Where did the Arena Shooter go?

Quake, Goldeneye.

 

Goldeneye was great in its day, but I consider it near unplayable now. Auto aim? No thanks.

He already said that he wasn't after something Qyake-esque, so I'm guessing actual Quake is out of the window.

The console arena shooter isn't really a thing anymore. Aside from Halo, pretty much all attempts at it have been Quake clones, which imo don't really work on a controller.

 

Needed to be said:


There is always Quake, but if you're trying to go on the console, buy Timesplitters 2 or FP. The games are great, the 2nd is more like Goldeneye but newer and has more diverse locales. The games have 12-person multiplayer, but original Xbox games no longer have online servers, so you would have to play against bots.

 

Died out long ago, at least when it comes down to triple A titles.
And that's a shame in my opinion, all the crap that developers think they need to add, useless **** like AAs, perks, now the armor specific what ever that just got announced.
I know that they can't release the same game over and over again, but I just miss the simplicity we had, everyone was the same, everyone had the same chances, the only thing that mattered was skill (talking about LAN of course)

 

There are a lot of more.... "indy" developed arena style shouters out there, if you would really like to start looking. But saying you want an arena shooter that's nothing like Quake or Unreal Tournament is kind of like saying you want a pizza that's nothing like a pepperoni and cheese pizza.

But, yeah, AAA titles aren't going to end up like arena shooters because "Reflex" shooters like BattleField and Call of Duty make way to much money, and sell to a much wider audience. You're going to have to do some PC gaming with games developed by small teams or indy dev teams.

 

Yeah, I totally spaced and forgot Timesplitters, excellent point. Now THAT is another great example of how to do a console arena shooter, I wish they'd just make TS4. It also had a fun map editor imo. Very simple and not capable of crafting complex shapes, but a lot of fun, like the Tony Hawks editor but for a shooter.

 

I always considered CoD and BF as "Squad Based Shooters".
I think of Quake and UT as Twitch Arena Shooters.
And Halo was the sweet point between the two genres. Movement and Killtimes weren't super fast, nor where they significantly slow... Well, I suppose you could call Halo a sandbox shooter... But meh.

 

I've always mentally called them:

Arena Shooters: Quake, Halo CE, UT, Timesplitters
(slow kill times, fast even movement in all directions, diverse but limited weapon set, balanced well, everyone starts out even)

Twitch Shooters: Call of Duty, BattleField, Medal of Honor
(Fast kill times, uneven movement usually including sprint, extremely large weapon set that have the same few jobs [24 SMGs, 12 snipers, etc], and not ultimately even at the start)

 

Twitch shooters, in terms of established terminology, actually means things like Quake rather than CoD or BF.

I get what you're saying, but Quake has fast kill times as well, just like CE did, the difference is in kill time variance. Kill times are pretty universally quick in things like CoD and BF, since bullets are high damage and don't require much accuracy (ie. you can make an incredibly quick kill with only body shots, and spraying is therefore highly effective).

These arena shooters don't have slow kill times as you claim. CE had kill times of ~1s, but only if you were incredibly accurate. This introduces a higher degree of kill time variance, and the same is true of Quake.

As such, I always think of things like CoD as position based shooters. Due to the combination of quick kill times and a low kill time variance, positioning and getting the first shot become very important. Having a strong strafe mechanic and the requirement on aiming skill means you can come back from being shots down much more easily in Halo or Quake than you can in CoD.

The "twitch" in "twitch shooter" is generally understood as relating to this, the ability for a good twitch aim skill to overcome the opponent out positioning you which, imo, leads to a much more interesting interplay between the two. Positioning is far from negated as an aspect of skill (though Quake does reduce it more than many are comfortable with), but it's not the be all and end all.

I think that the idea of "kill time variance" is largely ignored as an important aspect by which to differentiate shooters, to the point where (afaic) I coined that term because I never hear anyone talk about kill times in these terms.

EDIT: @Schintz: I agree with the term squad shooter when applied to BF, simply because of the scale of the game, but not so much with CoD. I think lone wolfing is way too effective for that to be a fair term, and I think the defining aspect of CoD is positioning, not a requirement to work together.

However, I totally agree that Halo found a wonderful middle ground between these two things. Positioning is more important than Quake, but not overbearing (obviously subjective), and twitch aim is big enough to play a major role in defining a good player. I think Halo's strength in 2v2 (CE) and 4v4 (subsequent titles) when compared to Quake's strength as a 1v1 game is telling of the difference. I think Halo's nature evolved out of trying to refine the arena shooter principle to actually work well on a controller, and not only did they achieve that, but they also found a wonderful new point along the line as a result. I've been making this comparison for a while, glad someone else thinks so too.

 

I stand shot point blank in the face with corrected.

 

And you just summed it up beautifully. I love how you can articulate things like this so damn well.

 

I'm having trouble thinking of a game to suggest because I couldn't find a clear cut definition of "Arena shooter"

From what it seems "Arena shooter" has a general meaning of near bare a minimum requirement FPS that can still remain competitive.

Because if you add emphasise on positioning it's not a arena shooter?
If you add loadouts its not a arena shooter?
If you add perks or weapon upgrades its not a arena shooter?
If you add progression/leveling system its not a arena shooter?
If you remove most of the kill time variance its not a arena shooter?
etc
etc.

So if you can't add anything new or change gameplay in interesting ways from the cliche basic quake arena shooter style its not a arena shooter? but if you don't change it from that style theirs no reason to remake quake with .5% more movement speed or reskinned weapons or added one more archtype of weapon...

 

I normally see an arena shooter as a game where everything gameplay-affecting happens on the map, in the game itself. In other words, customization that affects gameplay in any way, whether it be loadouts, perks, upgrades, etc are not included. The player attains weapons from picking them up on the map, and weapons vary greatly in how they fire, fire rate, damage, range and other traits. Kill times are slower so that escape opportunities and countering is present. Leveling systems and customization can be added, it just has to remain purely aesthetic.

 

Arena shooters focus on even starts and pickups to gain any advantage, as well as tending to be faster/having more free movement to focus more on reflexes and split second aim than is true of a tactical shooter.

To address your points in particular:

This doesn't really mean anything. Positioning is important in ANY shooter, even in an Octagon gametype there's an aspect of it. The difference is how important positioning vs. aiming and movement skill is, different shooters occupy different points along this line, and arena shooters tend away from positioning compared to tactical shooters. It's still an important aspect of skill, just has a lesser emphasis than, say, CoD.

Precisely. Arena shooters focus on what's gained in game, an emphasis which is achieved by starting all players on an identical playing field.

Not necessarily. You can have a ranking system, and it's generally a good thing to do so because it encourages even matches when playing online. Any gameplay influencing factors which are tied to levelling up, however, go against the point I made above.

You've misunderstood this term. Arena shooters have a higher kill time variance, and tactical shooters have a lower kill time variance. So no, you don't want to remove kill time variance.

The rest of your post just seems like a roundabout and passive aggressive way of saying that you don't like arena shooters. I don't really know what kinda response you want to that, other than: OK?

 

I like all forms of shooters, So i technically like arena shooters even if I don't know what they are which is what i was "passively aggressively saying" because seems like what That Scorch Guy wants is a more advanced arena shooter then quake but when does a game become to advanced to be classified as a arena shooter?

If you have a default gametype of halo reach and take out armor ablilitys/loadouts it would be a arena shooter yes? But what if you add everything's instant kill? What if you don't do that but make everyone move really slow with no jumping and everyones on radar and huge radar?

Which seems doing stuff like that would make them not a arena shooter but there the extreme but adding 125% weapon damage would still be a arena shooter but instant isn't so where is the cut off line? The problem with no definition..

The individual points aren't really important i understand why there not arena shooter quality's I was just using random points to ask if you keep adding stuff to a arena shooter when does it stop becoming a arena shooter because the extremes are obvious its easier to define things when there obvious.

Which is why i asked if making the kill variance LOWER would make it LESS of a arena shooter.

But since there is no definition I guess his asking for a game which has the arena game spirit to it like 80% arena shooter qualitys and rest random other interesting quality's (like halo's loadouts, which are technically still starting everyone on even terms but doesn't follow traditional arena spirit)

I like all forms of shooters, So i technically like arena shooters even if I don't know what they are which is what i was "passively aggressively saying" because seems like what That Scorch Guy wants is a more advanced arena shooter then quake but when does a game become to advanced to be classified as a arena shooter?

If you have a default gametype of halo reach and take out armor ablilitys/loadouts it would be a arena shooter yes? But what if you add everything's instant kill? What if you don't do that but make everyone move really slow with no jumping and everyones on radar and huge radar?

Which seems doing stuff like that would make them not a arena shooter but there the extreme but adding 125% weapon damage would still be a arena shooter but instant isn't so where is the cut off line? The problem with no definition..

The individual points aren't really important i understand why there not arena shooter quality's I was just using random points to ask if you keep adding stuff to a arena shooter when does it stop becoming a arena shooter because the extremes are obvious its easier to define things when there obvious.

Which is why i asked if making the kill variance LOWER would make it LESS of a arena shooter.

But since there is no definition I guess his asking for a game which has the arena game spirit to it like 80% arena shooter qualitys and rest random other interesting quality's (like halo's loadouts, which are technically still starting everyone on even terms but doesn't follow traditional arena spirit)

---

Edited by merge:

---

I'm assuming you've tried counterstrike even though not mentioned in thread so it's hard to find game you haven't already heard of, Did some googling couple games I haven't played but look good enough I might actually play. (2nd one isnt out yet)

Xonotic - Trailer - YouTube

ShootMania Storm - Gameplay Trailer [HD] - YouTube

 

Uhh... guys?

Unreal Tournament?

EDIT: I guess that's more Quake-based though... but either way, it wasn't mentioned... so I had to. xD

 

Although I do think UT is a bit slower than Quake. I remember a show on TechTV (before G4 bought it) where they'd have teams of 4 (or was it more?) face off on UT and a few other games... Although UT lacks the charm that Halo has with it's base utility weapon and reliance on set ups...