Me > any console player with a gamepad.

I think its great quake is now free, but my time with that game has passed. I still have 400+ final score screenshots on my HD somewhere, hehe.

___________________

quote:

Originally posted by pkcRAISTLIN Me > any console player with a gamepad.

Yeah, there you go.

I could say the same thing (I've seen pro console players play), and I wouldn't even consider myself particularly great at shooters.


console players with restrictive limits > me with the same limits

me without the limits > them without the limits

___________________
Once bread becomes toast, it can never go back to being bread again.

quote:

Originally posted by Cpt.Cocaine It's not that simple. What pro halo players do is stuff any decent quake player does in an average game against average players. That includes strategic aspects of the game. Competitive games just have a ton more depth on top of all that. Quake/UT players would get beaten at halo because the game is designed in such a way that nullifies everything that makes them good. Beyond that, it all comes down to being proficient at using a very restrictive controller.

Would you mind stating any examples as to what you mean? Let us compare the PC version of Halo so as to get rid of the whole autoaim/gamepad perspective.

quote:

Originally posted by Cpt.Cocaine It's the same thing with halo: It imposes the rule that anyone who's really good at player control, moving, quick thinking or strategy isn't allowed to use those skills beyond a completely arbitrary limit.

This is news to me. Again, please explain your point, you lost me here.

And again, PC version...comparing a console FPS to a PC FPS is apples and oranges.

___________________

It's hard to describe in game terms so I'm gonna get really theoretical on your ass.

Ok, let's say you have a game (let's call it game A) with a game speed/pace of X, where X requires pretty much a very basic understanding of videogames in general to be able to master. This represents a skill ceilling. Then you have another game (game B) that has a speed of X + 10.

Now let's compare skill levels of two players, measuring them up with their potential to make use of the freedom the game allows them; Player 1 has a potential of X + 9 and player 2 has a potential of X + 1. In game B ( < X + 10), player 1 (X + 9) will always beat player 2 (X + 1), but in game A ( < X), the maximum skill of both players is X, so player 1's skill advantage is nullified and he's brought down to an equal footing with player 2 by arbitrary restrictions.

Now of course, all games need to have limits of a sort. The idea is that a truly competitive game, in the terms I used above, would have a skill ceilling of X + Y, where Y is anywhere above what a normal human being could achieve, meaning the game has no realistically reachable skill ceilling, and thus, the better player will always win.

To put that in some actual (yet less acurate) terms; While I'm busy having a face to face BR shootout with someone at halo, I could've (had I been playing quake) dodged his shots, executed a series of sexy jumps, rocket-jumped over the guy, fired down from above him, turned around in mid-air in less than half a second, and finished him off before hitting the ground again. If my opponent isn't used to this kind of freedom, then, had he been given the same laxed restrictions, he wouldn't have been able to use them to his advantage, and I would've won anyways. But halo not allowing me to do that, my ability to pull off something like that is made irrelevant. Like PKC was mentioning earlier, halo doesn't have anything of the sort that you wouldn't be able to do (or do better) in most decent shooters.

___________________
Once bread becomes toast, it can never go back to being bread again.

quote:

Originally posted by Cpt.Cocaine Like PKC was mentioning earlier, halo doesn't have anything of the sort that you wouldn't be able to do (or do better) in most decent shooters.

which is why when it finally hit PC, i couldnt understand what the fuss was all about.

S L O W.

___________________

quote:

Originally posted by Cpt.Cocaine To put that in some actual (yet less acurate) terms; While I'm busy having a face to face BR shootout with someone at halo, I could've (had I been playing quake) dodged his shots, executed a series of sexy jumps, rocket-jumped over the guy, fired down from above him, turned around in mid-air in less than half a second, and finished him off before hitting the ground again. If my opponent isn't used to this kind of freedom, then, had he been given the same laxed restrictions, he wouldn't have been able to use them to his advantage, and I would've won anyways. But halo not allowing me to do that, my ability to pull off something like that is made irrelevant. Like PKC was mentioning earlier, halo doesn't have anything of the sort that you wouldn't be able to do (or do better) in most decent shooters.

I liked your mathematical explanation explaining what you said; well thought out.

But I still have to say that you aren't giving Halo much credit. You make it seem like you can't do anything in a fight, except fire back. You can do sexy jumps, you can strafe, or duck, or why not place a grenade next to him? Maybe the number of opportunities isn't as great (which is proving your point, yes), but you really seemed to shortside the title if you ask me. Still, you proved your point well, have to agree with most of what you said.

Also, whereas Q3A and UT are almost entirely within close-corridors, Halo is mostly in a wide-open environments. If you were to put a Q3 or UT style of play in a much more open space, I think you would find that a lot of those things you would do in a firefight in either of those games that you mentioned would no longer work.


And, regarding pkc's post...you say its slow...but do you ever bother asking that maybe games like Quake and UT were too fast? Ever wonder why twitch shooters are really no longer made?

Don't let me try and corner you with that question; there are plenty of answers. Maybe developers are attempting more realism. Or maybe its because of Halo's massive mainstream success that designers feel they need to slow their games down to appeal to a more broad audience. I'm just suggesting that, because you were so used to a faster play style, the fact that it was slower shouldn't be seen as a negative.

Like I always say...some people play Burnout...some people play Gran Turismo.

___________________

Who the fuck cares? Halo was fun at the end of the day. Yes, you could hit anyone from a mile away due to the console gimped targeting but it was fun. There was no brain wracking or insane training required like in Starcraft or SupCom. You got in and you played and had fun. Sure there were people who played it more and were obviously skilled but you could still with a bit of effort get close to their level and make it a decent game.

No such possibilities with the hardcore games where the multiplayer component is totally sucked dry of the fun element and caters to the minority of hardcore players. Don't get me wrong, I loved Starcraft MP and can say I was actually pretty damn good at it too, but not for a lack of hundreds of hours training up for it.

Maybe it's the fact that RTS is so much harder to get into than FPS? FPS just purely is more "fun" in short bursts and is easier to pick up than an RTS. Hell Halo is far from a bad game. I don't see why it gets so much slack.
Sure it's no CoD2 or 4 but it's still essentially "fun".

MP has become far too hardcore for my tastes these days. They don't focus on the normal players anymore, but rather the small minority of "competition players" who make up a tiny blip on the gaming radar at the end of the day.

___________________
Like Progressive and Deep House? Grab my latest mix below
http://www.tranceaddict.com/forums/...s=#.UAv1rbRo3h4

Last edited by Fledz on Jan-22-2009 at 12:38

quote:

Originally posted by CONNERMAN2000 And, regarding pkc's post...you say its slow...but do you ever bother asking that maybe games like Quake and UT were too fast?

nope! seriously, i took to Q3 like duck to water and it always felt perfect. its the only game i consider myself pretty good at.

quote:

Originally posted by CONNERMAN2000 Ever wonder why twitch shooters are really no longer made?

what are UT3 and TF2? maybe UT and Q3 were so goddamn good that nobody feels like its necessary/possible to make new ones? carmack reckons Q3 is still the best title id have done, and i tend to agree.

___________________

I wouldn't classify TF2 as a twitch shooter. It might be faster paced than CoD but it doesn't reach the speed of Quake.

___________________
Like Progressive and Deep House? Grab my latest mix below
http://www.tranceaddict.com/forums/...s=#.UAv1rbRo3h4

quote:

Originally posted by CONNERMAN2000 But I still have to say that you aren't giving Halo much credit. You make it seem like you can't do anything in a fight, except fire back. You can do sexy jumps, you can strafe, or duck, or why not place a grenade next to him? Maybe the number of opportunities isn't as great (which is proving your point, yes), but you really seemed to shortside the title if you ask me.

Well, my complaint isn't that you can't do anything, it's that when I play it, I'm constantly feeling restricted by the game. Like I want to do all this cool stuff but it's saying "nope, you can't do that here".

quote:

Also, whereas Q3A and UT are almost entirely within close-corridors, Halo is mostly in a wide-open environments. If you were to put a Q3 or UT style of play in a much more open space, I think you would find that a lot of those things you would do in a firefight in either of those games that you mentioned would no longer work.

That's true, and for that reason, I personally don't believe deathmatch works in wide open spaces. That being said, UT2k4 and particularly UT3 had some brilliant team-based modes that worked on different levels.

quote:

And, regarding pkc's post...you say its slow...but do you ever bother asking that maybe games like Quake and UT were too fast? Ever wonder why twitch shooters are really no longer made? Don't let me try and corner you with that question; there are plenty of answers. Maybe developers are attempting more realism. Or maybe its because of Halo's massive mainstream success that designers feel they need to slow their games down to appeal to a more broad audience. I'm just suggesting that, because you were so used to a faster play style, the fact that it was slower shouldn't be seen as a negative. Like I always say...some people play Burnout...some people play Gran Turismo.

I think there are a ton of reasons why games have gotten so much slower. There's the casuals you have to appeal to. Then there's the fact that most of these are coming out for consoles and you have to make a gamepad viable - their pc versions are often lazy ports. Realism is also a big deal these days, and I really wish people would get over it so we can finally have fun games again.

That being said, I think quake/UT could stand to be even faster. I loved how in DOOM, you could run as fast as your own rockets. Also, back in '97, there was Jedi Knight (not many people have played the first one it seems). In that game, you could run so fast if you hit a wall you'd kill yourself. You could jump so high you had to find a higher platform to land on if you didn't want to break your legs. But boy was it fun.

quote:

Originally posted by Fledz No such possibilities with the hardcore games where the multiplayer component is totally sucked dry of the fun element and caters to the minority of hardcore players.

I've yet to meet anyone who genuinely didn't like starcraft, quake 3 or UT. People who really don't like going online and getting owned usually end up forming their own seperate community and they rarely mingle with the hardcore base. Starcraft, for example, has thousands of players playing competitively on the iccup ladder, while simultaneousely there's thousands more players on Bnet playing big game hunters, 4v4s or custom maps.

___________________
Once bread becomes toast, it can never go back to being bread again.

quote:

Originally posted by pkcRAISTLIN nope! seriously, i took to Q3 like duck to water and it always felt perfect. its the only game i consider myself pretty good at.

Honestly, I'm the same way, gaming has always felt natural to me, and I've always been able to adjust to different game speeds. UT and Q3A felt like Doom on steroids (to be honest, Doom actually may have been faster, like Cocaine mentioned), which was awesome for me. Man, all this talk of these two games makes me wanna reinstall them immediately. Ya know what, bottle of cheap vodka and some orange juice...I think I know what I'm doing tonight.

/nerd

quote:

Originally posted by pkcRAISTLIN what are UT3 and TF2? maybe UT and Q3 were so goddamn good that nobody feels like its necessary/possible to make new ones? carmack reckons Q3 is still the best title id have done, and i tend to agree.

I should be hit in the head for forgetting about the UT sequels. I guess I was only thinking of Quake 4, which was slowed down when compared to Q3. Then again, they are really two different types of games...one focuses on the single player, with a tacked on multiplayer aspect (Q4), while the other focuses on multiplayer, with a tacked on single player aspect (Q3).

TF never really seemed like a twich shooter. Yes, it was faster paced than most, but I didn't think it came nearly as close to the speeds as the UT games or Q3A. But if you consider it to be among the twitch genre, I'll level with you and agree.

And regarding your statement on maybe developers believed Q3A/UT were so good that making more twitch shooters was unnecessary...well, that's also a realistic possibility. But I wouldn't put that as the most probable; usually in a business situation, the most popular of games are copied and rehashed. I feel that UT and Q3A had their own thing going, with no copycats to be heard of. I find this to be rather strange...or maybe games like Halo started to come along, were MORE popular than UT and Q3A (which is true if you look at the situation from a sales perspective), and developers decided to copy that instead.

Please, if I'm forgetting some big-name twitchers, name them, I just can't think of any right now.

quote:

Originally posted by Fledz Maybe it's the fact that RTS is so much harder to get into than FPS? FPS just purely is more "fun" in short bursts and is easier to pick up than an RTS.

Agreed 100%. Strategy games require a whole new level of thinking, whereas with an FPS, its basically learning the controls, and thats that. An RTS requires learning the controls, then learning the unit types, building types, best tactics to use in certain situations....I mean that isn't even scratching the service. Simply put, RTS's are usually harder than FPS's.

quote:

Originally posted by Cpt.Cocaine Well, my complaint isn't that you can't do anything, it's that when I play it, I'm constantly feeling restricted by the game. Like I want to do all this cool stuff but it's saying "nope, you can't do that here".

I see your point. I just tend to look at games as each in their own. Take Ghost Recon for example...you can't blast a rocket into the ground, hurling you into the air..you would die. That's because the game is aiming to be realistic. With that in mind, I don't look at those features as 'restrictive', but really just in line with the rules of THAT game alone. That's how I see Halo...not in the 'realistic' sense (oh god no, jumping in the air, shooting people in the head? haha), but that it has its own rules and that everyone has to play within those boundaries.

Maybe games like Q3A just spoiled and jaded us, making all other FPS's seem all the more restrictive.

quote:

Originally posted by Cpt.Cocaine That's true, and for that reason, I personally don't believe deathmatch works in wide open spaces.

Now here's something we can both wholeheartedly agree on. Whenever I play Halo, its almost always CTF, maybe a little King of the Hill thrown in there. Team King of the Hill that is. I'm always into the team aspect of the game. Sure, deathmatch can be fun, but in the more open levels just as Sidewinder or Blood Gulch, the game gets frustrating.

Deathmatch = close-corridors
Team games = open-spaces (and close-corridors, they both work here)

And I won't deny that team games work extremely well in UT (never played a team game in Q3...even though I own the Team Arena expansion, I never got around to playing it)...playing CTF in Facing Worlds is as good as it gets.

quote:

Originally posted by Cpt.Cocaine I think there are a ton of reasons why games have gotten so much slower. There's the casuals you have to appeal to. Then there's the fact that most of these are coming out for consoles and you have to make a gamepad viable - their pc versions are often lazy ports. Realism is also a big deal these days, and I really wish people would get over it so we can finally have fun games again. That being said, I think quake/UT could stand to be even faster. I loved how in DOOM, you could run as fast as your own rockets. Also, back in '97, there was Jedi Knight (not many people have played the first one it seems). In that game, you could run so fast if you hit a wall you'd kill yourself. You could jump so high you had to find a higher platform to land on if you didn't want to break your legs. But boy was it fun.

Your point regarding the casual market is probably the best bet. Simply put, most people don't have the reflexes to compete against the experienced Q3A or UT folk. So, the game slows down. The casuals enjoy this (as evident with games like Halo), while the hardcores get frustrated (as evident with all the criticism Halo receives).

That is why we don't see games like Jedi Knight and Doom anymore. Hell, compare Doom 3 to Doom 2. Not the graphics of course, but the gameplay. Completely different.

___________________

the game is short, but pretty neat, I wouldn't buy it though
I love the visual style of the game.

___________________

insignificant cor member alliance