Small Arena-Like Shooters > Large Class-Based Shooters?

MAG, Killzone, Battlefield, Resistance, MOH, Homefront vs. Gears, COD, Halo, Quake, Uncharted, Timesplitters

Small Shooters:

-Usually fast paced

-Intense and personal rivalries-- a constant game of learning enemy patterns and outfoxing them

-Your role plays a bigger impact on the end result

-Usually short (10-20 minutes a game)

-Usually has much more customization for modes

-Doesn't usually force teamwork, but using it is optional and this freedom means your games aren't "make or break" on imbecile teammates

-No vehicles, focused entirely on infantry combat

-Less chaotic and not usually focused on a center "Kill zone", usually easier to predict situations and tends to flow in all areas of the map

Big, Class Based Shooters

-Slower paced, you may spend time walking just to try and get into the action

-You don't develop as many personal enemies in a game because chances he is running into many of your other teammates

-Your role isn't as big, your actions have less of an impact on the end result

-Games usually last for upwards of 20+ minutes, no small bursts, you cant jump on for a quickie

-Lack of many modes and customization

-Teamwork is forced which means your game can be soured by bad players

-Vehicles usually

-Can have "Kill zones" where there are high, unpredictable concentrations of firefights

Agreed? To an extent? Not at all?

I think this is what makes games like COD and Halo so successful-- doesn't require an effort of your time to dedicate to just playing, fast and quick, usually quicker to just jump into a game, your always on the prowl, etc.

I enjoy those big games, but it seems that there is a sense of superiority. If a game:

-has bigger maps

-Has more players

-is more realistic/intense

it is considered infinitely superior to a small, 12 player game (take the recent example of GT awarding UC3 MP Game of E3)

Yet there are redeeming values of small player games that big player games don't offer.

Or do you think bigger games are inheritently superior?

I like games like UT2K4, Quake III Team Arena and Team Fortress 2. So a bit of both.

I don't feel this 'superiority' thing. Leave that for the CoD/Battlefield fanboys.

Semi-realistic large-ish team-focused (mostly) FPS games (Battlefield, CoD, Medal of Honor, etc) seem to be where it's at at the moment, unfortunately :(.

I think that nothing is inherently superior. I am, however very sensitive inherent lack of passion which is why I hate games like CoD.

That's a franchise that knows it's inner conveyer belt intimately and it's lack of passion and soul makes the experience entirely dead to me.

I think that nothing is inherently superior. I am, however very sensitive inherent lack of passion which is why I hate games like CoD.

That's a franchise that knows it's inner conveyer belt intimately and it's lack of passion and soul makes the experience entirely dead to me.

Filthybastrd

But consider some of the things people want from COD: Bigger maps, destruction, vehicles etc.

Is this because of a sense of superiority? Shouldn't games like COD remain the way they are? Is something like COD4 outdated and inferior to Bad Company 2 by design?

[QUOTE="Filthybastrd"]

I think that nothing is inherently superior. I am, however very sensitive inherent lack of passion which is why I hate games like CoD.

That's a franchise that knows it's inner conveyer belt intimately and it's lack of passion and soul makes the experience entirely dead to me.

Alpha-Male22

But consider some of the things people want from COD: Bigger maps, destruction, vehicles etc.

Is this because of a sense of superiority? Shouldn't games like COD remain the way they are? Is something like COD4 outdated and inferior to Bad Company 2 by design?

Most people don't actually know what they want imho. I don't really believe in the concept of "outdated design" because frankly game is the sum of it's parts, this is a half-truth of course.

CoD4 and it's successors can be what they like as far as I'm concerned, I mainly dislike them for employing psychological addiction techniques (not unlike what mmos do to hook you) and advertising to achieve their succes.

I realize that many people will interpret that as hating anything popular but I for one, don't want other companies to take inspiration from Activision's business model, which they sadly do.

Inspired games are anything but plentyfull this gen.

I retract my previous statement...

I retract my previous statement...

Wasdie

I retract my previous statement...

Wasdie

Tribes is coming back to take it's throne 8)

Gonna shazbot every other shooter in the butt

Small shooters

i like teamwork and strategy. certain things can only happen in games like battlefield, and instead of 'WOW i hs him quikskope LOL' you get 'i jumped on top the helicopter canopy from the cliff, shot the pilot, and parachuted away while it exploded behind me'

Don't some unrealistic shooters have large maps?

arena games are for people who like to own and win by totally owning the competition. killing in style etc, headshots, mid-air rockets, sick kills, etc.

large battlefield type games are for people who enjoy teamwork and strategy and don't care how they win. they will whore chopper and spawn camp with no remorse.

i like teamwork and strategy. certain things can only happen in games like battlefield, and instead of 'WOW i hs him quikskope LOL' you get 'i jumped on top the helicopter canopy from the cliff, shot the pilot, and parachuted away while it exploded behind me'

Firebird-5

I've used a Kim Kardashian buttload of strategy and teamwork in games like COD as well

[QUOTE="Firebird-5"]

i like teamwork and strategy. certain things can only happen in games like battlefield, and instead of 'WOW i hs him quikskope LOL' you get 'i jumped on top the helicopter canopy from the cliff, shot the pilot, and parachuted away while it exploded behind me'

Alpha-Male22

I've used a Kim Kardashian buttload of strategy and teamwork in games like COD as well

i guess if strategy means 'grab the ump and shoot pplz heads', not 'hide in the ditch while your squad sneaks around the other side of the barn then you blow a hole in the wall and surprise the enemy'

small stage shooters are more of an arcade style shooter. They have a faster pace and don't rely on teamwork. large stage shooters are the opposite.

[QUOTE="Alpha-Male22"]

[QUOTE="Firebird-5"]

i like teamwork and strategy. certain things can only happen in games like battlefield, and instead of 'WOW i hs him quikskope LOL' you get 'i jumped on top the helicopter canopy from the cliff, shot the pilot, and parachuted away while it exploded behind me'

Firebird-5

I've used a Kim Kardashian buttload of strategy and teamwork in games like COD as well

i guess if strategy means 'grab the ump and shoot pplz heads', not 'hide in the ditch while your squad sneaks around the other side of the barn then you blow a hole in the wall and surprise the enemy'

That is exactly what I mean :roll:

3 on 3 Team Tactical. Both teams rush in to a building to approach a neutral objective. A firefight is expected. 2 of us go in, send the third guy to flank the enemy from around the building. We engage the enemy and get flashed by a flash grenade. Enemy team swoops in for a kill only to be killed in the back by our third man in the nick of time.

Scenario 2:

3 on 3 Team Tactical. Both teams rush in to a building to approach a neutral objective. A firefight is expected. 2 of us go in, send the third guy to flank the enemy from around the building. We engage the enemy and get flashed by a flash grenade. Enemy team swoops in for a kill. Our third man reaches behind the enemy only to be killed by a claymore planted by the enemy in hindsight of a back attack.

Scenario 3:

3 on 3 Team Tactical. Both teams rush in to a building to approach a neutral objective. A firefight is expected.3 of us go in with lightweight/marathon to setup our position before the enemy. Enemy walks in unexpected of our early arrival

Scenario 4:

3 on 3 Team Tactical. Both teams rush in to a building to approach a neutral objective. A firefight is expected. 3 of us go in with lightweight/marathon to setup our position before the enemy. Enemy is nowhere to be seen. Our team grabs the objective, runs to the enemy zone and get killed by the enemy team setup just outside the building

How is any of this different?

small stage shooters are more of an arcade style shooter. They have a faster pace and don't rely on teamwork. large stage shooters are the opposite.

lowkey254

I like both.

I like both types (apart from COD) but one of my favourite things about larger maps in games is that theres actually a frontline, and its so intense and you don't spawn at the other side of the map every time you die.

[QUOTE="Firebird-5"]

[QUOTE="Alpha-Male22"]

I've used a Kim Kardashian buttload of strategy and teamwork in games like COD as well

Alpha-Male22

i guess if strategy means 'grab the ump and shoot pplz heads', not 'hide in the ditch while your squad sneaks around the other side of the barn then you blow a hole in the wall and surprise the enemy'

That is exactly what I mean :roll:

3 on 3 Team Tactical. Both teams rush in to a building to approach a neutral objective. A firefight is expected. 2 of us go in, send the third guy to flank the enemy from around the building. We engage the enemy and get flashed by a flash grenade. Enemy team swoops in for a kill only to be killed in the back by our third man in the nick of time.

Scenario 2:

3 on 3 Team Tactical. Both teams rush in to a building to approach a neutral objective. A firefight is expected. 2 of us go in, send the third guy to flank the enemy from around the building. We engage the enemy and get flashed by a flash grenade. Enemy team swoops in for a kill. Our third man reaches behind the enemy only to be killed by a claymore planted by the enemy in hindsight of a back attack.

Scenario 3:

3 on 3 Team Tactical. Both teams rush in to a building to approach a neutral objective. A firefight is expected.3 of us go in with lightweight/marathon to setup our position before the enemy. Enemy walks in unexpected of our early arrival

Scenario 4:

3 on 3 Team Tactical. Both teams rush in to a building to approach a neutral objective. A firefight is expected. 3 of us go in with lightweight/marathon to setup our position before the enemy. Enemy is nowhere to be seen. Our team grabs the objective, runs to the enemy zone and get killed by the enemy team setup just outside the building

How is any of this different?

ok. so you basically all got perks and sprinted into a building. i called in a jet (piloted by an actual player), set and set c4 traps on the wall (which removed the wall)

I love both

That's a pretty drastic division between games, I'm not saying I hate the other half, for e.g. CoD4 and BC2 can be pretty similar in the end. But I tend to like bigger games with slower pace. In small fast games you run mindlessly until you see something to shoot, if you die no loss you respawn and do it again and again and again. When you add in bigger maps, vehicles, more players, classes and objectives it gets a lot more varied for me.ManicAce

That is the problem with some games. The fact that everyone seems to play Deathmatch online and such lol. Deathmatch can be fun, but if the game is going to be about killing, I prefer elimination (lives), cause you have a consequence of dieing. That, and many games have awesome modes that are objective oriented, such as capture the flag and such.

Unreal is the most overrated multiplayer game I've ever played.

That is exactly what I mean :roll:

3 on 3 Team Tactical. Both teams rush in to a building to approach a neutral objective. A firefight is expected. 2 of us go in, send the third guy to flank the enemy from around the building. We engage the enemy and get flashed by a flash grenade. Enemy team swoops in for a kill only to be killed in the back by our third man in the nick of time.

Scenario 2:

3 on 3 Team Tactical. Both teams rush in to a building to approach a neutral objective. A firefight is expected. 2 of us go in, send the third guy to flank the enemy from around the building. We engage the enemy and get flashed by a flash grenade. Enemy team swoops in for a kill. Our third man reaches behind the enemy only to be killed by a claymore planted by the enemy in hindsight of a back attack.

Scenario 3:

3 on 3 Team Tactical. Both teams rush in to a building to approach a neutral objective. A firefight is expected.3 of us go in with lightweight/marathon to setup our position before the enemy. Enemy walks in unexpected of our early arrival

Scenario 4:

3 on 3 Team Tactical. Both teams rush in to a building to approach a neutral objective. A firefight is expected. 3 of us go in with lightweight/marathon to setup our position before the enemy. Enemy is nowhere to be seen. Our team grabs the objective, runs to the enemy zone and get killed by the enemy team setup just outside the building

How is any of this different?

Alpha-Male22

They are acadey though? COD is about as arcadey as a shooter gets, same with those others. Just because they're real world 'based' doesn't mean they're less arcadey than let's say Halo, and it's a completely different template of shooter to Quake.skrat_01

[QUOTE="skrat_01"]They are acadey though? COD is about as arcadey as a shooter gets, same with those others. Just because they're real world 'based' doesn't mean they're less arcadey than let's say Halo, and it's a completely different template of shooter to Quake.Luxen90

[QUOTE="Alpha-Male22"]

That is exactly what I mean :roll:

3 on 3 Team Tactical. Both teams rush in to a building to approach a neutral objective. A firefight is expected. 2 of us go in, send the third guy to flank the enemy from around the building. We engage the enemy and get flashed by a flash grenade. Enemy team swoops in for a kill only to be killed in the back by our third man in the nick of time.

Scenario 2:

3 on 3 Team Tactical. Both teams rush in to a building to approach a neutral objective. A firefight is expected. 2 of us go in, send the third guy to flank the enemy from around the building. We engage the enemy and get flashed by a flash grenade. Enemy team swoops in for a kill. Our third man reaches behind the enemy only to be killed by a claymore planted by the enemy in hindsight of a back attack.

Scenario 3:

3 on 3 Team Tactical. Both teams rush in to a building to approach a neutral objective. A firefight is expected.3 of us go in with lightweight/marathon to setup our position before the enemy. Enemy walks in unexpected of our early arrival

Scenario 4:

3 on 3 Team Tactical. Both teams rush in to a building to approach a neutral objective. A firefight is expected. 3 of us go in with lightweight/marathon to setup our position before the enemy. Enemy is nowhere to be seen. Our team grabs the objective, runs to the enemy zone and get killed by the enemy team setup just outside the building

How is any of this different?

skrat_01

The above can be used for many other small based games. Replace that and modify it with Uncharted, Halo, etc.

I dont understand the difference either-- moment to moment tactics? What does that mean? What's the difference between tactics and strategy? Why is one better than the other?

"it's very much about shooting people in the head first" Largely depends on what you play-- if you play a barebones objective playlist you can strategize just as well without focusing on just killing first-- and what is wrong with "killing first"? In objective games, if you see the enemy, why not shoot first?

Don't you shoot enemies when you see them in large based games?

[QUOTE="Luxen90"]

[QUOTE="skrat_01"] CoD is on the side of unrealistic arena like shooters, he didn't say it was realistic. Look at the top man. lol He's saying it's arcadey notice how it's on the side of Halo, Gears of War and Timesplitters....

skrat_01

Both are good.

they both definitely have their place, if i'm the mood to get quick frags and quick satisfaction, I just pop out quake live, wherever I am essentially, since it's virtually nothing to download.

if i'm with my bros, large based shooters are usually where it's at BC 2, killzone 3, getting into a squad and having a good time usually has its place also.

i usually just play arena shooters by myself; just to prove I still have the reflexes and skills to keep up with the pros

I like the arena based shooters more myself. Grew up on them and still enjoy them.

They're just different, that's like saying that rpgs>fps. You can't really compare them like that.

I like both, the Halo, Timesplitters style is still fun though I'm not too big a fan of CoD. I like Bfbc2 and that's my most played multiplayer game right now. I like it because there are great moments where the two teams are facing off forming battle lines and it feels like a natural and realistic firefight. I usually play medic so I can revive my teamates and help push further towards our objectives while our enemy is furiously trying to stop us. The battle gets desperate, then our Bradley comes bursting through the bush, taking out some of their defences and allowing our assult to push forward. Suddenly three rockets slam into the side of the Bradley as their engeneers find their target. Our engeneers go to the aid of our armour repairing it as fast as they can, our team suddenly taking the defensive. Then our helo comes up spitting fire toward their men, adding more chaos to the already engaged battle. To me that is great multiplayer. I'm not too big on regular deathmatch anyways and even when I played Halo i mostly played Capture the Flag because it was more team based.

I agree with most of your points. However, I strongly disagree with this "Doesn't usually force teamwork, but using it is optional and this freedom means your games aren't "make or break" on imbecile teammates." Generally, in arena shooters there are less people on each team. That means each person's contribution (or lack thereof), has much more impact on the overall team performance. It hurts your team more when 1 of the 6 (or 4) team members does poorly than it does when 1 of the 12 does poorly.

Personally, I prefer the quick arena shooters like Halo and CoD, but I really like BF and I enjoy KZ pretty often as well.