter out there has everything evened out to keep players in the action. Dynamic spawn points and reduction to spawn timers do wonders. Purposeful bottlenecking from the ground up... that is honestly the most ill-conceived notion for shaking up the shooter formula I've heard in a long time.
  • I don't know.  If it is anything like Killzone's Operations Mode then it should be fun.  That was a great game mode...fighting the enemy and the clock...just suffered from lack of maps.

  • Let me get this straight: This game essentially promises, "We will funnel you into a bottleneck so you can die OVER and OVER and OVER and OVER! But, hold on, at least you aren't getting shot from behind, so you won't be nearly as frustrated!" and "Leveling is for noobs. We are just gonna throw everything at you at once, so everyone has access to that OP rocket launcher that we will fix several months after launch from day one! Spam away in our linear maps! Don't worry, it won't get the smallest little bit boring at all!" And this is supposed to "shake up" the shooter formula? -_-
  • I like the idea of not having a leveling system. I think thats been one of the most over hyped, and over used things in online FPS's in the last 10 years. Its only there for people with low self esteem to feel good about themsevles... and add nothing what so ever to gameplay.

    On the flipside, I fail to see the gameplay advantage of having narrow corridor style levels. There will be no tactics (not that there are tactics in games like COD, which have very tiny maps), and the game will be very boring very fast.  

  • This could be interesting... I kind of like WW2 shooters.
  • No leveling system? I now want to play this =)

  • At least it's something different. Hopefully.

    I DO appreciate the pushback AGAINST COD'S infernal, anti-skill-based XP/Perk system though. EVERY SHOOTER should push back against that kind of cr*p. Kids today would sh*t themselves if they got dumped into a proper shooter, like Quake 3 or Unreal Tournament. But Black is right; you should have the same chances as anyone else, any time - it's all dependent on how much effort you put into the game.
  • seems like an interesting concept but i do believe it wont be a game seller...

  • meh

  • I don't see this game having much replay value. I like the idea that everyone is equal in match but not having anything to gain by playing seems like it would get old quick. Red Dead Redemption has the whole leveling up thing figured out where in the tdms and bag games everyone is equal. But in the open world you received things for continuing playing the game, and gang matches were used to get you weapons gold once unlocked through leveling up whether it be in tdm or in the open world.

  • It will be infrequently. If bought/rented at all.
1 2 Next