-
Hey Guest. Check out your NeoGAF Wrapped 2025 results here!
Any recent shooters where getting shot isn't instadeath?
- Thread starter Seventy5
- Start date
weevles
Member
Well, IMO if they saw you first in RL, you're probably going to die first as well. I dunno why that would be any more frustrating than anything else in MP...in theory, you should be playing with a team and with some kind of tactical plan so you have everyone's back and you're the ones shooting first...I don't think it's the game's responsibility to correct something like that.
Why does this matter? Realism does not equal depth.
You crazy.
Rainbow Six was an extreme minority. The big FPS's of the time were things like Quake, UT, SoF2, Tribes, and others.
Because then only your right hand matters. It becomes a game of who can move their cursor faster and more accurately rather than something with depth and movement. Games that use both hands equally are far more deep.
weevles
Member
Why not? Realism can certainly equate depth because you need to develop clearer tactics and strategy to avoid being the first one shot (and thus killed). What the OP is asking for is something not very realistic so he can find a way to come back from being beaten, essentially. Like how you regen health or can find a way to run away and fight back in SP.
I can see why he'd want that, and it's not completely unreasonable, but what I'm saying is that I don't think there's anything inherently wrong with "he who shoots firsts lives".
Hahah, is this serious?
I would even add that accuracy becomes less important in extreme cases of low TTK. Just get the jump on someone and it doesn't even matter how good your right hand is; you need time in a duel to measure who has the better accuracy and reward them accordingly.
Realistic approaches to shooting do increase the importance of pre-fight planning and positing; this is true, but they don't have a net positive effect on overall game depth because increasing the value of "getting the jump on someone" decreases the value of your abilities in a firefight for reasons already stated in this thread. Basically, there's two types of skills in a FPS, to reduce it to a real basic level: positioning and accuracy. (Obviously there are other smaller pieces to the pie like weapon understanding, weapon control in games that still have it, map control- which could be construed as a type of positioning, etc. but these are the real biggies) The best games involve a balance of both and recognize that increasing the importance of one too much eliminates the usefulness of the other.
Furthermore, my point was that realism is not inherently deep. You've cited an aspect of "realistic" design that results in depth in one specific area; that is an argument for depth. Stating that something is lifelike on its own does not imply it is deep, though. (And you have elaborated, so that response isn't really appropriate any more; it's just that I see- across many threads- these one off comments that "well, it's realistic" as if that somehow implies depth on its own.)
weevles
Member
I don't really agree with that. Being faster is indeed a skill, but there's always luck and chance in MP games. Anyway, you assume we're all right handed (I'm being facetious...a little).
I don't think this necessarily follows. There's never been a CoD match in history that can rival the depth of a T:A CTF match.
Give some reasons.
Exactly. Plus, OP is not saying there is anything wrong with low TTK games. He is just tired of them and made a thread to look for other options. Diversity is good. I wouldn't want all games to he low TTK or all be the opposite.
chickdigger802
Banned
mp shooters on iOS lol.
Probably why I still enjoy them. gives me a fighting chance over human aimbots on pc.
Probably why I still enjoy them. gives me a fighting chance over human aimbots on pc.
YouEnjoyMySelf
Banned
Counter-Srike
CS
and Counter-Strike
CS
and Counter-Strike
Call of duty is the opposite of what I mean. I'm talking multiplayer where you seem to have zero health and no chance to survive once someone spots you. Headshots are one thing, but CoD where every gun is a bullet hose with seemingly no bullet spread has just gotten old for me. I want games where skill matters more than just whoever starts holding the trigger first wins.
Dude. Quake Live. Seriously. Or Tribes: Ascend.
Both have very healthy pub communities.
I'm curious to see how Titanfall will approach this. I'm interested in the game, but, given the background of its devs, am a little worried it will be too low on the TTK side. All that extra maneuverability would make for some interesting firefights, but if you get gibbed instantaneously, it really won't matter and, if anything, will only serve to decrease aggression in plays, leading to less utilization of the more exposed jetpack and wall running abilities. It's pretty bad design imo, to discourage use of the new mechanics your game is built around, so I hope they go a different direction from CoD.
Quake Live, Natural selection and tribes Ascend, all have high kill times. They are on PC though. As are most games of this nature. Halo used to have fairly high kill times (though there are quite a few one shot weapons) but i don't know about the new ones.
Counter strike or BF 3 offer something in between. They are not quite as fast a COD but if you have good aim and recoil control you kill enemies really quickly.
Like a stroke.
Oh man, mah nostalgia hurts
What people seem to forget is positioning and map control are just as important in a game with higher TTK, but then you have to through in actual aiming into the equation.
Do you have to ADS in Natural Selection 2?
I wish it had Steam Achievements, those are always fun in a game like that.
As NS2 is based on a Half Life mod, I would assume not. I think one of the alien's has a zoom mode similar to it, but that would be it.
TheRedSnifit
Member
TF2's a good example.
I guess it's a matter of taste, though; in Rainbow 6 you have to actually plan, since you'll get killed almost instantly if you're seen. As opposed to Halo, where you can run around randomly and not worry because hey, you're a bullet-sponge who just happened to stumble across a better weapon than your opponents.
I guess it's a matter of taste, though; in Rainbow 6 you have to actually plan, since you'll get killed almost instantly if you're seen. As opposed to Halo, where you can run around randomly and not worry because hey, you're a bullet-sponge who just happened to stumble across a better weapon than your opponents.
Perhaps they should, I dunno, plan as well to prevent you from ending up with the more powerful weapons? You can't just write it off as if weapon control isn't actually a viable part of the strategy of a game.
My thoughts exactly.
I think he is referring to single player.
Because in prior Halo games before 4, the only reason another team got a more powerful weapon is purely because of map control.
Altered Juice
Member
I agree.
I am excited about Titanfall, but I have a couple reservations about the game that could really ruin multiplayer.
ADS is a good example. They create this fast-paced, vertical gameplay, but if we have to full stop in order to shoot, then what was the point?
I'm hoping they follow a similar system to Destiny, where your bullets don't leave the gun at a random vector because you aren't ADS. Yet ADS is still available for long-range shots.
I've sent out some tweets to try to get confirmation, and maybe I can PM some Respawn devs on GAF.
TheRedSnifit
Member
That's a nice thought, but 90% of the time it comes down to who happened to be standing in the right place when the rocket launcher or binary rifle spawns in, unless your teammates have an unusual desire to camp weapon spawns. It makes the game more reliant on luck than skill, because planning out your attacks is useless when you're all armed with assault rifles and the other guy has an obscenely powerful weapon.
It's not about realism, it's about a 1v1 lasting longer than 1, 2 seconds. Aka if you aren't able to land a few shots well consecutively you are never going to beat someone even if you shoot first. If you shoot first in COD you are almost always going to win unless you are really bad. In Quake or halo you can still turn around and kill your oponent becuase you have better aim/movement.
In an FFA deathmatch that is true. But on a map with fixed weapon spawnpoints for weapons and teams (or 1v1) it is most definetly about map control. A good player knows when to be where and how to deny weapons in a quake (or even halo) style MP. Of course it's harder to fight from behind but good players manage to disrupt map control even if they have to die a few times.
CamHostage
Member
I think people are talking about different things, or at least should acknowledge that there are a few styles of gunplay in shooters. I tend to think of three categories of shooters. There's the arcadey bulletsponge gameplay, where you have a ton of hitpoints and can soak up bullets but then there are also weapons that do critical hits to balance it out and help keep things from being just a run-and-gun brawl. Then you have your environment-oriented shooters (although you could do this gameplay without a cover mechanic,) where the escape plan is weighed into encounters as much as the gunplay, and generally the bullets do more damage apiece but there's a recovery system to reward those who get into a firefight and make it out alive. Then you have your "realistic" shooters, with few hitpoints and sometimes with no-respawn match types, where every bullet counts and every hit is dangerous. And there are tons of variants and different approaches within.
Each can be a lot of fun in their own way, it just depends on the design and control. Unfortunately, the runaway success of Call of Duty has made every other game take notice (particularly the third "realistic category, which is practically dormant right now, even Valve's CS:GO couldn't turn the tide,) and that variety is a little hard to find at the moment, but options are out there.
sixteen-bit
Member
Can't nearly all weapons in Gears of War instantly kill in some way?
Yeah, to be clear, I was referring more to Halo pre-4, which I haven't played much of. I can see how the latest one would be much more luck based.
Dunno if it meets your criteria of 'shooter' and it's PC-only, but despite my displeasure with the developer Mechwarrior Online fits this pretty well. It's possible to kill in one or two hits with cockpit shots but that's quite difficult even on stationary targets, and in real matches is extremely rare.
If you learn how to move and distribute damage around your mech you can take absurd amounts of punishment even on lights. And I've had matches in heavier mechs where I took nonstop pounding from the entire enemy team only to finish the last guy by limping around with no arms and everything in the red. Even getting behind an Atlas with stripped rear armor can take several seconds of continuous fire to bring it down, depending on your armament.
In comparison a lot of the games recommended in this thread have kill times of under a second. I don't think OP specifically meant dying from 'one bullet'. I mean, in Planetside 2 you can take quite a few bullets but if certain classes get the drop on you, you're likely done for even if you're a heavy assault.
If you learn how to move and distribute damage around your mech you can take absurd amounts of punishment even on lights. And I've had matches in heavier mechs where I took nonstop pounding from the entire enemy team only to finish the last guy by limping around with no arms and everything in the red. Even getting behind an Atlas with stripped rear armor can take several seconds of continuous fire to bring it down, depending on your armament.
In comparison a lot of the games recommended in this thread have kill times of under a second. I don't think OP specifically meant dying from 'one bullet'. I mean, in Planetside 2 you can take quite a few bullets but if certain classes get the drop on you, you're likely done for even if you're a heavy assault.
This is about multiplayer, not single
Oh! I forgot about this one. Some seriously good MP there.
SneakyStephan
Banned
Go on name them, I want to see what you consider a competitive fps, don't say cod...
Robert J. Sullivan
Member
Completely with you on this one.
@OP, depends on your definition of "recent", but there isn't a lot of MP games with a high or at least decent time to kill so you're really limiting your choices with recent games.
On consoles there's the Halo series and BRINK (game's deserted), other than that can't think of anything else.
If you have a decent PC there's TF2, Tribes Ascend, Counter Strike (though this one is insta kill with headshots). There's also Natural Selection 2 but I don't know if it can run on an average PC.
AllIsOneIsNone
Banned
Why? Then you have half the players camping. And there is 0 depth to the fight; nothing ever plays out differently. This isn't ideal for most games, which is why even most military shooters require more than 1 or 2 hits.
You can kill 3 people with one br magazine in Halo 3. You just didn't take the time to warm up to it.
Bullet sponges in the form of shields or armor are necessary in most fps in my opinion. More tactical games like rainbow 6: vegas where you have cover are different. When a game is designed around being fast paced and intense, you don't want everyone camping, waiting for that one shot kill. Simple as that.
Edit: Plus more hits requires precision which requires more skill. If you see the guy and shoot him first and are equally precise, you still beat the other guy(depending on the weapon). Accuracy alone is a bad illustration of skill on consoles with all the aim assist; preicision adds upon that.
Nuclear Dawn
It's available on Steam and is my favourite FPS of the last couple of years.
It's also an RTS, with one player assuming the role of Commander and ordering the troops to specific objectives, while managing resources (captured by the other players) and constructing the buildings, funding research, etc.
It's honestly a bit brilliant. Play it.
It's available on Steam and is my favourite FPS of the last couple of years.
It's also an RTS, with one player assuming the role of Commander and ordering the troops to specific objectives, while managing resources (captured by the other players) and constructing the buildings, funding research, etc.
It's honestly a bit brilliant. Play it.
CoD, CS:GO, BF3, all of their derivatives.
Low TTK, ironsight/crouch to gimp movement, modern theme.
They are all games where you compete against a team to win a match. And they are in first person. Hence, competitive FPS.
I forgot about Brink. I liked it. Too bad nobody else did. PS3 community was dead before the free dlc came out, but it was fun while it lasted and definitely more my speed than spawn/die/spawn/die shooters like CoD has become.