Send News. Want a reply? Read this. More in the FAQ.   News Forum - All Forums - Mobile - PDA - RSS Headlines  RSS Headlines   Twitter  Twitter
Customize
User Settings
Styles:
LAN Parties
Upcoming one-time events:

Regularly scheduled events

Op Ed

Bitmob.com - Shooters only need eight guns.
At last count, Borderlands contains over 17.5 million color-coded, procedurally generated firearms. The gun population of planet Pandora outnumbers the individual populations of Cuba, Greece, Israel, and Switzerland. What the hell am I supposed to do with all that? I know we're talking about a loot drop game where the entire appeal lies in those loot drops, but outside of dollars, I don't need 17.5 million of anything. That's way, way, waaaaaaaay too much crap to ever constitute fun. Hell, even the comparatively modest arsenals of Battlefield 3 and Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 3 quickly blur into one amorphous, nondescript mess.

Eight guns. That's all you really need. Maybe fewer. And imposing that kind of limitation will net you a better game to boot. Here's how.

View
44 Replies. 3 pages. Viewing page 1.
< Newer [ 1 2 3 ] Older >

44. Re: Op Ed Jan 11, 2012, 00:14 Jerykk
 
77% of Xbox360 buyers also bought CoD2. So, yeah, you can talk about what "most people" would agree, but it's pretty clear that the CoD franchise was already massively popular well before 4.

CoD2 was a launch title for the X360. It's not like system owners had a wide selection to choose from. And 2 million lifetime sales doesn't quite compare to the 13+ million that CoD4 sold. So no, "massively popular" isn't quite an apt description of the series before CoD4.

And no, it isn't just a matter of the platform install base, either. Call of Duty 3 was released a year later on X360, PS3, Wii, PS2 and PSP, yet it only sold 2 million as well.

At the end of the day, it's a rather academic point, and I'm willing to allow your version if that would end the debate - Borderlands having 17+ million "guns" doesn't, imo, support your position any better than it having only 8.

The whole point of Borderlands is to find the best weapon. The chance that you might find a weapon with better stats was the primary reason to continue playing. If there were only 8 weapons, this motivation would not exist.

As for not knowing what they were thinking, no, but then you have no idea what "most people" are thinking, and you have no problem claiming to do so.

Is this in reference to Quake? Because you seriously need to play more Quake or at least watch Youtube videos of it if you think the rocket launcher isn't an essential part of the series. I assure you that your opinion is in the minority here.

Chose this as the easiest to work on - no, I don't. They thought of the type of game they wanted to make first, and then they picked the weapons that would work best within that setting. You keep insisting on getting basic game design backwards, which would explain your confusion.

Just to clarify, genre != setting. And yes, I'm sure they decided they wanted to make a shooter first. Then they decided what kind of gameplay they were going for and what kind of weapons would be most conducive to this. I highly doubt that the game's story or setting was their foremost concern and those things definitely weren't the defining elements of the game to any of the players.

And yet they aren't. If Quake were designed by it's weapons, that would mean that any game that had the same weapons would, by definition, be a Quake game. And yet games with similar games have managed to not be Quake games. Because, of course, weapons are only one part of a game.

Nobody is saying that weapons are the only part of the game. Of course there are other elements. What I'm saying is that guns are the most important part of shooters and in the case of Quake, this is doubly true. For example, without rocket launchers, you don't have rocket jumping and rocket jumping is an integral part of Quake's gameplay. Quake has always been about map control and if you want to maximize your speed and mobility, you'll need to rocket jump. If you're going for a single-player speed-run record, good luck getting there without rocket jumping. But I guess you'll just argue that rocket-jumping is irrelevant to the series. Same with strafe-jumping. After all, setting is the real reason why people play Quake, amirite?

On a side note, which games have the same weapons as Quake? And by the same, I don't just mean basic names or archetypes. I mean the same functionality. The only game I can think of is Warsow and that game is pretty damn similar to Quake. So similar that many people dismiss it as a Quake clone, despite the completely different visual style.

And yet I played Quakeworld extensively, and I wouldn't have an issue with the lack of rocket launchers. And the focus of Quake 4 was pretty heavily on the single player experience. I'm starting to wonder if you even know what you are talking about with Quake.

You played Quakeworld and don't think the absence of rocket launchers would make any difference to the gameplay? You seriously have to be smoking something because nobody who's played Quake would actually believe that. As for Q4, the SP experience was generic and forgettable, much like in the previous games. As always, multiplayer was the focus of the game's community.

I really can't fathom your train of thought here. The rocket launcher has always been the most used weapon in the series. Since you clearly haven't played Quake in quite some time, go on Youtube and watch some of the highlight videos. You're going to see a lot of rocket launchers. You'll also see a lot of railguns and lightning guns. Yet, according to you, Quake 5 could remove all these weapons and the experience would remain unchanged.

This comment was edited on Jan 11, 2012, 00:32.
 
Avatar 20715
 
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
43. Re: Op Ed Jan 10, 2012, 23:14 Sepharo
 
Bhruic wrote on Jan 10, 2012, 11:27:
And yet I played Quakeworld extensively, and I wouldn't have an issue with the lack of rocket launchers. [...] I'm starting to wonder if you even know what you are talking about with Quake.

Are you sure you do?
 
Avatar 17249
 
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
42. Re: Op Ed Jan 10, 2012, 11:27 Bhruic
 

True, there probably weren't 10 million Xboxes back then but I'm pretty sure there were a lot more than 2 million.

77% of Xbox360 buyers also bought CoD2. So, yeah, you can talk about what "most people" would agree, but it's pretty clear that the CoD franchise was already massively popular well before 4.

For the sake of clarity, what criteria do you use to distinguish weapons?

Depends on how you want to define "weapons". You can use a naming system, which is accurate, but also not really useful. If you take a weapon in-game, re-skin it, and call it something else, is it a separate weapon? I'd say no. On the other hand, when you use real-world examples, you tend to run into situations where that happens, and the weapons are considered different.

At the end of the day, it's a rather academic point, and I'm willing to allow your version if that would end the debate - Borderlands having 17+ million "guns" doesn't, imo, support your position any better than it having only 8.

How can you assure that? You have no idea what id was thinking when they were designing Quake.

Basic understanding of game design?

As for not knowing what they were thinking, no, but then you have no idea what "most people" are thinking, and you have no problem claiming to do so.

Or the Croteam guys working on Serious Sam?

Chose this as the easiest to work on - no, I don't. They thought of the type of game they wanted to make first, and then they picked the weapons that would work best within that setting. You keep insisting on getting basic game design backwards, which would explain your confusion.

Games like Painkiller, Bulletstorm, Quake, UT, Tribes and Bulletstorm are defined by their weapons, as are shooters in general.

And yet they aren't. If Quake were designed by it's weapons, that would mean that any game that had the same weapons would, by definition, be a Quake game. And yet games with similar games have managed to not be Quake games. Because, of course, weapons are only one part of a game.

Anybody who played/plays Quake multiplayer would take serious issue with the lack of rocket launchers. Rocket launchers are a fundamental part of the multiplayer experience and the Quake series is defined by multiplayer.

And yet I played Quakeworld extensively, and I wouldn't have an issue with the lack of rocket launchers. And the focus of Quake 4 was pretty heavily on the single player experience. I'm starting to wonder if you even know what you are talking about with Quake.
 
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
41. Re: Op Ed Jan 9, 2012, 19:20 Jerykk
 
I'd say the rocket launcher is iconic of Quake. It's the one weapon that everyone loves and uses heavily. It's also a required part of rocket jumping, another thing that defines Quake. While other games have rocket launchers and rocket jumping, Quake is the game that made such things popular.  
Avatar 20715
 
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
40. Re: Op Ed Jan 9, 2012, 17:34 Beamer
 
More interestingly, what weapons are clearly iconic to certain games? I'd argue that Quake does not have any. The rail gun ripped from Eraser is close, although it's from 2 and 3 only (4?), but I don't think a single weapon screams "Quake."

I'd list:
Crowbar (to a lesser extent: gravity gun)
Fireflower
Possibly shrink-ray or laser trip mine
Chainsaw gun
Blue spiked/red turtle shell
Mega blaster (though it's perhaps too tied to a character)
Master Sword
FF7 sword
Possibly Klobb
Portal gun
BFG (though only due to being unique - I don't know if anyone actually has fond memories or used this much)


Just viewing these weapons immediately puts you in the game. Some are somewhat cheats, like the FF7 sword, as they're very stylized versions of real things. Others were just amazingly well defined by the game, like the crowbard (the double barrel shotgun from Doom would have also had this if it didn't become so commonplace afterwards.) Bulletstorm sadly lacked a weapon that was an amazing standout, in part because so few people liked the game (I still think it was really underrated and got a very bad name due to the pointless vocabulary. The slowness and roidness are more valid complaints.)
 
-------------
Music for the discerning:
http://www.deathwishinc.com
http://www.hydrahead.com
http://www.painkillerrecords.com
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
39. Re: Op Ed Jan 9, 2012, 16:53 Jerykk
 
Did it have the 10+ million copies that we see today? No, but there weren't 10+ million Xbox 360s to sell to.

True, there probably weren't 10 million Xboxes back then but I'm pretty sure there were a lot more than 2 million. I think most people would agree that the series didn't become massively popular until CoD4, which sold many times more units.

And then, of course, there's the fact that CoD:Black Ops was set in the 60s, and featured weaspons that were available at that period of time, rather than modern ones.

To a degree. The game still had the MP5 and AK47, as well as weapons that were basically equivalent to the ones featured in previous games.

No, I'm arguing the point. The FAMAS with the flashlight has different specs than the FAMAS with the suppressor. The slight variation in specs (and performance) doesn't stop it from still being a FAMAS, and doesn't make it a separate gun in either case.

For the sake of clarity, what criteria do you use to distinguish weapons? Is it based on the naming? Art? Functionality? If two weapons have the same art and specs but different names, do they constitute different weapons?

I can assure you that even if you were right, and no Quake game would be made without a rocket launcher, no one at id was sitting around saying "Man, we need to make a game with a rocket launcher in it, what game can we make to do that?" when they were first designing Quake.

How can you assure that? You have no idea what id was thinking when they were designing Quake. Do you think the guys at People Can Fly thought of weapons first when designing Painkiller or Bulletstorm? Or the Croteam guys working on Serious Sam? You keep arguing that things like setting are more important than weapons but that really isn't the case for many games. Games like Painkiller, Bulletstorm, Quake, UT, Tribes and Bulletstorm are defined by their weapons, as are shooters in general.

If id made a Quake 5, and didn't have a rocket launcher in it, then I'm sure there would be complaints. But at the same time, I'm sure there would be many people who would buy it and would completely consider it a "Quake" game.

Anybody who played/plays Quake multiplayer would take serious issue with the lack of rocket launchers. Rocket launchers are a fundamental part of the multiplayer experience and the Quake series is defined by multiplayer.
 
Avatar 20715
 
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
38. Re: Op Ed Jan 9, 2012, 12:19 Bhruic
 
You're aware that the CoD series didn't become really popular until CoD4, right?

Really? You might want to go look up some sales numbers before you throw off such blatant untruths. As an example:

Call of Duty 2 was the most popular launch title on the Xbox 360, with 250,000 units sold in its first week of availability.[43] 77% of people who purchased an Xbox 360 also purchased the game, which contributed to its high sales.[44] As of July 2006, 1.4 million copies of the game had been sold on the Xbox 360.[45] By January 2008, the game had sold 2 million copies.

Did it have the 10+ million copies that we see today? No, but there weren't 10+ million Xbox 360s to sell to.

And then, of course, there's the fact that CoD:Black Ops was set in the 60s, and featured weaspons that were available at that period of time, rather than modern ones.

No, people expect sequels to play like its predecessors and the weapon selection is a fundamental part of how a game plays

Funny how you start with "No", and then go on to say exactly what I said.

You're arguing semantics.

No, I'm arguing the point. The FAMAS with the flashlight has different specs than the FAMAS with the suppressor. The slight variation in specs (and performance) doesn't stop it from still being a FAMAS, and doesn't make it a separate gun in either case.

Again, you're wrong. Certain weapons are staples of certain games

No, certain weapons become staples of certain games. I can assure you that even if you were right, and no Quake game would be made without a rocket launcher, no one at id was sitting around saying "Man, we need to make a game with a rocket launcher in it, what game can we make to do that?" when they were first designing Quake.

Quake without a rocket launcher is not Quake, which is why every Quake game has a rocket launcher. You seem to dismiss this fact, even though it's plainly obvious to anyone who has played those games.

If id made a Quake 5, and didn't have a rocket launcher in it, then I'm sure there would be complaints. But at the same time, I'm sure there would be many people who would buy it and would completely consider it a "Quake" game.

On the other hand, many people didn't consider Quake 4 a true "Quake" game, despite the fact it did contain rocket launchers, so that's hardly a relevant point.
 
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
37. Re: Op Ed Jan 9, 2012, 11:41 Jerykk
 
I'm curious, did you just completely miss the fact that Call of Duty went from being set in WWII, and containing WWII-era weapons to being set in modern times with modern weapons? Did you miss the fact that people continued to buy the game despite the fact there were no weapon overlaps?

You're aware that the CoD series didn't become really popular until CoD4, right? And since CoD4, there's been a lot of overlap in weapons in every game except for WAW, right?

Regardless of that fact, that's an irrelevant point, as it doesn't address the actual issue - whether guns are the "defining element" of shooters. The fact that people may come to expect a sequel to a game to contain weapons from previous versions of the game is nothing more than people expecting a sequel to be similar to its predecessors.

No, people expect sequels to play like its predecessors and the weapon selection is a fundamental part of how a game plays.

No, I'm saying that two weapons that are called the same thing, but have minor variance in their listed stats are both the same base item. You want to count each separate variation as being a completely unique weapon - which is just plain stupid.

You're arguing semantics. An AK and M4 are both fully-automatic assault rifles with slight differences in specs. According to your argument, if you ignored the names, they'd be the same weapon because they have the same basic functionality. If your sole consideration when separating weapons is their naming, then a +1 Long Sword is still a different weapon from a +2 Long Sword because one of them has +1 and the other has +2 in its name.

Of course weapons are relevant to a game. The weapons in Quake are quite different than the weapons in CoD, and that definitely helps differentiate the games. But if two games share weapon sets, that doesn't make them undifferentiated. There are many, many more factors that go into that. And it is those factors that end up defining games, not which particular guns they happen to have included. Again, the guns that end up in a game are almost always a result of other factors that have been decided on before the guns are ever considered.

Again, you're wrong. Certain weapons are staples of certain games. The games would not play the way they do without those weapons. Quake without a rocket launcher is not Quake, which is why every Quake game has a rocket launcher. You seem to dismiss this fact, even though it's plainly obvious to anyone who has played those games.
 
Avatar 20715
 
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
36. Re: Op Ed Jan 9, 2012, 07:04 Bhruic
 
If you're working on an established franchise, you pretty much have to include the most popular weapons from the previous games

I'm curious, did you just completely miss the fact that Call of Duty went from being set in WWII, and containing WWII-era weapons to being set in modern times with modern weapons? Did you miss the fact that people continued to buy the game despite the fact there were no weapon overlaps?

Regardless of that fact, that's an irrelevant point, as it doesn't address the actual issue - whether guns are the "defining element" of shooters. The fact that people may come to expect a sequel to a game to contain weapons from previous versions of the game is nothing more than people expecting a sequel to be similar to its predecessors.

So you're saying that if two weapons are of the same basic type, they are the same weapon?

No, I'm saying that two weapons that are called the same thing, but have minor variance in their listed stats are both the same base item. You want to count each separate variation as being a completely unique weapon - which is just plain stupid.

Or, to use your "modern weapons" example, you're suggesting that when I have a FAMAS in BF3, and I switch the accessory from a flashlight to a muzzle suppressor, that I suddenly have a completely new gun in my hands. Sorry, that's not how it works.

You're implying that weapons are completely irrelevant and have no impact on gameplay.

No, I'm not implying any such thing. No wonder you're putting forth so many irrelevant arguments, you don't even have a handle on what I'm saying.

Of course weapons are relevant to a game. The weapons in Quake are quite different than the weapons in CoD, and that definitely helps differentiate the games. But if two games share weapon sets, that doesn't make them undifferentiated. There are many, many more factors that go into that. And it is those factors that end up defining games, not which particular guns they happen to have included. Again, the guns that end up in a game are almost always a result of other factors that have been decided on before the guns are ever considered.
 
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
35. Re: Op Ed Jan 8, 2012, 23:00 Jerykk
 
Did the developers sit down and say "We want to use modern day weapons, what do we have to do to do that?" or "We want to use a modern day setting, what do we have to do to do that?" Pretty obviously the latter. I doubt there's a FPS in existence (although who knows, there might actually be one or two) where the developers sat down and planned out what guns they were going to use before they planned anything else.

Again, it depends on the game. If you're working on an established franchise, you pretty much have to include the most popular weapons from the previous games. That's why every Quake game has a rocket launcher and why every Tribes game has a disc launcher and every UT game has the shock rifle. It doesn't matter what changes you made to the setting, these weapons have to be part of the game.

No they don't. A shotgun with +5% accuracy is not functionally different from a shotgun with +10% accuracy. The actual gun is still the same in both cases - a shotgun. You wouldn't (I would hope) suggest that a +1 Longsword and a +2 Longsword aren't both Longswords, so why try and make the distinction here?

So you're saying that if two weapons are of the same basic type, they are the same weapon? So an AK-47 is the same as an M4A1? A Desert Eagle is the same as an M9? They are not the same weapons. A difference in RoF, range, accuracy, damage or any other statistic makes them functionally different. Same class != same weapon.

I'm pretty sure I wouldn't be. If you asked people what makes a Quake game a Quake game, I doubt more than 1% would answer you with "a rocket launcher".

I'm really not sure what to say at this point. Have you ever played any of the Quake games? Have you ever played them online? If Quake 5 didn't have a rocket launcher, the fanbase would be in an uproar because the rocket launcher is a defining element of the series. The fact that you disagree with this is pretty baffling and suggests that you've never actually played any of the Quake games.

Again, no I wouldn't. And again, your blinders are showing. You're implying that the only difference between Halo and UT is the weapons. Anyone who's played both would wonder wtf you were smoking were you to make that claim to them.

You're implying that weapons are completely irrelevant and have no impact on gameplay. I'm saying this isn't true. Weapons are a fundamental part of the experience in any shooter. If Tribes: Ascend only had rapid-fire hitscan weapons, it would play completely differently than the previous games. If Quake 5 doesn't have a rocket launcher, railgun or lightning gun, it will play completely differently from the previous games. If UT4 had Halo's weapons, it would be completely different from the previous games.

This comment was edited on Jan 8, 2012, 23:08.
 
Avatar 20715
 
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
34. Re: Op Ed Jan 8, 2012, 22:17 Sepharo
 
Bhruic wrote on Jan 8, 2012, 21:32:
I'm pretty sure you'd be the only one to hold that opinion. A Quake game without a rocket launcher is not a Quake game.

I'm pretty sure I wouldn't be. If you asked people what makes a Quake game a Quake game, I doubt more than 1% would answer you with "a rocket launcher".

Pretty sure it's the signature of the series. The first things I think of when I think of Quake is twitch DM followed by rockets and rocket jumping. Rails would probably be next.
 
Avatar 17249
 
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
33. Re: Op Ed Jan 8, 2012, 21:32 Bhruic
 
While I agree that the setting generally defines what guns are used, I strongly disagree that the series would be as popular if it used fictional guns

Did the developers sit down and say "We want to use modern day weapons, what do we have to do to do that?" or "We want to use a modern day setting, what do we have to do to do that?" Pretty obviously the latter. I doubt there's a FPS in existence (although who knows, there might actually be one or two) where the developers sat down and planned out what guns they were going to use before they planned anything else.

Guns are figured out after the setting. Therefore guns can't define a game, because they are a by-product of the setting.

Different stats are equivalent to different weapons.

No they don't. A shotgun with +5% accuracy is not functionally different from a shotgun with +10% accuracy. The actual gun is still the same in both cases - a shotgun. You wouldn't (I would hope) suggest that a +1 Longsword and a +2 Longsword aren't both Longswords, so why try and make the distinction here?

I'm pretty sure you'd be the only one to hold that opinion. A Quake game without a rocket launcher is not a Quake game.

I'm pretty sure I wouldn't be. If you asked people what makes a Quake game a Quake game, I doubt more than 1% would answer you with "a rocket launcher".

Again, you'd be the only one to hold that opinion. What you're basically saying is that you could take Halo, change the name to UT2012 and that alone would be enough to qualify it as a UT game. Most fans would disagree

Again, no I wouldn't. And again, your blinders are showing. You're implying that the only difference between Halo and UT is the weapons. Anyone who's played both would wonder wtf you were smoking were you to make that claim to them.
 
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
32. Re: Op Ed Jan 8, 2012, 19:59 Jerykk
 
But if the developers started throwing in conceivable near-future designs, I doubt most people would even take the time to wonder if they were actual guns or just made up ones. Just give them military sounding names.

Maybe. But there's a reason why the CoD series has yet to go sci-fi after 7 sequels and why the BF series never returned to sci-fi after BF2142. Realistic weapons and settings are just more popular than fake ones. And if Activision started throwing in plasma rifles, railguns and tesla cannons, you can rest assured there would be a vocal outcry from the CoD fanbase. Weapons matter.
 
Avatar 20715
 
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
31. Re: Op Ed Jan 8, 2012, 19:44 Prez
 
To answer Jerykk's query about fictional vs. real guns, in the case of CoD, I'd say the vast majority of its players wouldn't have known a fictional gun from a real gun, at least at first. Sure, the recent spate of modern day military shooters has made '9mm, M4, M249, M60, M203, .223 and 5.56 caliber' household names, but that certainly isn't what drew them in and kept them playing. Okay, many would cry foul if suddenly an "Atlas Charged Repeater" suddenly showed up in the game, I grant you. But if the developers started throwing in conceivable yet made up near-future designs, I doubt most people would even take the time to wonder if they were actual guns or just made up ones. Just give them military sounding names.

EDIT:
was it Pres saying I'm too into numbers...

Well, yeah that was me. But I was speaking from a game creation and publishing standpoint. In game I'm all about the numbers too.

This comment was edited on Jan 8, 2012, 19:55.
 
Avatar 17185
 
Goodbye my Monte boy. May you rest in the peace you never knew in life.
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
30. Re: Op Ed Jan 8, 2012, 19:01 Jerykk
 
Probably. The appeal of CoD is in the frenetic gameplay, not the names of the guns. However, it's the setting that defined the guns, not the reverse. A game set in WWII will have (generally speaking) WWII-era weapons. A game set in modern times will have "real-world" guns. It's the time period that defines what guns are used.

While I agree that the setting generally defines what guns are used, I strongly disagree that the series would be as popular if it used fictional guns. One of the biggest reasons why military shooters are so popular is because they are familiar. Players get to use their favorite weapons from real-life. I'm pretty sure this is one of the reasons why CS became so popular. It was the first pseudorealistic shooter to offer such a wide array of real-world weapons. Rainbow Six and Delta Force came out before CS but they weren't nearly as accessible.

Luckily yes, as it doesn't have more than 10 weapons. It just has a bunch of various stats for its weapons.

Different stats are equivalent to different weapons. For example, almost all of the weapons in military shooters are just slight variations of one another. This one has a higher RoF, that one has higher accuracy, this one does more damage, etc. An M4A1 and an AK-47 are just slight variations of the same assault rifle archetype but they're still considered different weapons.

Sure, if I were playing a game called "Quake X", and it didn't have those, I wouldn't consider it any less a Quake game.

I'm pretty sure you'd be the only one to hold that opinion. A Quake game without a rocket launcher is not a Quake game. You seem to be neglecting the fact that weapons have a significant impact on how the game plays. If a game's arsenal consists of high RoF, hitscan weapons that can kill enemies in 1-3 hits, then the gameplay is going to be mostly cover-based. If a game revolves around weapons that fire relatively slow-moving projectiles and with a slow RoF, gameplay will be mostly run and gun.

Well, the translocator isn't a gun, but if we're stretching... Again, sure. There's no requirement for those items to be present for it to be a UT game.

Again, you'd be the only one to hold that opinion. What you're basically saying is that you could take Halo, change the name to UT2012 and that alone would be enough to qualify it as a UT game. Most fans would disagree.

This comment was edited on Jan 8, 2012, 19:13.
 
Avatar 20715
 
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
29. Re: Op Ed Jan 8, 2012, 12:10 Beamer
 
Jerykk wrote on Jan 7, 2012, 20:57:
I agree with the article. Shooters don't really need 10 pistols, 10 shotguns, 10 SMGs, 10 assault rifles, 10 sniper rifles, etc. I'd much rather have a small set of completely unique but balanced weapons, ala Tribes or Quake or UT. Quality > quantity, something a lot of shooters could learn these days.

Part of what I'm finding enjoyable about CoD right now (I know, I know) is the weapon variation. I've switched from Hardcore to Regular in the past few days because, in regular, this variety actually has meaning. There's five main weapon categories, with 5 or 6 weapons each, which can then have different attributes modified in two different ways. As I still play with a CS mindset and prefer running and gunning I tend to use buildouts that let me run nearly forever and be pretty undetectable in radar. I can twist around classes, though, as need be.

This kind of depth appeals to me, though I wish they were more transparent about it (was it Prez saying I'm too into numbers recently? Well I really wish we had numbers in this game.) Most people that play it much will swear by a gun or two and a builtout combination for them. I take that to mean there's something being done that's right. To me it's really the proficiency that turns this from something that's overkill to something that's useful. You see every gun used in this game now (well, maybe not every shotgun.) In previous versions it was very clear which guns were good and which were bad. Now it's much more grey area.
 
-------------
Music for the discerning:
http://www.deathwishinc.com
http://www.hydrahead.com
http://www.painkillerrecords.com
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
28. Re: Op Ed Jan 8, 2012, 11:59 theyarecomingforyou
 
I refuse to give advertising revenue to sites trying to create controversy but from the blurb I completely disagree with the point being made. Borderlands injected a lot of variety into the game, whereby you were constantly checking weapon drops in high end areas for better weapons. You'd have to balance different specs, meaning that while a weapon may be more powerful it is useless if it has no accuracy.

As for the "eight guns" thing. Borderlands only has a limited number of core weapon types, where the rest of the "17.5 million" are simply the same weapons with different specs.

This year is going to be great for the FPS genre. Borderlands 2, Far Cry 3, Metro: Last Light, Counter-Strike: Globabl Offensive, Brothers in Arms: Furious 4, Syndicate, Bioshock Infinite. I think the standout games will be Borderlands 2, Far Cry 3 and Metro: Last Light, while Bioshock Infinite might turn out to be decent.
 
Avatar 22891
 
SteamID: theyarecomingforyou
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
27. Re: Op Ed Jan 8, 2012, 09:59 Bhruic
 
Would CoD be so popular if it didn't use real-world guns?

Probably. The appeal of CoD is in the frenetic gameplay, not the names of the guns. However, it's the setting that defined the guns, not the reverse. A game set in WWII will have (generally speaking) WWII-era weapons. A game set in modern times will have "real-world" guns. It's the time period that defines what guns are used.

Would Borderlands have any appeal whatsoever if it only had 10 weapons?

Luckily yes, as it doesn't have more than 10 weapons. It just has a bunch of various stats for its weapons.

Would Quake really be Quake without the railgun, rocket launcher and lightning gun?

Sure, if I were playing a game called "Quake X", and it didn't have those, I wouldn't consider it any less a Quake game.

Would UT be UT without the shock rifle and translocator?

Well, the translocator isn't a gun, but if we're stretching... Again, sure. There's no requirement for those items to be present for it to be a UT game.
 
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
26. Re: Op Ed Jan 8, 2012, 07:10 Jerykk
 
Bhruic wrote on Jan 8, 2012, 06:51:

Guns (or weapons that fire projectiles) define the shooter genre

Sure, ok, but you're not using the same definition used in the article. There's a difference between being the defining element of a genre, and being a defining element of a game. Yes, guns are defining elements of the shooter genre - by definition. But they are not the defining element of individual games.

Depends on the game, really. Would CoD be so popular if it didn't use real-world guns? Would Borderlands have any appeal whatsoever if it only had 10 weapons? Would Quake really be Quake without the railgun, rocket launcher and lightning gun? Would UT be UT without the shock rifle and translocator?
 
Avatar 20715
 
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
25. Re: Op Ed Jan 8, 2012, 06:51 Bhruic
 

Guns (or weapons that fire projectiles) define the shooter genre

Sure, ok, but you're not using the same definition used in the article. There's a difference between being the defining element of a genre, and being a defining element of a game. Yes, guns are defining elements of the shooter genre - by definition. But they are not the defining element of individual games.
 
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
44 Replies. 3 pages. Viewing page 1.
< Newer [ 1 2 3 ] Older >


footer

.. .. ..

Blue's News logo