Ex-Epic Games developer looking to make an arena FPS shooter for PC

[lupi]

so a guy partially responsible for putting out console only or ported from console to pc titles then complains about a lack in pc gaming....hmmm.

 

[Red Hawk]

The irony is a little deafening, isn't it?

 

[HeXen]

Well he didn't own Epic or anything, he still had to do what he was told.

 

[Red Hawk]

He was pretty high up in determining the creative direction for the company though, and Epic was an industry trend maker with the Gears of War series.

 

[WhipperSnapper]

It's easy to teach. Just tell them to bunny hop around enemy fire and *pew*pew until they get bored.
Those games are just quickdraw mcgraw aim fests, there isn't much to do really and that's why it's a niche type of game.

It sounds like you missed out on playing Unreal Tournament capture-the-flag. Clan and organized pick-up-game matches were more like playing in an athletic team cybersport.

 

[Yo_Mama]

Just what we need, more First Person Shooters, as if there aren't enough already.
You can point to subtle differences, but in the end they're all the same crap.

 

[BrightCandle]

Arena shooters were popular because that was what graphics card could do. Today we can represent a much more varied environment. I just can't see much interest for a quake/unreal game frankly, it's been done and we moved on.

What I want more developers to do is start focussing on realism in fps games. Better damage models, truer accuracy and aiming mechanics, longer range fights, accurate optics etc. Give Arma some AAA competition and get us some tactical shooters and open world battle stuff that makes good sandboxes. Its the next step in fps games, frankly I am sick of call of battlefield games. Its been done!

 

[Fox5]

Give me a new Timesplitters first.

 

[Yo_Mama]

Arena shooters were popular because that was what graphics card could do. Today we can represent a much more varied environment. I just can't see much interest for a quake/unreal game frankly, it's been done and we moved on.

What I want more developers to do is start focussing on realism in fps games. Better damage models, truer accuracy and aiming mechanics, longer range fights, accurate optics etc. Give Arma some AAA competition and get us some tactical shooters and open world battle stuff that makes good sandboxes. Its the next step in fps games, frankly I am sick of call of battlefield games. Its been done!

Being militarily accurate doesn't make a game fun, in fact it makes it slower and more boring. And Arma is essentially Battlefield with: bugs, performance and graphical issues, unfriendly UI, horrible controls, and hilariously awful voice acting. Hell, even the campaigns are basically the same "You are US rambo, 'Murica Good, Evil enemy Russians/Arabs/something, go save the day"

 

[Stringjam]

What I want more developers to do is start focussing on realism in fps games. Better damage models, truer accuracy and aiming mechanics, longer range fights, accurate optics etc. Give Arma some AAA competition and get us some tactical shooters and open world battle stuff that makes good sandboxes. Its the next step in fps games, frankly I am sick of call of battlefield games. Its been done!

I would love some more tactical FPSs. The most fun thing, to me, about ArmA is controlling a squad.

What I don't really like, is the command system. This game NEEDS a voice command setup. It takes too long to get people to do things, even when you have the steps memorized.

It takes up to 4 different keystrokes just to get your medic to heal someone. Image how awesome it would be if you could just say "Medic heal Charlie" and accomplish the same task. Or "Squad Formation Line," etc.

I recently purchased "Takedown" hoping it would offer some squad-based tactical gameplay, but it ended up being just horrible.

 

[Stringjam]

Being militarily accurate doesn't make a game fun, in fact it makes it slower and more boring.

IMO, any kind of game can be boring, no matter how fast it is.

I loved arena shooters for a little while, but eventually I just got really bored with everything about them. They are very repetitive, and yes, just about every MP FPS is repetitive to some degree, but I think because of the pace of arena shooters, it starts to feel that way to me much more quickly.

Some gamers thrive on that feeling. They like to hone their skills at playing a particular game until they're like a human aim-bot and master of the game mechanics. These types seem to thrive on arena shooters.

 

[HeXen]

Arena shooters were popular because that was what graphics card could do. Today we can represent a much more varied environment. I just can't see much interest for a quake/unreal game frankly, it's been done and we moved on.

What I want more developers to do is start focussing on realism in fps games. Better damage models, truer accuracy and aiming mechanics, longer range fights, accurate optics etc. Give Arma some AAA competition and get us some tactical shooters and open world battle stuff that makes good sandboxes. Its the next step in fps games, frankly I am sick of call of battlefield games. Its been done!

I know I'm not the only one getting tired of military war games. I care as much about Arma or potential competition to it as I do BattleDuty. I'm getting sick and tired of medieval fantasy and war games and I sure as hell don't want another Arena shooter.

 

[Stringjam]

I know I'm not the only one getting tired of military war games. I care as much about Arma or potential competition to it as I do BattleDuty. I'm getting sick and tired of medieval fantasy and war games and I sure as hell don't want another Arena shooter.

I wish somebody would make a game like this (ArmA) and take it out of the military setting.

I want an FPS that has strategy elements like Arma, but yeah - I'm pretty sick of that whole setting.

If only developers would get out of the mindset that "tactical" has to mean "military."

 

[cmdrdredd]

I'll keep an eye out on any other news regarding his project. I'd buy it if it gets the proper support from players. I find it easier to jump into an arena shooter than to have to trudge through levels and gain xp to get weapons. I prefer learning the map and knowing where the weapons and armor are placed so I can run to it and continue the mayhem.

I do prefer scifi shooters to the semi-realistic military stuff.

 

[JamesV]

I don't see how any arena shooter could work these days.

Almost EVERY shooter and many other games not traditionally a shooter have experience and upgrades now, and arena shooters cannot have that. Gone are the days of everyone being on equal footing, with the same gear and abilities; I bet many kids would stop playing (even if they liked it), when they found out no upgrades/etc.

 

[BrightCandle]

I really hate the progression system tacked onto games like battlefield. All it does is mean that the people that play more have an advantage, they have better guns, scopes, grenades and options on their perks. Even if you claim the guns are balanced that isn't really true, knowing that everyone starts with a particular type of guns means you can choose engagement ranges that favour yours over his. The RPG elements ruin FPS games, they don't need progression to be entertaining. I actually think this is what is making Epic consider an arena shooter at all, but in reality you can get a long way by just removing the RPG elements from the top line games.

I am fed up of modern military quake games, they have none of the military tactics, they are a reskin of quake with different weapons but no more realism. In many ways they would be no different with nail guns in those same environments. I would argue COD is already an arena shooter, but differentiated because it has a (pointless and unfair) progression system.

 

[Doppel]

If arena shooters have failed, it's because they were good for gamers and bad for pointy-haired bosses.

More money is spent on games than ever before.

If there aren't arena shooters it is simply because people don't want them. I have to say the last time I recall playing one was some iteration of quake or something (honestly all the ID games are the same so i can't recall) back in 2001 and it had a space level with launch pads. It was fun but not sure I'd want to go back to it now.

Last FPS I really loved in multi was counter strike, and before that team fortress was great. I never played TF2 because it came out like 40 damn years overdue and by then I had nothing to play it on. Counter Strike was a phenomenal game, though. I have not even tried a multiplay FPS in almost 10 years, I'll probably start with BF4 shortly.

 

[HeXen]

I really hate the progression system tacked onto games like battlefield. All it does is mean that the people that play more have an advantage, they have better guns, scopes, grenades and options on their perks. Even if you claim the guns are balanced that isn't really true, knowing that everyone starts with a particular type of guns means you can choose engagement ranges that favour yours over his. The RPG elements ruin FPS games, they don't need progression to be entertaining. I actually think this is what is making Epic consider an arena shooter at all, but in reality you can get a long way by just removing the RPG elements from the top line games.

I am fed up of modern military quake games, they have none of the military tactics, they are a reskin of quake with different weapons but no more realism. In many ways they would be no different with nail guns in those same environments. I would argue COD is already an arena shooter, but differentiated because it has a (pointless and unfair) progression system.

On the flipside of the coin, progression is something you can strive for and kinda choose the path of weapons that suit your play style. It's something that keeps you grinding it out because there is a reward, without it you don't have any incentives to score points, help out other players..etc.
Arena games like UT's only incentive is for your team to win but the problem is the other team (as in most typical players) don't really give a crap who wins, they just want to feel leet in their ability to have lots of kills but that will get old because in reality no one else cares enough to put you on a pedestal for being good assuming there was a virtual pedestal outside of a high score chart. there is no reason to care who gets the most kills because respawning is very quick and you're right back in it....there's nothing there. You just go in like a mad man and shoot without reason to fear death.
Of course most everyone does in BF is go for kills over points but I think that's only cause it makes them feel leet or they think that others care and respect you for it but really only the clans seem to care about their own kills....and I don't even know what I'm rambling about anymore

 

[cmdrdredd]

More money is spent on games than ever before.

If there aren't arena shooters it is simply because people don't want them. I have to say the last time I recall playing one was some iteration of quake or something (honestly all the ID games are the same so i can't recall) back in 2001 and it had a space level with launch pads. It was fun but not sure I'd want to go back to it now.

I don't think that's true. There haven't been any that are even remotely good. That's the problem. Bring out a good one and people will play it.

The game you're thinking of is Quake 3 Arena on the map Q3DM17.

 

[EDUSAN]

I've played Unreal Tournament 2004 fairly completitively from 2005 to like 2009.

Nowadays games have a perk system to reward people spending hours and hours on the game, old games like ut and quake dont requiere less hours to unlock perks, but those perks are in the player, they are called skills

I've spent sooo many hours in ut2k4 TRAINING. Improving aim, practicing combos, timing shields, moving around the maps to know every single little trick jump you could do, etc etc. Those are real Perks

That being said, nowadays im not that guy anymore. Even though i miss the adrenaline of a good 1on1 duel, i dont see myself playing as much as i did ut2k4 to improve my own skills in the game, having a clan, practice CTF with the clan.
I dont consider myself a casual gamer, i play a ton of games, and i dislike the casual ones, but i dont see myself playing something as hardcore as an oldschool arena shooter
I see myslf trying it out though, i might end up liking it

 

[Doppel]

I don't think that's true. There haven't been any that are even remotely good. That's the problem. Bring out a good one and people will play it.

The game you're thinking of is Quake 3 Arena on the map Q3DM17.

Yep, Quake 3.

Back in the day these games involved engine creation. Now it can be licensed. I think a small team could put out a good arena shooter if there was really a demand for it. It wouldn't involve any of the expensive and timely stuff like modern games have with motion capture and huge amounts of scripting and every level gorgeous and different. Distribution is easier than ever also.

 

[smackababy]

Yep, Quake 3.

Back in the day these games involved engine creation. Now it can be licensed. I think a small team could put out a good arena shooter if there was really a demand for it. It wouldn't involve any of the expensive and timely stuff like modern games have with motion capture and huge amounts of scripting and every level gorgeous and different. Distribution is easier than ever also.

It would be pretty cheap (compared to a modern military shooter) to put out an arena shooter. If you focus just on MP, and let you maps be actual arenas, it wouldn't cost a ton. The problem is it would have to be cheap (nobody is paying $60 just for Quake 5 MP, at least nobody with half a brain). Put in some gimmicky TV show art work, perhaps some silly prizes (like SmashTV-esque) and you're good to go.

The problem is I just don't think there is a market for it. I mean, I'd buy a $15 arena shooter with some campy Price is Right style theme, but how many of the COD generation will?

 

[EDUSAN]

there is a game that tried to do that... shootmania or something like that...i think it was born dead

 

[VulgarDisplay]

Every once and a while I install Quake Live and go play that. It's still a great game to this day, and lots of people play it.

I play that when I get sick of grinding unlocks and noob perks/game mechanics get too annoying. Then I go back to games like battlefield after I get tired of playing the guys who know when quad damage spawns, and where all the best powerups are and when they spawn. That's true skill that they have. Not many people can out aim me, but they dominate me based on pickups which they have been practicing for like a decade.

 

[Gryz]

Q3A and UT99 were great fun. The problem was: the developers of those 2 games had no clue whatsoever what made the game fun ! So their followups failed some of the basic gameplay design issues.

You might think I'm crazy. But I really think that was the problem. Look at Tim Sweeney and John Carmack. Those 2 guys were brilliant. But they were only interested in rendering and engine technology. They hardly cared for the games themselves. I bet most of the level designers were more busy with the architectural esthetics of their maps, or the technical details and limitations, than that they cared about gameplay.

I played a lot of UT99 CTF, back in 2000. Great fun. The greatest achievement of UT99 CTF was that both noobs and pros could play together on the same public CTF servers. The pros would of course decide the games. They would be the ones grabbing the flag and capturing it. Or making that last second recapture. But the noobs would be able to do something useful. Even if they had to stay in their own base, and play defense only. They would have fun, and would even be able to make themselves useful.

The reason was that UT99 weapons were spammy. And dodging gave you a big advantage over noobs. But it wouldn't make you invincible. A very good player could go into the enemy base, kill each defender twice, grab the enemy flag, kill 3 more defenders, fight his way out of the base, and then still get killed by a lucky 8-ball combo from a noob. Or walk into blobs of goo from the goo gun, which was spammed there 60 seconds earlier. The good players had the advantage, and win 4 out of 5 fights. Or 9 out of 10. But the new players did have a chance, and did kill the better players. Enough to be slightly effective. And surely enough to keep the game fun and interesting for them.

With UT2003, 2004 and UT3, all the weapons changed. Spammy weapons were not powerful anymore. Hitscan weapons were the only real weapons to use. And dodging became so powerful, you could never hit a good player with a asmd-combo or 6 rockets from an 8-ball. The new players stood no chance. Not only would they not have any way to make themselves useful, they also would end matches with zero kills. Not fun from them. And they would stop playing quickly.

I don't think Epic Games (or id) realize this. They listened to the top DM players when developing their new games. And those top players want no spam, and very powerful and fast movement. Because they hate it when a worse player kills them. They want to avoid that at all costs. But they forget to realize that the other player also need to have fun.

So what needs to be done, to make a successful arena game ?

1) Make a game that both experienced and new players can enjoy. Even when playing together in the same game on the same server. This can be done via weapons-design. And via map-design.

2) Public games must try to balance both teams. This can be done via an elo-like system. Give every player a permanent id. Maybe allow them 2 or 3 different nicknames (so they can play anonymous if they want). But keep track of their performance/rating. Use those ratings to balance teams. Use those ratings to let players of the same skill-level play together on public servers. Allow good players to play with their noob friends if they want, and use the proper math to reflect that in the ratings. Give high-rated players a title others can see. That would be incentive/reward for the good players to play.

3) Release new maps on a regular basis. One of the reasons that arena shooters grow stale, is because you keep playing the same maps over and over. Custom player-made maps do help a bit. But if a company would release 1 or 2 quality company-endorsed maps every month, and arena-shooter can stay fun for a year or more.

I don't think arena shooters are not fun anymore. I just think that the developers don't really realize why they were fun.

(Note: my apologies for using the word "noob". In don't know a better word in this context. I mean a new player, or a player who isn't very good (yet)).