What the heck is an arena shooter anyway?

#41F4LCONSW4GPosted 6/28/2014 8:25:10 PM
_Signal posted...
Do you think kids on playgrounds 70 years ago whined the first time little Jimmy showed up with an oversized shooter marble?

Maybe they did.

"That marble is OP!"

"Your marble takes less skill!"

"Anyone could win with one of those marbles!"

"Jimmy you suck!"

and so on.

But even as they whined, they all secretly wished for an oversized shooter marble of their very own.

Then before anyone even noticed, everyone was playing with oversized shooter marbles.

The tom-bowler was probably what ultimately caused the game of marbles to fall out of favor, because it's a well established fact that most non-casual marble players prefer arena shooter marbles.


Did you intend for that to make no sense? Because that illustration was terrible.

Srsly. Cmo-tier comparison.
#42CynralKynathelPosted 6/28/2014 8:55:40 PM
F4LCONSW4G posted...
What you casuals don't seem to get is that you're inherently lowering the skill gap by allowing loadouts. Not only does it hurt balance from the get-go by adding in all this random s***, it completely demolishes the skill gap. Does anyone else remember what Noble used a lot? The PR, HC, and SCAR. Some of the easiest guns to use. When you don't have to learn how to use each gun properly and add in all the other bulls*** like aim assist, reduced ADS sensitivity, killstreaks, and more, even a toddler could go pro.


Is being a casual gamer a bad thing now? Also all those weapons seem more like a balancing problem to me rather than a game that doesn't require skill. It's up to the Devs to make a game where all of the weapons require skill, and that's just a part of the way they failed in Con2. Because the game certainly has its faults.
---
Pseudo-official Co-'Pun'-isher of the Conduit 2 Board. I have veteran SCARs. Heheheh.
#43LigersRulePosted 6/29/2014 12:49:53 AM
CynralKynathel posted...
Is being a casual gamer a bad thing now? Also all those weapons seem more like a balancing problem to me rather than a game that doesn't require skill. It's up to the Devs to make a game where all of the weapons require skill, and that's just a part of the way they failed in Con2. Because the game certainly has its faults.


Can you name me a modern shooter that HASN'T had balancing problems? Any CoDs? Battlefields? Anything? No. They ALL have balancing issues, and as much as I hate to take the blame off of HVS, it's not really their fault the very nature of the game makes weapon balance extremely apparent. I mean, they patched the game how many times? 10? And it never really got any more balanced, just deflected the game.

_Signal posted...


As asinine as that metaphor was, if you're going to let people use larger shooter marbles, why not just let them use bowling balls? Seriously. There comes a point where it's not fun anymore. Maybe you find playing marbles with bowling balls fun, but people who play marbles certainly won't.
---
*Insert 25 wit here*
#44CmoIsDaNam3Posted 6/29/2014 6:49:52 AM
Honestly guys, its just a preference in the big picture, not that big of a deal.

I will say however this, there is reason why arena shooters are falling out of favor, and maybe you it does take more skill, but honestly, its probably more like it takes a different skill, because I could make the argument that it takes more skill in a non-arena shooter because there is a higher probability of facing a different weapon than what you hold.

Also, again, this is coming from a guy that started with MPH, and TCon, not from CoD, C2, or whatever, just keep that in mind when you reply.
---
Cmo More Often.
Emergence - A Conduit 2 Montage OUT NOW, WATCH HERE: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tHzVLbkbnQI
#45F4LCONSW4GPosted 6/29/2014 6:57:29 AM
Um...no. Like I said, it's not "skill" to have all of these variables everywhere, it's randomness, which takes away from skill if anything. No scientist would do completely random things to his test groups because he thinks it takes more "skill" or because he thinks it will net him a better result. He just consistently and repeatedly tests within a controlled environment, but not with any more variables than his experiment calls for.

Yeah, it's personal preference. But that preference, in 90% of people, will not lead to a more skillful or better-made game. THAT'S the reason arena shooters are falling out of favor.
#46_Signal(Topic Creator)Posted 6/29/2014 10:02:06 AM
Considering that everyone playing marbles today uses a larger shooter marble with a diameter of 3/4", compared to the roughly 1/2" diameter of all the other marbles I thought my metaphor was spot on. Especially considering that it wasn't always like that.

Everyone understands that the larger shooter marble represents loadouts and perks, right?
---
Even my signature is off-topic!
Conduit2FC(36): 3354-2948-5226, (38): 4814-7986-3261
#47CmoIsDaNam3Posted 6/29/2014 10:04:06 AM
_Signal posted...
Considering that everyone playing marbles today uses a larger shooter marble with a diameter of 3/4", compared to the roughly 1/2" diameter of all the other marbles I thought my metaphor was spot on. Especially considering that it wasn't always like that.

Everyone understands that the larger shooter marble represents loadouts and perks, right?


I didn't understand that analogy honestly.

But hey, its whatever.
---
Cmo More Often.
Emergence - A Conduit 2 Montage OUT NOW, WATCH HERE: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tHzVLbkbnQI
#48DerppopotamusPosted 6/29/2014 11:24:16 AM(edited)
I got the picture, sig.

Modern day shooters can be fun. Real fun when you're blowing things apart with powerful weaponry that you spawn in with.

But it's short lived fun. CoD games last about a year before they have to make a new one. While the first Counter-Strike came out in 2000 and the last major tournament was in 2012 and the grand finale had "over 26,000 viewers despite of being held at an odd hour." Probably still would be played today but there was a need to move on to the new Counter-Strike.

I'm not sure I can agree with however said that competitive shooters are dying out. Competitive games aren't made yearly like bad shooters are. That would be like if there was a new version of baseball every year where they changed the bats to light sabers, and you have to steal bases with a front flip. Quake3/QuakeLIVE is still played at QuakeCon every year. That's a game from 1999. QuakeCON is a rather awesome tournament. The things you see people do just blow my mind. I watched some highlights from a CoD:Ghosts Tournament. Really really bad.


I was afraid I would break this thread if I said this, but Team Fortress 2 is considered an arena shooter. And it has load-outs. In fact, you may only use the weapons you spawn with.
http://media.giphy.com/media/NCeHrM76X7idq/giphy.gif
Uh oh.
---
Wii Fit GOTY Edition: Thats fine. I'm getting ready for bed
Octavia Philharmonica: I will tuck you in
#49CynralKynathelPosted 6/29/2014 8:20:54 PM
LigersRule posted...
CynralKynathel posted...
Is being a casual gamer a bad thing now? Also all those weapons seem more like a balancing problem to me rather than a game that doesn't require skill. It's up to the Devs to make a game where all of the weapons require skill, and that's just a part of the way they failed in Con2. Because the game certainly has its faults.


Can you name me a modern shooter that HASN'T had balancing problems? Any CoDs? Battlefields? Anything? No. They ALL have balancing issues, and as much as I hate to take the blame off of HVS, it's not really their fault the very nature of the game makes weapon balance extremely apparent. I mean, they patched the game how many times? 10? And it never really got any more balanced, just deflected the game.


That's because you can never have a perfectly balanced game. No matter what people will complain. It just seems ludicrous to me that by having loadouts in a game the skill level drops. What's the point of a competitive game if it's no fun in the first place, and, in my opinion, the best way to make it fun is to add variety, which arena shooters don't do that well. For those of you who understand the game, it's like having all 120-ish champs on both teams in league of legends. That definitely makes for fair teams as they all would counter each other in some way, and it would be fun for a while. But it'd get boring because every game would have the same thing. I find it more enjoyable to pit teams of 5 against another 5 so that there's variety in the team comps.
---
Pseudo-official Co-'Pun'-isher of the Conduit 2 Board. I have veteran SCARs. Heheheh.
#50CHAINMAILLEKIDPosted 6/29/2014 8:32:39 PM
LigersRule posted...

Loadouts pander to players who don't want to go the extra mile. They don't want to be skilled, they want to win.


Um, I don't think thats a necessity of loadouts.

I mean... I look at shooters as a unique type of fighting game.

Fighting games are very competitive, or, they can be, but there are very few fighters that let you bring more than a single character into the match. Granted... a character's moveset tends to have more depth to it than a loadout, but they are within the same realm of eachother.

And this debate actually happens in fighting games. Is a better player one that can play as more characters, or somebody who's really good, but only with one?

In the end, I say it doesn't really matter as much, because even if you don't USE every option, you do have to play against them all. And if you have to play against them, and win, you have to learn them, Their strengths, their weaknesses, their limitations, and how to punish each weapon, upgrade, and tactic.
---
NS_CHAIN 2666-2862-7656