Jay520 said: chocoloco said: if there is not room for both there is not room for variety. I miss "shootouts" from the Goldeneye era, but overall Halo still brings this style to a large extent especially in the smaller maps. I think it is funner when playing with a small group of people locally, but via the internet in huge matches I prefer Cod's style of quick draw skills that demand you stay alert. That being being stated, after finally playing modern warfare 3 I feel like activision needs to just make it online only and continually add downloadable content. The Multiplayer just feels and looks the same. Glad I did not buy it new. I'm not saying there shouldn't be both. I'm actually saying the opposite. I don't necessarily want there to be less 'realistic' styled games, I just want more arcade styled games, since the sub-genre is pretty barren as of now.

I read your abstract on the bottom and not he whole thing so I .

It is hard to know what ,"shootout" game would do as well as Halo or Cod online. Your probably a rare younger than 20 gamer that remembers the shooters that are like what you describe before HAlo and Cod very well. I just do not see it selling as well as an online game. There has got to be a few still around, but they are certainly a rarity that deserve more.

Once again, a really good post Jay. I completely agree.

I've discussed it briefly a couple of times on these forums but I really miss arcade-style shooters - going back to play Timesplitters recently made me realise now much I preferred it.

Everything about them - longer shootouts, more strategy involved in actual gunfights, even down to stuff like differing (and more enjoyable) weapons. It's probably just me but when playing Call of Duty I'll 'unlock' all these new guns every few levels, and none of them really feel any different to me except if they're in different sub-classes.

It's one of the reasons I do respect Halo so much as a series. It strikes a nice balance between some of the modern-day FPS features (regenerating health) with some older arcade-style rules (longer gunfights).   It feels old and new at the same time. The fact that it's continued to grow and grow in this 'realism' environment is a testament to how good the original design was, and I hope they don't change anything too drastically any time soon.

But yeah, here's to hoping we see a few more arcade-styled shooters in the next few years. Shootmania looks good at least, but I'm hoping for something on consoles (Timesplitters 4 dammit!)

HiddenConcept said: I would go play Halo Reach but im too broke to go and buy the map packs. Ill go play Uncharted now. Is that Arcadey?

In my opinion, it leans towards realism because of low health & how it makes you slow down when you want to shoot.

I just want to go play Point Blank :(

chocoloco said: Jay520 said: chocoloco said: if there is not room for both there is not room for variety. I miss "shootouts" from the Goldeneye era, but overall Halo still brings this style to a large extent especially in the smaller maps. I think it is funner when playing with a small group of people locally, but via the internet in huge matches I prefer Cod's style of quick draw skills that demand you stay alert. That being being stated, after finally playing modern warfare 3 I feel like activision needs to just make it online only and continually add downloadable content. The Multiplayer just feels and looks the same. Glad I did not buy it new. I'm not saying there shouldn't be both. I'm actually saying the opposite. I don't necessarily want there to be less 'realistic' styled games, I just want more arcade styled games, since the sub-genre is pretty barren as of now. I read your abstract on the bottom and not he whole thing so I . It is hard to know what ,"shootout" game would do as well as Halo or Cod online. Your probably a rare younger than 20 gamer that remembers the shooters that are like what you describe before HAlo and Cod very well. I just do not see it selling as well as an online game. There has got to be a few still around, but they are certainly a rarity that deserve more.

I don't know. I think the genre still has some life. I think if such a game is well made, then it would be at least moderately successful. I guess we'll never know.

Kresnik said: Everything about them - longer shootouts, more strategy involved in actual gunfights, even down to stuff like differing (and more enjoyable) weapons. It's probably just me but when playing Call of Duty I'll 'unlock' all these new guns every few levels, and none of them really feel any different to me except if they're in different sub-classes.

CoD does not encourge experimentation in gun style because the skill level is so high you will never master a gun style if you switch styles early on. This is very apparent in the upgrading system as a person has lo log in hours for each gun to upgrade it to it'sfull potential. It takes mastery and is not a pick up and be the best style it requires a lot of play to get good. The "shootout" sty;e is built for any body to pick up and be decent more quickly, I would say. I do agree most guns in each class are useless, but I find many guns with different ratings that work better on different maps. For example, I would have a shorter range scar for close range maps and an ACR for long range maps. The strategy for Cod is different and does not have any less strategy. Shootouts have zero camping and very little snipers which are both styles that add a ton of variety to the game. In fact, I actually think Cod has way more styles due to skill perks, kill streaks, etc. I would say shootout games are way more bare-bone in style other than they have unique weapons.

Kresnik said: Once again, a really good post Jay. I completely agree. I've discussed it briefly a couple of times on these forums but I really miss arcade-style shooters - going back to play Timesplitters recently made me realise now much I preferred it. Everything about them - longer shootouts, more strategy involved in actual gunfights, even down to stuff like differing (and more enjoyable) weapons. It's probably just me but when playing Call of Duty I'll 'unlock' all these new guns every few levels, and none of them really feel any different to me except if they're in different sub-classes. It's one of the reasons I do respect Halo so much as a series. It strikes a nice balance between some of the modern-day FPS features (regenerating health) with some older arcade-style rules (longer gunfights).   It feels old and new at the same time. The fact that it's continued to grow and grow in this 'realism' environment is a testament to how good the original design was, and I hope they don't change anything too drastically any time soon. But yeah, here's to hoping we see a few more arcade-styled shooters in the next few years. Shootmania looks good at least, but I'm hoping for something on consoles (Timesplitters 4 dammit!)

Yeah, the PC I think has plenty of games like this. Consoles are pretty weak in this department unfortunately. I hope the whole realism route doesn't continue to dominate next gen. I'm hoping that developers are only embracing realism so much because this is the first gen where they had the technology to sufficiently produce realism. Maybe when the novelty completely wears off, devs will consider new ideas.

Jay520 said: HiddenConcept said: I would go play Halo Reach but im too broke to go and buy the map packs. Ill go play Uncharted now. Is that Arcadey? In my opinion, it leans towards realism because of low health & how it makes you slow down when you want to shoot.

True true. Perks are the only thing that are arcadey in mostly all current shooters.

chocoloco said: CoD does not encourge experimentation in gun style because the skill level is so high you will never master a gun style if you switch styles early on. This is very apparent in the upgrading system as a person has lo log in hours for each gun to upgrade it to it'sfull potential. It takes mastery and is not a pick up and be the best style it requires a lot of play to get good. The "shootout" sty;e is built for any body to pick up and be decent more quickly I would say. I do agree most guns in each class are useless, but I find many guns with different ratings that work better on different maps. For example, I would have a shorter range scar for close range maps and an ACR for long range maps. The strategy for Cod is different and does not have any less. Shootouts have zero camping and very little snipers which are both styles that add a ton of variety to the game. In fact, I actually think Cod has way more styles due to skill perks, kill streaks, etc. I would say shootout games are way more barebone in style other than they have unique weapons.

I do agree that CoD has a ton of of unlockables and I like how using a certain gun/perk improves that gun/perk. It adds an RPG element to it. But I always thought all the guns were pretty much the same. Every gun takes about 3-5 bullets to kill. ( excluding shotguns & snipers). Also, because recoil is so low, all the guns for the most part are effective at all ranges. So yeah, while the gameplay is covered with a lot of variety , I always felt the gameplay was pretty much the same regardless of the gun or perk. Keep in mind though I haven't put over about twenty hours into any CoD online multiplayer games. (I play a lot offline though).

chocoloco said: CoD does not encourge experimentation in gun style because the skill level is so high you will never master a gun style if you switch styles early on. This is very apparent in the upgrading system as a person has lo log in hours for each gun to upgrade it to it'sfull potential. It takes mastery and is not a pick up and be the best style it requires a lot of play to get good. The "shootout" sty;e is built for any body to pick up and be decent more quickly, I would say. I do agree most guns in each class are useless, but I find many guns with different ratings that work better on different maps. For example, I would have a shorter range scar for close range maps and an ACR for long range maps. The strategy for Cod is different and does not have any less strategy. Shootouts have zero camping and very little snipers which are both styles that add a ton of variety to the game. In fact, I actually think Cod has way more styles due to skill perks, kill streaks, etc. I would say shootout games are way more bare-bone in style other than they have unique weapons.

You're probably right about all that stuff - the last CoD I played was blops nearly a year ago now.  The bit I was referring to about strategy was in the actual gunfights.  In something slightly twitchy and quick like Call of Duty, it's all decided in a couple of seconds, whereas in something like Timesplitters it's going to take half a clip with most guns to kill someone.  Which leads to more strategy, at least in my opinion.  I'm sure in the match as a whole CoD has more strategy because there's much more factors at play.

Uff, you've reminded me as well, kill streaks.  I understand how they add another layer to the game but they really frustrate me, especially when they're not properly balanced.  The attack helicopters in MW2 (I think) really brought the whole game to a standstill for the 30 seconds they were out while everyone just hid.  It got really boring.  Even Halo Reach had a pretty imbalanced perk, if I remember correctly (armor lock?)

It does make me wonder how CoD achieved such popularity over other shooters, though.  I'd have thought something bare-bone (which is kind of true) would appeal to more people because it's easy to dip into whenever you feel like.  Pick a weapon, pick a map and go killing.  In Call of Duty there's all these factors you have to think of before you go into a match, all this practicing you have to do with certain weapons etc.  I guess it's all the levelling/perks/rewards you're given on top of a solid base game that keeps people coming back.