Timesplitters 2 for sure. I played it before CE. I still think it's amazing that you can play against 15 bots on that game. Not to mention the intense difficulty of arcade mode.
While it's not a strictly "Arena Shooter", have you tried TeamFortress2? It's free to play now, it's built off of a mod of Quake, and every class is pretty well balanced. Once again, it's a pretty big deviation from your standards like Halo or quake, but it's definitely a huge step away from "squad shooters" like battle field or "Call of Duty" games like Call of Duty.
I hate to be that guy, but it's not built off Quake. The original TF was built from Quake, then Valve hired the devs and they ported it to to a valve engine (I thought it was source, but Wiki informs me otherwise, it was the GoldSrc engine) to be released as TFClassic. TF2 was built off the source engine, so it's basically purebred Valve. But yeah, good suggestion. Not really arena since its class based and doesn't revolve around pickups, but still a lot of fun if you want a fast but not Quake like shooter. That said, if you're looking for a console shooter specifically, I'd advise against the Xbox version of TF2 (comes in the orange box). It's never been patched because (as I understand it) Valve don't want to charge for the updates to bring it in line with the PC version but MS won't let them put out a patch that big without charging for it. Play it on PC, it's an awesome game, but I think the Xbox version is a disappointing shadow of its big brother.
@OP: I really don't think you're gonna find another game like Halo, it's a one-of-a-kind game. Most of the games mentioned are most likely the closest games you'll find, and they really aren't close. If not quake, I would try Timesplitters 2/3. The maps aren't all arena-like (besides maybe a few, like Disco), but it has a great weapon sandbox (and customizable weapons) and decent shooting mechanics. I can't remember the last time I played it though. It was just one of the main shooters I was into, before getting into halo. It was a great game for a few friends and a ton of bots. Just sounds way too weird "Average Kill Time" sounds better to me, when complimenting the minimum kill time.
I love TF2. I bought it about a week or two before they announced it was going free (sadface, but at least I got that crappy WWI hat, right?) and I play it on the side every now and again as a chill game. I really like it (I'm pretty eager to try out MvM), but I can't see it replacing how I played Halo, or any arena shooter really. I can't play TF2 any way but casually... I'm just kinda curious to see that no new big names have popped up in arena shooters recently. At least, none that I've heard of or seen on Steam/XBL. Considering the over-saturation of big name shooters, I'm surprised no one has made a big run for the sub-genre that really popularized the shooter again. Well, I guess you could say Nexuiz came close, but judging from the population when I played, it didn't entirely take off. It's too bad. I would have settled for it. I'll probably end up devoting one day this weekend to trying out/looking at everything posted here this weekend. Thanks again everybody!
Average kill time isn't the same thing, though. It's specifically about the difference between extremes. You could have two games, one where kill times vary wildly and one when they only vary by .5/1 second in most encounters, but they might both have the same average kill time. I get what you're saying about combining average and minimum, but it seems odd to use two figures rather than one. Variance is useful because it demonstrates the importance of aiming skill in kill times regardless of the base line, so you can assess that and minimum kill times as two independant aspects of competitive value.
Tf2 is like the COMPLETE opposite of a arena shooter from what i what given to believe earlier in thread I'm so confused on what arena shooter is lol. (Didn't even think nexuiz was a arena shooter because the modifier pickups where random and thought that disqualified it because it has to be competitive) I can only play PC fps shooters casually. Without a controller I don't have the same precise aim and without two 360 rotating analogs just feels weird. (I have a cheap PC controller but settings are to hard to setup to a decent standard) The reason i was getting at before which is why I thought there wasn't many arena shooters is because its a sub genre of FPS, There's tons of FPS's but when you ask for "Arena shooter" is limits the games so much, Like asking for why don't people make MMORPGFPS when there is those games (planetside) but when you ask for MMORPGFPS but not planetside its like how much can you change before leaving that genre and arena shooters seems to be very basic and when you make the basic concept and make it more interesting (adding loadouts) its not a arena shooter anymore. But here is a list of a lot of FPS if you wanna sift though them to find something good (You can organize them by date to view newest ones first) List of first-person shooters - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
In that case, I don't see either of those games being competitive, assuming you're comparing those two directly: -A game with kill times that vary wildly (like .5s - 4s) and have an average kill time of 1s would remind me of call of duty during a standoff. -A game with kill times that vary between .5s-1s with an average kill time of 1s don't even exist unless they're call of duty on arena-styled maps. Rather obvious here, but a good arena shooter would have the lowest minimum kill-time and the highest average kill time because those two together reward good aim while punishing bad aim. But both factors also imply an acceptable kill-time range (Or variance if that's how you define it). In other words, the variance between kill-times is better determined after knowing the minimum kill time and inferring/calculating an average kill-time based on clips of competitive gameplay. The longest kill time isn't as competitively relevant as the average kill-time, considering the possibility of outliers. Regardless, only the minimum kill time is objectively defined.
From this sentence I can tell your taking kill times to figuratively, You should analyze kill times factually using math IMO, so the average of .5s-1s is .75s no other variables matter. Lowest kill time of .5s meaning the fastest the fastest killing gun in game can kill at that speed and 1s meaning that is the fastest the slowest killing gun in the game can kill. Not "Evaluating recent competitive game play and recording each duel between players every fight lasted between .5s and 1s but most of them lasted for 1s" Exactly only the minimum kill time is objectively defined but there is more then 1 weapon so kill times vary between weapons giving you a "Kill time variance" and its importance, If kill time average is 1s from a range of .9s-1.1s is generally less competitive then a game with average kill time of 1s with a range of instant-5s. But both games can be said to have a "Average kill time of 1s" Which is why "Kill time variance" is a term that is important for evaluating games that can't be replaced by "Kill time average" Everything else(how many misses he makes to "increase kill time") is useful info but not a way of evaluating a games Kill time. Or something like that if you get what i mean. Spoiler Using your non mathematical version of Kill time that describes, Headshots snipers only on Guadian in Halo 3........
You have got to be kidding me. So let's proceed to degrade my example (which was just a response to Pegasi's statement I previously bolded btw) by missing the point completely. I guess I'm only speaking in terms of one utility weapon, because other weapons have unique functions and drawbacks, resulting in a balanced sandbox. Take CE off the list as an arena shooter (or partly one) because it has no kill-time variance, just min/avg kill times and a huge depth in strategy. Now that I get what variance means in the case of arena shooters, I regret that I even started arguing. What's the point of comparing kill-times with different weapons when they function differently? Oh and... Be a little more immature, Why don't we just use railguns in quake (kill times range from instant to infinity)?
I found this article while looking for arena shooters that is pretty dead-on accurate with how I feel about the arena shooter. I thought it was worth showing; it's basically a more refined and thought-out version of what I was thinking looking at the Halo 4 news that incited me to make this topic. It also had a pretty broad, but accurate definition of the arena shooter IMO. Is The Arena Shooter Dead? « OXCGN – Breathing Life Into Gaming
Well, thanks WWWilliam, my faith in humanity is dead for the day... You most definitely missed the nail entirely, and may have possibly violated a poor puppy with that hammer. Thanks for the link Scorch!
Guys, chill pills. He's just looking for a nice arena shooter of the same type that I've been looking for. Once H4 comes out, maybe gametype editing will allow MLG players (or just anyone who makes a gametype in general) to make such a game. I honestly doubt all of these armor specializations and whatnot will be included - Reach's MLG doesn't include those AAs.
Well sorry I wasn't more sensitive to your emotional side, When discussing game play mechanics I prefer to keep things factual and not have to clutter my posts with "I understand what you mean, Your right here,No offense, You make good points, I agree with this, But i must respectfully disagree on your approach to this issue while it is valid in its own right but it this is what i think the issue is in my opinion you may be completely right though " I do understand what your comparing and why for the "average kill time in game" but I was just saying "Kill time variance" gives you more info with mathematical absolute minimum kill time and maximum kill time and average kill time and is a more valuable term then "Average kill time" which only shows you average (and depending on how you view "Average kill time" it could mean mathematical average or average kill time in game making it less reliable term) Haven't thought about that subject matter long enough to explain it simply, But its important. I'm not been degrading or rude or attacking you personally anything intentionally here but I'm pretty sure Halo CE had kill time variance I didn't play it much but I think the pistol was a 3sk and shotgun has instant kill so there is variance that's not even including other weapons. Scorch that definition doesn't even include Gears of war which later in the article he calls a arena shooter, You get to choose between hammerburst and lancer as a pregame weapon that gives you an advantage over other players who choose the other one (in certain situations) But that does include a gametype with random weapons random loadouts random weapon spawns random traits random map (Because the player doesn't choose them) but if you change the wording to: "Multiplayer shooter which does not allow the player anything pre-game that gives you an advantage over other players." That would remove any shooter with asymmetric maps where one side has a pre-game advantage (still balanced) but still has an advantage in certain situations over the other players
WWWiliam, I would not consider GoW an arena shooter. I disagree with the author there. Also, your example I would consider an arena shooter. No where in that definition does it say an arena shooter has to be innately competitive or even fair; it's the stereotypical example of an arena shooter to be competitive, but it isn't required. Fiesta in Halo 2 would still be arena gameplay. It wouldn't be fair or competitive for sure, but it is an arena game. Asymmetric maps are open to debate; I would argue that so long as each team agrees that they have equal amounts of advantages, or you take turns on both sides (ie One Flag), it is still an arena match. Players also generally don't choose the map they play on, or the team in Halo matchmaking. That would be arena gameplay. It makes sense for the devs/forgers to try and balance it to make it fair, but technically they don't have to. The term 'arena shooter' is very fuzzy. It really hasn't been clearly defined anywhere, as far as I can tell. This was the closest semblence to a decent definition I could find, and I still stand by it. I do see the holes (how is it an arena shooter then if only in matchmaking truly bides by the rules? Is only MM arena gameplay, or customs on certain maps?), and I can't completely answer that. It's a loose term and this is the closest concrete definition I could find.
Where does the idea that the maps define an arena shooter come from? Asymmetrical or symmetrical, the maps do not affect the definition of arena shooter.
Since it doesn't have a definition "Arena shooter" means whatever the person saying it wants it to mean, You may not think GOW is a arena shooter the author might but who's to say who's right and who's wrong? Imo a uncompetitive game is against the "spirit" of a arena shooter and since there is no definition we have use "spirit" of arena shooter to define it i would say something with about 80% of quakes quality's and 20% other stuff (Loadouts,random uncompetitive weapons/pickups,Jetpacks,asymmetric maps,No pickups,Pre game choices, anything) would still be follow the arena shooter "spirit" but a 50/50 or less wouldn't be. So then it all comes down to opinion again, So the reason arena shooters are dieing is because a arena shooter that follows ALL the arena shooter rules and still be fun and new and have new game mechanics is hard to make and might not even be fun. But if you include games have mostly arena rules and break it here and there (like Halo,GoW) then arena shooters are far from dieing.
if arena shooters are "Multiplayer shooter which does not allow the player anything pre-game that gives you an advantage over other players." then you can't have asymmetric maps in arena shooters. Because asymetric maps give certain players who spawn on one team an advantage over the other team before the game starts. (its balanced by other team getting other advantages but still an advantage given to one side pre-game) But if you allow asymmetric maps in arena shooters then you allow "Pre-game advantages" which then allows loadouts/class systems. (which are balanced but give certain advantages to certain players) Unless you use the 80/20 rule(80% of game following arena "spirit" and 20% other) and put asymmetric maps into the 20% then its fine.