i always got bored of watching Quake quickly, because even though i knew what was going on, and even though a lot of the players were/are skilled, it looked like someone had done 20 pounds of coke and their hands were being electrocuted. more often than not, when someone got a kill, they jerked away from it or the situation was too obscure for me to understand what the fuck happened.
is that fun for some people? yes. just as it's fun for COD kids to sprint round a corner, spray their Bukkoche SMG at some distant blip, get a hit marker, then call down their orbital nuclear dog plane strike and get 6 more kills while sprinting some more.
are arena shooters going to fix that? no. i couldn't be tossed if having a high K/D suddenly became the new way into women's [hearts], i'm not going to spend 1303493943 hours perfecting the Rocket Launcher, while simultaneously getting ground into a fine paste by people who have been doing this since the 90's. that's why i bought Overwatch. i can pick up my grenade launcher and deny an area. i can play Torbjorn and defend a chokehold. i can heal with Mercy, i can tank with Roadhog, i can clear lanes with Bastion.
i'm essentially free to play whatever role i feel like playing, instead of "well-p, XxXXxx420TwItcHmA$Te4XxXx's already killed me 19 times today, but by golly i'mma keep going for that pickup!"
to me, i think a "skill based shooter" which i would say arena shooters are a sub category of, require aim skill to be a significant part of the game. But i think you could even argue the case that something as slow as Overwatch still does this. I think they really did an excellent job with weapon design. There are ways to challenge aim without resorting to high movement speeds.
Neccessary? No. Defining? Probably yes, for better or worse. I enjoy the speed, i like the feeling of traversing large distances super fast (tokara forest!), the impact on the gunplay is secondary but I can live with a slower shooter.
I like your suggestions. Weapon pickups could be another way of lowering the skill ceiling. What if pickups were color coded and players could decided which weapon(s) they get to receive at each one? Or what if all pickups were the same and you simply cycle through the weapons in a random/or player determined order? That could introduce new strategies. I've already mentioned that I would be interested in seeing a no-head shot mode. What about also disabling double jumps ad dodges, a slower overall pace etc. It could be the recipe for a good gateway game?
Also, 3v3 sounds really interesting now that you mention it. Even with a small player base that could be workable for people to put together regular teams, compete in leagues etc.
Reading through all the comments it seems like there is a fair amount of consensus so far on things like player retention and skill ceiling.
a smaller team size also means you don't need as big of a community to support the game.
really, i think the main thing is game mode and maps. I mean, each game typically really has 1-3 maps that are really good and then the rest are pretty meh. And then those 1-3 maps get really old and constantly churning out more maps becomes resource intensive for either the community or the developer. I think more needs to be done to make maps more dynamic to get more use out of them. And not randomly dynamic, because its not fun if randomly you're put at a disadvantage. Like an obvious problem is that with the objectives always in the same point, the chokes are the same, so then the fighting typically always happens in the same tiny fraction of a map, at the same chokes and then the objectives.
Maybe there are 3 objectives all equal distances to both sides and all available to capture at the same time. Then when your team captures one, it changes the landscape of the map to your advantage. Then depending on which team has which point(s), the map is playing out completely differently. Maybe capturing a point lower's the enemy's path to another point so they have to fight uphill for it for example. Maybe capturing a point will cut off 1 path and if you time it perfectly when their team is heading through that path you can separate their team.
I agree with #1 but then you contradict this with #3. MOBAs are extremely complex. The learning curve is gigantic.
When I started playing LoL, I had over 100 champions to learn. (There are now tens more champions added since I started.) I read guides on each of them and theorycrafting. I also watched videos and read guides about basic strategy and tactics. This alone must've ate 100s of hours, let alone the play time in the actual game or practicing techniques in-game. MOBAs are in no way easy. They might have a casual appeal...until you jump in and get raged at.
one solution would be to clearly mark the target audience. ie if a lot of folks want a Quake style arena shooter that's hyper fast, that you and your clan or ESports team can boot up, hop into Teamspeak and start pro-leet-strating against another team, that should be emblazoned in nice big bold letters on the front page of the website that
this game is geared towards hyper fast reactions, twitch aiming, and competitive players.
i have zero issue if somebody wants to make that game. the ISSUE lies when that distinction isn't made clear, and people sign on for an experience that isn't necessarily what they were lead to believe by either the game's own media, or public misconceptions.
one could argue Overwatch does that, because it's clearly already a ESportsy candidate, BUT Blizzard want casuals like myself too. who do they balance the game for? do they split the game into two bits and balance those? which one gets more attention? after playing Planetside 2 for 3 years, i have observed how DISASTROUS it can be to overall morale when those two worlds are forced into the same ecosystem, and it's a gut wound i don't think can be avoided.
TL;DR: games should market to whoever likes that type of game, and we who don't particularly care for it should be mature enough to politely pass on things we know deep down we'll probably hate.
It's dying because FPS isn't PC centric anymore, everyone has gotten used to gaming in consoles and FPS has adopted the analog stick as part of its DNA which makes sense since console makes up most of the gaming market (one just have to look at EA or Activision earnings which PC only makes a tiny part of it). Arena shooters are very fast paced and its not conducive in an analog stick setting. It will have a niche community on PC, but it won't have the glamour that CoD, Battlefield, or these new "Hero Shooters" (Battleborn and Overwatch) have.
I believe, if VR becomes successful on consoles (PS4k being the catalyst for VR in consoles), it can eventually re-surge because fast and accurate aiming is possible in that environment.
The problem with making a shooter aimed at the Quake audience is that like 10 years ago the Quake audience wasn't large enough to justify a quality shooter be made and now 10 years later, that audience has shrunk considerably. Tons of people that love Quake have quit gaming because of lack of a suitable replacement or have adapted a new style of shooter.
also a well designed game can appeal to both hardcore and casuals alike. Do you think Hardcore fps existed before Quake? Not really. But that game was able to appeal to beginners and then develop a super competitive scene as well. It is not easy to do but it is certainly possible. Overwatch is another exmaple of a shooter that is able to appeal to hardcore and casual alike. It just requires better game design than most devs are capable of doing unfortunately.
In my mind you forget to include a different point on why they are not as popular as they once were. The people who played the Arena shooters of old, are in their late 20s early 30s to 40s. A lot of these people, don't have the time on their hands they once did when these shooters first came out. Time management is more important than becoming ultra good at these arena shooters. Oh and to add there are people in the older generation who actually are getting queasy just playing fast paced first person shooters. Heck a lot can't even play on the unreal engine because of the color and anti-aliasing scheming is set.
Second, the scene for gaming is far more varied now, than it was 20 years ago. Every year, compared to then, thousands of more games are released catching peoples attention. Just look at the success of Mass Effect, Battlefield, CoD, WoW, every F2P out there. Unreal in many people's current gen minds means practically nothing. Gears of War on the other hand does.
I blame epic for the lack of Arena shooters, when they botched Unreal Tournament 3 with no Linux support, and a Gears of War esk campaign style, using the same bulky shoulder men and women. If they had pushed more marketing for Unreal Tournament like they have now, we might have been in a world where arena shooters are more relevant. Many gamers want more than just run and gun. They want variation. Doom marries this quite well. With its success, we'll see resurgence I think in the future.
On a closing note, you have to remember the people making decisions on making these great games are beholden to investors who have a dumb ass view on what is successful and what is good. Just look at the Infinite Warfare trailer, and how Activision's investors got all in a fit. Activsion for once is trying out something completely different, and getting slammed for it.
You know the average gamer is in their mid 30s? And what made arena FPS desirable to teenagers and young adults 15 years ago should still appeal to the teenagers and young adults of today. I would say the shrinking was caused by developers struggling to make meaningful improvements over previous arena FPS. Quake 4 and UT3 were failures and that created the flop. If the highly talented developers at ID and Epic with their giant good standing with PC gamers can't appease the arena crowd, do you see other developers being eager to give it a go? You could also at least partially blame the shift in focus to consoles at that time also leading to devs being unwilling to devote the resources to make a truly unique and innovative PC exclusive FPS.
You played for that long? How did you endure that?
Casuals will always win out, because money. Casual players are the bigger demographic. The name of the game is to attract as many people as possible. If this means you alienate your core base, so be it. Many companies won't give a rat's ass if they do, so long as the casuals keep coming. Integrity be damned1! That is the harsh truth.
It's mostly due to executive meddling (wanting to please the shareholders). Unfortunately, this is how public companies work a lot of the time. Shareholders only care about profit, because profit means greater ROI (Return on Investment) which means more will invest in the company, which means the stock goes up, and they make more money (if they sell). Private companies can be guilty of only caring about profit too, but at least they are not beholden to shareholders.
This applies to all media, not just gaming. Now a balance can be achieved between the two, but most are too damn lazy to attempt that. And it would take a really good developer to succeed at it...if they could even get around the board and do what they want for a change.
Honestly if you play any first person shooter that isnt too real for example squad and RB6S you can play them just like an arena. In fact BF4 the faster you move and the more chaotic your game play is the better you do. Of course you need the right servers but you can turn almost any game into an arena shooter if you know how to do it. People like games where you can learn it very easily but is very hard to master. my biggest problem with CSGO is that you cant just jump into a game and understand it. It takes weeks of learning call signs and crap. COD on the other hand you jump into a lobby and sure you will get rekt by some god player but you can still go positive. I think arena shooters have become way to hard to pick up quickly. Its why the halo games arent really gaining so much. Halo is a hard game to learn and it takes a long time to get it right. Same with CSGO but its very popular so people join the ban wagon.
i was in a number of good outfits [in game groups], but all of them fractured because people saw how much ire and butthurt the MLGPRO outfits caused, and either became obsessed with moulding the current outfit into one, or they suddenly felt too good for everyone else and went to suck up to said groups to get invited in. which was a fucking shame, because when you're used to following somebody's plays and hearing them in Teamspeak along with others, you grow attached. and then suddenly you don't have that formalised structure and drive to log on because they left to hang with the cool rager autists and their cancerous antics.
I never joined an outfit, but that's because I couldn't find one that balanced fun with seriousness. Too much zerg when they were serious and then they took themselves too seriously. Oh, and PS2 is pay to win. I found the community lacking, and I think this is also contributes to the lack of popularity of arena FPSs.
People want community. They want to feel like part of something. Arena FPSs don't make me think of that. I used to just pop onto a server, play a few matches, and then leave. I left PS2 for a MOBA, and while those feel like they have more of a community, it really takes a lot of investment to 1) get good enough you don't have people raging at you and 2) play long enough to meet people you jive with. I think MMOs might have the best sense of community...or maybe this is all just a bunch of crap and community isn't as important as I think it is.
i wasn't going to start a big spiel, because people who believe in P2W rarely recant their assertions, and since neither of us play it any more, it's not a big deal. but i found this video today, which might help people who do.
OT but I never paid them a dime. I grinded as an engineer and medic to earn enough certs. I had to watch/read guides on gearing priority and guns. First I upgraded their tools, then armor, then finally guns. I could then finally branched out to other classes. I enjoyed light assault the most. Jetpacks, man...jetpacks and C4 from above. There are also guides on the best camo, but of course your can only buy "cosmetics" with cash. Loadouts could also only be bought with cash. Having to change your loadout manually for specific situations was a pain in the ass.
