Two games made for online multiplayer - 

Chromehounds

Shadowrun

Chromehounds was building a giant mech like a work of lego and then the combat was actually strategical and required teamwork. Shadowrun was like a fantasy version of counterstrike with magic such as teleporting and turning into smoke, and technology like seeing through walls and supercharged reflexes. It's an eternal shame neither of these games became really popular with a big online following. 

Well, the project sounds way too ambitious. In general, the most important thing to do when starting a project is define your boundaries. Know what you won't do before thinking about what you're actually going to do. But of course the whole idea behind this is no boundaries.

So if you want this to work:

1. Work in steps. Solve one problem after the other. Don't think about how you're going to balance tech levels before you've even figured out how the technological advancement works in the first place.

2. Have a plan, not an idea. Anyone can say "imagine if we could have teleporters". I don't think a lot of investors would throw money at that though. If you want funding, you need to have answers to all the questions. I honestly doubt some of the biggest developers in the business with financial backing from the biggest publishers would be able to come close to doing what you're trying. Just look at spore and fable. The things they promised were small compared what you've described. What makes you think you can do better?

And that's why no one is eager to sign up. Thinking positively is not going to develop this game. I actually doubt anything will. Reality is complex as hell. I'm in real life giving feedback to a group trying to design a simulating program for water. Nothing else, just the behaviour of water. And it's not a simple project, even with wealthy companies behind it.

I've now gotten back into Shadowrun MP (xbox 360). Besides being pretty competitive it's also about more than just twitch aiming. It's one of those "thinking man"'s shooters. Although of course you still need really good reaction time and aim.

If anyone thinks all MP FPS games are the same, try it out. It's probably in the bargain bin somewhere near you for around 5$.

Well, it is a new developer taking on an existing franchise. If they'd keep all the original stuff in, and still wanted to have some quality to it, they couldn't do anything new. And then the obvious reaction from everyone would be "rehash". At least give them a chance to add their own flavour to it.

As for halo's past, it's pretty damn great. Now looking back at the games they don't seem so spectacular, but then again going back to play half life 2 now is borderline cringeworthy. At the time it was one of the best fps franchises out there, and it'll probably be remembered as such. You can't really fault bungie for what they did with the franchise, and it'll probably be pretty damn difficult for 343 to stand out. While there's still a lot to add or change, there's also a lot that can be messed up.

Well, it's a perfect example of why you can't compare sports. They just require such different skills. One example is soccer, the most difficult part about it is controlling the ball with your feet, and getting perfect touches every time. The closest stat to ball control is hand eye coordination, for which boxing actually scores higher than soccer. So basically, the most important skill in soccer isn't even mentioned. Besides that, many scores are shoddy.

Also, how do you classify tough?

Oh, and classifying tennis, volleyball and alpine skiing to require more strength than soccer shows they really know nothing about the sport. But then again, they're americans.

I used tho think this was the case, that the popular games had the worst communities. Remember how we all thought the halo 2 community was the worst ever?

But anyways, smaller games have the same problem. I played a lot of chromehounds and shadowrun online, and you'll find the same kind of pricks there. Sometimes they get filtered out because the community is actually small enough to turn on them, but still. There's idiots everywhere.

I wonder, why has no one mentioned chess yet? Chess has a really easy to learn ruleset. There's 6 different types of board units with only very simple rules on how you can use them. The winning and losing conditions are easy to understand. Yet you have to be ridiculously intelligent and well trained to play at the highest level. There's many different approaches to the game, focusing on different pieces to get your advantage, or getting your pieces in good positions.

Same goes for games like halo and starcraft really. The basics of the games are really simple. Anyone could pick it up and have fun with it. But you make lots of decisions that you aren't really aware of early on that make you better at the game. Usually this has to do with looking at what the opponent is doing, positioning yourself correctly, being aggressive or passive at the right moments and choosing your weapon/units. Of course this is moreso the case in starcraft than halo, but even halo has a lot more depth than people give it credit for.

I understand it if you're angry at games getting too simple. But you're saying that it's impossible for simple games to have depth, which is ridiculous.
Anyways, have fun with Dwarf Fortress.

Yeah Halo really screwed this generation with that feature. It maybe has a place among realistic shooters (which is funny since Halo brought it in), but to see games like DNF using it is just stupid. There are certain games it doesn't work for like old school shooters. If the new Serious Sam had the 2 gun limit we would all crucify it for good reason. In the same respect if ArmA 3 let me carry every gun we'd probably crucify that to since it's not realistic.

PublicNuisance

That was also a big problem for me in half life games. Every time you encountered a different enemy, you could just mindlessly switch to the weapon that best deals with it, and it becomes the same as every instance you encountered said enemy before that. So half life games rely on a constant stream of new, bigger, badder enemies throughout the game to keep it interesting, whereas in halo games you've usually used every weapon and encountered every enemy by the time you're halfway through, but it stays very interesting because the situation always changes, including weapons and enemy mixes.

Gotta agree with ^^ that Rockstar is the one that's trying to shake up the genre. For example those missions where you're doing your own thing, and you get a phone call from someone who says they're in trouble, so you immediately have to go over and do that mission. That's a change in mission structure right there.

But Rockstar just needs to keep going in the direction they're going. For example, all the seemingly useless missions for cash are pretty much a requirement because the game needs to be quite long with a lot of missions. You can't make every mission a vital one. A nice twist would be that you need big amounts of cash to move the story along several times throughout. And the side missions would be the most effective way to get that cash. It would make those side missions feel important again, even when they're optional. But then, Rockstar have to make sure that there isn't some incredibly easy way to make a lot of cash in a dull way, like doing taxi missions in earlier GTA games.

Also, I'd like less cutscenes in general. Of course at times they're a great way to tell a story, but at times they're completely unnecessary. Instead of getting a cutscene when walking into a marker, the guy/girl should just walk out of their door once you step into a marker, and he/she will just tell you what's going on in the drive to the destination.

It was an obvious april fool's joke when you read that it's in los santos and is titled GTA V. Numbered GTA games are always in liberty city if you ask me.