2015 - Year of the Arena FPS's Revival?

[GHz_ghost]

So, I noticed there have been quite a few awesome looking Arena FPSs announced lately.

So far, I've heard about Unreal Tournament 4(http://www.unrealtournament.com/blog/), Toxikk(http://toxikk.com/), Reflex(http://reflexfps.net/), Project NEX(http://nexfps.com/), and Telos(http://overpoweredgames.tumblr.com/landing), all of which are probably going to be released in 2015.

I personally am looking forward to Toxikk the most right now, as I've actually gone ahead and bought a closed beta key for it. I'm excited to be in on a game early, as I usually start playing games well after their newness has worn off, so by that point my skill level is so far behind the curve that I can't have fun playing.

I think UT4 is going to be beautiful looking just based on the UE4 demo stuff that has come out, but I have my worries about the game being f2p. I don't know much about Reflex other than that the movement system looks really cool/complex, and I know nothing at all about NEX and Telos.

I just find it interesting and exciting that all these Arena FPSs are cropping up around the same time. I think 2015 might be the year the Arena FPS becomes a popular genre again. There hasn't really been a great Arena FPS that was very popular since UT2004, that I can remember.

Anyone else have thoughts or input on this? Are you looking forward to any of these games? Do you long for the Arena FPS to be revived?

 

[tidy]

.

 

[GHz_ghost]

I'm pretty skeptical on UT4. I've been following the UT4 boards, and many times I come away from it thinking that the game will be a success, and other times thinking it will be a disaster. Getting constant feedback from the 'community' is a double edged sword, there are a lot of very stupid people on that forum with a lot of ridiculous ideas. On the other hand Epic totally ignore some very valid criticisms and get fixated on 'innovation' for innovation's sake. They don't seem to have learnt much from UT3. The recent HUD thread just about did my head in.

Oh boy. I haven't gone around there any, but this is discouraging me from doing so for sure. I suppose that is the downfall of democratic systems, right? Stupid people get a vote too.

 

[DigDog]

nice thread, i like it.

on UT, i have a few friends playing it now, and i also watch the videos from Stermy's channel too, but what i see doesn't leave me impressed. it seems to be unbalanced towards aiming rather than balanced between aim and movement. i just dont like the UT style of movement.

i know that some UT players say its second nature to them, but the "everything starts with dodge" just doesnt work for me.

Reflex is just quake made slightly better. minus all the mess bethesda has made, which is good. the devs just sound more like real people and the game looks good right now, but it's really barebones. i'm hoping for some great community tools to be implemented, and if so QL will probably cease to exist.

Toxxikk seems a bit confused as to what it wanst to be. Arena shooter with vehicles in it?

nex and telos dont seem to have any videos and i hadn't heard about them before.

i cry a little every day that blacklight retribution has been left to rot because imho it was the best shooter to date, no offense to quake.

loadout i'm not even gonna try, just watching the constant spam of the dodge key makes me puke.

 

[GHz_ghost]

nice thread, i like it.
i know that some UT players say its second nature to them, but the "everything starts with dodge" just doesnt work for me.

haha, I definitely identify with that.

Reflex is just quake made slightly better. minus all the mess bethesda has made, which is good. the devs just sound more like real people and the game looks good right now, but it's really barebones. i'm hoping for some great community tools to be implemented, and if so QL will probably cease to exist.

Actually, right after making this thread I went and bought an Early Access key for Reflex because I watched and read more about it. I very rarely buy Early Access stuff, but for $10 it seemed worth the risk. I just have to wait until I get home to my PC to play it. Oh, and Quake Live is a bullshit cash grab. Screw that pay2win game.

Toxxikk seems a bit confused as to what it wanst to be. Arena shooter with vehicles in it?

I definitely get what you're saying. That particular bit instantly makes me think of Halo. I don't think that every map will have vehicles, though. I actually think most maps will probably be on-foot only, but that is just a guess.

loadout i'm not even gonna try, just watching the constant spam of the dodge key makes me puke.

I have downloaded Loadout but never played it. I was told it was similar to TF2, which I enjoy, but I just never had enough interest to actually pick it up.

 

[skipsneeky2]

I missed the golden age of arena shooters and the only experience i have is with UT3.But watching that Toxikk trailer i was blown away by how epic it looked.

You take all the bs in every modern fps,all the stupid ass unlocks and every complaint and dumb thing you can imagine and you listen and simply resurrect a genre that seemed to be dead and proclaim a game that is bs free basically.Quite bold and quite refreshing.

Got bored of Titfanfall,getting bored of BF4.BF3 is still fun sorta and BO2 lasted me a whole day.FPS games seriously need to be revamped,bring back some damn WW2 games or better yet more arena shooters.

GG TOXIKK on also being pc exclusive,whomever is developing and publishing that game seriously deserves a freaking Noble Peace Prize.

 

[skipsneeky2]

I have downloaded Loadout but never played it. I was told it was similar to TF2, which I enjoy, but I just never had enough interest to actually pick it up.

Loadout is a ton of fun,it does get boring kind of fast if you don't leave matches when they are over since you may get a group who constantly wants to play the same map or mode over and over again.

BO2 i found this extremely irritating,any game with a match making mechanism is prone to failure from the start seriously and i just hate it with a passion,especially the dumb ass stupid ass vote next function.

 

[PrincessFrosty]

I was excited to hear about UT4, I think it's a good idea and I've not heard of the rest, I've just been taking a look and like a lot of what I'm seeing.

Games have drifted too far from their roots of harsh competitive envrionments to wishy-washy-feel-good-everyone-wins kinda games with artificially low skill ceiling. There's too much pandering to console users and it'd be nice if we could have a round of PC games that really turn this problem on its head.

We'll just have to wait and see, when UT4 is playable I'll be testing for it and maybe mapping again, if they have an interesting jump/dodge system I'll probably make a TempleOfTrials redux, for anyone that remembers that map

 

[DigDog]

thats not entirely true, if you excuse me for a minute.

back in the days of UT and Q1 there were nowhere near as many "gamers" as we have today; time-travel back to 1990 and ask any number of college jocks if they have a playstation, and the answer is no.

these days, gaming has broken through to the consumer market, with both children and non-gamers having some sort of videogame entertainment. and none of these are "hardcore".

me, back when quake 3 arena came out, i was playing it with a trackpad and i was infuriated as to why i sucked so bad at Ultra-Violence when instead i was so good at Doom2.
i even was vocal against the mouse, such gimmick and real men play with the arrow keys, that kinda stuff. by which i mean that even among people who played games,not everyone was a tryhard.

then came broadband, and the internet, and multiplayer games flourished. people got better and better, and the skillcap between new players and old players became huge. huge and really annoying, with people loving the single player experience but hating the multiplayer of the same game.

of course, someone figured this out and made a whole bunch of money creating a new kind of game, the "casual". people who were drastically different from the nerdgeek who writes his own ethernet drivers were now playing and enjoying multiplayer games, and the rest is CoD and MoH history.

the number of FPS tryhards has not diminished, it has increased if anything. but while 25 years ago it was a considerable % of the population,now it is just a tiny fraction, because the huge number of casuals has diluted that percentage.

(btw this always happens when i wake up at my pc - i start to write huge posts that never end)

if you look back at quake3arena, many people bought it, but not that many stuck around playing the multiplayer(56k modems, lol). you'd open the master server list and there would be 200 people online between all the servers, most of which had 200+ms of ping.

The truth is that the competitive scene is still alive - look at ESReality, QL, Dreamhack, CS:GO, and so on. But that wow factor which dragged in tons of sales form people who would eventually only dip their toes in multiplayer, but not stay for the hardcore ownage, that's just not there.

They've already seen every shooter there is, and the consensus is that casual is better.

 

[PrincessFrosty]

Let me be more clear.

The number of active gamers in total is way up, the number of hardcore arena games is way down, not just as a percentage of total games but just as an absolute figure. There were more people playing arena games back in the day than are now, the communities for all of the UT and Quake games are fractional compared to their peak. Look at something like UT2003/4 which was unreal at its peak, there were thousands of servers and hundreds of thousands of gamers.

The problem isn't skill gap, that can be solved by matchmaking like QuakeLive did. The problem is investors in building games want to make money and not make good games, that means appealing to the biggest audience which is the casual audience, that means games that all casuals irrelevent of skill can enjoy, even in multiplayer. That means dumbed down mechanics designed to normalize skill...there's a reason there's random critical hits in games like TF2 and no grenades, because grenades took skill and were dangerous which increase skill gap, and random critical hits mean even the dumbest gamer can get lucky now and again and score a kill.

The competitive scene is still alive but it has shifted away from FPS games, we see a lot of high competition in Starcraft, LoL, DOTA2 but next to no serious competition in the FPS world. Sure there's clans and clan matches still but the games themselves are skill normalized, even CS has become more newby over the iterations, many of the pro gamers stick to CS 1.6 still.

The consensus is that causal is better becuse we've had a flood of causals in gaming over the last decade or so. By pure numbers mcdonalds is "better" than any 5 star restaurant, but we all know deep down that one has higher quality. Mcdonalds appeals to poor peoples wallets in the same way that CoD appeals to casual gamers lack of ability to handle complex and competitive game play.

Its my fond hope that many of the current gen casual gamers will actually grow up and mature out of the CoD stage and we'll hopefully convert some of these causal gamers into gamers who want something with more depth from their games, whether that actually happens or not is obviously debatable, but I sure hope so.

 

[DigDog]

i think we're both right. being a hardcore gamer demands a certain lifestyle. i know people that will happily go in an empty server and spend two hours practicing flick rails. most normal people do not do that and don't consider that same behaviour. they play games because they want to have some fun with friends and relax after a day's work.

i'm sorry but as a decently skilled quake player, i have a hard time absolving tryhard gaming. i only stuck with QL because i was in a dark place in my life and it was a way to pass the time without spending money, and thats how i got good.

i think that skill in gaming shoudl at best be a natural evolution - you start playing, then get experienced, and grow out of a game, and then look for something more demanding. but starting out with absurdly high skillcaps doesn't appeal to nearly anyone.

if i go read the forums on quake live (and other games too) now i find that the vast majority, over 90% of the posts are from people who have played since quakeworld/Q1 saying how the game isn't hardcore enough, and the rest is people crying that the game is too hard.
problem is, those 90% of posters are just a couple hundred guys who stick around, while the rest represents the tens of thouseands who have tried the game and dropped it before even going to the forums to complain.


think about it for a second. new player, you are given a choice: take the red pill, and you will get massacred for 2-3 years before you even begin to understand where the skillcap is. take the blue pill, and you will be getting kills in 3 days.

example : i loved plants vs zombies. LOVED that game. i also find super meat boy somewhat amusing to watch on youtube, but i know i wouldn't be able to touch that kinda of game with a ten foot pole.
if i got an evening to spend, i'd rather get the instant gratification from the easy and fun game and not the difficult but ultimately rewarding e-sport.

 

[JamesV]

I had a blast with Quake and Unreal, but once team based shooters started coming along that were not ONLY deathmatch (many team based shooters degrade into deathmatch, regardless of how they are setup), I didn't miss them.

Games like Tribes where you had to work together with teammates shelved any interest I had in a competitive arena shooter.

Like the OP mentioned; it sucked getting into an Arena game late and being owned constantly, where a team based shooter that wasn't simply team deathmatch allowed you to contribute even if you haven't played since day one. But, if you stuck with it, the high end competition was there.

Personally, after thousands and thousands of hours of playing arena games, I have zero interest in playing any more of them. The core mechanics of learn the map and where the items are doesn't have the same draw after using them in multiple games over the years.

 

[tential]

I was excited to hear about UT4, I think it's a good idea and I've not heard of the rest, I've just been taking a look and like a lot of what I'm seeing.

Games have drifted too far from their roots of harsh competitive envrionments to wishy-washy-feel-good-everyone-wins kinda games with artificially low skill ceiling. There's too much pandering to console users and it'd be nice if we could have a round of PC games that really turn this problem on its head.

We'll just have to wait and see, when UT4 is playable I'll be testing for it and maybe mapping again, if they have an interesting jump/dodge system I'll probably make a TempleOfTrials redux, for anyone that remembers that map

Yup agreed. I was really bad at UT but I mean that's the point you practice.

I have little hope for any new shooter coming out. Nothing will beat the competitive nature we used to have. We're weak as a species moving forward.

Not every game needs to be easy and all these skill normalized shooters end up with empty servers soon after release. Generally, its the add gamer who plays every new game for only a couple of months then moves onto the next cool thing that were catering to now.

A lot of times I feel I wasted money on these games because I got.no enjoyment just moving through a story line on rails. No challenge, beating a game on the highest difficulty level should be hard. Even the ninja Gaiden series fell off and I'm happy I just simply didn't pick up the new games to.witness it first hand because I would have cried if I had

 

[PrincessFrosty]

I'm not sure it requires a certain lifestyle. Being at the top requires that lifestyle for sure and I think that's a good point. I'd argue that being a pro gamer isn't about being the best, the internet has millions of gamers and only a handful get to be the best. It's about earning what you kill and the mentality to practice and work hard to improve your skills (which requires losing to better players).

Part of that is enjoying the nature of improving, no one is good instantly, everyone that's good works at it. I'm not a pro player in the sense that I can do it for a living or win tournaments, but I'm certainly in the 97th percentile. To me that's good enough when compared with the effort I put in, there's always someone better than me and If I merely wanted to win I'd play on servers full of newbs.

To me it's not so much about winning it's about enjoying the chase between 2 good players where every tiny mistake matters, there's a thrill to that, it requires a certain mentality of earning your victory that your average noob doesn't have. That's why we have press X to win as a meme these days, because even in single player games we've gone more cinematic and less skill based.

The best kind of matches are those where you earn 100 points and the enemy earns 100 points plus or minus maybe 1 point, the fact that it was so close gives everyone a lot of respect and humility for each other. Giving it your absolute fucking all, and the enemy doing the same, pulling off the sickest 180 degree headshots and then at the end of it getting a draw, they're some of the best games.

I get what you're saying though, it's a harsh world to live in, especially for newbs, but I think that modern ranking and match making is a good way to mitigate that, and when you do finally get your first kill, if you've had to work at that, it's much more rewarding.

People want instant gratification without the effort, but that's just not how life works, your brain knows that if something comes easy it's not worth as much.

That said I don't think ALL games should be like this, enjoying competative twitch shooters shouldn't be anyones world, enjoying puzzles and compelling single player stories are fantastic experience as well, I love plants vs zombies and press X to win games like heavy Rain for their own benefits. My issues these days is that arena shooters have all but gone extinct, and that's a damn shame.

 

[tential]

I'm not sure it requires a certain lifestyle. Being at the top requires that lifestyle for sure and I think that's a good point. I'd argue that being a pro gamer isn't about being the best, the internet has millions of gamers and only a handful get to be the best. It's about earning what you kill and the mentality to practice and work hard to improve your skills (which requires losing to better players).

Part of that is enjoying the nature of improving, no one is good instantly, everyone that's good works at it. I'm not a pro player in the sense that I can do it for a living or win tournaments, but I'm certainly in the 97th percentile. To me that's good enough when compared with the effort I put in, there's always someone better than me and If I merely wanted to win I'd play on servers full of newbs.

To me it's not so much about winning it's about enjoying the chase between 2 good players where every tiny mistake matters, there's a thrill to that, it requires a certain mentality of earning your victory that your average noob doesn't have. That's why we have press X to win as a meme these days, because even in single player games we've gone more cinematic and less skill based.

The best kind of matches are those where you earn 100 points and the enemy earns 100 points plus or minus maybe 1 point, the fact that it was so close gives everyone a lot of respect and humility for each other. Giving it your absolute fucking all, and the enemy doing the same, pulling off the sickest 180 degree headshots and then at the end of it getting a draw, they're some of the best games.

I get what you're saying though, it's a harsh world to live in, especially for newbs, but I think that modern ranking and match making is a good way to mitigate that, and when you do finally get your first kill, if you've had to work at that, it's much more rewarding.

People want instant gratification without the effort, but that's just not how life works, your brain knows that if something comes easy it's not worth as much.

That said I don't think ALL games should be like this, enjoying competative twitch shooters shouldn't be anyones world, enjoying puzzles and compelling single player stories are fantastic experience as well, I love plants vs zombies and press X to win games like heavy Rain for their own benefits. My issues these days is that arena shooters have all but gone extinct, and that's a damn shame.

I'm getting 0 gratification from playing most modern games no because it's too easy. That's my issue. XCOM felt great to beat, because I sunk so much time into it the first time and just LOST. LOST HARD. So I had to go back, figure out what I did wrong, and play again.

Then, I play Super Mario Galaxy 2. I'd played Mario 64, and expected something like that. Nope. Getting to new worlds? Super easy, just move to the next one on the map...
Completing levels? Oh no worries, there isn't any exploration, you just follow the rail set for you. I remember searching around in Mario 64 for Red Coins in very open levels. SMG2? Follow the rail, collect the 5 silver stars (instead of 8 red coins), and be on your way.

Games are just so dumbed down so that you can "win", but if winning took little to no effort what's the point?

TBH, I don't even like matchmaking. I got good in CS by playing the same servers each day. The same guys are online each day, and slowly you learn the things they know. Or they'll teach you. Matchmaking to me has ruined online gaming. Going to the same server is kind of like going to the park to meet up with the same people to play a game of basketball. You talk to the same people over voice chat, you build some sort of relation. Matchmaking is just playing with random people every day all the time. That personal feel of gaming is destroyed with matchmaking.

Even with what you said about pulling off the sickest 180 degree headshots. In a game of CS, next round/game people would still be talking crap about it, or just talking about what happened last map. Now aday, you're thrown into a new game right away. Obviously there are games that aren't like this (BF4 still has servers as do a couple of other shooters), but we've lost a lot of that "community" based gaming with matchmaking just because there are a bunch of weak minded people that will cry their eyes out if they have to play against someone who is actually good.

 

[PrincessFrosty]

I'm a bit different with singleplayers, I think overly hard single player games just for the sake of being hard is a bit lame, usually if the game employs some kind of artifical difficulty like simply giving enemies more and more hit-points rather than making them smarter and having more complex game mechanics.

Interesting you mention Mario64, I played that through in a weekend with my brother an N64 emulator and 100% the game, one of the best console gamers ever made IMO, not despicably hard but great learning curve.

Matchmaking is really good for newbies I think, that's really the point, the best part of matchmaking is just ensuring you don't get completely trashed by pros, I do however support your notion of community run servers, going back to play with the same group of guys, some of which are better some of which are worse is a great way to not die all the time but also learn, afterall you can't learn and improve if you're the best person on the server. But I think there's a good argument for using it to help newbs ease in to game mechanics so they don't get reamed but can still learn and improve.

There is something to be said for community though, it's a whole new level of gaming when you're on voice chat with familiar people enjoying the company of other people rather than just clinically gaming.

Maybe the ideal game would prompt the user at the start and ask if they're new to gaming or newbs, or if they're pros. That would decide for them whether they get matchmaking or a server browser, those who are matchmaking get ranked and when their rank hits a certain value the game prompts them and tells them maybe they should start searching for online servers rather than being spoonfed games.

I'm all for that kind of developer influence on multiplayer experience, I think that's a great way to help make sure the experience your game offers is not exclusive to newbs or pros. Offer the pros what they want, and offer the newbs a decent hand held path to being self reliant in how they play and select games.

 

[skipsneeky2]

I do have to agree about the multi player skill cap between old and new,i played UT3 against bots cause i had my fun doing that.I tried it about a year ago online and wow i couldn't go hardly anywhere before i immediately get my ass owned before i even knew i was under attack.

Noticed this in twitch shooters like Quake Live, Combat Arms, COD WAW and even the first BO1.If you joined any match on games like those as a new player you better prepare your anus.The fun factor is close to zero in games like that if your new.I could jump into BF2 and do as good today as i did back in 2006.

 

[WhoBeDaPlaya]

^ You haven't lived till you've played DM Morpheus in UT99 in instagib mode with Godlike bots
Also, if Quake was done today...

 

[tential]

I'm a bit different with singleplayers, I think overly hard single player games just for the sake of being hard is a bit lame, usually if the game employs some kind of artifical difficulty like simply giving enemies more and more hit-points rather than making them smarter and having more complex game mechanics.

Interesting you mention Mario64, I played that through in a weekend with my brother an N64 emulator and 100% the game, one of the best console gamers ever made IMO, not despicably hard but great learning curve.

Matchmaking is really good for newbies I think, that's really the point, the best part of matchmaking is just ensuring you don't get completely trashed by pros, I do however support your notion of community run servers, going back to play with the same group of guys, some of which are better some of which are worse is a great way to not die all the time but also learn, afterall you can't learn and improve if you're the best person on the server. But I think there's a good argument for using it to help newbs ease in to game mechanics so they don't get reamed but can still learn and improve.

There is something to be said for community though, it's a whole new level of gaming when you're on voice chat with familiar people enjoying the company of other people rather than just clinically gaming.

Maybe the ideal game would prompt the user at the start and ask if they're new to gaming or newbs, or if they're pros. That would decide for them whether they get matchmaking or a server browser, those who are matchmaking get ranked and when their rank hits a certain value the game prompts them and tells them maybe they should start searching for online servers rather than being spoonfed games.

I'm all for that kind of developer influence on multiplayer experience, I think that's a great way to help make sure the experience your game offers is not exclusive to newbs or pros. Offer the pros what they want, and offer the newbs a decent hand held path to being self reliant in how they play and select games.

That's been my issue with these games. They won't do this. They simply cater to people who want a handholding experience, then dumb the game down so they can do well.

You talk about Mario 64, now try the newest Mario 3D land (or whatever).

I thought Super Mario Galaxy 2 was easy? After dying a couple of times in that you can get a hint to help you figure out how to move forward. Whatever, it's an option choose to use it, helps kids while not doing it for them.

Mario 3D Land now? Die a couple of times and you get INVULNERABILITY. Yup, any enemy you walk into instantly dies.

What in gods name is the point of that. Now, I wouldn't use that obviously but kids? They think of it as a good thing. So now watching my 5 year old cousin play, he dies a couple of times then gets it and is like "Look how good I am! I'm GREAT YAYAYA!"
Meanwhile, as kids, we died a couple of times at Mario 64, maybe got frustrated quit, came back, played with a friend and figured otu what we were supposed to do.
Kids now a day? They get frustrated quit, and give up because they expect to be given a win.

Part of the reason we're seeing terrible online experiences compared to that of old is how kids are being coddled. Maybe though that has to do with watching my dad play games for me, he isn't a gamer by any means and but when he did play games with me as a kid and by himself he was meticulous, learned, practiced, and figured out how to be better. Something we just don't see anymore from a large group of gamers who just now quit out of games when they're losing.
------------------

But enough of my "Old days rant" I just don't think you can make an Arena Shooter that brings back the glory days. The mentality of people has changed since then which means games that worked 10 years ago, won't work today.

 

[skipsneeky2]

^ You haven't lived till you've played DM Morpheus in UT99 in instagib mode with Godlike bots
Also, if Quake was done today...

That video seriously isn't far off from the truth,i play the occasional COD BO2 and that game is pretty annoying when you play so many hours and still you get told when to reload or where to jump as if your simply just to stupid to figure it out on your own lol.I think the game even tells you which button for reload/jump as if you forgot hours earlier too.

 

[FunCaptcha_Jim]

I'm surprised no-one's mentioned Overwatch (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7Pfu5NVoMg0) yet! Blizzard is all high quality release standards, otherwise they simply won't release the game (ie Titan and Ghost). It looks like it's got great aesthetic appeal and looks to be their answer to TF2, with huge potential customization if they choose to take that path. Anyone agree/disagree?

 

[GHz_ghost]

I'm surprised no-one's mentioned Overwatch (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7Pfu5NVoMg0) yet! Blizzard is all high quality release standards, otherwise they simply won't release the game (ie Titan and Ghost). It looks like it's got great aesthetic appeal and looks to be their answer to TF2, with huge potential customization if they choose to take that path. Anyone agree/disagree?

I haven't kept up with Overwatch much, honestly. I think it was in a Game Informer a few months ago, but I had forgotten about it since then. I do look forward to playing that.

 

[PrincessFrosty]

Never heard of overwatch either, looks pretty badass. Let's hope it doesn't have some really low skill ceiling and is targeted at casuals, that'd be a shame.

 

[DigDog]

will it be free to play? i'm saying because it doesnt look like something down my alley, but i would give it a go if i can get it for free.

 

[WhipperSnapper]

We'll just have to wait and see, when UT4 is playable I'll be testing for it and maybe mapping again, if they have an interesting jump/dodge system I'll probably make a TempleOfTrials redux, for anyone that remembers that map

A pre-alpha of the current build of UT4 is already available, if you know where to find it. People are already making maps and mods for it.

Here's an early version of what the new HUD might look like. It sounds like it might be possible to download and use custom HUDs, too:

I kind of preferred this proposed version of the HUD