^ Half Life 2 is Pretty horrible . . .part 1 and the gearbox spinoffs (well . . . opposing force - haven't played blue shift) were fun.
Uhm. I dunno how to make this sound more relevant so I'm just going to go ahead.
In Megaman and Megaman X games the weapons are always pretty diverse in what they can do and what they can be used for. Megaman X 3 is probably the most popular Snes Megaman X title and I hate it. I think it is only popular because you can play as zero.
There are too many duplicate weapons in Megaman X 3. Most of them have the same movements or just down right useless movements. They are rarely useful outside of boss battles. Who wants 4 megaman weapons that all shoot a different type of missile straight forward?
Well i found half life 2 to have a terrible selection of weapons actually. Halflife 1 was so much better, both with weapons and gameplay. Offcourse i wouldn't say that the restriction of weapons is a nessecary a bad thing. But in my opinion games with more weapons are ussually more fun(stalker(rpg), cod, battlefield, swat, soldat). A subtle difference gives the player more stuff to enjoy. Take for instance mount&blade, an rpg, which has a great selection of different weapons per type. And in my opinion it improves the gameplay. As opposed to have sword, axe, spear. And a lousy example of bethesda which thinks rpgs should have really retarted weapons system. Not to mention enemy lvling up as you do, thats probably the most idiotic thing ever made by that company. But im off topic... Anyway, quake and doom are great games, with a great weapon system, but shooters progressed over the years. If someone wants to have a variety of weapons to choose from i think that will only add to the game appeal, and if done properly will only improve the game. Not to mention if you are doing real life weapons, most weapon enthusiast will surely be attracted to the game if they are done properly and accurately, and if there is a nice selection.
As long as there's a payoff in some measure to using a different weapon, then it should be allowed. This is what I think the crux of the argument is here. But what payoff are you seeking? That's the larger issue at hand.
Here are some examples of different types of projectile weapons (archetypes, perhaps?) you'll find in pretty much any gun-centric game out there.
-basic handgun: low rate of fire, low- to mid- accuracy (perhaps mitigated by player experience), and damage
-auto rifle: high rate of fire, low accuracy, low- to mid-damage
-shotgun: high damage, accuracy that decreases exponentially with range (providing an effectively short range), mid-level rate of fire or cool-down time
-grenade: timed detonation; arc trajectory; explosion at a distance that causes considerable damage
-missile launcher: debilitating explosive; very low rate of fire
-The list goes on: lasers, sniper rifles, etc.
The question is: how can you tweak the variables of range, accuracy, damage, etc. and still have all options be viable, meaningful gameplay choices?
Then there's the "features" angle, as opposed to "gameplay". For example, in Left 4 Dead 2, there are a wide variety of different melee weapons. But do these make much difference in effect? Mechanically, no (or no noticeable effect). But it's super cool to hear that "bong" of a frying pan on a zombie's skull, or see the blood splatters scattered across the screen when you use the katana. The key difference here is that they suck the player into a more entertaining game experience.
To put a name on the ends of the spectrum on this discussion: I think it was Don Luciano who stated that gun aficionados would LOVE to have so many choices...Not because of a noticeable effect on the gameplay, but because it adds to the features the game provides. Meanwhile, Sketchy is seeking out a tangible benefit to gameplay, as opposed to "bells & whistles" and a number of what he refers to as "meaningless choices." These are meaningless in terms of gameplay, but meanwhile would be essential with someone looking for added features.
To weigh in personally on this spectrum, I say I side with Sketchy on this one. Give me a fair and distinct example of even three weapon archetypes from the list above, and I'll be more than satisfied. Hell, I grew up with the 8-bit NES, where a "charged shot" was considered a genre-defining innovation.
Originally Posted by Sumo148 its just variety to use different weapons. Different accuracy, rate of fire, power, etc.
More is better whenever they all actually do something very different from each other. I don't want a ton of weapons with slightly different statistics. That's just stupid. (Call of Duty)
I'd rather have a variety of weapons that all act very differently from one another. Case in point, Unreal Tournament.
*ehem* Now then, in the above picture we have:
- Gun that calls down an air strike.
- Gun that shoots from a very long range.
- Gun that shoots a power core with secondary fire, that explodes when hit with the straight forward primary fire.
- Gun that fires a melee style shield burst.
- Gun that shoots rockets.
- Gun that shoots a nuke.
- Gun that shoots very fast.
- Gun that shoots spider mines.
- Gun that shoots a constant laser.
- Gun that shoots bursts of lightning.
- Gun that I don't recognize - sorry.
- Gun that shoots sticky grenades.
- Gun that shoots flaks.
- Gun that shoots multiple blobs with primary fire or a huge blob depending on how long you hold down secondary. Sticks to stuff and pops.
- Gun that locks onto vehicles as long as you're still pointed on it.
- Gun that no one wants because it just shoots normal shots like Call of Duty and if we wanted that, we'd play Call of Duty. Ew.
Now then... we have:
- A bunch of guns that do the exact same thing with slightly modified statistics. Fun.
As I said, more guns is good... as long as people actually care to see each gun. Me, when I see a whole bunch of guns with short names and a number that all do remotely the same thing, I don't see a bunch of guns, I see the same gun with slightly different stat changes.
I like all that information about choice. it's good stuff. but I just buy the strategy guides anyways. So I don't have to deal with making the wrong decidsions in games. Basied on the number of strategy guides I see on the shelves. Something tells me I'm not the only one buying them.
A game is nothing like a good book. They reward the user in vary different ways. I'd be mad if someone told me about the end of a book. But I'll watch Youtube of end game levels all day.
Silverfire:
Wow, i can't believe you only see bunch of guns with short names that all do remotely the same thing. Those weapons are quite different, but i guess it's where our difference in opinions meets. I see you showed cod6 weapons which are quite badly done anyway, I still can't believe that they made a short version of mp5 and made Steyr AUG a machinegun, when it's actually more of an assault sniper rifle, not to mention in every cod most american guns are much better than they actually are in real life. But I would choose those weapons anytime instead of unreal weapons. Not that i dislike unreal, but after the first unreal, the other ones were just to show off their engine, which is actually great, i tried the free version, very good stuff, both editor and coding wise.
I guess I am one of the few that can not stand any of the COD's.
I would much rather play UT or Serious Sam HD (first or second encounter) which are so much more FUN imo.
I agree with Sketchy, so many people get caught up with bells and whistles they miss the core point of playing a video game, which is to have fun. I do not want to remember the specs of a 3 different shotguns, or 3 different assault rifles, I want to have fun and not play top trumps.
Sketchy is seeking out a tangible benefit to gameplay, as opposed to "bells & whistles" and a number of what he refers to as "meaningless choices." These are meaningless in terms of gameplay, but meanwhile would be essential with someone looking for added features.
Apologies for my continued tangential interest in this debate. It's just I'm detecting more hostility than redundancy alone warrants - more, in fact, a paranoia that mapping this redundancy to a set of arbitrary rules (such as real-life weapon stats) blasphemes that holy of holies, the Balanced Gameplay Experience.
But an overdesigned game can be easily as dull as an underdesigned one! I loved (the first four levels of) the original Far Cry, but was disappointed when I replayed it that the vast, free-roaming maps were 100% illusion and really concealed maybe 2, 3 seperate paths - paths that covered different terrain, required different equipment and different strategies, but that had been tweaked to be more or less identical in difficulty, dramatic interest, etc. Where was the unpatrolled beeline through the jungle I might have taken? Where was the mercenary camp I had no need to even approach?
And a lousy example of bethesda which thinks rpgs should have really retarted weapons system. Not to mention enemy lvling up as you do, thats probably the most idiotic thing ever made by that company. But im off topic...
Yeah, I guess the real problem here is that a system that might have worked in one genre is used in one where it doesn't, but it's still a good example of trying to balance a game and breaking all the rules in the process (the internal rules, the ones that govern how a fantasy world is a world and not just a film-set where the player enacts the sensible outcome of his choosing).
I've always thought that more guns was better, but this thread made me reconsider.
Half-Life 2 is a really great game, with only one pistol, one revolver, one smg etc. and it doesn't hurt the gameplay at all.
In the game I am making there is only one weapon per type as well, with the exception of 2 shotguns, (One auto, one semi-auto) and 2 different types of grenade launcher (Confidential, but I promise they'll not be the same at all)
Then again, my by far favorite combat game, CSS, has multiple guns per category, and I think it's very well balanced.
Same with TF2, even if I never play it anymore.
All in all I don't think the amount of guns is the first thing you should judge when playing a game, they don't affect the gameplay too much.
I would i.e have played CSS with Deagle, MP5, AK47, AWP and M3, which would be one weapon per type.
Originally Posted by Sumo148 its just variety to use different weapons. Different accuracy, rate of fire, power, etc.
UT POST
I'm really late, but UT has probably the best weapon selection in any game ever.
There is literally a weapon for EVERY situation and every angle.
You can master one weapon and be good at the game, but if you can master all of them plus dodging, wall dodging, etc. you can become godly.
Oh by the way brandon the Assault rifle was shitty in the PC version only. In unreal champion ship I could pop someone with a grenade, hit them again in mid-air, then make them land on a third one about 100% of the time which almost always resulted in a kill. You had to be fucking good to do that.
All the game design you need to know is in this video
/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/
That Really Hot Chick
now on the Xbox Live Marketplace!
Originally Posted by s-m-r Silverfire: the gun you couldn't remember was the Link Gun, I believe. Excellent way to incorporate a new game style into the FPS genre.
Ah yeah, that was the ORIGINAL model to the link gun. I covered the link gun in the model I was most used to, the one in UT2K4. Thanks.
Originally Posted by ..::hagar::.. I guess I am one of the few that can not stand any of the COD's.
I would much rather play UT or Serious Sam HD (first or second encounter) which are so much more FUN imo.
I agree with Sketchy, so many people get caught up with bells and whistles they miss the core point of playing a video game, which is to have fun. I do not want to remember the specs of a 3 different shotguns, or 3 different assault rifles, I want to have fun and not play top trumps.
Read my post. You may be one of the few, but you're one of the awesome too.
Advertisement
Post Reply
Edited by Silveraura
