Support NeoGAF

[Digity.exe]

PUBG released with one map for the longest time. Look how well that game did even during that time.

 

[I collect VHS tapes]

This is too juvenile a response. Let's add to the discussion rather than act catty.

oh buddy I stopped taking you seriously when you were legitimately trying to argue that if a game goes on sale it's by definition not a good game

I figured you're just a troll at this point

 

[March Climber]

Men_in_Boxes there is a big difference here.

With fighting games when a new character is revealed, a new type of gameplay moveset is revealed with them and thus the player has to not only learn their moveset, but also learn how to defend against it.

With shooters, when a new character is revealed, 9 times out of 10 you still aim with left trigger and shoot with right trigger. That's why they have to make it up with things like level design, weapon variety, and map variety, because the variety usually doesn't come from the character themselves. That character usually doesn't have a counter except for shooting better than the other player.

Now I say 'usually' because there are small exceptions like Overwatch which actually became zany enough to feel like a first person shooter/fighter hybrid (which is why I'm still salty about the RPG campaign cancellation), but otherwise for the other 95% of shooters this is the case.

Left trigger, right trigger. Push in stick to sprint. Etc.

 

[IDKFA]

So I'm doing my daily Marathon meditation when I stumble upon the following video...



The TLDW is "Marathon only has 4 maps, ARC Raiders has 5, and Marathons maps are much smaller. This (disadvantage) will likely hurt Marathon in terms of appeal and retention."

I've seen this thought echoed everywhere but I'm skeptical. Consider...

No basketball player says "I like basketball but I'm sick of the rectangular court and two 10ft hoops."

No chess player says "I like chess but I'm sick of playing on the 64 space board."

No Street Fighter player says "I like 2D fighting games but I'm sick of the 20 meter wide 2D levels."

The Finals launched with 4 maps, which was often cited as a problem in reviews. It now has 10 maps and it has done very little in helping with player retention/growth.

After the ARC Raiders Server Slam, I heard commentary saying they were sick of playing on Dam Battlegrounds...to which I agreed. However, upon full release, Dam Battlegrounds is by far my most played map.

I tend to think players who complain about map variety are actually complaining about gameplay depth but aren't cognizant enough to understand the real issue. Does anyone else agree?

Wow.

I agree with you.

With any multiplayer game, it should be quality over quantity in regards to the number of MP maps.

 

[realcool]

I wouldn't tell Michelangelo how to improve the Sistine Chapel. I'd let the Master Craftsman build out the vision.

I would've loved it if, after all that, you replied with, "They could start by adding maps."

 

[justiceiro]

Gamers don't, rage baiters do. The only time this is mentioned is before a game is released or if the game is released and nobody cares. Nobody mention 10+ maps as a reason they like a game.

 

[Crayon]

We might say less is more in so many ways, but I can't begrudge normal people for wanting more of everything for their money. The value equation changes for f2p, as usual.

 

[64gigabyteram]

I miss the days when maps weren't so meticulously designed to be fair and competitive. I'd rather they make more maps, and just see what sticks.

The problem with trying to make a game fair, balanced, and competitive is that there's an endgame to all that optimization, a perfect "100% fair and balanced" game. Many online games are converging on that endpoint, and in the process sacrificing what made their games unique.
Esports kinda fucked up gaming. Now if your game has any sort of competitive element it hhas to lean the fuck into it hard.

Smash Ultimate (and most smashes after Melee) aren't my favorite games in that franchise but they at least leaned into weird and fun shenanigans instead of immediately diving headfirst into hypercompetitive slop. The competitive scene looks at a game with 100 different unique stages and will pick (at most) 10 for competitive play, leaving the remaining 90 to kick rocks.

 

[rkofan87]

if it's a multiplayer only game it's going to get repetitive rather quickly if they don't have a lot of maps

 

[Hugare]

lol at the comparison with basketball or chess

Classic Men_in_Boxes quality post

Different maps offer different gameplay experiences. Play on Damn Battlegrounds and compare that experience to Stella Montis, which is much more PVP focused. Buried City has verticality and a lot of interiors for close combat, best of both worlds. And Spaceport and Blue Gate are great for snipers, specially Blue Gate.

So more maps = more gameplay variety. And more chances of someone out there finding their favorite map that will make them stick with the game for a longer time.

 

[Men_in_Boxes]

lol at the comparison with basketball or chess

Classic Men_in_Boxes quality post

Different maps offer different gameplay experiences. Play on Damn Battlegrounds and compare that experience to Stella Montis, which is much more PVP focused. Buried City has verticality and a lot of interiors for close combat, best of both worlds. And Spaceport and Blue Gate are great for snipers, specially Blue Gate.

So more maps = more gameplay variety. And more chances of someone out there finding their favorite map that will make them stick with the game for a longer time.

I don't think there's much validity to this for two reasons.

1. Developers obviously create base game maps that explore the games full suite of weapons & loot.

2. We'd see evidence that more maps = higher player engagment. We don't.

 

[Hugare]

I don't think there's much validity to this for two reasons.

1. Developers obviously create base game maps that explore the games full suite of weapons & loot.

2. We'd see evidence that more maps = higher player engagment. We don't.

I'm ok with your 2nd point 'cause I have no interest in searching for this kind of info

But about your first point: I didnt understand what you meant. I've clearly shown that each map has its own gameplay flavour. They aren't just different backgrounds, they completely change gameplay.

No one will use a long range weapon in Stela Montis, for example, but they might in Spaceport or Blue Gate. I would take a zipline with me for the Damn, but I wouldnt for Spaceport.

Those maps are completely different while offering different gameplay scenarios.

Yes, they all use the same gameplay systems, but in different ways. If the game consisted of only one map, like the Damn, for example, it wouldnt be as fun as varied as it is today.

Tbf, I'm quite ok with Arc Raiders number of maps as is, 'cause otherwise it would take too much time to find a match in an specific map.

But one map is not enough, as clearly shown by your golden boy Fortnite, a game that changes maps each season since ever.

 

[Three]

Yes and no. Yes you can still have a lot of fun in just a few maps. No because you need variety to keep some people interested when they've played those maps a lot.