F said:
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.
SkarKrow said:
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.
