No... Just no. You're pretty much saying asym maps can't be balanced, which is absolutely false. Despite the differences in sides, the options available to the players on the map are intrinsically balanced, be it positioning or power weapon placement. Although the teams have different options in regards to map movement, it's a very short lived difference as the map will feature asymmetric spawns as well.
I know for a fact that asymmetric maps are as you say "intrinsically balanced" never disputed that. The fact that there "intrinsically balanced" means one side has certain advantages "be it positioning or power weapon placement" and the other team has other advantages to counter that "be it positioning or power weapon placement", Making it balanced. But it means it gives a player a "Pre-game advantage(and disadvantage)" because they don't have the same choices. Loadouts are also "intrinsically balanced" (ignoring personal opinions on certain games there not inherently unbalanced) meaning having a certain loadout gives the player an advantage "be it positioning or power weapon placement" So how can you say(any form of) loadouts are not for arena shooters but asymmetric maps are?
Loadouts impact more than the opening salvo of the game. Loadouts persist for the entirety of the game. And loadouts consist of more balance breaking options via the different abilities and weapons they offer. Besides, it's not about the maps. Arena shooters are defined by the aspect that the players have the same weapons and abilities. Where they are on the map is irrelevant.
Loadouts may have a greater impact and persist throughout the game and they may consist of more balance breaking options but doesnt change the premise that Loadouts and asymmetric maps both give advantages to players pre-game. And it seems the consensus is that pre-game advantages aren't features of a arena shooter.
You need to stop arguing against asymmetric maps. Yeah, players may start off on unequal terms but that is only at the start of the game.
@William How about spawnpoints? Doesn't having a certain initial spawn point (out of the list of spawn points possible) give you an advantage? Closer to the nearest power weapon, grenade, high ground? So are games with maps with multiple initial spawn points not arena shooters? Point being: If you don't pick your advantages, they don't matter in terms of classifying the game. If all we cared about was not having any sort of advantages at all, we'd be playing Octagon all day. Differentiate between pre-game advantages and advantages - It's being lost all over this thread.
The Timesplitters series is a great example of what an arena shooter is and most of its maps are asymmetrical. Though what you say about asym maps providing a slight advantage off on initial spawn is slightly true, the increased amount of movement renders that advantage useless after a few seconds.
The history of how maps were designed on different subgenres of shooter games? Well possibly the other way around. Symmetry is completely irrelevant though.
You make a good point about spawns, But if it only matters what the player chooses, If a gametype was one team randomly spawns with rocket launchers OR sniper rifles and a random armor ability and random weapon perks while the other team only spawns with pistols that would be widly unbalanced but since the player never actually chose anything it is an arena shooter? Point being: If it only matters on players choice then starting with loadouts/leveling system/perks/different weapons everything can be included as long as its not chosen by the player before the game starts is all acceptable in "arena shooters"
The game would be an arena shooter. That particular map would just be casual. Not to mention a failure.
It's not about the player actively choosing, it's about all starting on an even footing. Not choosing is obviously a part of that, but if there's starting inequality designated by the game or random chance (rather than by player choice) then it still isn't an arena shooter. No it wouldn't. And he said gametype, not map.
Well you see that's what I thought but there has been conflicting opinions Spoiler (in this thread alone and I have no doubt there is a large group of people who believe each of these opinions) Except asymmetrical maps/spawns/weapons dont fit into that definition by definition asymmetric has inequality designated by the game, which you said "isn't an arena shooter." But if you include games where they swap teams and have two rounds then both teams where equal and had equal choices at the end of the game but they didn't have equal choices at any start point be it the start of the game or round. So they had equality but not "starting equality" which I thought was required from an arena shooter?
I don't think there have been many, if any shooters without a single asymmetric map. It doesn't seem to fit the given definition of an Arena Shooter, but to exclude every game with an asymmetric map is unrealistic. If the game is designed with no spawn choices for the player, I think that's a good enough criteria for the genre. In a world where custom maps and gametypes are possible, no game could fit the definition of an Arena Shooter if you required the entire game to be completely devoid of any starting advantages given to any player on any map, or in any gametype. I'm revising my opinion; I don't think maps should matter. It should be about a player's weapons and abilities being found on the map or given without choice. No customization of a class, or gameplay affecting unlocks should be present.
I just wanna point out that certain gametypes can be called arena shooters without the entire game been classified an arena shooter. If you play a game of halo everyone on both teams spawn as a spartan without AA's and with AR and pistol and 2 grenades then that an arena shooter? I'm pretty sure everyone would agree that can be classified a arena shooter gametype specially when played on zealot. But if you play on one round of boneyard still playing that same slayer game with one round but using first round(before any point is captured) spawns and weapon placement etc of invasion is that an arena shooter gametype? Because changing from a symmetric map like zealot to an asymmetric map using the same gametype changes: The team that spawn in the building have bunch of DMR's literally seconds away from there spawn and have the high ground and have better defensive position and red team always spawns in building while blue spawns always spawns out and maps/spawns/weapons are completely asymmetric, because "weapons and abilities being found on the map or given without choice. No customization of a class, or gameplay affecting unlocks should be present." is still as true as it was for zealot. But it doesn't seem very arena shooter like.
I think it's fair to separate player mechanics and maps to a certain degree, and as Scorch says there aren't really games without asymm maps, so on this basis the obvious conclusion would be that arena shooters have never existed. Doesn't really make any sense. In terms of people specifically talking about starting inequality in the specific terms of player choice, I think that's simply because the majority of games with starting inequality do so by allowing player choice. Poor choice of phrasing, perhaps, but I can see why it came up. As for gametypes, you make an interesting point, but I think for the most part it's a redundant one because Halo is (AFAIK) the only shooter to include player choice mechanics but also offer gametype options to remove them. It's an anomaly, and yes it does mean that Reach is capable of being an arena shooter, but by and large it isn't, and is the only game I can think of which allows for being both. As such, I feel the point is basically moot in terms of discussing arena shooters at large.
I think that's what makes Halo the best game to define an arena shooter because it is and it isn't meaning somewhere in there is a line that can define where a shooter becomes a arena shooter and not. Maybe that's the problem, I think I've just come to the conclusion that there is no such thing as a objectively definable arena shooter just like saying there are "Fun shooters" and not "Fun shooters" one persons fun shooter might not be someone else's fun shooter and you could argue why some shooters are fun and some aren't but never get to a answer, There all arena shooters to some people and there all not arena shooter to others. And the rules like "Equal spawning,Movment etc" are all just the most common traits of a arena shooter that most people attribute to them but aren't required which explains why i had the 80-20rule (80% arena shooter-20% etc) which a lot of "arena shooters" tend to fall into. These posts are pretty interesting if anyone wants to read, "Unreal is a class-based arena shooter. Races are designed to have different attributes and different characters within the races can spawn with different weapons. Asymmetrical and symmetrical setups allowed. Quake mostly just varies the weapons but Quake Wars uses powerups located inside a team's base that give the attributes of classes to the players that pick them up." "Unreal Tournament, different characters have completely different health, movement speed and weapons." "it's true that arena shooters can't advance much, especially Halo's variant, because it appears that those that love that style of gameplay exclusively can't have any change least it turn into something else they don't like to play. It's a self defeating logic that is a part of being human it appears."(kinda like what i said early in the thread on why I thought people thought the arena shooters are dieing when i think there not its just there personal opinion of what an arena shooter is, is dieing)