With Halo being so popular, why aren't arena shooters?
- Thread starter Aesthet1c
- Start date
Considering that scout exclusive unusuals/strange weapons/etc are ranked around Soldier (the most popular class) stuff in value i'd reckon it's a more popular class than you think.
That doesn't really matter. Your brain makes decisions for you immediately. You might not know it but the decisions are made sometimes seconds before you even think about making them.
Scientists who give you two buttons (left/right) and watch your brain know what button you'll press seconds before you do, even if you press them right at the moment you made up your mind.
So most of the time "evaluating options" is wasted for some reason and doesn't influence the actual decision at all. Especially when it's a matter of acting fast anyway.
You are right in a sense, more needs to be internalised the quicker the game is. For example, speed chess is not more tactical because it's faster. If one person takes a few seconds to make his moves while the other is more deliberate, he's at a disadvantage.
Nexuiz is a Bad Shooter, not a patch on Unreal or Quake. Dunno where Turok enters into it :V
The reasons have been gone over pretty comprehensively, but I will say I think there's room for a rebirth in the PC scene (Shootmania isn't it either
).I do agree that the skill gap is part of the problem. If you hop in a CoD game, you can be completely godawful, but still get a few kills, call in a care package, and rain down some death every now and then.
Hop in a mature arena shooter and you will get utterly, utterly destroyed, over and over again.
Another thing, TF2 is still hugely popular, and that game has Quake DNA through and through (these days its all hats, buuuut).
There's a lot of things they could do to tinker with that - no one has done a 'modern' arena shooter yet, so many aspects of the gameplay could be tweaked to give new players more satisfaction as they play, even if they are getting mostly pounded on.
I don't know that there's a great way to solve the speed issue on consoles. I also can't think of a single serious arena style shooter running at 60fps on the consoles. Maybe something third person? I don't know. Halo is the most popular of anything even close to a Quake or UT style game, and it's glacial in comparison. That doesn't necessarily mean bad, speed is only one part of what made Quake and UT so fun, and a lot of the elements that did make it enjoyable are present in modern games, whatever the pace.
Still, you out there devs? Make a modern arena shooter that kicks ass and you have my axe.
This is a really important point. Halo was one of the very first cinematic single player/co-op FPS. Everyone got sucked into Halo before it even had online play (Multi in Halo 1 was glorious, but you're kidding yourself if you think anyone that didn't live in a dorm played more than 4 player with any regularity).
At the end of the day, the single player is what made Halo into a popular enough game to turn into the multiplayer juggernaut it is now. Also the fact that Halo 2 had amazing console multi when nothing else even came close.
BlazeHedgehog
Member
I assume by "arena shooters" you mean free for all deathmatch.
I think teams take the pressure off a little bit. You can afford to suck a little bit and your team will still "win". In FFA, there's a lot more pressure on your individual performance. A steeper hill to climb in order to win the round. If you lose, there's nobody to blame but yourself, and more than likely you're going to lose because there's going to be that one really good dude on the server who's just railgun headshotting everyone everywhere all day all the time.
But in a team based mode, that "one really good dude" is probably on your team so you're probably going to win regardless of how good or bad you are at the game on an individual basis.
I think teams take the pressure off a little bit. You can afford to suck a little bit and your team will still "win". In FFA, there's a lot more pressure on your individual performance. A steeper hill to climb in order to win the round. If you lose, there's nobody to blame but yourself, and more than likely you're going to lose because there's going to be that one really good dude on the server who's just railgun headshotting everyone everywhere all day all the time.
But in a team based mode, that "one really good dude" is probably on your team so you're probably going to win regardless of how good or bad you are at the game on an individual basis.
Q3 and UT were my favourite multiplayer games back when they were popular. I loved everything about UT2004. DM, CTF, TDM, Onslaught, Assault, Deathball, all of these amazing game modes in the one game.
I hardly play any multiplayer games these days, I hate pretty much all of them, except for TF2.
I hardly play any multiplayer games these days, I hate pretty much all of them, except for TF2.
On the consoles yes, but it doesn't fully explain how Quake and UT stumbled on the PC, nor why there was no one to take the crown from them.
CoD had such an absurd influence on the industry for sure - seeing perks and unlocks in Halo 4 weirds me out a bit (or seeing Pro 'perk' unlocks in NFS
)On the consoles yes, but it doesn't fully explain how Quake and UT stumbled on the PC, nor why there was no one to take the crown from them.
CoD had such an absurd influence on the industry for sure - seeing perks and unlocks in Halo 4 weirds me out a bit (or seeing Pro 'perk' unlocks in NFS
Oh, I legitimately think the style of multi offered by CoD-alikes (and even Battlefield was quite popular before that on PC) is more accessible, Halo remains popular because it's Halo, not because that old school fps style is as popular.
polyh3dron
Banned
Because every time UT came out on a console it was a 30FPS version of a game that's meant to run at 60FPS, therefore it runs like shit.
Now that everyone are 'illuminated' to the PC market, there should be more games like that if someone wants to make them.
It's silly talking about the genre not selling when we know that if a well-known developer will make any type of game it's guaranteed to sell millions (Valve, Bungie, today's Epic) which will lead suddenly others to make such game.
It's silly talking about the genre not selling when we know that if a well-known developer will make any type of game it's guaranteed to sell millions (Valve, Bungie, today's Epic) which will lead suddenly others to make such game.
This needs to get quoted alot more lol. Up for some QuakeLive if it's thaaat easy? I bet you can time 5 items at the same time, can't you?
Teknopathetic
Member
"Slower *is* more tactical since your brain has a lot more time to consider the situation. You can't f*ck with physics lad."
Having more time to think does not create more viable options.
Having more time to think does not create more viable options.
Sho_Nuff82
Member
The people lamenting the lack of arena shooters never buy them when they release, or abandon them to play CoD because that's what their more casual friends like. In a way, they are just as much to blame.
Boss Man
Member
This is a good question and I really, really wish they were.
I think the answer is that COD4's success dictated what a FPS should be for a long time.
The transition from Resistance: Fall of Man (awesome run n' gun multiplayer) to Resistance 2 (bleh) is a good example of this. Although it is worth mentioning that even before COD4, there were a huge number of people playing 'custom' matches in R:FoM with one-hit-kill turned on. For...being tactical...or whatever.
I think the answer is that COD4's success dictated what a FPS should be for a long time.
The transition from Resistance: Fall of Man (awesome run n' gun multiplayer) to Resistance 2 (bleh) is a good example of this. Although it is worth mentioning that even before COD4, there were a huge number of people playing 'custom' matches in R:FoM with one-hit-kill turned on. For...being tactical...or whatever.
I never play the multiplayer, I buy my Halo games for the campaigns. Arena shooters are boring for the most part.
I have this fantasy that, once Dota 2 is live and has conquered the world in a year, Valve will release an arena shooter which they also feature at The International, and monetize via paid streams.
But, even if they saw a market there, this would probably cannibalize TF2 and therefore will never happen.
But, even if they saw a market there, this would probably cannibalize TF2 and therefore will never happen.
The same is true for the chess example, there are not more viable options, but there are fewer mistakes and more elaborate games.
MightyHedgehog
Member
I don't see what Halo has to do with the former popularity of arena shooters that were only really popular on PC. Halo isn't a PC franchise despite it having two installments there as late ports.
As for arena shooter falling out of favor on PC, well, I think that a lot of popular anything, including games, are largely informed and manifested from real-life exposure to things, like the first highly-publicized and ongoing military conflicts our nation and the dominant first world nations has experienced since Vietnam (not counting the numerous military/police operations in that time)...the Iraq and Afghanistan War. It's that post-9-11 zeitgeist that fuels the extreme popularity of Call of Duty since it went modern with 4, but it also, I think, is what boosted Counter-Strike from hardcore free mod in 1999 to mainstream, most popular online game on the planet by end of 2001. Also, as graphics got better, realism, of a kind, became an overriding standard to adhere to for many when judging quality and attractiveness in visuals as well as a bar of excellence to aspire to for any game that involved shooting others as it added weight to the whole thing...which is obviously going to work for hyper-realistic 'war on terrorism' themes that Activision's franchise is known for. Sci-fi of the Unreal Tournament and Quake styles doesn't fit too well here, but Halo's half-real, half-sci-fi approach is pretty compatible and fit for console audiences who aren't fully into realistic sim-ish themes, visually or gameplay-wise. Just my thoughts on that part of things.
As for arena shooter falling out of favor on PC, well, I think that a lot of popular anything, including games, are largely informed and manifested from real-life exposure to things, like the first highly-publicized and ongoing military conflicts our nation and the dominant first world nations has experienced since Vietnam (not counting the numerous military/police operations in that time)...the Iraq and Afghanistan War. It's that post-9-11 zeitgeist that fuels the extreme popularity of Call of Duty since it went modern with 4, but it also, I think, is what boosted Counter-Strike from hardcore free mod in 1999 to mainstream, most popular online game on the planet by end of 2001. Also, as graphics got better, realism, of a kind, became an overriding standard to adhere to for many when judging quality and attractiveness in visuals as well as a bar of excellence to aspire to for any game that involved shooting others as it added weight to the whole thing...which is obviously going to work for hyper-realistic 'war on terrorism' themes that Activision's franchise is known for. Sci-fi of the Unreal Tournament and Quake styles doesn't fit too well here, but Halo's half-real, half-sci-fi approach is pretty compatible and fit for console audiences who aren't fully into realistic sim-ish themes, visually or gameplay-wise. Just my thoughts on that part of things.
User 73706
Banned
Remember Nexuiz, the fast-paced arena shooter for the Xbox Live Arcade with a variety of weapons and powerups, excellent art style (think Metroid Prime meets the Covenant Aesthetic of Halo Reach but done right) and several intricate maps and gametypes?
No?
That's why. You guys didn't play it enough and now it's dead.
No?
That's why. You guys didn't play it enough and now it's dead.
SapientWolf
Trucker Sexologist
The mainstream hates the movement style and weapons in arena shooters. I think that's the crux of it. If someone made an arena shooter where the guns felt powerful and killed quickly and everyone didn't move around like cracked out bunny rabbits I think it would sell.
Delusibeta
Banned
Pack it up, thread's over, there's your answer.
And that was the fucking problem. They got involved in the console wars rather than focusing on the PC version.
What should have been a solid summer release, gets thrown into the mix with Halo, Beginning of the COD boom with MW1, and Orange Box.
Teknopathetic
Member
"The same is true for the chess example, there are not more viable options, but there are fewer mistakes and more elaborate games."
Comparisons to chess for games that are fundamentally different from chess are very silly. Regardless, there are not more elaborate games in Halo or COD than Quake/UT for a lot of objective and mechanical reasons despite them being slower.
"Firefall is getting there. Check it's PvP out next year."
No it is not unless they are making a massive, complete rehaul of the entire core game. It's not even remotely an Arena shooter. It's the bastard child of Global Agenda and TF2.
"Remember Nexuiz, the fast-paced arena shooter for the Xbox Live Arcade with a variety of weapons and powerups, excellent art style (think Metroid Prime meets the Covenant Aesthetic of Halo Reach but done right) and several intricate maps and gametypes?"
I do remember Nexuiz. There were a very small number of maps and there were VERY FEW gametypes. In fact, they charged to add Duel mode which is just 1v1 DM. That shit doesn't even need to be DLC, but they made it that way. I also remember it having awful netcode and that was on PC with dedicated servers.
Comparisons to chess for games that are fundamentally different from chess are very silly. Regardless, there are not more elaborate games in Halo or COD than Quake/UT for a lot of objective and mechanical reasons despite them being slower.
"Firefall is getting there. Check it's PvP out next year."
No it is not unless they are making a massive, complete rehaul of the entire core game. It's not even remotely an Arena shooter. It's the bastard child of Global Agenda and TF2.
"Remember Nexuiz, the fast-paced arena shooter for the Xbox Live Arcade with a variety of weapons and powerups, excellent art style (think Metroid Prime meets the Covenant Aesthetic of Halo Reach but done right) and several intricate maps and gametypes?"
I do remember Nexuiz. There were a very small number of maps and there were VERY FEW gametypes. In fact, they charged to add Duel mode which is just 1v1 DM. That shit doesn't even need to be DLC, but they made it that way. I also remember it having awful netcode and that was on PC with dedicated servers.
Teknopathetic
Member
"I find the "trinity" in halo infinitely more interesting than any arena shooter based 90% on twitch shooting."
This post just shows that you don't actually know what arena shooters are "based on."
This post just shows that you don't actually know what arena shooters are "based on."
It's not really an arena shooter though, it's got more in common with TF2. They've also got this "esports" thing going on too where they're directly telling you it's a competitive game because they say it is and because it has amazing ESPORTS features like spectating.....
Not entirely silly. If a game is lighting fast you have less time to override rote strategies, less time to process your situation. You do feel like you're making fewer conscious descisions, or I do. I got pretty good at UT2003/4.
Teknopathetic
Member
"Not entirely silly. If a game is lighting fast you have less time to override rote strategies, less time to process your situation. You do feel like you're making fewer conscious descisions, or I do. I got pretty good at UT2003/4."
The more experience you acquire playing a game, the less time you actually need to spend on conscious decisions. You brain subconsciously (or sometimes even consciously, for players who seriously analyze their own/others play) remembers all of the situations you've been in and how to approach them. This means you also need less time to think of a new/creative approach because you're already aware of how a situation *should* (nothing's guaranteed, of course) play out. So yes, it's possible you are making fewer conscious decisions, but that would be the case in a slower game as well.
The decisions you make in slower FPSs are not any more complex than in faster ones. There are exceptions like OG Rainbow Six/SWAT as they have random factors (civilians, etc.) that you need to consider.
The more experience you acquire playing a game, the less time you actually need to spend on conscious decisions. You brain subconsciously (or sometimes even consciously, for players who seriously analyze their own/others play) remembers all of the situations you've been in and how to approach them. This means you also need less time to think of a new/creative approach because you're already aware of how a situation *should* (nothing's guaranteed, of course) play out. So yes, it's possible you are making fewer conscious decisions, but that would be the case in a slower game as well.
The decisions you make in slower FPSs are not any more complex than in faster ones. There are exceptions like OG Rainbow Six/SWAT as they have random factors (civilians, etc.) that you need to consider.
BlazeHedgehog
Member
This is ironic given there's a lot of people out there who claim they can't tell the difference between 60 and 30fps.
Framerate, in the context you're talking about it in, does not matter so much that it would sabotage the sales of an entire genre of games.
Remember Nexuiz, the fast-paced arena shooter for the Xbox Live Arcade with a variety of weapons and powerups, excellent art style (think Metroid Prime meets the Covenant Aesthetic of Halo Reach but done right) and several intricate maps and gametypes?
No?
That's why. You guys didn't play it enough and now it's dead.
Arena shooters need to meet a CPMA/Q4max level of features on launch day to not be dead, if features are missing people will stick with their old game. Nexuiz was not released as a viable game.
I don't really care if someone thinks I played a genre of games "wrong" 10 years ago when I played them. Whatever tactics/strategy you think arena shooters have is lost on people who give zero shits about the competitive/tournament scene.
SapientWolf
Trucker Sexologist
They need more than features to inject life in that dead sub genre. It's not like the Field of Dreams. The unequivocally best arena shooter ever made could be released next week and no one would give a damn about it outside of the small, hardcore community that still plays them.
Ninja Scooter
Member
I guess I don't get what is fun about that? He's jumping around all over the place, and it seems to be all about map and item memorization. I mean, if you get good at it, I can understand why it can be intense and passionate, but watching that as a high level match does not make me interested in picking a game like that up. Intimidates me more than anything.
Ah right. My mind is in another place.
One of the designers wants a mode like that in so change few months to few years + mod tools. My bad.
You are making several decisions in a quicker amount of time, because you can't afford to lag behind and you have many simultaneous things to keep track of and decide on the entire match - the opponent's location, your location relative to that, the area to best engage them in, the most effective weapon to use, the timings of weapons and armor, the very next optimal path to take, the risk: reward factor involved in all of these, and so on. All of these are tactical decisions and considerations you are continuously making for the best course of action to take at any given time, and many of them can vary depending on the strengths and weaknesses of the person you're facing.
At the highest levels where everyone's aim and movement is strong, what largely separates players is their tactical ability, and strong tactics often override weaknesses in aim relative to that of an opponent's. Relying solely on reflexes and muscle memory is a sure-fire way to get yourself owned against the top-tier.
Cameron122
Member
Unreal Tournament 2004 is my favorite game of all time. I would adore a UT4 that hearkens back to that game. In order for a new Unreal to survive next generation, I think it needs to rely on Mutators to allow gamers to fashion the experience to their liking. A mutator that makes the game like UT99, a mutator that adds modern weapons. Game changing Mutators. If you wanna play Gears of Unreal, use the Cover System Mutator. Wanna see the crazy physics of Unreal Engine 4? Join a server that allows destructible environments. Wanna put everyone on an "equal" playing field? Join the instagib server. Everyone has the same weapon. I wouldn't want the game to be completely free to play, but there could be starter edition, like what Blizzard is doing!
I think people underestimate the number of people who would buy a new shooter in this subgenre and who would be attracted to it specifically because it does not cater to the current trends in FPS gaming. It doesn't have to sell ten million copies.
Sho_Nuff82
Member
How many people play Tribes: Ascend and Nexuiz?