You don't play like Shyam do you?

Mod74 wrote:

You're not saying the attempt to lock them down never happens are you? Because it's only both teams attempting it that prevents one team from actually doing it. If one team didn't contest the weapons the other team would have a lock down.

It's the altering of gameplay that I dislike, not the success rate of the endeavour. At best it forces people into a power weapon stalemate. Power weapons are 'balanced' because both teams play by the 'rules'. In which case why fucking have them...oh yeah, because it makes things more interesting and moves the game along. If we're talking about the future of FPS lets think of some better ways to make the game interesting and keep it moving without having to resort to plonking super weapons on the map.

Ok, and we get to the heart of things here. Yay.

This is the crux of it all, it seems to me. It's totally fair enough if you don't like it mod, seriously. But I don't think you're thinking through the alternatives.

It's the perks/weapons/killstreaks altering the way people play a game and moving it away from a pure position/aim/shoot/kill mechanic I dislike.

Halo power weapon 'management' is a less egregious phenomenon than kill streaks which I why I added it as a related afterthought. I don't particularly like the mechanic but I don't hate it like the COD killstreaks.

The problem we're having here is that you've conflated, even if you say they are different levels of "evil," perks and power weapons on maps. They're completely different ideas, and completely different ways of handling variety in a weapon set.

You understand, from all you've posted, that powerweapons encourage people to move, because as you say, they can't not play that game, your alternative is for everyone to either have the same weapons, with no pick ups, or to allow them to choose weapons, but to not have any that are too powerful. Ignoring the fact that what you asked for with weapon nerfing already happens in halo (as pointed out, rockets have 2 in the clip, slow reload, and generally don't have more than 4 rockets total in 4v4, Splaser had 5 shots and took an age to warm up in H3, and dropped down to 4 shots in reach, with less aim assist than other weapons), only allowing "mid level" weapons just seems to me to leave the game with the same problem, a good team will still pound a bad team, and with no x factor from powerweapons, there's very few ways to get back into the game. Plus I'm not sure balancing in that way actually makes for interesting play.

To be specific about the possible problems with the way halo did it, it's not like every map was perfect, or there weren't problems with the system: Djorn mentioned in the halo thread snowbound from Halo 3. That map had a big problem with the shotty down low. Shield doors created a big stand off, and the shotty had too much ammo. Perfect storm of OP weapon in a good place to use it. But that's not a problem with the general principle of powerweapons on a map, it's a problem with placement and that map's design.

The laser on valhala that you pointed out is a bad example for your purposes. valhala, generally, was (and is, even in H4) a fantastic map, but it's not the laser that can unbalance it. it's the vehicles, which the laser counters, to some extent.

Now given the choice between having no laser and no vehicles, and just having set starting weapons on that map, I'll take the laser and vehicles any day. The vehicles add a new dynamic, they add interest, they're flat out fun. Now a team can end up dominating with them in some situations, but that's the risk you take with any competition, isn't it?

As mentioned by others on this page, it's the pre game matching that's almost more important than the mechanics. Two muppet teams can have a fine old time on a map with powerweapons because presumably they'll struggle to get the weapons in the first place, and then struggle to use them.

Anyhoo, more broadly, I do agree that the MMOFPS isn't necessarily the way to go. It may be, but I think it scratches a different itch to what we're discussing. I'd have thought there's room for both MMOFPSes and arena/small team stuff.

What I do wonder about, and this is why I'm banging on about Halo's method, is what possible methods there are for making the games interesting and replayable.

I think we pretty much all agree that perks etc are majorly flawed. (And even if we agree that they have their place, I don't think it's too much to ask that there's actually an alternative. Air Hair dude in the halo thread keeps telling knight to play something else if he doesn't like H4, but this thread is partially a response to that idea: if you don't like COD what - realistically, on a console, that actually has solid netcode and a population - else is there to play?)

Halo had another method, quite a few people liked it, but it appears resigned to history.

BF has well and truly been codified, but also I think there's a disitnction to be made between bigger team games and arena stuff, they require different methods and different balancing.

Mod's suggestion of no weapons on map and even guns seems to me too vanilla, but maybe CS is the closest current example. (Or maybe not.)

I dunno, I don't know that there are too many alternative ways of cutting this pie.

Mod74 wrote:

Hrrm.

There's plenty of ways to make a game flow and be interesting without plonking weapon pick ups on a map. If you're saying the game needs them to flow and be interesting I'd say that points to a pretty big fucking hole in the underlying gameplay. Or maybe not.

What hole? Serious question? Because I don't care how good a gun is to use, and how good the basic mechanics are, I don't think it has the legs you want it to to support a whole game.

Either way it's horses for courses, some people like on map weapons and some people don't. We all at least have that choice. Reciting Game Design 101 to try and prove why one is better can go take a running jump though.

But we don't have that choice. That's the problem. We have CoD and variations of it, or we're left playing obscure games with limited populations. Or trying to find matches on older versions of halo.

Now, I know that's not your doing, but it really does seem that the choice is CoD or CoD or some other game with things that CoD does.

I don't think it has the legs you want it to to support a whole game.

Errm, can you think of a modern FPS that uses on map weapons? I can't. Maybe there's a very obvious one but it's not coming to me (Gears is TPS, remember).

If every* other game manages without them I don't see the argument they're essential otherwise boredom and camping ensues.



*probably.

Well first of all I don't object to unlocks or perks pre-game. I hate perks or leg ups mid-game (kill streaks) and I'm not very keen on unlocks mid-game (pick ups) either. A drop is a combination of the two but somehow slightly less evil.

Unlocks should serve your play style which basically boils down to short/medium/long range and light+fast+weak or heavy+powerful+slow.

Both weapons and perks can/should fall into those categories. Obviously I'm not talking about "+100% damage when crouching behind a crate" type perks.

Games can be balanced using those rock/paper/scissors ideas. They don't have to be 'balanced' by putting a super weapon in a disadvantageous spot. That's not really balancing, that's taking a style of game you want to encourage but trying to prevent it becoming a guaranteed win. Halo dots weapons round the map to encourage movement, not because their collection brings some form of balance. The risk/reward of them being placed in awkward positions is a by product of the desire to keep things moving, not the objective.

TBH I don't really mind the fact Halo does this, nor that knowledge of this adds a kind of depth that long term players use to their advantage. I don't really need to go through the Halo threads pointing out all the "On map X get weapon Y first" discussions do I?

I don't mind the system, but I don't exactly like it either. If that's the way it's constructed then fine. It's a big part of what make it Halo and differentiates it from others. I don't exactly like it because I don't like 'things' that push away from a straight fight and towards a race for the good guns. I don't have to remind you that "The starting weapon is a piece of shit and the only way to kill is to get something else" has been my Halo refrain for, well, ever.


As for the second half then there are games, popular ones, that avoid in game perks/unlocks. Battlefield manages it (though their idea of balance is continual tweaking of gun stats, proper gameplay balance is something they struggle with on anything outside of TDM so not the greatest example.) TF2 manages it perfectly. Left 4 Dead had a good run, though I concede strictly speaking that's a co-op game not a competitive one.

For every CoD or Halo there's a dozen other Homefront's or Section 8's or Frontline's. They've all had a crack but none of them have stuck. Which brings us to the rather uncomfortable conclusion that rather than their being a lack of choice, instead there's a dearth of developers with the skills to make a truly good FPS. Or lack the marketing budgets, but that's a different conversation. Despite their flaws, perceived or otherwise, we should probably be grateful we even have 3 or 4 decent choices because the alternatives don't bear thinking about.

On a non halo related note: I'd like to bang on about BFBC2 Rush Mode.

Someone mentioned that the way forward is to kind of force people to play it by making it the only mode. I'm not out of sympathy with that idea.

It's a bit of a courage of convictions thing, I guess. If you make a MP game that's involved enough in and of itself, it should be able to stand on it's own two feet. But as Mod points out above, in his last para, plenty have tried and failed.

I don't know that there's a company or personality or PR department big enough to make something else other than RPG trappings work, and financially they're clearly a good way to bring money in, so you know, that's what'll happen.

And heck, within a BFBC2/involved objective/semi campaign type game style, unlocks make some sense. I dunno. Clearly one part of the problem is the money and skilled man power required.

I completely agree regarding the AR and this goes for every other FPS out there. You have to empower the player from spawn. Whilst I like picking up weapons on the map and I enjoy the to and fro this system creates in the game, your starting weapon must enable you to compete. A BR allows this. The AR can make this very difficult on more open maps.

This is crucial. For a multiplayer game to be accessible to the masses, new players need equipment that will allow them to effectively combat enemies from the go. You simply shouldn't have new players spawning with the AR (or Battleshooter X's equivalent) against players with a weapon better in 90% of circumstances. It's bullshit.

I'm not against XP in these games at all, in fact I think it's absolutely fine as long as you aren't rewarding players with game changers. For this reason, unlockable perks are out, but aesthetic tweaks are in. Reward players for sustained play by unlocking Grunt Birthday Party, not by giving them +5% damage on their grenades.

Just jumping back a page, I really liked the 'age of chivalry' mod, so that 'full fat' version has me interested.  swords are definitely better than guns, therefore the future of FPSs should be that the S stands for Swords, not Shooter!

RamSteelwood wrote:

Just jumping back a page, I really liked the 'age of chivalry' mod, so that 'full fat' version has me interested.  swords are definitely better than guns, therefore the future of FPSs should be that the S stands for Swords, not Shooter!

It's only £15 as well, there was a 35% off code at Green Man (ahem) but currently it's 25% off. I'm quite tempted, if I'm honest.

I've used them several times now with no issue. The site is a bit clunky but yes, once you have the key you just pop it into Steam.

It strikes me that this thread has developed into trying to solve a problem that largely doesn't exist (in terms of what the vast majority of the gaming community want to play).

That list Dante posted makes for interesting reading. What I get from it is that people want to play COD, a perk/killstreak based shooter. With a spattering of people still playing Halo (comparing combined COD numbers to combined Halo).

So while there is more than likely a small(er) market for FPSs of the Halo type (map placed weapons). Most people want to play the COD way. With games being a business as they are the blockbuster games are always more likely to follow trends, as to reach the most people, satisfy the most people and make the most money.

So on to the future.
I believe the next thing will be a smaller release, it will likely have no campaign or additional gameplay types just pure DM, TDM, CTF and maybe a zones or hill type variant.
It will probably start as a slow burner then pick up all the players tired of Halo and COD.
It won't have killstreaks as it will be more basic than that (though technically sound).

Then it will be bought up and changed, and people will hate NewGame 3 and say it isn't as good as NewGame 1.

Our lad is a young...person on the street and he really likes Borderlands. I think people just like getting new improved stuff during their playtime and don't care that much about the aesthetic or scenario.

Roujin wrote:

Is it that most people want to play CoD or is it that a modern era military FPS where you shoot terrorists while being a dude from the SAS or whatever is a more appealing and less nerdy aesthetic from the point of view of your average young cunt on the street?

There's definitely an element of that. I remember trying to convince people at work to give Halo ago as they were all into COD and they'd just say it was gay and colourful and refused to play it. This sentiment is echoed to greater and lesser extent amonst alot of COD fans i've found.

Borderlands is pretty "cool" though, surely? Wubstep 'n' all.

Moto: This thread is about the direction the FPS genre is taking/going to take. That Halo 3 still maintains a solid -ish population, despite the popularisation of the COD model and also having had a sequel (itself 2 years old), is noteworthy. That game, and that style, is evidently still popular. I guess.