First Person Shooter theory

[Erik_Twice]

I think that the difference between a bad shooter and a good one is based only on level design, including enemy placement, and weapon design. Unlike other games, they are simple by design and small improvements matter a lot.

For example a very common pitfall of many FPS is the sniper rifle. Any weapon capable of killing in one shot limited only by skill is liable to dominate the game and turn the game into a Counter-Strike clone, based on not being seen or heard.


Something I also discovered very recently is the importance of verticality to keep a game interesting, specially when different classes or weapons are involved. Sniping involves more than just hitting strafing opponents, explosives must rely more on splash instead of just bouncing the enemy in the air and shotguns and other short-ranged weapons become more useful. It also allows ambushing without excessive cover or attack routes that dillute the experience and flow of the map.

Valve just recently noticed the importance of verticality in Team Fortress 2. Of the original maps the best ones were those where height advantage was directly related to the objective (Gravelpit, Badlands, Granary), in order to capture the point you needed it. All the newer maps are much more vertical, spanning several stories and the amount of strategies availble is higher than in the flatter maps.

So, what do you think?

[flamepanther]

I think you are at least partly correct. Level design is 100% of why I hate Halo.

[Hatta]

[Ack]

While I do believe level design is a significant portion of the gameplay, I believe said level design must complement the physics of the game's world and its weapons. A vertical level like Morpheus 3 in UT2k4 is nice, but if your guns and mobility options are similar to Battlefield 1942, then it's not going to work out. But the guns and physics options in UT2k4 suit Morpheus 3 quite well as a deathmatch map, while Battlefield's over reliance on vehicles suits the considerably larger maps of that game.

I think distinctions must also be drawn between hitscan and projectile weapons in games. Taking a hitscan weapon in one game and turning it into a projectile weapon, like sniper rifles have done over the years, can drastically change the gun's versatility. I've seen many more guys run into close range with hitscan sniper rifles than projectile rifles in games.

These days there are the standard choices for weapons, like missile launchers, shotguns, sniper rifles, grenade launchers, etc., but even these can change drastically between games. The missile launcher in Half-Life is very different from the missile launcher found in UT2k4, which is different from the anti-tank tubes of games like Battlefield or the panzerfaust in Return to Castle Wolfenstein. Weapons design is a key feature that can drastically change gameplay, and coupled with map layout, it can lead to certain weapons dominating over others, like how sniper rifles are often the favorite of large maps, but in close quarters machine guns and shotguns tend to be favored, while explosives generally see better use in a mid-ranged map, so enemies can't dodge them very well but you're not getting reamed on splash damage.

[CRTGAMER]

[vash23n]

I have been playing Assault Cube a lot lately and have decided that the most important aspect of a FPS is it being free:). Just kidding. I think Assault Cube is a great example of how a poorly designed, no frills FPS can be supplemented by decent multiplayer. My favorite, non-multiplayer FPS is still Time Splitters 2. Not perfect, but still an interesting story, interesting level design, great variety in the levels, which is made possible by the premise, and good weapons. Co-op is also a lot of fun.

[Erik_Twice]

While I do believe level design is a significant portion of the gameplay, I believe said level design must complement the physics of the game's world and its weapons.

I agree. There are too many games out there where you take a tank only to step out of it every five minutes to enter a building or with useless vehicles that look cool but are kind of useless (Star Wars Battlefield, I'm looking at you)

Taking a hitscan weapon in one game and turning it into a projectile weapon, like sniper rifles have done over the years, can drastically change the gun's versatility.

They do that? Ugh. I think sniper rifles should be hitscan, it's incredibly annoying to compensate for bullets.