Create an account


Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Arena Shooters Are Dead

#1
Hi. I'm called node357 usually. I played Nexuiz. And Doom. I'm not altogether stable, so feel free to disregard this thread.

Arena shooters look dead. There are a handful of them floating around, each with a small die-hard community. They like and are accustomed to the movement style and weapons of each. They don't change games, even though their games lack players.

It occurred to me tonight that a single game could draw the entire small arena shooter community by adopting their features. A game doing this would probably lose much of its identity, but cause a unity of the remaining arena shooter fans.

Xonotic could be the one to do it. Adding the action button from Warsow. This pretty much duplicates the dodging double-tap from UT. The weapons and balance seem to resemble Quake already without tweaking. OA, same story as Quake since it's basically Quake without "assets".

I assumed the ill-fated retail Nexuiz would fail because I saw UT3 fail, despite its technical excellence. There was a lot of money backing UT3, and probably retail Nexuiz, too. Money isn't a factor. The majority of gamers seem more comfortable with slower FPS games like Call of Duty and Battlefield, and the aging Counter-Strike. I was too until I hit my stride with Nexuiz, but even then, my lack of experience prevented me forever from becoming a revered player (not to mention my personality disorders, ahem).

There's no catching up to pro players with experience. Time does it all. No one is catching up, and no one will be satisfied with their progress when the pros are already 10 steps ahead. I believe Xonotic's best hope is not to avertise to the turtle gaming community, but to the remaining existing arena FPS fans. I was unique in wanting to play a game that was too fast and demanding for me, but it's apparent that most modern gamers are not willing to lose all the time and not willing to recondition themselves for faster, simpler games.

I suggest Xonotic include the major features of the other most popular arena shoooters, not so much for the sake of Xonotic itself, but for the survival of the entire genre. I'm sure the Xonotic developers would understand this proposal better than I, since I'm not a programmer or game developer, but I'm sure my idea will make some sense. Arena FPS games are not popular anymore, and any hope for the genre lies in the decisions of those who have the power to keep it alive. I, personally, would like to see at least one of the existing arena shooters have enough of a community to facilititate a busy server at any time. I hope Xonotic can be the game where that happens.
Reply

#2
Arena shooters are not dead - they just mimic outdated 1999 gameplay from Quake3. FPS are good, only quake rip-offs have problems Smile
Reply

#3
(03-01-2013, 05:10 AM)Majki Wrote: Arena shooters are not dead - they just mimic outdated 1999 gameplay from Quake3. FPS are good, only quake rip-offs have problems Smile

Which arena shooter is more successful than quake live at the moment?
Reply

#4
What even is an arena shooter? This is hard to define. Quake 3 Arena definitely is and hence Quake Live but not everything is like this.
I'm at least a reasonably tolerable person to be around - Narcopic
Reply

#5
I guess none. But it's hard to say, that QL is popular, compared to COD/Halo/CS/TF2/etc.
Reply

#6
TF2 is kind of arena'ish sin't it?
Reply

#7
Hell, even Crysis 3 has arena shooter elements. For example: http://youtu.be/aD-uKpkc0LM?t=21m28s

I don't think it's really dying with things because games like TF2 (which I regard as an arena shooter) and Quake live are still pretty popular. If anything I'd say it's just not as popular as other games like CoD.

That said, we do have to keep it alive by spreading the word and coming up with more awesome stuff, not just for Xonotic, but for other open source arena shooters too.
Reply

#8
(03-01-2013, 05:10 AM)Majki Wrote: only quake rip-offs have problems
Apparently Uberstrike is doing pretty well. And they have a lot of quake rip-off evidence.
AND THEY BLOODY MAKE MONEH OUT OF THIS?!?
Not to mention, how crappy the maps are. Honestly I can make better maps than they can.
The gameplay is also shit as well:
-Land speed is about an equivalent 150 ups
-Gravity so bloody strong
-They jump at the same height as in quake
-You can deal yourself knockback, you can't to others (herp derp)
-A lot more
Reply

#9
Arena shooters need new IdSoftware-alike studio to resurrect this genre imo. Some bright, smart guys who will bring some new fresh ideas. It's not easy task, so we might have to wait a long time.
Reply

#10
This thread is bullshit. It's all about money. Quake 4 was a huge success for instance, and I know for a fact that UT3, despite being a lousy game, sold to many people traditionally beyond its niche.

What really died are Quake-like arena shooters like Xonotic, which are really outmoded now. Sorry, the reason I play Red Eclipse more than Xonotic is because it reimagines the genre really well and Xonotic is just same old same old, with Quake idiosyncracies like bunnyhopping and strafejumping which were originally exploits in Quake but were kept in because everyone used this. As the game departed from its original vision, the gameplay was quickly found not to be that great. Of course, games like Operation Flashpoint and Counter-Strike would come about later so Quake was the dominant multiplater shooter of the 90s.

I consider arena shooters to have three subgenres:
  • Quake-likes (at the risk of being controversial this includes UT)
  • Tribes-likes (includes Legions: Overdrive)
  • Red Eclipse. Yep, it play like no other arena shooter.

In my opinion, the AAA game that comes closest to arena shooter gameplay is the Halo series. TF2 is just too slow and allows little freedom of movement. It also values working as a team a lot, whereas most arena shooters, even for team games, are played around individual players.

Arena shooters just need innovation. They need to be rethought from the ground up. One first step we could take is accomodate people who prefer to play with gamepads. Until then, arena shooters are doomed to obscurity (though I personally thing they will not die).
Reply

#11
Gamewhats?
[Image: 0_e8735_c58a251e_orig]
Reply

#12
(03-05-2013, 06:37 PM)aa Wrote: Gamewhats?

Gamebutts
Reply

#13
Evropi has some point. I disagree about putting Quake and UT in the same bag, but rest of stuff is pretty valid. Have not played RE though.
Reply

#14
People used to modern shooter doesn't expecg to have to learn a new shooter, that's why arena games are irrelevant in todays market theyre too difficult.
Reply

#15
Quote:Quake 4 was a huge success for instance
Stopped reading there.
Reply

#16
I think that modern, successful (in terms of market performace) fps should contain the following elements:
- your skill should be transferable between games (almost nonexistient in arena shooters, and especially between slow paced and fast paced shooters);
- your skill should be transferable between maps you don't know well (this sounds like oxymoron in case of arena shooters);
- weapons... you shuld be able to relay on two weapons only. There can be more weapons, but you should be able to pick one and stick with it without being pummeled. Weapons of your choice should be in your hands at the beggining of the match, or be very easly accessible near the spawning point (so easly that person without knowledge about the map can get it);
- speed... the faster game is, the more chaotic it looks for the new players. The more chaotic it looks, it is less appealing for them.
- if game is not realistic, it should be stylish and funky, look at character design in TF2. Models are fun to watch, and whole game looks appealing for modern teenager. Alternative: kick-ass character look from Gears of War series; I belive this scenario is worse, because it targets mostly male audience.
- people like tactical map movement, but it should be the movement you can perform yourself in rl... not rocketjumping above the building. Besides, people don't like weapon jumping much, they prefer to use jetpacks. Weaponjumping is bad for another reason: it force players to use multiple weapons. This is seen as unnecessary complication.
- it is sad, but bunnyhopping and strafejums are ridiculous when you think about them outside the fast-paced-fps-box. BTW Red Elispes jumpy-thing isn't much more reasonable and playable for players from the outside of arena shooters world.
- hitscan weapons GOOD, projectile weapons BAD;

So... successful "arena" shooter should have:
- appealing graphical design, and decent graphics. Design is more important than technical capabilities.
- simple/not complicated arenas;
- wide choice of mostly hitscan weapons, some powerful projectile weapons. Maybe a healing gun.
- weapons should be balanced against each other, player should be able of using one or two all the time.
- quasi-realistic movement, jetpack and limited nitro-speed are allowed, but they need some fuel. No bunnyhopping, strafejuping, weaponjumping and doublejumping bullshit.

tl;dr
We need CoD with kick-ass design, jetpacks, nitro and sci-fi elements.

BTW I never played CoD.

[link to interesting article on this topic]
[Image: 12684.png]
Reply

#17
Quote:People used to modern shooter doesn't expecg to have to learn a new shooter, that's why arena games are irrelevant in todays market theyre too difficult.
I disagree. Warsow/Xonotic/Alien Arena/open Arena/etc are Quake3-generic. Ppl who learned Q3 back in the 90's are unreachable for younger players who were too young to play Q3 when it was still played. They have been raised on Halo/CS/COD. What they have learned in those games doesn't apply to Quake3-based games. they are not specially difficult - but they have devoted hard core player base which play for over 14 years now (1999 when Q3 was released). And imagine now 14 years old quaker VS 15 years old guy/gal playing QuakeLive or other derivative games.

Young player uninstall Quake-alike-game after 5 minutes. He goes to game which allow him compete at some reasonable level.

So games which are Q3 rip offs ISOLATE themselves at the start. Playing Quake was fun in 1999 - when ppl were still learning this. Now? It's sado-masochism.
Reply

#18
True.
The reason why I got into fast-paced shooters was because of Tremulous, and I thought tremulous was shit at first sight due to its graphics and its 'square gun' that you spawn with. It took me at least two years to love the game. Even then I still sucked at it.

With COD, though apparently it bores me because it's too much of a "spot the enemy first and aim down sights wins" where fast paced arenas are more of "good aim, movement, tactics (map "ownership" for 1v1 duels)" and probably combos but not all support combos. Lots of youngsters suck at movement, so a majority of them choose to camp with a sniper rifle. Good thing the nexgun doesn't instant kill by standard shots. I love it how they also say about trem that we should add a "sniper rifle" but we already have one that's sufficent, doing a mere 40(38 for 1.1) damage.

I'm one of those people who play games for at least 20 hours worth before uninstalling. I probably should play warsaw more to start enjoying that but to me it's just another q3 cpm with a dodge key, which is what makes xonotic more original as an arena shooter.
Quote:So... successful arena shooter should have:
- appealing graphical design, and decent graphics. Design is more important than technical capabilities.
- simple/not complicated arenas;
- wide choice of mostly hitscan weapons, some powerful projectile weapons. Maybe a healing gun.
- weapons should be balanced against each other, player should be able of using one or two for the all time.
- quasi-realistic movement, jetpack and limited nitro-speed are allowed, but they need some fuel. No bunnyhopping, strafejuping, weaponjumping and doublejumping bullshit.
Doesn't sound like an arena shooter to me. I don't mind the 1st point though.

TF2 is probably the only popular "arena" shooter today but it doesn't even contain free-for-all modes and gameplay is relatively slow.
Reply

#19
Quote:Doesn't sound like an arena shooter to me.
Yeah, I edited and added quotemarks to mark the irony. Although what I said about successful fps games was serious. I think that traditional arena shooter (without quotemarks) can't be succesful on today's market. I don't find it as necessarily a bad thing. I play arena shooters because I like it, because I know there is a group of other people who likes it too, and that's enough for me. But if you want to archieve big market success with arena shooter, you need to adapt. That's the difference between fully f2p open source games and profit-oriented enterprises. Commercial game developer thinks "what do people (market) like to play today?", but free game developer thinks "what will be fun for me to develop?".
[Image: 12684.png]
Reply

#20
(03-05-2013, 09:24 PM)spinda Wrote:
(03-05-2013, 06:37 PM)aa Wrote: Gamewhats?

Gamebutts
Gamewhats again.

If that means colnsole-like joysticks... then it is bad... realy bad... thats something we should never introduce... remember my word.

(03-06-2013, 07:04 AM)g4spr0m Wrote: I think that modern, successful (in terms of market performace) fps should contain the following elements:
Weaponjumping is bad for another reason: it force players to use multiple weapons. This is seen as unnecessary complication.
- hitscan weapons GOOD, projectile weapons BAD;

[/b][/color]
BTW I never played CoD.
So am I.

Whats bad about projectile weapons?
[Image: 0_e8735_c58a251e_orig]
Reply

#21
Quote: Whats bad about projectile weapons?
It isn't most important thing, of those that I mentioned, but it seems to me, that casual fps players find projectile weapons too hard to use, unless theese weapons are immensely powerfull (BFG-like powerfull). I agree with the following statement of ZdrytchX:
Quote:Lots of youngsters suck at movement, so a majority of them choose to camp with a sniper rifle.
Another thing: when you started to play FPSes, at the very beggining, wasn't some kind of chaingun your favourite weapon? It was in my case, and I know for a fact, that it was the same with many of my friends. When some player begins to play given FPS, he or she don't know how individual weapons works, so they stick to something they know. Besides, sniper rifle and chaingun skills are one of the most transferable ones, between games. Once you have learned how to use a sniper rifle, you know how to use them all; the same with machineguns, more or less. But when you play arena shooter... You don't know how to use RL, Electro, Crylink, Mortar, Hagar unless you learn it. When you try to play Quake with that knowledge, you quickly find out, that Quake's RL, GL, PG have little in common with their Xonotic' counterparts. But you still know, how to shoot MG, or RG. You even know how to shoot M4A1 in most games, or Barrett M82, or HK-PSG1, or HK-P30 and even most of Gauss Rifles.

tl;dr
Hitscan weapons skill is more trasferable between games, and hitscan weapons are much more newbie-friendly.
[Image: 12684.png]
Reply

#22
Quote: Hitscan weapons skill is more trasferable between games, and hitscan weapons are much more newbie-friendly.

You touched important aspect. For example if you go and complain on Quake's weapons, specially LG, very often ppl will say to you that game is "meant to be hard". Arena Shooters are often made with that principle in mind. So "nubs" (as elitist Arena Shooter players use to say about non-arena-players) go and play other games Smile
Reply

#23
(03-05-2013, 04:45 PM)Evropi Wrote: This thread is bullshit. It's all about money. Quake 4 was a huge success for instance, and I know for a fact that UT3, despite being a lousy game, sold to many people traditionally beyond its niche.

What really died are Quake-like arena shooters like Xonotic, which are really outmoded now. Sorry, the reason I play Red Eclipse more than Xonotic is because it reimagines the genre really well and Xonotic is just same old same old, with Quake idiosyncracies like bunnyhopping and strafejumping which were originally exploits in Quake but were kept in because everyone used this. As the game departed from its original vision, the gameplay was quickly found not to be that great. Of course, games like Operation Flashpoint and Counter-Strike would come about later so Quake was the dominant multiplater shooter of the 90s.

I consider arena shooters to have three subgenres:
  • Quake-likes (at the risk of being controversial this includes UT)
  • Tribes-likes (includes Legions: Overdrive)
  • Red Eclipse. Yep, it play like no other arena shooter.

In my opinion, the AAA game that comes closest to arena shooter gameplay is the Halo series. TF2 is just too slow and allows little freedom of movement. It also values working as a team a lot, whereas most arena shooters, even for team games, are played around individual players.

Arena shooters just need innovation. They need to be rethought from the ground up. One first step we could take is accomodate people who prefer to play with gamepads. Until then, arena shooters are doomed to obscurity (though I personally thing they will not die).

Is Red Eclipse even an arena game? Wink
Reply

#24
@machine

You had to copy-paste-quote 100000 lines of text just to ask one simple question? Big Grin
Reply

#25
I do NOT what the fuck I want.
Reply



Possibly Related Threads...
Thread Author Replies Views Last Post
  5V5 clan arena co-op zwz 2 2,666 07-09-2014, 03:48 PM
Last Post: Halogene
  So...How dead is this game? Chomps123 63 40,773 01-02-2014, 11:17 AM
Last Post: Halogene
Sad Why is the forum dead? Leroy 10 8,951 10-07-2013, 09:05 AM
Last Post: Finko
  Clan Arena Majki 10 6,031 08-13-2013, 10:53 AM
Last Post: aa
  And this is why Xonotic is the best arena shooter ever Margret Thatcher 19 13,519 11-04-2011, 02:14 PM
Last Post: Samual
  Is XPM dead? liberty 7 5,834 07-05-2011, 09:25 PM
Last Post: liberty
  Clan Arena server? Rage_ATWM 23 16,684 08-31-2010, 05:04 AM
Last Post: naryl

Forum Jump:


Users browsing this thread:
1 Guest(s)

Forum software by © MyBB original theme © iAndrew 2016, remixed by -z-