Shooting Stuff

[Caenis]

I'm new to FPS games. Borderlands sucked me in, because it's a vaguely post-apoc theme, it's also RPG, and it has loot. But, though I'm not a huge fan of war themes, I've also been playing MW2 and BC2. I like them, sorta, but I feel like there's a whole lot of room to improve upon the genre.

MW2: You have these maps that aren't particularly big. After a dozen games on each map, you start to learn where all the camping spots are (rest assured someone has figured it out before you and is sitting there waiting to blow your head off), and you try them out, or don't depending on your feelings about camping (because I can't call it sniping, because it really isn't). So you spend a while hiding and killing or running and dying, because the game is heavily weighted towards the higher level players being almost invincible against lower level players. You fight, you level, and you start getting some good kills in. Legitimate ones too, because you're learning some strategy to combat the fact that people have memorized the maps. And then it just starts getting old. You might be making a lot of kills, or maybe not, but either way the maps have no real depth, and all strategy goes out the window when people start using texture glitches to kill newbies.

I do like that there's a variety of style of maps in MW2, where one clearly favors run and gun, and another clearly favors sniping. But manipulating the glitches has ruined the game for me. I don't want to have to look around to see if someone is doing the elevator glitch. I just want to play the game.

BC2: The maps are bigger and richer, and there actually are place where you can park yourself and have no vulnerability at your back, which is nice when maybe you need a break for a moment, since these games tend to run longer. Of course, the wall at your back can be blown away, but that's cool too, because it's more realistic. Ultimately, though, the maps suffer the same fate as MW2. They're static. Which means someone has memorized all the good hiding spots, and unless you memorize them too and plan for them you're probably going to die. So strategy isn't about using stealth and checking your corners and keeping a tight front line. Strategy is about making sure you lob a grenade up on that cliff before you go around the next corner, because there's probably a sniper up there.

I love the class diversity in BC2, but I think the medic and engineer classes could be stronger, and being a sniper sucks in terms of ammo capacity, because if you're ACTUALLY sniping, chances are there's not an assault person anywhere near you to supply you with ammo. I also miss the 'enemy over there' sense on your radar that you get after someone has taken a shot. In real combat, you'd have a sense of where the shot was coming from based on the sound. If you have a really good surround sound system, you might also have that advantage. If you have a TV and the speakers attached to that TV....well, better hope you have some motion mines.

What I'd like to see: An FPS game of the graphic quality of MW2 and BC2 with randomized maps. Have a map with the look and feel of Isla Inocentes, but randomly populate the terrain features, the buildings, the objectives. Make it a real exercise in strategy.

What do you think?

 

[Caenis]

That's actually a pretty good idea. But it wouldn't work for a full idea. If there was like a randomised playlist it would work. But learning the maps is half the art of a good game. Well designed maps make a good online shooter.

MGS PO+ Had some of the best designed multiplayer maps I have ever seen.

Well, I guess that depends on what you're looking for in an FPS then. I would like to be able to demonstrate skill based on an unknown, unfamiliar situation. But that requires equal footing. Equal footing means either I and my opponent have memorized the maps to the point that we dance around each other the whole game (I've definitely done that), or we're both figuring it out as we go along, and we're using a strategy skill set to keep from getting killed while we find our way. I would much prefer the latter. It would certainly feel more realistic. And in my escapism I want to feel kick ***.

 

[Caenis]

I think that randomized maps would actually reduce the sense of strategy, and would have you bumbling around, getting kills completely by dumb luck.

Oh, and forget about any sort of team communication:

"There's a guy at the propane tank, he just shot me in the head."

"What propane tank? There's a propane tank on this map?"

Calling out enemy positions will no longer work, since the maps change every game. Strategy gone. This isn't even to mention objective games. You'll never know what path actually leads to the objective, and what path dead ends somewhere far away from it. You think you're going to go defend the objective, when there's a random wall in your way. How the hell do you strategize with your team when none of you know where the hell you're going?

I mean, the idea sounds good, but I think you're mistaking strategy for something else, because bumbling around a map you don't know, accidentally bumping into enemies doesn't have an hint of strategy.

You can also forget about map balance with randomized structures. Game developers spend months getting multiplayer maps as deep, yet balanced as possible. If everything on a map is suddenly randomize, then the carefully crafted balance goes out with it.

And so I have to ask...if you think you'd be bumbling around, are you sure your strategy is actually sound? Do you think people in real tactical situations bumble around? No, it brings a higher level of care to their strategy, because they don't know what they're getting into.

 

[TheDuckbunny]

I think randomised maps could defenitely work. Perhaps to improve on the strategy aspect of it they could include the option to have you observe the map for a short time period at the beginning of a match and quickly pinpointing certain locations before being dropped into the unknown.

 

[Radeonx]

I think that randomized maps would actually reduce the sense of strategy, and would have you bumbling around, getting kills completely by dumb luck.

Oh, and forget about any sort of team communication:

"There's a guy at the propane tank, he just shot me in the head."

"What propane tank? There's a propane tank on this map?"

Calling out enemy positions will no longer work, since the maps change every game. Strategy gone. This isn't even to mention objective games. You'll never know what path actually leads to the objective, and what path dead ends somewhere far away from it. You think you're going to go defend the objective, when there's a random wall in your way. How the hell do you strategize with your team when none of you know where the hell you're going?

I mean, the idea sounds good, but I think you're mistaking strategy for something else, because bumbling around a map you don't know, accidentally bumping into enemies doesn't have an hint of strategy.

You can also forget about map balance with randomized structures. Game developers spend months getting multiplayer maps as deep, yet balanced as possible. If everything on a map is suddenly randomize, then the carefully crafted balance goes out with it.

And so I have to ask...if you think you'd be bumbling around, are you sure your strategy is actually sound? Do you think people in real tactical situations bumble around? No, it brings a higher level of care to their strategy, because they don't know what they're getting into.

That's not strategy, that's guessing and hoping you don't mess up and die.
How are you supposed to strategize against a bunch of people you've never played against (or with maybe) in an area that you've never played in?
It sounds good on paper, but personalities and intelligence could take away a lot from the experience.

 

[Caenis]

I think that randomized maps would actually reduce the sense of strategy, and would have you bumbling around, getting kills completely by dumb luck.

Oh, and forget about any sort of team communication:

"There's a guy at the propane tank, he just shot me in the head."

"What propane tank? There's a propane tank on this map?"

Calling out enemy positions will no longer work, since the maps change every game. Strategy gone. This isn't even to mention objective games. You'll never know what path actually leads to the objective, and what path dead ends somewhere far away from it. You think you're going to go defend the objective, when there's a random wall in your way. How the hell do you strategize with your team when none of you know where the hell you're going?

I mean, the idea sounds good, but I think you're mistaking strategy for something else, because bumbling around a map you don't know, accidentally bumping into enemies doesn't have an hint of strategy.

You can also forget about map balance with randomized structures. Game developers spend months getting multiplayer maps as deep, yet balanced as possible. If everything on a map is suddenly randomize, then the carefully crafted balance goes out with it.

And so I have to ask...if you think you'd be bumbling around, are you sure your strategy is actually sound? Do you think people in real tactical situations bumble around? No, it brings a higher level of care to their strategy, because they don't know what they're getting into.

That's not strategy, that's guessing and hoping you don't mess up and die.
How are you supposed to strategize against a bunch of people you've never played against (or with maybe) in an area that you've never played in?
It sounds good on paper, but personalities and intelligence could take away a lot from the experience.

Which goes back to real tactical scenarios....people you've never fought against, in an area you've never fought in. Things like UAVs become A LOT more useful. It becomes more important to have communication. Recon is actually recon and not just shooting people with a really long scope and a high powered bullet. Running and gunning has consequences, because you could be running into a nest of terrorists or a landmine.

I would require a different type of thought to play a random map. But I don't know that that's a bad thing.

 

[gigastrike]

I think the idea is worth a try. I'd imagine, though, that developing a program that could make decent randomly generated maps would be extremely difficult.

 

[Caenis]

I think the idea is worth a try. I'd imagine, though, that developing a program that could make decent randomly generated maps would be extremely difficult.

Oh, no doubt about that. I'm sure they'd have to entirely rewrite the engine. It would require a WHOLE LOT more 1s and 0s.

 

[Caenis]

If you're playing in an area you don't know, with people you've never met before, you're bumbling around.

See, the difference between this game and real life, is that in real life, soldiers actually know each and work together, not to mention that most of the time they actually have intel about the area they're going into, as well as maps and planed routes of attack. If you think that military personnel go into a hot-zone completely blind, with no knowledge of the surrounding area, then you're delusional.

This however is not the case in a videogame unless you're playing with a clan. This means that there are no "on the fly" tactics, and ends up as just bumbling around, hoping you surprise your enemy before they surprise you.

I agree with you partially. In MW2 multiplayer, there's a whole lot of room for lone wolf behavior. But in BC2 you've got stuff like the UAVs and the motion mines that enable a cooperative effort even between strangers. Is it smooth as silk? No. People definitely still sometimes ignore the little red triangles that my motion mine has pointed out for them. But not always. And I've had teams of strangers that have felt like teams of non-strangers after just a couple rounds. Mic or no mic, you get a sense of people pretty quick when you need them to help you keep from dying. So take a random map, make the remote location stuff stronger, and people will figure it out. People like playing as teams, even if it's just as a team for the moment.

And not having a set map isn't the same as not having intel. Having a static map means memorizing every corner and every bush. Having an intel map means knowing SOME things, but not all things.

 

[CloggedDonkey]

I think that would be good to some degree. I would understand things like "move these tires here" or "have this building have a destroyed wall", but not "make this cliff a valley" or "change the course of this river", which would make it hard to traverse. moving around natural features, like a hill or clump of trees, would just lead to confusion, but moving man made structures, like a house or a half finished wall, would change it up and lead to less camping.

 

[manaman]

And so I have to ask...if you think you'd be bumbling around, are you sure your strategy is actually sound? Do you think people in real tactical situations bumble around? No, it brings a higher level of care to their strategy, because they don't know what they're getting into.

There is a huge difference between navigating in real life, and navigating in a simulated 3d world using a mouse and keyboard.

Know you need to get to the other side of that rubble pile that used to be a building. Well in real life you can climb over it if you need to. In a video game what might look like a path might actually be an inviable wall. Knowing that is important.

That's not even scratching the surface on how disorienting it is to try to navigate by landmarks when all terrain, and objects are so similar to each other. When one building really does look like another building. One of the main reasons to have minimaps in games.

Finally, do you really think people go into situations where they don't have some inkling of the terrain, directions on where to go, and how to get there?

I don't think games should be realistic. Think about it you are supposed to embody this tactical genius super soldier in most games. How great would it be if you had to play tied down to your reflexes only, the mere mortal that you are?

 

[Caenis]

And so I have to ask...if you think you'd be bumbling around, are you sure your strategy is actually sound? Do you think people in real tactical situations bumble around? No, it brings a higher level of care to their strategy, because they don't know what they're getting into.

There is a huge difference between navigating in real life, and navigating in a simulated 3d world using a mouse and keyboard.

Know you need to get to the other side of that rubble pile that used to be a building. Well in real life you can climb over it if you need to. In a video game what might look like a path might actually be an inviable wall. Knowing that is important.

That's not even scratching the surface on how disorienting it is to try to navigate by landmarks when all terrain, and objects are so similar to each other. When one building really does look like another building. One of the main reasons to have minimaps in games.

Finally, do you really think people go into situations where they don't have some inkling of the terrain, directions on where to go, and how to get there?

I don't think games should be realistic. Think about it you are supposed to embody this tactical genius super soldier in most games. How great would it be if you had to play tied down to your reflexes only, the mere mortal that you are?

I'm not suggesting STRICTLY realistic. And I'm not suggesting no mini-map. A tactical, intel mini-map would be fine, and would certainly add to the team play experience. As it stands, though, at the opening of a round in MW2 or BC2 you can expect nearly everyone to sprint to their favorite spot to engage the enemy. There's no real recon, no one waits for the tanks, if you see a helicopter fly over, you know there's a 90% chance that it dropped someone off to creep in behind you, so you expect it.

A more strategic, tactical FPS could look like this:
-Have a tactical mini-map. You know the general layout of the area, generally where the buildings are, and the high and low terrain points. Maybe there's a hot zone indicator, where the general area of the spawn point for the other team glows red.
-Recon does more recon than shooting, and is awarded appropriately. You don't have to kill someone to be on the leaderboard. If you use your recon info to enable your front lines to kill the enemy, you get more than just a piddling amount of points.
-Dancing around like a bunch of bunnies (Assault class, I'm looking at you) will get you killed FAST. A solid front delivers swift death to the opposing team.
-You aren't stuck with certain weapons based on your class (BC2). Or your class isn't determined by the weapons you choose(MW2). You have limited carrying capacity, but if you want a SPAS-12 and a medkit, then you can have them.
-EVERYONE has limited ammo on their person. But everyone has an opportunity to get more ammo from whatever makes sense in the scenario (a crate, a depot, the back of a truck, whatever)
-Add some specializations, and enhance some other specializations: explosives, communications (radio), scuba, etc.
-People respawn (except in hardcore) but vehicles don't - use it wisely

Granted, I'm not miltary. I'm not claiming to be. But think about the story modes in these games vs. the multiplayer modes. Story modes have strategy, though granted it's plotted for you. Multiplayer is a bunch of people hopping about. (Go hide in the hills sometime and just watch (don't shoot or you won't be in the hills very long) and you'll see what I mean.)

 

[manaman]

And so I have to ask...if you think you'd be bumbling around, are you sure your strategy is actually sound? Do you think people in real tactical situations bumble around? No, it brings a higher level of care to their strategy, because they don't know what they're getting into.

There is a huge difference between navigating in real life, and navigating in a simulated 3d world using a mouse and keyboard.

Know you need to get to the other side of that rubble pile that used to be a building. Well in real life you can climb over it if you need to. In a video game what might look like a path might actually be an inviable wall. Knowing that is important.

That's not even scratching the surface on how disorienting it is to try to navigate by landmarks when all terrain, and objects are so similar to each other. When one building really does look like another building. One of the main reasons to have minimaps in games.

Finally, do you really think people go into situations where they don't have some inkling of the terrain, directions on where to go, and how to get there?

I don't think games should be realistic. Think about it you are supposed to embody this tactical genius super soldier in most games. How great would it be if you had to play tied down to your reflexes only, the mere mortal that you are?

I'm not suggesting STRICTLY realistic. And I'm not suggesting no mini-map. A tactical, intel mini-map would be fine, and would certainly add to the team play experience. As it stands, though, at the opening of a round in MW2 or BC2 you can expect nearly everyone to sprint to their favorite spot to engage the enemy. There's no real recon, no one waits for the tanks, if you see a helicopter fly over, you know there's a 90% chance that it dropped someone off to creep in behind you, so you expect it.

A more strategic, tactical FPS could look like this:
-Have a tactical mini-map. You know the general layout of the area, generally where the buildings are, and the high and low terrain points. Maybe there's a hot zone indicator, where the general area of the spawn point for the other team glows red.
-Recon does more recon than shooting, and is awarded appropriately. You don't have to kill someone to be on the leaderboard. If you use your recon info to enable your front lines to kill the enemy, you get more than just a piddling amount of points.
-Dancing around like a bunch of bunnies (Assault class, I'm looking at you) will get you killed FAST. A solid front delivers swift death to the opposing team.
-You aren't stuck with certain weapons based on your class (BC2). Or your class isn't determined by the weapons you choose(MW2). You have limited carrying capacity, but if you want a SPAS-12 and a medkit, then you can have them.
-EVERYONE has limited ammo on their person. But everyone has an opportunity to get more ammo from whatever makes sense in the scenario (a crate, a depot, the back of a truck, whatever)
-Add some specializations, and enhance some other specializations: explosives, communications (radio), scuba, etc.
-People respawn (except in hardcore) but vehicles don't - use it wisely

Granted, I'm not miltary. I'm not claiming to be. But think about the story modes in these games vs. the multiplayer modes. Story modes have strategy, though granted it's plotted for you. Multiplayer is a bunch of people hopping about. (Go hide in the hills sometime and just watch (don't shoot or you won't be in the hills very long) and you'll see what I mean.)

If a map was big enough random would no longer matter as everything would even out. There would be great snipper positions on each side. There would be dependable spots on each side, and you are getting the drift. On a small map (and really when you think about it even the largest of the multi-player maps are small) it wouldn't matter so much anymore, and with enough non-randomization, like making good sniper spots a little easier to identify (so you are not stuck with the mess of thinking a tower might be a sniper nest, and spending half the game battle trying to find a way up it). Even better would be if the general terrain was not randomized.

Take two towns, give them the same amounts of defensive buildings, sniper nest buildings, streets, alleyways, etc. Then randomized on some scale the positions of each in each of the towns. Add a non random terrain between the two, with randomized fortifications between. Keep upping the scale of the maps and as I said soon it no longer matter how much randomness goes into it the chances of the randomization causing an unfair advantage to either side lessens.

Add better controls into the mix, and more realistic graphics for the backgrounds so that it becomes easier not to be lost in the maze of buildings that look so similar and you might be onto something, but all of that is far off in the future of gaming.

 

[Caenis]

And so I have to ask...if you think you'd be bumbling around, are you sure your strategy is actually sound? Do you think people in real tactical situations bumble around? No, it brings a higher level of care to their strategy, because they don't know what they're getting into.

There is a huge difference between navigating in real life, and navigating in a simulated 3d world using a mouse and keyboard.

Know you need to get to the other side of that rubble pile that used to be a building. Well in real life you can climb over it if you need to. In a video game what might look like a path might actually be an inviable wall. Knowing that is important.

That's not even scratching the surface on how disorienting it is to try to navigate by landmarks when all terrain, and objects are so similar to each other. When one building really does look like another building. One of the main reasons to have minimaps in games.

Finally, do you really think people go into situations where they don't have some inkling of the terrain, directions on where to go, and how to get there?

I don't think games should be realistic. Think about it you are supposed to embody this tactical genius super soldier in most games. How great would it be if you had to play tied down to your reflexes only, the mere mortal that you are?

I'm not suggesting STRICTLY realistic. And I'm not suggesting no mini-map. A tactical, intel mini-map would be fine, and would certainly add to the team play experience. As it stands, though, at the opening of a round in MW2 or BC2 you can expect nearly everyone to sprint to their favorite spot to engage the enemy. There's no real recon, no one waits for the tanks, if you see a helicopter fly over, you know there's a 90% chance that it dropped someone off to creep in behind you, so you expect it.

A more strategic, tactical FPS could look like this:
-Have a tactical mini-map. You know the general layout of the area, generally where the buildings are, and the high and low terrain points. Maybe there's a hot zone indicator, where the general area of the spawn point for the other team glows red.
-Recon does more recon than shooting, and is awarded appropriately. You don't have to kill someone to be on the leaderboard. If you use your recon info to enable your front lines to kill the enemy, you get more than just a piddling amount of points.
-Dancing around like a bunch of bunnies (Assault class, I'm looking at you) will get you killed FAST. A solid front delivers swift death to the opposing team.
-You aren't stuck with certain weapons based on your class (BC2). Or your class isn't determined by the weapons you choose(MW2). You have limited carrying capacity, but if you want a SPAS-12 and a medkit, then you can have them.
-EVERYONE has limited ammo on their person. But everyone has an opportunity to get more ammo from whatever makes sense in the scenario (a crate, a depot, the back of a truck, whatever)
-Add some specializations, and enhance some other specializations: explosives, communications (radio), scuba, etc.
-People respawn (except in hardcore) but vehicles don't - use it wisely

Granted, I'm not miltary. I'm not claiming to be. But think about the story modes in these games vs. the multiplayer modes. Story modes have strategy, though granted it's plotted for you. Multiplayer is a bunch of people hopping about. (Go hide in the hills sometime and just watch (don't shoot or you won't be in the hills very long) and you'll see what I mean.)

If a map was big enough random would no longer matter as everything would even out. There would be great snipper positions on each side. There would be dependable spots on each side, and you are getting the drift. On a small map (and really when you think about it even the largest of the multi-player maps are small) it wouldn't matter so much anymore, and with enough non-randomization, like making good sniper spots a little easier to identify (so you are not stuck with the mess of thinking a tower might be a sniper nest, and spending half the game battle trying to find a way up it). Even better would be if the general terrain was not randomized.

Take two towns, give them the same amounts of defensive buildings, sniper nest buildings, streets, alleyways, etc. Then randomized on some scale the positions of each in each of the towns. Add a non random terrain between the two, with randomized fortifications between. Keep upping the scale of the maps and as I said soon it no longer matter how much randomness goes into it the chances of the randomization causing an unfair advantage to either side lessens.

Add better controls into the mix, and more realistic graphics for the backgrounds so that it becomes easier not to be lost in the maze of buildings that look so similar and you might be onto something, but all of that is far off in the future of gaming.

Now I think we're coming to what I'm trying to convey. And I acknowledge that it's not something that's going to happen tomorrow. It's a wish.