Types of FPS Combat
spellman23
NS1 Theorycraft Expert Join Date: 2007-05-17 Member: 60920Members
NS1 Theorycraft Expert Join Date: 2007-05-17 Member: 60920Members
<div class="IPBDescription">and what we want in NS2</div>I will of course state that I'm in no way an authority on this subject, I just want to discuss a particular topic that seems to underlie most of our arguments.
There appears to be three divergent gameplay styles in our modern FPS landscape. While these are not mutually exclusive, I think it's fair to point them out and realize they don't mix all that well.
The first is the olde Quake gameplay. It's modern day standard bearers include the Unreal series, Quake, TF2, and NS1. Perhaps due to limitations at the time of conception players typically have health meters, damage merely decreases that meter (sometimes accompanied with flashes of red). Motion and position is a huge factor, often including bunny hopping (yes, we know it originally was an engine glitch). It tends to focus on the frags, fast paced gameplay, and often a visceral set of engagements. You don't really plan the battle as much as execute it. Also, you typically don't get insta-killed except with the advent of headshots with certain weapons (or really big nuclear warheads).
The second is the tactical shooter. CoD4 is a shining example of this, and actually I would say CS also falls in this category. This gameplay focuses on cover and placement and less on motion. So, setting up bait and moving from position to position unseen is the critical factor. Aiming skills are also highly polished to snap those headshots downrange and kill your opponent before he can shoot back. Deaths often are permanent for the round, although many games have you respawn after a while in waves (Insurgency). The feel is more about intense setup to the battle and a quick furious conclusion for each engagement. This is perhaps the pinnacle of accurate twitch. Many in this genre also do away with health bars and only kills players when they have taken sustained damage, so ducking into cover to recover is sometimes a beneficial or even encouraged option instead of fighting it out.
The third one is fairly new, but I feel it deserves its own genre. The cinematic game. Hallmark example is Left4Dead. Sure it borrow heavily from the previous two genres, but it incorporates some seriously unique elements. For one, it is inherently unbalanced in a versus setting. Each engagement isn't designed to be winnable, it's about winning over the course of a time period/map. Secondly it includes several cinematic features, such as on-the-fly 1st to 3rd person views when incapacitated. It's about seeing the awesome, not necessarily about having a chance of overcoming it while in the middle of getting destroyed. It also appears to be focusing on the pacing of combat more heavily than the other genres.
The question then becomes what do we want for NS2? The 1st and 2nd obviously cater to a wide audience and are proven fields that sell games. Of course, we've also seen huge skill gaps appear that can make the games less fun for newer and mid-level players. The 3rd is awesome for atmosphere and lower tension situations, but can sometimes limit the competitive field if done improperly. However, the entry point seems to be much lower and easier to get in to.
There appears to be three divergent gameplay styles in our modern FPS landscape. While these are not mutually exclusive, I think it's fair to point them out and realize they don't mix all that well.
The first is the olde Quake gameplay. It's modern day standard bearers include the Unreal series, Quake, TF2, and NS1. Perhaps due to limitations at the time of conception players typically have health meters, damage merely decreases that meter (sometimes accompanied with flashes of red). Motion and position is a huge factor, often including bunny hopping (yes, we know it originally was an engine glitch). It tends to focus on the frags, fast paced gameplay, and often a visceral set of engagements. You don't really plan the battle as much as execute it. Also, you typically don't get insta-killed except with the advent of headshots with certain weapons (or really big nuclear warheads).
The second is the tactical shooter. CoD4 is a shining example of this, and actually I would say CS also falls in this category. This gameplay focuses on cover and placement and less on motion. So, setting up bait and moving from position to position unseen is the critical factor. Aiming skills are also highly polished to snap those headshots downrange and kill your opponent before he can shoot back. Deaths often are permanent for the round, although many games have you respawn after a while in waves (Insurgency). The feel is more about intense setup to the battle and a quick furious conclusion for each engagement. This is perhaps the pinnacle of accurate twitch. Many in this genre also do away with health bars and only kills players when they have taken sustained damage, so ducking into cover to recover is sometimes a beneficial or even encouraged option instead of fighting it out.
The third one is fairly new, but I feel it deserves its own genre. The cinematic game. Hallmark example is Left4Dead. Sure it borrow heavily from the previous two genres, but it incorporates some seriously unique elements. For one, it is inherently unbalanced in a versus setting. Each engagement isn't designed to be winnable, it's about winning over the course of a time period/map. Secondly it includes several cinematic features, such as on-the-fly 1st to 3rd person views when incapacitated. It's about seeing the awesome, not necessarily about having a chance of overcoming it while in the middle of getting destroyed. It also appears to be focusing on the pacing of combat more heavily than the other genres.
The question then becomes what do we want for NS2? The 1st and 2nd obviously cater to a wide audience and are proven fields that sell games. Of course, we've also seen huge skill gaps appear that can make the games less fun for newer and mid-level players. The 3rd is awesome for atmosphere and lower tension situations, but can sometimes limit the competitive field if done improperly. However, the entry point seems to be much lower and easier to get in to.
Comments
I cannot stress this enough. If you want an immersive playing experience, a tactical game is the way to go. It's also pretty fun.
Aliens are #1
Marines are #2
Co-op mode which can be made #3
Marines are in constantly mobile formation that attempts to fend off any kind of ambush or rush incoming. When the fight finally comes, it turns more into a 'oldschool' shooter with dodge moves, blocks and repositionings.
Aliens on the other hand pick their fights and when they finally decide to go for a kill, they switch momentarily to the deathmatch style.
---
Cinematic shooters are nice, but NS hasn't ever been one of them and I don't think it needs to do a total change in genre to succeed.
Marines are in constantly mobile formation that attempts to fend off any kind of ambush or rush incoming. When the fight finally comes, it turns more into a 'oldschool' shooter with dodge moves, blocks and repositionings.
Aliens on the other hand pick their fights and when they finally decide to go for a kill, they switch momentarily to the deathmatch style.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Hm... good point. The RTS factor also is in favor of #2 since you target and plan your routes as where to attack, trying to gain positional superiority in a variety of rooms which may or may not favor your team. For example, forcing the Aliens to fight in big open rooms usually means Marines can come out ahead, but narrow corridors with vents make wonderful ambush points.
I classified NS1 as type 1 since I wanted to focus this on the combat style, which is mainly focused on the quick movements. The planning for the fights are more type 2 though as you navigate. However, I've heard that in high-level Quake 3 map routes are carefully planned out to maximize weapon spawns and positioning for the fights and trying to get the jump on your enemy, which would imply planning for your battles is universal, it's merely the way they are planned that differs.
I've understood that high level Q3 is mostly about map control and timing. Sure the aim & movement decide games too, but most of all a player with better map control wins.
<a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YDcMZ7FAhPQ&feature=PlayList&p=6FAE0849C820897E&playnext=1&playnext_from=PL&index=3" target="_blank">This</a> might give a slight grasp of how the players control the important elements like armors, megahealth and guns on the map. Someone with more actual Q3 experience can be more specific if necessary.