Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #51  
Old 05-06-2019, 05:00 PM
Atamasama's Avatar
Atamasama is online now
Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Posts: 3,157
Quote:
Originally Posted by bump View Post
I'd play that- although I think that a game like that would have to have careful game design so that the inherent tension between having to command other players as well as participate in a first-person shooter isn't just frustrating.
You’re not commanding other players; in the proposed game the other squad member are AI-controlled. They’re NPCs that you can give commands to.

The game Star Wars: Republic Commando played that way. It was a FPS where you ran a clone trooper commando squad (I think a 4 person group). Each member had specialties and you can swap between them. If someone went down they could be revived if a squad mate got to them in time. It was a single player game though.
  #52  
Old 05-06-2019, 05:03 PM
Max S. is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2017
Location: Florida, USA
Posts: 493
Quote:
Originally Posted by bump View Post
I'd play that- although I think that a game like that would have to have careful game design so that the inherent tension between having to command other players as well as participate in a first-person shooter isn't just frustrating.


Mainly what I'd like to see is a military-themed FPS with actual risk. As in, you get killed, you don't respawn for like 2 rounds, or five minutes in real-time, or maybe best of all, you permanently lose your most recent gear acquisition, be it purchased or earned.

The idea is that it would force people to play conservatively, not like spazzy jack-in-the-boxes who do stupid stuff secure in the knowledge that they'll just respawn in 20 seconds anyway.

Oh, that and make sniping HARD. Like nearly impossibly hard.
I don't think long re-spawn timers would work well with capture-the-flag or other objective-based game modes, lest those modes reduce to team deathmatches. Neither would it work with an open world, although these are not usually thought of as belonging to the first-person shooter genre.

In deathmatches, there is also a question of what happens when the player dies. You have to keep the player occupied somehow - if players can't re-spawn at all they usually join a new match instead of waiting for the current one to finish. Do you think it is a good idea to make a casual player sit out five rounds because they aren't good enough? If you don't want casual players, your target audience shrinks drastically. We're talking a hundred-fold decrease, at least.

~Max
  #53  
Old 05-06-2019, 05:11 PM
Sicks Ate is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Location: KS, US
Posts: 6,452
Quote:
Originally Posted by Max S. View Post
I don't think long re-spawn timers would work well with capture-the-flag or other objective-based game modes, lest those modes reduce to team deathmatches. Neither would it work with an open world, although these are not usually thought of as belonging to the first-person shooter genre.

In deathmatches, there is also a question of what happens when the player dies. You have to keep the player occupied somehow - if players can't re-spawn at all they usually join a new match instead of waiting for the current one to finish. Do you think it is a good idea to make a casual player sit out five rounds because they aren't good enough? If you don't want casual players, your target audience shrinks drastically. We're talking a hundred-fold decrease, at least.

~Max
What about a 'consolation arena'? You have to sit out of the main game, but meanwhile you can jack around with other players who are also waiting to spawn back in to the main game. Heck, you could even throw in game-within-the-game where your performance in the consolation arena gives you a buff when you get back, or lets you earn a quicker respawn.
  #54  
Old 05-06-2019, 06:34 PM
Chronos's Avatar
Chronos is offline
Charter Member
Moderator
 
Join Date: Jan 2000
Location: The Land of Cleves
Posts: 82,666
There's a modern Star Wars game that plays like typoink is describing, too. I'm not sure what it's called, but I've watched my nephew play it (on Playstation). Star Wars: Battlefront, maybe?
  #55  
Old 05-06-2019, 09:27 PM
Max S. is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2017
Location: Florida, USA
Posts: 493
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sicks Ate View Post
What about a 'consolation arena'? You have to sit out of the main game, but meanwhile you can jack around with other players who are also waiting to spawn back in to the main game. Heck, you could even throw in game-within-the-game where your performance in the consolation arena gives you a buff when you get back, or lets you earn a quicker respawn.
That could work, but the alternative is to kick losers back into the matchmaking system (or spectator stands if they wish) and sell the second game separately for twice the profit.

It wouldn't work for some players who get really focused on their shooting game. Getting killed and then forced to do some totally unrelated mini-game can mess with your groove. Sort of like chess-boxing.

Although, getting killed should throw off your groove...

~Max

Last edited by Max S.; 05-06-2019 at 09:30 PM.
  #56  
Old 05-07-2019, 10:13 AM
yendis is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Cape Town, South Africa
Posts: 329
Quote:
Originally Posted by bump View Post
Mainly what I'd like to see is a military-themed FPS with actual risk. As in, you get killed, you don't respawn for like 2 rounds, or five minutes in real-time, or maybe best of all, you permanently lose your most recent gear acquisition, be it purchased or earned.

The idea is that it would force people to play conservatively, not like spazzy jack-in-the-boxes who do stupid stuff secure in the knowledge that they'll just respawn in 20 seconds anyway.

Oh, that and make sniping HARD. Like nearly impossibly hard.
There was a point during the closed beta where MechWarrior Online had some of this. No respawns and there were costs to repair your 'mech before dropping into another match and it made players massively more cautious on the battlefield. As expected players hated it so it was dropped after a short time. I loved it and it added real tension to the game.

They still kept the no respawn policy though so if you die early you have to wait for the match to end to use that specific 'mech again.
  #57  
Old 05-07-2019, 04:14 PM
bump is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: Dallas, TX
Posts: 17,524
Quote:
Originally Posted by Max S. View Post
Although, getting killed should throw off your groove...

~Max
That's my point- most military themed FPS games have an extremely short respawn time, even when on their "realism" mode. So it tends to pay to do some absurd stuff that would (and does) get you killed most of the time. But since you respawn in 20 seconds, it doesn't matter.

I'd just like to see something a little bit more realistic, that would make players play like, you know, mortal people, not superheroic action movie stars.

And the point with the sniping being really, really difficult is that it IS really, really difficult in real life. Again, the game should reflect that, instead of letting any dipshit player with a sniper character class rip out 400 yard shots with a minimum of practice.
  #58  
Old 05-07-2019, 05:59 PM
Max S. is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2017
Location: Florida, USA
Posts: 493
Quote:
Originally Posted by bump View Post
That's my point- most military themed FPS games have an extremely short respawn time, even when on their "realism" mode. So it tends to pay to do some absurd stuff that would (and does) get you killed most of the time. But since you respawn in 20 seconds, it doesn't matter.

I'd just like to see something a little bit more realistic, that would make players play like, you know, mortal people, not superheroic action movie stars.

And the point with the sniping being really, really difficult is that it IS really, really difficult in real life. Again, the game should reflect that, instead of letting any dipshit player with a sniper character class rip out 400 yard shots with a minimum of practice.
I can't say I've played a first-person shooter in about a decade so I'll take your word for it. But I know there are some games where snipers have to press a button to hold their breath. Wind dynamics might be harder to do in a multiplayer scenario.

~Max
  #59  
Old 05-07-2019, 06:36 PM
Kobal2's Avatar
Kobal2 is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Paris, France
Posts: 17,751
Quote:
Originally Posted by bump View Post
And the point with the sniping being really, really difficult is that it IS really, really difficult in real life. Again, the game should reflect that, instead of letting any dipshit player with a sniper character class rip out 400 yard shots with a minimum of practice.

Why ? It's also really hard to shoot full auto, and the player can do it. It's hard to run all the time with full battle gear, but the player can. It's hard to lug around 500 rounds of ammunition, to toss grenades in a millisecond etc... The player can do all that because he's supposed to be a trained soldier. Well, when he's playing a sniper class, it can be assumed that their character take wind and distance and earth curvature and whatnot into account, it's just abstracted. Just like weight and fatigue are abstracted, kick is simulated but not really (and neither is its effect on endurance) etc etc.
That's essentially how it's done in Sniper Elite, which isn't an FPS (or multiplayer) but has you playing a crack sniper. Well, in that game you can learn how to read the scope, approximate distance and bullet drop and play it the "hard way"... or you can just push the button that triggers "sniper mode", which puts a big red target where the bullet will land depending on distance, calculating the drop etc... Because you're playing a goddamned nazi nutsniping god who can do that on the fly, and the game's mechanics reflect that.
__________________
--- ---
I'm not sure how to respond to this, but that's never stopped me before.

Last edited by Kobal2; 05-07-2019 at 06:36 PM.
  #60  
Old 05-07-2019, 07:59 PM
Sicks Ate is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Location: KS, US
Posts: 6,452
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kobal2 View Post
Well, in that game you can learn how to read the scope, approximate distance and bullet drop and play it the "hard way"...
This is exactly how sniping in an online FPS should work.

I got turned off of playing FPS a long time ago, and I assure you it was never because I got pissed off to get mowed down by a dude 20 yards away hosing me on full auto.

Getting picked off from the other side of the map by some douche who's found a camping spot somewhere he's damn near un-hittable and thinks he's Carlos Hathcock because he's playing a 'sniper', though, is fucking bullshit and way too easy.

Last edited by Sicks Ate; 05-07-2019 at 08:03 PM.
  #61  
Old 05-08-2019, 08:43 AM
bump is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: Dallas, TX
Posts: 17,524
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sicks Ate View Post
This is exactly how sniping in an online FPS should work.

I got turned off of playing FPS a long time ago, and I assure you it was never because I got pissed off to get mowed down by a dude 20 yards away hosing me on full auto.

Getting picked off from the other side of the map by some douche who's found a camping spot somewhere he's damn near un-hittable and thinks he's Carlos Hathcock because he's playing a 'sniper', though, is fucking bullshit and way too easy.
Exactly. While I agree that they should model full auto fire a lot better, in particular muzzle climb, the sniping stuff is absurdly easy. And it sucks to have some dickhead running around quick-scoping, or sniping from across the map that you can't see...

Look at it this way; the military trains thousands of middling intelligence and skill civilian teenagers and young adults to be fully-fledged infantrymen every year in about 5 months.

Snipers on the other hand, require your average soldier to already be a rated infantryman, meet certain test scores, and have achieved a certain rank. And on top of that, they have to be rated "Expert" in marksmanship, meet certain physical fitness requirements, meet certain vision requirements, qualify for a certain security clearance, pass a psychological examination, and finally pass Sniper School. Snipers are RARE. There aren't snipers assigned to every company or anything idiotic like that- I suspect that your average Battlefield or Call of Duty player might see a sniper every 10th match or so at most if they were as uncommon as they actually are.

Seems kind of shitty to me to abstract all that away and let any and all garden variety players be 'snipers' just because they choose that rifle in the fit-out screen.

I'd say let them choose the rifle, but make it realistically difficult- in other words, you're just some grunt who happens to be wielding a sniper rifle, and about as bad as your average grunt would be with it at 400 yards.

Which kind of leads me into my second thought; rather than let you choose a set of several classes out of the gate, a-la the Battlefield games (it's been a while since I played the CoD ones, so I don't remember how they worked), start everyone as that qualified infantryman I mentioned above. You know how to operate all the weapons and have a basic level of skill. Then, as you play, your skills would get better as you use them, and you'd accumulate XP, and be able to spend your XP when you gain each level. Enhanced gear would be essentially randomly found, but you'd have a wide variety of balanced 'standard' weaponry, etc... that you can take at any time. Accoutrements like ACOG scopes, extended magazines, cosmetic improvements, etc.. would be purchasable with XP, but would basically be at the expense of skills if that's the way you want to roll.

So you'd start out as the usual basic player, and if you were to throw a lot of grenades, your grenade skill would improve. If you fired a lot with your pistol, that would improve. Larger weapons would probably have a handful of skills that would be applicable- aim, control, recovery, etc... and different weapons would enhance different ones in different ways. So if you were firing something like a M14, that would tend to improve aim more than recovery or control, while firing a M240 would enhance control and recovery more than aim. Sniper rifles would enhance aim and control almost exclusively. Your average assault rifle would enhance all about equally. And so on - even with non-weapon skills like first aid, demolitions, rocket launchers, etc.. . Basically you'd be able to get good at how you actually play, but wouldn't necessarily be good at other roles.

Even at that, sniping wouldn't be 'easy', just not quite impossible.

So if you wanted to be the second coming of Vasili Zaitsev, you'd have to pick that sniper rifle, but you'd also have to have built up your aim and control skills, as well as picked up some sniper-specific perks like "hold breath", "camouflage", "stealth", or something like that, AND be actually good enough yourself to do it well (you'd have to have practiced yourself as the player).

So there would still be assholes who would be sniping from across the map, but chances are, most people wouldn't bother with the level of dedication required to be a good sniper, and you'd know that your good sniper across the map paid his dues by having been a bad shot and easy to spot for a good while as he built up his skills.
  #62  
Old 05-08-2019, 08:55 AM
Max S. is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2017
Location: Florida, USA
Posts: 493
Quote:
Originally Posted by bump View Post
Exactly. While I agree that they should model full auto fire a lot better, in particular muzzle climb, the sniping stuff is absurdly easy. And it sucks to have some dickhead running around quick-scoping, or sniping from across the map that you can't see...

Look at it this way; the military trains thousands of middling intelligence and skill civilian teenagers and young adults to be fully-fledged infantrymen every year in about 5 months.

Snipers on the other hand, require your average soldier to already be a rated infantryman, meet certain test scores, and have achieved a certain rank. And on top of that, they have to be rated "Expert" in marksmanship, meet certain physical fitness requirements, meet certain vision requirements, qualify for a certain security clearance, pass a psychological examination, and finally pass Sniper School. Snipers are RARE. There aren't snipers assigned to every company or anything idiotic like that- I suspect that your average Battlefield or Call of Duty player might see a sniper every 10th match or so at most if they were as uncommon as they actually are.

Seems kind of shitty to me to abstract all that away and let any and all garden variety players be 'snipers' just because they choose that rifle in the fit-out screen.

I'd say let them choose the rifle, but make it realistically difficult- in other words, you're just some grunt who happens to be wielding a sniper rifle, and about as bad as your average grunt would be with it at 400 yards.

Which kind of leads me into my second thought; rather than let you choose a set of several classes out of the gate, a-la the Battlefield games (it's been a while since I played the CoD ones, so I don't remember how they worked), start everyone as that qualified infantryman I mentioned above. You know how to operate all the weapons and have a basic level of skill. Then, as you play, your skills would get better as you use them, and you'd accumulate XP, and be able to spend your XP when you gain each level. Enhanced gear would be essentially randomly found, but you'd have a wide variety of balanced 'standard' weaponry, etc... that you can take at any time. Accoutrements like ACOG scopes, extended magazines, cosmetic improvements, etc.. would be purchasable with XP, but would basically be at the expense of skills if that's the way you want to roll.

So you'd start out as the usual basic player, and if you were to throw a lot of grenades, your grenade skill would improve. If you fired a lot with your pistol, that would improve. Larger weapons would probably have a handful of skills that would be applicable- aim, control, recovery, etc... and different weapons would enhance different ones in different ways. So if you were firing something like a M14, that would tend to improve aim more than recovery or control, while firing a M240 would enhance control and recovery more than aim. Sniper rifles would enhance aim and control almost exclusively. Your average assault rifle would enhance all about equally. And so on - even with non-weapon skills like first aid, demolitions, rocket launchers, etc.. . Basically you'd be able to get good at how you actually play, but wouldn't necessarily be good at other roles.

Even at that, sniping wouldn't be 'easy', just not quite impossible.

So if you wanted to be the second coming of Vasili Zaitsev, you'd have to pick that sniper rifle, but you'd also have to have built up your aim and control skills, as well as picked up some sniper-specific perks like "hold breath", "camouflage", "stealth", or something like that, AND be actually good enough yourself to do it well (you'd have to have practiced yourself as the player).

So there would still be assholes who would be sniping from across the map, but chances are, most people wouldn't bother with the level of dedication required to be a good sniper, and you'd know that your good sniper across the map paid his dues by having been a bad shot and easy to spot for a good while as he built up his skills.
It sounds like you want a mix of grand strategy, first-person shooter, and role-playing skill-ups all in one game. Be careful though, by giving established players an advantage with weapon skills and automatic aim assist, you are effectively raising a barrier to entry and putting a bottleneck on your multiplayer community.

~Max
  #63  
Old 05-08-2019, 08:58 AM
RickJay is offline
Charter Jays Fan
Moderator
 
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: Oakville, Canada
Posts: 41,050
It's interesting that the prevailing assumption here is that the perfect video game is

1. A first person shooter or RPG,
2. That is even more immersive and realistic than current ones.

It seems to me that it is absolutely true that at some point realism is no longer desirable in a video game. One can enjoy a fully realistic, immersive combat experience by turning off the PS4 and driving to a recruitment center. Games are inherently escapist; they have to have some degree of unrealism to be fun.

"FTL: Faster than Light" is not a first person game and has blocks graphics, but is a better game than 99% of all FPS shooters and MMORPGs ever made. More and more realism and immersiveness might not actually be the right direction.
__________________
Providing useless posts since 1999!
  #64  
Old 05-08-2019, 09:03 AM
bump is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: Dallas, TX
Posts: 17,524
Quote:
Originally Posted by Max S. View Post
It sounds like you want a mix of grand strategy, first-person shooter, and role-playing skill-ups all in one game. Be careful though, by giving established players an advantage with weapon skills and automatic aim assist, you are effectively raising a barrier to entry and putting a bottleneck on your multiplayer community.

~Max
I'd be cool with that. Most multiplayer players are toxic 12 year old idiots or asshole foreigners to begin with. I can do without them.

I didn't say automatic aim assist; I was meaning that your wobble would become slower and/or smaller in amplitude. I guess where I'm going is that getting loot and/or perks just because you grind is crap; there should be some consideration and choice involved- if you want that gold plated AK-47, that's at the expense of being a better shot, for example.

I could do without the grand strategy part if the game designers would just rein in the grossly stupid stuff and make things like cover matter, sniper rifles less useful, and machine guns more useful.
  #65  
Old 05-08-2019, 11:24 AM
Kobal2's Avatar
Kobal2 is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Paris, France
Posts: 17,751
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sicks Ate View Post
This is exactly how sniping in an online FPS should work.

I got turned off of playing FPS a long time ago, and I assure you it was never because I got pissed off to get mowed down by a dude 20 yards away hosing me on full auto.

Getting picked off from the other side of the map by some douche who's found a camping spot somewhere he's damn near un-hittable and thinks he's Carlos Hathcock because he's playing a 'sniper', though, is fucking bullshit and way too easy.

I mean, if your peeve is campers, I don't really see how that'd help - it'd only take a couple spotting rounds to know exact distance and which point of the scope is the "zero" from your vantage point to where you're shooting. Then you just learn those by heart from map to map for your favourite keyhole spots.

That doesn't solve the problem of camping bitches. At all.

What does is good map design that doesn't have perfect keyholed sniping positions and lets people flank snipers who spend all of their time looking one way. That, or mortars - I remember having a *lot* of fun in multiplayer Vietcong, playing as the radioman class and calling pin-fucking-point off-map arty support. Which you did by pulling out a vague gridmap of the zone and guesstimating where the enemy was on it ; not modern warfare laser pointing ! You had to read the old timey map on your own.
__________________
--- ---
I'm not sure how to respond to this, but that's never stopped me before.

Last edited by Kobal2; 05-08-2019 at 11:26 AM.
  #66  
Old 05-08-2019, 11:50 AM
Max S. is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2017
Location: Florida, USA
Posts: 493
Quote:
Originally Posted by RickJay View Post
It's interesting that the prevailing assumption here is that the perfect video game is

1. A first person shooter or RPG,
2. That is even more immersive and realistic than current ones.

It seems to me that it is absolutely true that at some point realism is no longer desirable in a video game. One can enjoy a fully realistic, immersive combat experience by turning off the PS4 and driving to a recruitment center. Games are inherently escapist; they have to have some degree of unrealism to be fun.

"FTL: Faster than Light" is not a first person game and has blocks graphics, but is a better game than 99% of all FPS shooters and MMORPGs ever made. More and more realism and immersiveness might not actually be the right direction.
Personally I prefer chess. My perfect video game may well be a puzzle or adaptation of a board game.

~Max
  #67  
Old 05-08-2019, 01:21 PM
bump is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: Dallas, TX
Posts: 17,524
Quote:
Originally Posted by RickJay View Post
It's interesting that the prevailing assumption here is that the perfect video game is

1. A first person shooter or RPG,
2. That is even more immersive and realistic than current ones.

It seems to me that it is absolutely true that at some point realism is no longer desirable in a video game. One can enjoy a fully realistic, immersive combat experience by turning off the PS4 and driving to a recruitment center. Games are inherently escapist; they have to have some degree of unrealism to be fun.

"FTL: Faster than Light" is not a first person game and has blocks graphics, but is a better game than 99% of all FPS shooters and MMORPGs ever made. More and more realism and immersiveness might not actually be the right direction.
I think what happened was that some of us were describing the "perfect game" as a sort of hybrid- my example in particular was really 3 or 4 games that would be conjoined, much like Silent Hunter II and Destroyer Command were coupled so that one player could be the submarine, and the other could be the destroyer. Except in this case, each game would encompass different levels of command- the bottom level would be a FPS with maybe squad level command. The second game would be company, battalion and maybe brigade command, and the third would be division and corps command. Only the very first one would be a FPS.

But a lot of people play FPS games, and a lot of those play the military themed ones, so that's a normal place to discuss game improvements.

For my money, one of the very best games to come out in the past 5 or so years is "Dead by Daylight", which isn't a FPS at all- it's basically a horror movie survival game where you play one of several iconic movie (or movie-style) killers, or survivors, in a sort of netherworld setting. It's awesome.

But the real issue is that a lot of what makes a video game "perfect" is game design and balance- for example, a game that's very replayable is going to appeal to some, while others (like me) prefer one that's really good on the first playthrough, and don't give a crap about replayability. A perfect game would have both done well, or at least a balance between them.
  #68  
Old 05-08-2019, 01:51 PM
RickJay is offline
Charter Jays Fan
Moderator
 
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: Oakville, Canada
Posts: 41,050
That's a good point. The complaints about sniping aren't about sniping exactly. They're about BALANCE. Snipers have a place in warfare, and a war game without snipers would be weird, but the problem is a lack of balance. There is a reason that in real life armies aren't made entirely of snipers; snipers are merely a supporting arm, and would be easily defeated if you tried to win a war just with them.

What brings a game together can be a really immensely complex set of variables.

As a baseball nut, I play quite a lot of "Out of the Park Baseball." The game is immensely complex, featuring realistic rules regarding players transactions, highly realistic game results, negotiating contracts with your pitching coach, and stuff like that. But they actually leave a lot of stuff out; you don't, for instance, set the price of beer or baseball caps at the park, or spend money upgrading the clubhouse so your millionaire players like it more, or deal with PR disasters, or decide between hiring field scouts or hiring analysts, or negotiate a broadcasting deal, or bribe a city councillor to build you a new stadium, or a thousand other things. Those are things that really do happen in real life professional sports, and they can matter, but the OOTP designers - who've been doing this for 15-20 versions, at least - are trying to create a game that's balanced. If the idea is you're running a baseball team, you want to present the challenge of fielding a championship team within boundaries of professional sports that makes sense, like money limitations and the rules of how the league works, but you don't want it to feel like an actual job or accidentally put something into the game a player can exploit to win the World Series every year. The game could be WAY more realistic above its existing amazing level of realism. But more realism of detail would not really make it FEEL substantially more realistic and immersive, and would add the risk of breaking its balance.
__________________
Providing useless posts since 1999!
  #69  
Old 05-09-2019, 02:50 PM
bump is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: Dallas, TX
Posts: 17,524
Exactamundo! It's not necessarily the realism aspect of the games that makes them best; otherwise everyone would be playing ARMA III instead of Call of Duty.

But good game design, including balancing the various aspects is critically important. I've seen plenty of examples of great ideas brought low by bad execution and poor design (including balance), and a few examples of mediocre concepts uplifted by terrific and well thought out execution.

Honestly, if given the chance, I'd rather play the latter. A truly great game is one that has both a really novel/interesting concept AND is well designed and well-executed.

Another thing to consider is that a lot of larger games (AAA?) are trying to be all things to all people, and no game is going to be successful at that. I mean, Fortnite looks absolutely dismal to me, while I enjoy playing ARMA III from time to time. But something like a Battlefield game or Call of Duty game is trying to basically appeal to both sets of players to some degree, and is a compromise to both.
  #70  
Old 05-09-2019, 03:57 PM
RickJay is offline
Charter Jays Fan
Moderator
 
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: Oakville, Canada
Posts: 41,050
That's an interesting point; the answer to the OP's question is probably always going to be different from gamer to gamer. I have played thousands of hours of baseball simulation games, while some people have no interest at all in that, and an effort to make a game that would interest both me and the person whose tastes are opposite mine will probably fail to interest either of us.
__________________
Providing useless posts since 1999!
  #71  
Old 05-09-2019, 04:07 PM
Jet Jaguar is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Monster Island
Posts: 1,449
Yes, for me the perfect game wouldn't be a FPS, but one that I know would be a niche game with very limited appeal.

My game would be a realistic Formula 1 racing sim along the lines of the Codemasters series, but with a career mode that would run over multiple historical seasons. You would start out as a rookie driver in the starting year of your choice and work your way up through the ranks over the years. The drivers, teams, and tracks would change over time, and the cars would evolve as they are developed to meet changing technical regulations, all as they did in real life. This time period would cover at least the last decade, but ideally any year in the history of F1.
  #72  
Old 05-09-2019, 04:10 PM
Max S. is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2017
Location: Florida, USA
Posts: 493
Quote:
Originally Posted by RickJay View Post
That's an interesting point; the answer to the OP's question is probably always going to be different from gamer to gamer. I have played thousands of hours of baseball simulation games, while some people have no interest at all in that, and an effort to make a game that would interest both me and the person whose tastes are opposite mine will probably fail to interest either of us.
Have you ever played Slugfest? The old man loved that one. It's just like normal baseball sims circa 2005, but if you get angry you catch on fire and start beating the pitcher up. Plus, STL had a great lineup.

~Max
  #73  
Old 05-10-2019, 09:06 AM
Darth Sensitive is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: O-K-L-A-H-O-M-A
Posts: 2,537
Quote:
Originally Posted by bump View Post
That's my point- most military themed FPS games have an extremely short respawn time, even when on their "realism" mode. So it tends to pay to do some absurd stuff that would (and does) get you killed most of the time. But since you respawn in 20 seconds, it doesn't matter.

I'd just like to see something a little bit more realistic, that would make players play like, you know, mortal people, not superheroic action movie stars.

And the point with the sniping being really, really difficult is that it IS really, really difficult in real life. Again, the game should reflect that, instead of letting any dipshit player with a sniper character class rip out 400 yard shots with a minimum of practice.
America's Army did that back starting in 2002 (I haven't played since about 08?, but it's apparently on version 5 or so). You die, you're out until the round ends. You can spectate or quit. Sniping was as easy as point and click sniping might ever be, but you were limited by team slots to only having a specific number of scoped rifles/medics/grenade or rocket launchers. That helped.
  #74  
Old 05-10-2019, 09:19 AM
bump is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: Dallas, TX
Posts: 17,524
Quote:
Originally Posted by Darth Sensitive View Post
America's Army did that back starting in 2002 (I haven't played since about 08?, but it's apparently on version 5 or so). You die, you're out until the round ends. You can spectate or quit. Sniping was as easy as point and click sniping might ever be, but you were limited by team slots to only having a specific number of scoped rifles/medics/grenade or rocket launchers. That helped.
So did the second and third Rainbow Six games (Rogue Spear and Raven Shield). Sniping wasn't quite so easy either; basically it took you a little while to get on target, and it was actually more difficult the closer you were, to an extent.

What was cool about those games is that while the canned maps were generally oriented toward having maybe a single overwatch sniper and an assault team, since they were just the single-player maps reworked in multiplayer, there was a map editor, and a whole bunch of super-cool player community-generated maps- I particularly remember one that was basically a kid's bedroom and bathroom, but it was scaled such that the players were about the size of a GI Joe/Star Wars figure. So what you had was a mix of long-range sniper-centric maps, mixed maps with outdoors and indoors settings for snipers and CQB, and cramped CQB maps (a-la Nuketown in CoD).

Last edited by bump; 05-10-2019 at 09:20 AM.
Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 02:02 AM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.

Send questions for Cecil Adams to: cecil@straightdope.com

Send comments about this website to: webmaster@straightdope.com

Terms of Use / Privacy Policy

Advertise on the Straight Dope!
(Your direct line to thousands of the smartest, hippest people on the planet, plus a few total dipsticks.)

Copyright © 2018 STM Reader, LLC.

 
Copyright © 2017