How I would create a game to troll 90% of FPS players Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 5 NEXT | |
Depending on the game in question that might just be auto-aim haha. Although I'm actually pretty fine with ADS for console shooters -where it's an okay substitute for the amount of precision you'd get with a mouse. Not sure what the point would be for PC shooters though. | |
Well, of course it is easier because it slows down gameplay. In many FPS lacking this mechanic you still need to consider your momentum (CS, TF2, Tribes: Ascend). Also, aiming disregarding the gunmodel is another act on itself. I on the other hand can't hit shit with iron sights because I learned to aim with this momentum in mind. I want point precise: I slow down to walk or stop. I can stand it if the mechanic is pure optional (like in Serious Sam 3 where the only thing it does is make your shots point precise instead of having this tiny spread. It just increased the amount of bullets landing on tiny targets on 1km distance by ~10%). But if I have to ram my pistol or shotgun in my nose to hit something in front of me (or ram my pistol in my nose AT ALL) I simply lose all interest in the game. Why pistols? Because they are always held in iron sights except you are running. But so do nearly all other weapons too (if you are in a situation where a drawn weapon is required). And don't get me started on the lack of actual spread in weapons in those arcady modern FPS. In MW3 I just need to look roughly in the direction of the enemy and hold down fire to kill him. The thing with camping is: Holding a position which gives you advantage is normal gameplay. If it is a position that is hard to get / impossible to get than it is not the fault of the strategy but of the developers. They failed to balance the weapons and map. If you get killed by a guy in a certain spot: React to that. Also, if we go by many, many, many idi... players then reacting to their footsteps and waiting around the corner equals camping. Sorry dude but I won't approach you in open combat if you are too stupid to keep your postion a secret and allow me to prepare an ambush. | |
Clearly you've never played any game like TF2 where there are no iron sights and firing from the hip is accurate. My point still stands that you only need iron sights if the developers say you do. It's perfectly feasible to have games that don't use them. | |
I played CS. That was enough of a game that lacked iron sights for me. | |
They have these tacked on online modes because people buy them in droves. Just look at CoD. The game is objectively awful, yet breaks sales records because of the multiplayer. Making an SP-only CoD game would, thus, accomplish two noble feats: 1: Troll FPS players.
Moving the mouse up to look up makes sense. That's why it's the default. Moving it down to look up is what's odd. | |
On a serious note: You can't just say "No, it would be nothing like Team Fortress 2 because the aesthetics and guns would be totally different!" That's like saying Kingdoms of Amalur is absolutely nothing like Skyrim because they have completely different visual aesthetics and combat systems, completely ignoring the fact that they're both massive open-world RPGs with a heavy emphasis on exploration and a sub-par story. You also can't just say Team Fortress 2 isn't a "true" FPS, especially without backing your argument. It's a shooter, it's in first-person - By definition alone you are wrong. Also, this theoretical game of yours would literally only "troll" people who have never played a game that isn't Call of Duty. Because there are plenty of games that do various combinations of all of those points, and have been for years. | |
CoD isn't a dying franchise if it just broke the record number of sales, I don't know what you are on about, but saying it doesn't make it true. The game is not objectively awful, it's objectively pretty good. And I'd put money on half the problems you have with it are over exaggerated nonsense. Inverted is usually the default option because it was imported from a console version :p I play inverted on consoles and standard on PC | |
Just because it breaks sales records doesn't mean it's any good. The franchise is a joke, a shell of it's former self that sells solely on the multiplayer...which is increasingly imbalanced and broken with every edition.
Yeees it is.
All of the problems I have with it are because it's absolute tripe in DVD form. There's nothing good about the game. The multiplayer is dull, tired, overdone, imbalanced, laggy and full of hackers, and the single player is so dreadfully awful it makes me think they had two janitors write the plot over a single cleaning day....while still having to clean the office.
I've played plenty of console ports so blatant they said to press Y to reload and yet I've NEVER bumped into a shooter that defaulted to the bass ackwards pull-mouse-back-to-look-up controls. | |
The only problem with this one is that there is no way to make it work. If you try what treyarch did with black ops, then no one can effectively snipe, even legitimately. You're going to have to come up with something new that won't nerf the hell out of sniper rifles. | |
Nooo it isn't. That is a matter of opinion, in every way, shape and form. | |
What's with the quotes around play? Oh wait, I see. PC Elitism again. O/T Yeah you really did describe TF2 there. | |
Sounds to me like you just don't like losing in FPS games and want a game that only uses your strengths, with none of your weaknesses. Don't get me wrong, I'm not a fan of an insta-kill melee button on every gun, but iron sights are fine (If you can aim just as well from the hip as from iron sights, the game is seriously broken), auto-aim is fine for consoles, auto rifles are fine (Spray and pray is generally a poor strategy against opponents who have any concept of cover), modern weapons are fine. The rest is all taste-based (With the exception of rewarding players on killing streaks with the ability to kill even more with little to no danger to themselves). And camping should never be a legitimate strategy. Using the mechanics of the game, something which is difficult to work around, in order to win is downright obnoxious. And you saying it should be legitimate only goes to show that you don't like losing in FPS games and are willing to pull the cheapest of "non-cheating" strategies in order to win. So yeah, I disagree with most of the list, and the other stuff is generally taste-based. | |
Yeeeeeesss it is. There is no redeeming feature of the game. You seem to think there is, but there just sort of isn't. It looks awful as well, something I don't normally mention but think has become relevant. | |
And as for the minigun/plasma rifle violating #3, you can't use those guns without aiming. In fact, the minigun is probably the weapon with the greatest need for accuracy on the player's part in the whole game because it has to be held on the tiny moving enemies to do any damage at all. No spray n pray kills with that one. | |
When the Chief gets inverted in the training level of Halo I exclaimed "Argh! my brain! Switch it back! The other way!" Edit: I believe that the OP's post accurately describes old school FPS games, from UT to Quake III, or even Counterstrike. | |
You know, you never see chess players saying "Queen's Indian is OP, u n00b!" Possibly because their multiplayer game of choice is actually balanced.
You can just take out auto-aim for snipers. Then "quickscoping" stops becoming an exploit, and starts being an actual show of skill. | |
I cannot for the love of me figure out why camping is considered to be such a 'cheap' strategy. Why must every player in every FPS run'n'gun in order for them to be respectable? What's wrong with hiding around the corner, waiting for someone to ambush? What's wrong with holding position and watching a single entry point? Camping is a legitimate strategy that only gets hated because people are too dumb to try something other than 'run around the map guns blazing'. In no way does it make the camper cheap for deciding "hey, you know what? I'm going to try and be creative with my playstyle!" | |
Number 9: Lots of hats. | |
But the most important thing here is to remember how utterly superior we all are to a certain imaginary group of people who play FPS. | |
I only consider it "camping" when there's no actual counter for it in that situation (like that Reach example earlier) - otherwise it's just holding a position, which is taking just as much a risk as all other strategies really. | |
That's not the kind of camping I was talking about. I was speaking of spawn camping. If you can successfully camp a strategic point, then more power to you. But spawn camping is just the lowest of the low as far as strategies go. I suppose I never refer to the camping of which you speak as "camping," which is where the confusion comes from. I call it intelligence, or holding a position. Doesn't exploit the game's mechanics, therefore I'm good with it. Do it myself often enough. | |
I sometimes wish I was good at chess... But then I'd be rendered obsolete by the very profession I'm currently in (That of Software Development. The Chess AI is nigh unbeatable nowadays). | |
Indirectly at that, and they might not even notice it. Much more efficient method of trolling that kind of person was Bulletstorm's 'Duty Calls' trailer game made even more grievous by the fact it was pretty hypocritical (I loved Bulletstorm but was the cover, bloody screen and clunky movement really necessary?) | |
That does make sense actually, it really does get annoying and can easily ruin a game. Eg. I once watched a Youtube vid in Modern Warfare 2 where a player was able to get 300 kills by spawn-camping with a helicopter gunship. But honestly in those cases I blame the terrible game design more than the players, because as asshole-ish as it is all they are doing is exploiting the game's faults. | |
Make a shooter with multiple endings. All the endings are bad except for the pacifist run ending. Fewer than a certain number of shots fired, not kills, will get you the good ending. Just to make it better, make the enemies into complete bastards so players can't resist killing them. Seriously bad, like they make Nazis look like the Red Cross. Plus, the enemy force reacts to your violence appropriately, sending exponentially more force at you when you play more violently. If you kill or wound enemies, they start sending more and better troops. If you show that you are a big threat, they scale up the attack to the point where you have no option but to run and hide because fighting will get you killed easily. To lower the difficulty, you would have to fake your death, but you can only do that a couple of times. I started typing this as a way to troll gamers, but I kept thinking about the idea until it was something I would definitely preorder. The main character would probably be some kind of spy so a non-lethal route would be viable, and you could MacGyver up some weapons for unconventional warfare. Tl,Dr: The idea started as a counter-intuitive fps and turned into something that would be awesome.(Partly inspired by Burn Notice and Deus Ex: HR)You're a spy, enemies are complete monsters, fighting boosts the difficulty, faking your death lowers it, only pacifist runs get the good ending, emphasis on makeshift weapons and unconventional tactics when you have to fight/escape. | |
So, Goldeneye. Lol I basically like all of those ideas except the assault rifles one and iron sights. Iron sights are actually a core game mechanic for several fps games. It doesn't have to be in there, but it definitely DOES have it's own merit. | |
With the exception of #1, I think you've described Red Orchestra. It has automatic weapons, but they are usually nicely balanced, except in very close range. Camping is also just a fact of life. | |
How come the OP is spending sooo much time posting why they don't consider TF2 (which we all know is one of the greatest FPS' in existence) to be an FPS, but they aren't responding to the 20 or so suggestions to play Tribes: Ascend??? Me thinks they don't realise it is F2P and AWEEEESSSOOMMMMEEEEE!. | |
Hey.... this is crazy but here is EVER SINGLE BATTLEFIELD BEFORE 3, have fun baby! seriously though, they had a huge variety of maps vehicles and weapons! The modding community made it even better with bringing back BATTLESHIPS and submarines :D The competition with call of duty made be disown the franchise, its BFBC3 not BF# those scumbuckets EA | |
...Wat. | |
Honestly, most of what your saying applies to Counter-Strike. My suggestion? Stay away from Call of Duty and all of it's uninspired clones/copy-cats and sign up for either the Counter-Strike: Global Offensive beta or the Tribes: Ascend beta. You'll be a MUCH happier person. I promise. 'Course, there's always games like Halo, Team Fortress 2, Quake, Doom, or Unreal Tournament. Those fit most of your design choices too. | |
Hell, camping is a core mechanic of some games. Take Counter-Strike. In pretty much every hostage map, one of the best strategies for the Terrorist side is to camp. It's the basis of the mode. Even in destruction maps, where the Terrorists have to plant the bomb, the game often turns into a camp-fest with the Ts guarding a bomb (once planted) or the CTs guarding the bomb sites to stop the Ts. So I'm like you. I've never understood the utter hatred for "camping". If a player is too gung-ho or too stupid to figure out a way to counter-act someone camping then they, frankly, deserve to be "owned" over and over. | |
I get the hate for Iron sights in games like CoD, CSS, TF2 etc, but games with ARMA and battlefield(Not CQ >.<) Iron sights are essential because of the slower pace and larger maps and distance between players. Also pistols in Battlefield are used for Close quarters combat, in which case you don't need to use the Iron sights on them. | |
Press X to reluctantly accept the white feather! | |
| Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 5 NEXT | |
Then you must be using some sort of superhax mod, because I have never had that much ease with hip-fire guns, in any game.