Arena shooters should evolve already.

[ThePigster]

Games can offer so much more than just dodge-aim-shoot these days. Arena shooters were so much fun back in the day when they were fresh, but shooters should be evolving to offer more options for killing the opponent. UT set the bar a little higher back in the day with alternate fire, deeper weapon functionality, and the ability to dodge, not to mention user friendly, organized mods. But that was nearly a decade ago. We were playing NES 10 years before that, so the 10 year leap from that to UT99 was a big one. But look at the 10 year leap from UT99 to UT3(ok, not 10 yet, but almost). We have better graphics, vehicles, and more players online. I realize that more content is always good, but the gameplay is still the simple dodge-aim-shoot it was 10 years ago.

Atleast with UC2, they tried to make something better offering a variety of play styles with adrenaline, better agility, and deeper melee(almost successfully combining 2 genres, though UC2 game is still a shooter at heart).
The game may have it's flaws, but I thought it was a step in a new, exciting direction, and a much needed advancement for arena shooter.

The more realistic shooters are atleast trying to evolve with the addition of the cover system, and obviously, the realism, though it's easier to improve upon a more realistic shooter(theoretically) because it just has to imitate real life more than the last installment. So where do arena shooters have to go to be more than just shinier graphics and more vehicles than the last installment?

It almost seems to me like Epic is getting sick of making the same, rehashed arena shooter over and over. They take on new and innovative projects more than they worry about the next UT title. Who can blame them? It's time for UT to evolve into something better. Though I can't say Gears of War is the next big thing for arena shooters(it's more like a hybrid of arena and realism, which should be it's own category of shooter), it's nice to see Epic still trying something new. In fact, I have to wonder if the success of Gears will be the first nail in Unreal's coffin? I hope not, but I definately don't wanna see another UT game that's just more of the same. It's time to move on. If Gears 2 offers a richer online experience, I'm gonna be all over it, though i'd drop it in a second for UC3.

Hey everyone, I'm just bored and I figured I'd try to liven up the place a bit

[Murphy]

This is a great idea for a thread!

Probably too long and uninteresing a read, but here is my opinion on the future of arena shooters.

Gameplay 1: Movement:
I think the way to go is to offer more and more intuitive movement options since this is where the skill is in most arena shooters..
You can only do so much with gunplay alone. Weapons can't be endlessly complex for an arena shooter (the UT2004 spider mines were borderline imo) so the difference between a skilled and an unskilled player is in the understanding of the movement. Both in getting to where you want to be as fast as possible and dodging incoming attacks as well as in predicting the opponents movement to line up your shots.
Increasing the possibilities for movement is increasing the complexity of the game and creates a bigger cleavage between unskilled players and skilled players - which is what I think every arena shooter should strive for.


Gameplay 2: Gunplay:
Arena shooters need an arsenal of very distinctive weapons that serve a very specific purpose. The more specific they are the closer their interaction via opposing players comes to a rock-paper-scissors system. And that's what should be the goal in an arena shooter to a certain degree but not beyond it, in my opinion.
Of course there are the classics as seen in Quake 3 or the UT/UC series and they work well enough to make great new inventions a bit superflous (not so tweaks and re-interpretations mind you), but I would also like to see some weapons that have always been around in gameing, kind of ominously, popping up here and there but were never put to good enough use:

Mines! I want mines that stay forever once they are placed. They should not dissapear over time but only when a set number of them is placed, so the oldest one dissapears when a new one is set up. Half-Life 1 had very good mines. They stayed for a very long time, did a lot of damage but were easy to spot and to evade. I would like mines to do a little less damage but to be a little less easy to spot. In terms of "spotability" I think the very similar ones in "Jedi Knight 2" were just about perfect. Instead of the blue laser stream there could also be the familiar red blinking if they are covering an area instead of a stream. Kind of like the ones usually found in strategy games.


Melee! UC2 did a very good job at this but I have to admit I think the melee vs ranged weapon interaction is much better than the melee vs melee interaction because I think the latter is a tad too stiff and simplistic. A little more complexity would have been good but it's definately a great step in the right direction and for being basically the first game to do this relatively well it earns extra credit. This beats "Jedi Knight 2"'s spammy nonsense any day - no offense.

Character-specific stuff:
UC2's adrenalin system was great and worked really, really well. As long as it is well balanced and complements the original gameplay instead of replacing it this is something that can definately see more use in games, in my opinion.



Gameplay 3: Vehicles:
Vehicles have no place in an arena shooter!
Compare the gameplay of a UT2004 DM map with an UT2004 ONS map! In the ONS map the original gameplay takes a clear backseat. Since this original gameplay (=arena shooter gameplay) is what it's all about in an arena shooter, I think vehicles are best left out entirely.
I agree that some VCTF maps in UT3 are a lot of fun and if you are into it Onslaught can be a lot of fun too, but that's not the point: It has deviated too far from arena shooter gameplay.


The only thing that comes remotely close to vehicles that I would tolerate or even appreciate in an arena shooter are things like a Jet-Pack super-pickup (kind of like the jump boots in UT99 and UT3) or a pilotable Mech that is treated like a super-pickup. Stuff like that.


Gameplay 4: Gamemodes:
DM / TDM are the heart of an arena shooter. I am certain of that. However I have played quite a few gamemodes both in various games as well as in some mods that despite being a refreshingly different alternative still felt like the core game (e.g. Domination in UT99; Mutant in UT2004) while I have played others that stripped away the arena shooter gameplay and replaced it with something new (e.g. Onslaught in UT2004).
So I am still unsure as to what specifications a gamemode has to meet to fit well into an arena shooter.


Graphics (purely based on my opinion and only one possible way):
I'd like to see a graphical style that fits the gameplay somewhat. I mean, a shooter with a gritty gameplay needs gritty graphics alright, but a shooter with a simple arcadey gameplay would do well with clean, slick, yet somewhat colorful graphics instead of delving into the same grit.
No matter what you think about the gameplay of "Warsow" (it's a Quake-3-like game. Try it, if you haven't already! It's free so you have nothing to lose but time), the graphical style though far from perfect (undistinctive character designs, unimaginative weapons and maps that are too dark at times) is a step in the right direction. The gameplay is a highly abstracted "gameyfied" version of combat so the graphics might as well follow suit.
For those who don't know Warsow, here are some other examples:
The VR environments in "Future Perfect" or in "Metal Gear Solid 2: Substance"


This has numerous advantages:
1. Visibility and playability.
2. It's less power-intensive to render a clean, slick look than it is to create a cluttered, gritty look. Ergo, it runs on a wider range of machines, can be enjoyed by more people and has a bigger potantial player-base.
3. Mapdesign becomes a bit easier once again and is speed up in general meaning more maps to play on. Also an automatical focus on gameplay rather than on visuals is encouraged so such games are less bound to summon custom-maps that are all looks. I think mappers would experiment with the gameplay more too then so the available maps won't only be numerous but also more varied in terms of gameplay.

"Metagame" features:
Fully fledged voice chat support.
Chatting while the map still loads.

Maybe I'm oldfashioned but when I play I don't want to fight someone with the sole intention of battering him to the ground without ever exchanging a word with him but I want my game to be kind of like a "real game", for the lack of a better word. One you play with people in the same room. Like Monopoly or something.
A bit of socializing, joking around, discussion aspects of the game and completely unrelated stuff.
I know there are a lot of folks who don't think like I do and they want the chat to be used for game-related stuff only (e.g. "I got the flag") but in my opinion a multiplayer game can only be as cool as the people you are playing it with and if you have no way of socializing with them you might as well fight some bots.
I actually prefer Lan or split-screen games to online games most of the time because it's just a much better atmosphere if you are sitting in the same room as your fellow players.

[ThePigster]

Hmmmmm.....Good post, man. You make alot of good points, and it sounds like you play alot of different arena shooters. It also sounds like you also thought UC2 was a good step forward(am I right?).

UC2 definately embodies the Arena shooter spirit in every way and does the style justice, but it failed, maybe due to poor online(lag and no matchmaking for newbies) but also it requires much more thinking than arena shooters usually require. So it's hard for me to argue that it was the way for arena shooters to go when I consider that. It's just another niche game and I am beginning to have doubts that we'll see another game of that caliber from any developer at this point based on the public's response to it, and the insane cost of making games these days.

I have to agree about the vehicles and onslaught mode too. I like options though in an online game, and some game modes like CTF, assaullt, and even bombing run(somewhat) still do well to keep the arena feel while not complicating things too much.

But, as you said, the meat and potatoes of the Arena shooter is DM and TDM. If the game is meant to focus on any other game mode more than DM/TDM, it's not doing the arena fans justice. UT3 focuses on vehicles and Warfare mode, but I also have to consider that you can't do too much more with the basic gameplay of UT without changing the game too much. UC2 brought more to DM/TDM and people hated it.

I played WARSOW, and I know what you mean. That style of graphics is meant to run smooth, and it does well to not distract you from the main frag-fest with alot of bells and whistles. UT3 certainly did not need to be so pretty, but you gotta figure that Epic makes alot of money selling the UE3 and they use their games to showcase it. And it's kind of obvious that Epic wanted to make UT more mainstream than the previous installments.

Back to the original topic though. When I sit back and think about this, I can't actually see a real solution to evolve arena shooters. If you add depth to the game(UC2), the people won't play it because it's too hard. So all you really can do is keep making the same thing over and over again. Developers certainly know at this point what an arena shooter needs to be perfect. But they can't just keep making the same game every few years with updated graphics and a few new weapons, can they?

You said increased mobility is an important factor, and I agree. I like the dodging UC2 brought, but i'd also like to see some kind of wall run that isn't awkward and cumbersome, but adds dimension to the maps and movement strategies.

Having melee like UC2 has in a shooter is a good feeling, despite it's short comings. It doesn't feel right using the mediocre, limited melee weapons other games offer after UC2.

The option to play in 1st or 3rd person is a good one. Most devs screw up the camera in 3rd person games, but they have the 1st person camera down. I don't see any reason to not include 3rd to be honest.

I like guns with a little more functionality, but not too much as to stutter the fast paced combat. UC2 did the weapons well. Not too complex, but enough options to enjoy and take pride in using each weapon. And the weapons offered some pretty good balance, in the right hands.

I could go on, but I think I'll sit on this for a while. But I do have to wonder: would UC2 do well on the PC? I realize the game was designed for the Xbox controller, but PC gamers have always been more into arena shooters in the first place, so maybe they just didn't get the option they deserved. Why cater to a market that just wants another Halo or Call of Duty/Ghost Recon? If they released UC2 for PC, I'd buy a new computer to play it tommorrow. So maybe Arena shooters are ready to evolve on PC, but they just haven't been given the option?

[Murphy]

I'll just pick out a few points of yours and respond to them. It might look like a quote massacre but it's just easier to comment on individual points that way.

It also sounds like you also thought UC2 was a good step forward(am I right?).

It definately was.

UC2 definately embodies the Arena shooter spirit in every way and does the style justice, but it failed, maybe due to poor online(lag and no matchmaking for newbies)

It failed because the fans of the unreal series were mainly PC jockeys so the game kind of had to either convince unreal fans to buy a console (and with the console hatred many PC gamers seem to show these days that's not an easy task) or to just appeal to a new crowd, which is of course difficult too - especially with a sequel to a port as bad as UC1.
Players new to the unreal series and players new to playing on a console had immense difficulties to over-come due to the gaping difference between skilled and unskilled players. Which is of course awesome for veterans seeking a purely skill-based game to lock antlers in, but for newcomers it can be pretty frustrating.
So much for the content. As you said the technical execution seemed to be lacking too. I don't have xbox live so I can't comment on that personally but judging by the number of threads we used to have in here where people complained about host-snipers, lag and disconnect it must have been pretty laggy. For a multiplayer game in general this is poison. For a skill-based and fast-paced game doubly so.

Maybe I was lucky I didn't have xbox live or I might have gotten frustrated too. Fortunately I have a brother who loves the game too so we play it rather often in splitscreen with/against bots. I have it since its release in Germany and even bought a new copy when my old one stopped working although it still looks mint-ish and it has de-throned Mario Kart 64 as our favorite game.

The only technical problems I have with the offline portion is the lack of the update (no new characters and maps and Lauren and Devastation are still as slow as a medium character) and some peculiarities of the bots' behavior:
They are too good with the sniper or too bad with the other weapons, whichever way you want to put it.
They dodge the flak primary too well since it seems like their chance to dodge is counted for every flechette.
Also the customization options for bots downright suck! You can't even set up a match with you playing against a majority of bots, let alone things like assigning certain weapons to certain bots and the like.
That's something that should be adressed in newer installments.

It's just another niche game and I am beginning to have doubts that we'll see another game of that caliber from any developer at this point based on the public's response to it, and the insane cost of making games these days.

That's a valid point you are making but there is an alternative point of view too:
UT3 which was basically a back-to-the-roots attempt failed horribly. It didn't do bad in the sense of being a total failure but compared to what it should have achieved, being an Unreal title and all, it failed miserably.
My guess is that this had a great deal to do with technicalities, be it performance problems on older systems or the constant crashes of which I am a victim too, but it also seems to me that people aren't too interested in another pure UT game (like you said. You can't just make the same game over and over again) and most newcomers were there for the graphics or the vehicles.
On the other hand whenever someone mentions UC2 on a forum there is a general consent among those who know it that it was a great game and the reviews agree with that too.
So maybe UT3's failure is seen by devs and publishers that something new is needed and the good reputation of UC2 it gained mostly "post-mortum" (just like Beyond Good and Evil) might convince them to start to work on UC3 sometimes.
As an added spark of hope: Beyond Good and Evil is getting a sequel too now.

[quote=ThePigster;25407846]
I like options though in an online game, and some game modes like CTF, assaullt, and even bombing run(somewhat) still do well to keep the arena feel while not complicating things too much.[quote]
DM/TDM and CTF are the two big archetypes.
BR is kind of a CTF with a twist, which is why it works pretty well.
DOM (from UT99) was kind of a DM with a twist.

UC2's ball-game was a cool idea, combining BR with DM and it would have worked if it weren't for the rather big amount of randomness that plagued it and took away from the "skillyness". If it weren't so random it wouldn't have worked either though because players who didn't have the ball right now could just wait at the re-spawn points and once the goal is scored, pick up the ball and have a go themselves.
The randomness spread out the players over the whole field, which was necessary for the mode to work at all but it was also what made it less attractive for competetive gaming.

UT3 certainly did not need to be so pretty, but you gotta figure that Epic makes alot of money selling the UE3 and they use their games to showcase it.

That's true of course. That's a bit of a problem on the mainstream market. You can't really market a game for its gameplay. Screenshots sell games nowadays and if you can't deliver on that front you won't see money.

Valve once again lead the way though. This time with their new Team Fortress. I'm not saying it doesn't look great and fancy, but it increased the acceptance for cleaner, less cluttered, more comical looking shooters greatly! XIII failed back in the days because the gameplay was too generic, it didn't have a familiar name to go with it and the marketing was lacking. Team Fortress revived the old game, which is so old you might as well consider the new one's gameplay "new and innovative" simply for the fact that younger gamers simply don't know the older Team Fortress games so it delivered in terms of gameplay. It had the name of a known cult-classic everyone knew even those who didn't play the old one. And it came in the Orange Box.
The path is paved, I'd say.

I like the dodging UC2 brought, but i'd also like to see some kind of wall run that isn't awkward and cumbersome, but adds dimension to the maps and movement strategies.

That's a great idea! Vertical and horizontal, depending on how you jump at the wall. Kind of like in Ninja Gaiden (close to perfect) or Prince of Persia (but less spongy for the lack of a better word).

[quote=ThePigster;25407846]
Having melee like UC2 has in a shooter is a good feeling, despite it's short comings. It doesn't feel right using the mediocre, limited melee weapons other games offer after UC2. [quote]
Melee might seem like too radical change to the formula at first and in the process of getting used to the weapons and the controls on a console (if you are new to that) it might seem like melee was much more powerful than weapons and that it would overshadow the original gameplay.
Also the bots were terrible fighters against melee weilders so that might have contributed to that image too. I often read that melee was too strong and there was no point in using the weapons.

Once you get into the game more and once you get as proficient with the weapons as you ought to be this feeling dissapears completely and melee becomes but a viable forth choice in your arsenal of weaponry.

The option to play in 1st or 3rd person is a good one. Most devs screw up the camera in 3rd person games, but they have the 1st person camera down. I don't see any reason to not include 3rd to be honest.

Agreed. In a tactical shooter you could cheat by looking around edges and that's kind of the only valid point speaking against it, but in a game as fast as an arena shooter this is hardly a problem. The increased peripheral awareness does wonders though. Especially but not only on a console where you can't look around quite as fast and comfortably as on a pc if you still want to maintain your ability for finer aiming.

would UC2 do well on the PC? I realize the game was designed for the Xbox controller, but PC gamers have always been more into arena shooters in the first place, so maybe they just didn't get the option they deserved.

That's an interesting question and honestly I have no idea. Given the childish console hatred that is oh so common nowadays and the tendency to dismiss anything that looks remotely consolish as crappy I'd say it isn't likely the game would do well on the PC to be honest...

Wohoo, quite a wall of text. I'm not usually one to write that much but it's such an interesting yet somehow seldomly discussed topic.

[ThePigster]

Good points. And, as you said, we may very well see a UC3 later on because people realized too late that the game offered some much needed advancements for arena shooters.

I don't really have many insights today since I've been too busy to think about this. I kind of wish I'd posted this in a higher trafficked forum though, since I'd like to hear more opinions on the matter.

UT3 was kind of a UT failure, but how could they have made it a success? Take UT99 or UT2k4, two very successful UT games, and just upgrade the graphics? People obviously didn't like the changes UT3 brought, but if it was nearly the same, why would people upgrade their PCs and pay for the game if it's just the same thing they have grown tired of?

I personally think epic should dump UT and introduce something new so people will come into it with no expectations. Gears did that well, and it sold well because of it. UC2 kept the Unreal name and failed. Two innovative games, both with smooth, superior console gaming as the main focus, yet one failed miserably and the other was a great success. Obviously, the hype helped Gears alot, but UC2 also was too different from other installments of the series to carry the fan burden. Or maybe I'm way off.

I wonder though, would UC2 have sold better if it was the same game with no innovative melee, no 3rd person, and the usual full-arsenal weapon pickups? I wanna say yes, but I don't think it would have been as good of a game. It would lack depth, but maybe it would have paved the way for the UC title to advance little by little until the game we saw could surface and the fans would be ready for it. But there is still the fact that console gamers don't want Unrea. They want Halo, Tom Clancy, CoD, and Gears. They want a slower paced shooter.

I'm not trying to change the thread to console vs PC or anything, I just get carried away sometimes.

Well, I still think UC2 is a niche market, but who knows, maybe the masses will get as sick of the same arena experience over and over and the arena shooter will evolve. Or it will die out and become a niche market.

I do see alot of potential in the Metroid Prime series though. The DS version offered a great experience with the touch pad. The Wii version had great potential for online FPS superiorty, but they decided not to make a great online experience for some reason. Maybe that's just the drawback of having a console geared for Mario titles and easy access to children.

Ok, now I'm just rambling.

It pains me to say Epic should dump UT as I'm quite fond of the weapons, characters, and the whole back story. But Epic are some of the best devs out there, so I would look forward to whatever they could come up with.

I'd actually like to see another mix of melee and shooting, but maybe something a little more up close and personal, like a fighter. But I guess that's a topic for another forum somewhere else.

[Jade-Phoenix]

I'm waiting for UC2004 as an alternative resource.......

[Shadow Dancer]

People should keep in mind that there are people who still enjoy the classic style, too. Just because it doesn't have a bunch of new gimmicks doesn't mean it's a f***ing failure.

[Super Dante]

Well the UT3 "pretend to be a stoneage FPS" thing does'nt work.

[SythVenom]

Some of the things mention here....sorry most of the stuff mentioned here are good ideas. Some were not so hot. Here is my two cents.

JoeGraf (admin on these boards) already told some of the vets that there was big plans to make uc2 a fighting/arena hybrid. The way he said this made me feel like this is the reason they were working with midway, was to provide a very complex melee system, but live just couldn't handle it. My statement to uc...Please try again....please.

Now about the vehicles in an arena...well it is a fine idea for people that want something different, and a new tier of strategic combat. Now my baseline theory about arena's is shoot or be shot. So I don't mind them putting in vehicles. I do wish they add more weapons that are anti vehicles though, as I don't think any of the vehicle modes are well balanced enough.

Also UC2 failed at the weapon choices, but I don't blame them. It was reported that they could not have all the weapons available to everybody on the xbox. The system couldn't handle it. So this is far, but please make it available for UC3 or UC2.5...lol.

I love all the weapons in the game. And honestly I think it is fair with the weapons given. None seemed too overpowered or flawed. Even the stinger is awesome as long as you are mid to close range. I do not like the reflected damage though.

The adrenaline for UC2 was great. Not too much but enough to turn the tides on this game. Some where very powerful, but only if you spammed it like fighting a robot and spamming emp. A few tweaks would have done the game justice.
I do have other things to say, but I think I would be picky then. So I will leave it at that. But I do believe that UC3 will come out, or somebody will make something very similar. A lot of people are craving for new content with shooters, and it only takes one company to satisfy the customers hunger. I think uc2 was that white castle burger where one won't fill you up. So Epic, bring us the 7 course meal.

[Super Dante]

I have a nutty conspiracy theory about UC3 etc. Okay we'll get UC3 when they go to UE4...

Like UC2 is almost demo-ish of UT3...early build. UC1 was totally UT2k3 early version...

[ThePigster]

yeah, that theory may have some truth to it. But then again, if GoW is still going strong, they may do something with that instead. I honesty believe the UT series is on the way out. But you never know, it may just be about due for UC3 to come in and offer something more than just the same UT gameplay everyone is used to.

[Super Dante]

yeah, that theory may have some truth to it. But then again, if GoW is still going strong, they may do something with that instead. I honesty believe the UT series is on the way out. But you never know, it may just be about due for UC3 to come in and offer something more than just the same UT gameplay everyone is used to.

I'd tend to agree as well. Many of the original creators of UT are not at Epic anymore. I bet it's amajor pain living up to someone else's great work of the past. I too belive they wanna move on, and just focus on GoW. What better way to do that , than to put out less and less solid titles in the series.

[skeps1s]

I think UT3 should be the last UT game, but they should definitely continue on with UC. As others have said UC2 was a step in the right direction. Epic has said that they plan on focusing on Consoles in a little while to so the best plan I can think of is fix UT3 so UT fans have a "current" game that is fun and such and just continue with Gears and UC afterward.

The melee combat mixed in with an optional 3rd person added on to the original UT formula is a great thing. I can't believe UC2 didn't sell well. Almost every review it got was amazing. If I think of anything they should add to UC3 I'll post it and here your opinions.

[Shadow Dancer]

Well the UT3 "pretend to be a stoneage FPS" thing does'nt work.

However, the "Let's finally give our fans what they love again after f***ing them over with unrelated sh**, skeet shooting, and undead clowns for ten years," does...