Features shooters desperately need.

[SajuukKhar]

Personally I think shooters need to change their health system.

I think shooters should have a part regen, part health pack, system where your HP was divided into 4ths, and you could regen in that 4th, but you needed a health pack to get above that 4th.

The problem with a fully health pack based system is that it makes multiplayer something dominated by only those who memorize when, and where, health packs respawn, excluding anyone but the most devoted players from being able to play.

While on the other hand, a fully regen system takes out all risk, and thus strategy, and reward, from combat, making to where ANYONE can play without any real knowledge of the game mechanics.

A combined system lets people make mistakes, thus keeping it open to casual people, while at the same time it rewards players who play well by not getting shot, in that they actually have a significant chunk of HP more then other people who do get shot.

 

[The White Hunter]

Mother-flippin' BOTS.

Every shooter should have bots. Bar none. No excuses. Even if the online multiplayer never takes off, or dies in 6 months... if your game has bots then your multiplayer/instant action/challenge modes will never go to waste, and can live forever.

BOTS and SPLIT-SCREEN! D:<

I hate not being able to play with my buddy and it's even more fun to play with your buddy with bots to frustrate you both!

OT: Be fucking creative for a change? Less modern/post-modern 'murica fuck yeah gun wank?

Yeah. Creativity I'll go with.

 

[The White Hunter]

Personally I think shooters need to change their health system.

I think shooters should have a part regen, part health pack, system where your HP was divided into 4ths, and you could regen in that 4th, but you needed a health pack to get above that 4th..

YOu pretty much want the health system from Resistance: Fall of Man then? Good health system imo, 4 bits of health, you regen up to the nearest quarter but then need a med pack.

More shooters need to be as good as Resistance: Fall of Man...

 

[The White Hunter]

The issue with this is that sniping becomes pointless. If the second you shoot someone they just start dodging around and being unable to get hit, why would you snipe?
What Battlefield needs isn't necessarily a dodge mechanic, but better map layout so that you don't have to dodge. Maps in BF3 come in two categories; A few bases spread out with large, open areas between them, or a few bases clustered together with large open areas from the spawn points to them. If you filled those large open areas with something, you wouldn't be out in the open and easy sniper fodder so much.

I wouldn't necessarily be against getting rid of snipers all together. There are few things more aggravating than continually getting sniped by the same person who is just camping and not being able to do anything about it.
As for your Idea about the bases I agree. They are--while not unbalanced--are not conducive to some of the types of games.

I think BC2 handled snipers well, the maps were the right size that a good player could usually pick them off with an assault rifle, or you could easily get around, flank and stab the prick. Or blow his building up/run him down with a tank/jetski/quadbike/tuk-tuk.

BUt they did have thatf ucking awful automatic-spotter scope which ruins the game all too often.

BF3 is a ***** for being sniper-friendly though, it's too common for whole teams to just snipe.

 

[SajuukKhar]

YOu pretty much want the health system from Resistance: Fall of Man then? Good health system imo, 4 bits of health, you regen up to the nearest quarter but then need a med pack.

More shooters need to be as good as Resistance: Fall of Man...

Never played resistance, but from what you said yeah, like that.

 

[The White Hunter]

YOu pretty much want the health system from Resistance: Fall of Man then? Good health system imo, 4 bits of health, you regen up to the nearest quarter but then need a med pack.

More shooters need to be as good as Resistance: Fall of Man...

Never played resistance, but from what you said yeah, like that.

If you have a PS3 (since it's a platform exclusive) I highly recommend it. Good health system.

Hard as fucking nails too.

 

[TheYellowCellPhone]

I want a shooter game with climbing that isn't limited to jumping and hoping your feet land on a platform two feet off the ground, and momentum plays a role in melee attacks and movement speeds.

Pretty much, Mirror's Edge. Why can't more games move toward Mirror's Edge for realism? The gunplay in Mirror's Edge, I loved it! The guns felt heavy and powerful and accurate, I wish more games had that style of gunplay.

 

[Ashhearth]

Just make more Vanquish.

The world needs more Vanquish.

Or at least something else up the ally of Vanquish. That game was seriously underrated and was a ton of fun.

 

[regalphantom]

For single player, I agree that we need more games without regeneration health. While it works in some games like Halo, it seems to be tacked on in a lot of cases. Even something like Deus Ex: Human Revolutions system, where you can only regenerate health up to 50% without a healthpack, would be an improvement.

For multiplayer, I would like to see more games with the following features:
Bots for non-matchmaking play.
Interactive battlefields (ie, switches you can throw to raise/lower barriers or traps)
Non-Regenerating health in some cases (particularly class based games with some sort of 'medic' option)
Vehicles

 

[NearLifeExperience]

More jetpacks please!

 

[Fractral]

I'd like to see games where you don't die so fast. I liked it in halo reach, where even if the other guy started shooting first you could turn it around with some fancy play, but in Planetside 2 my Light Assault takes like 4 shots from a Heavy and he's dead. More tactical, where its not just who fires first that wins.
If a game is going to be that way, then at least make it faster paced, like Tribes: Ascend. That game was good cause it took some serious skill and luck to get a kill when the other person is running away from you at 150 mph. Even the one hit KO guns, like the spinfusor, take real skill to use because getting a direct hit on a moving, flying target is extremely hard.
Oh, and take out or re-balance snipers. I hate sniper rifles- especially the ones in CoD like the intervention where they're 1HKO anywhere on the body.

 

[Mullac]

I'm not a big fan of realism. For me, gameplay should always come first and when a game tries to be realistic it takes out a load of features that would otherwise be great.

Stuff like COD, I know they aren't massively realistic, which reduce your heatlthbar so you can only take a minuscule amount of hits, are extremely boring for me because it becomes a test of reaction times. That's why I love TF2!

 

[The Sanctifier]

Something That I think would be really cool is a first person shooter which also lets you build your own base of operations.

IT could be a little like Minecraft where you place down blocks and such to make your own fortifications, and while you'd get points for shooting the enemy, you'd get even more for coming up with elaborate traps to kill them.

 

[JagermanXcell]

-Shooters with beautiful and engaging settings/environments... sooooo more Bioshock/ Bioshock Infinite games!
-I wanna hold weapons, not one, especially not 2, I need. more. guns.
-More tactical focused multiplayer that, revolves around clever thinking, teamwork, and reward for using these smarts and whatever you have at your disposal... instead of the multiplayer we actually have...
aaaaaaand-
Jetpacks aka screw realism. Its for the weak.

 

[Professor Lupin Madblood]

Real rewards for objectives. Ghost Recon FS gives the team enemy positions, or EMPs the enemy if you take an objective. They could do with putting something like this in CoD or Battlefield so that players actually have a reason to work together towards objectives.

Black Ops 2 sort of fixed that, actually. They made it so that actually playing the objective is worth far more points than just camping and killing people. You can go 40/0 and be a god with bullets the whole game, but you won't get a fifth the points of someone who was out in the front capping points and doing stuff.

I get what you mean, though: making things less focused on just points as opposed to actual information and bonuses and whatnot. FEAR 1 did that really well - both teams had access to the bullet time powers, but the people in control of the objective and such got way more time dilation and power reserves than the other team.

YOu pretty much want the health system from Resistance: Fall of Man then? Good health system imo, 4 bits of health, you regen up to the nearest quarter but then need a med pack.

The Chronicles of Riddick: Escape from Butcher Bay did that. You got five blocks which regenerated quickly up to the nearest block (getting grazed by one bullet, for instance, would take off half a block, and the same would happen from getting hit with a knife once), and you could refill them at a medical station, which consisted of Riddick getting a needle the size of a baseball bat shoved into his neck. The atmosphere in that game was great.

More shooters need to be as good as Resistance: Fall of Man...

coughcoughResistance3coughcough

Anyway.

Partially regenerating health, no aiming down sights, and bots have all been said, but what I want to see is a complete redesign and rethinking of what guns shooters should have.

Namely, no automatic weapons short of gatling guns and LMGs.

There was a post I saw on the forums a long time ago about how stupid it was to even have assault rifles in a shooter, since they live up too well to their intention of being a middle ground. That is, you can shoot really far with a sniper rifle, but you can do effectively a similar thing with an assault rifle and pump out many more bullets. You can ambush people with shotguns, but you can do the same thing with an assault rifle and not have to worry about rate of fire. Not having assault rifles would also make having submachine guns less pointless, since submachine guns in games like CoD and its ilk are basically assault rifles but less accurate.

TF2 is a great example of this: almost every weapon in the game is a single-shot weapon, whether it's clip-based or not. Guns that are designed to pump out lots of bullets pump out LOTS of bullets, and there is no such thing as a gun that can do it all. Even the most well-rounded weapons have drawbacks like damage falloff, projectile speed, clip size, reload speed, etc.

It would also encourage more creativity in the weapon design. With CoD and Battlefield, the guns all really look the same, and it makes very little difference which one you use. Not to belabour a point, but in TF2, every single gun has a distinctive look and is easily identifiable at a distance. There's actual strategy in the combat: pyros with the default flamethrower and the space-age Phlogistinator, for instance, require massively different approaches.

 

[Fumbles]

I think shooters need to become slower paced. That's why I love Arma so much - it is slow paced and tactical. It isn't linear.

Thank you. We need the tactical shooters back like Raven Shield/Rogue Spear, Ghost Recon 1, SWAT 3/4. It sucks that Bohemia is the only one making anything tactical and semi realistic now. Some of thse other ones gave you good close quarter tactical action too. (which the OFP/Arma games don't)

I guess all the kiddies they market these games to are too impatient for that style of play.

Checkout this http://serellan.com/

 

[Professor Lupin Madblood]

Also, voice menus, especially in console games. It allows you to do a lot with the flavour of the world and/or character models/character classes, and it lets people actually communicate with one another.

Something That I think would be really cool is a first person shooter which also lets you build your own base of operations.

IT could be a little like Minecraft where you place down blocks and such to make your own fortifications, and while you'd get points for shooting the enemy, you'd get even more for coming up with elaborate traps to kill them.

From what I've seen of it, Natural Selection 2 sort of has that. One person acts as commander, playing the game as an RTS-type deal, where the other players on your team are the units. You can set rally points, put down structures which players can help build faster, that sort of thing.

-Shooters with beautiful and engaging settings/environments... sooooo more Bioshock/ Bioshock Infinite games!
-I wanna hold weapons, not one, especially not 2, I need. more. guns.
-More tactical focused multiplayer that, revolves around clever thinking, teamwork, and reward for using these smarts and whatever you have at your disposal... instead of the multiplayer we actually have...
aaaaaaand-
Jetpacks aka screw realism. Its for the weak.

Resistance 3 actually had some starkly beautiful locations (New York with snow drifts ten metres tall, or a quaint little village in the Scottish highlands) for its multiplayer, and it encouraged people to think more the better they did. You'd start out with one or two weapons, for instance, and whenever you killed somebody, you'd be able to pick up what they were holding. You could begin life as a run-and-gun shotgunner and end up with an electric flamethrower, an ice flamethrower, a gun that shot disease and a machine gun capable of shooting around corners.

The Uncharted games, though curtailing the number of guns you could carry, also encouraged this arcade-y style of play since pretty much every gun in the game would spawn on a map at one point or another, and players could climb all over buildings and whatnot. The maps were beautiful and well-designed, too, and not many shooters let you play in frickin' Shangri-La.

 

[Jolly Co-operator]

Not really a specific feature, but weapon variety would be nice. That's one of the big things that turns me off from most military shooters. I can stand regenrating health, iron sight aiming, and slow movement speed, but boring weapons is where I draw the line. The interesting weapons are the main reason I love the Resistance franchise so much. I get that a modern military setting doesn't really comfortably accomodate unique and imaginative weaponry, but I take that as a good sign that shooters need to start varying up their settings a bit. Set a few shooters in a place like outer space . . . with dragons . . . and radioactive bee people . . . and maybe some telekinetic frog demons. Okay, I should probably get some sleep, but damn it, my point still stands!

 

[KRbertsproduck5]

I was just playing Battlefield and I kept getting sniped by some douche as I was trying to cover hop so I decided that games like Battlefield and Halo and whatever else need a dedicated dodge button. If somebody gets the jump on you in any way, you're screwed and I think that takes some of the fun out of it and makes it frustrating.
I also decided there needs to be an about-face button. If someone is shooting at you from behind, you should be able to flip around and shoot back instead of taking the time to turn.

Anyway, what kinds of features would you like to see in shooters? Or just games in general?

It sounds like you are just mad people are better then you.

 

[Sack of Cheese]

Dragons!! I want a shooter where we hunt down mythical creatures like Chimera, drakes, dragons, blah blah...

You know, I could probably get working on a mod like that with help, I already came up a basic idea for a sandbox (I figure fights with larger enemies, hell, human enemies even are suited to larger levels) FPS set in fantasy universe, I could show you what I've got if you want (it's not much, just human enemy types and spells).

It'd be brilliant. Is there screen shots or videos or the likes?