Support NeoGAF

[Elektro Demon]

I'm sure most of you are aware that arena shooters don't have a place in the market anymore. It's a genre that is almost dead.
I think a number of factors played when it comes to the downfall of these types of games. Call of duty, battle royale craze, high skill ceiling, considered too simple etc.
I'm a fan of arena shooters, I'm mostly an unreal tournament man. I'm making a documentary about arena shooters on my youtube channel. I'd like to hear your opinions.
Do you think it's possible for arena shooters to return to former glory or at least to have a solid and consistent playerbase in todays time?

I think it's possible. Diabotical is releasing next year hopefully, and the people making the game consist of some ex quake devs and pro players.
I have high hopes.

So, do you think that an arena shooter can succeed in todays time?
Also a side question, what arena shooter was your favourite?

 

[EightBit Man]

Nothing can match those Quake III Arena and Unreal Tournament days I think.

 

[ViolentP]

When people are ready to admit that sometimes they just want to beat the living snot out of a stranger, the arena shooter will see its renaissance.

 

[SpartanN92]

I think it rests with Halo Infinite. If Infinite returns to Halo’s classic roots and gameplay then I am confident that Arena shooters can be massive again.

 

[Ravi_elite]

I miss the original red faction multiplayer on PC

 

[Skyr]

I played UT99 competitively in the 2000s.

It were the best gaming years of my life, and I chase the same feeling and fun I had ever since, but nothing comes close.

I‘m really bummed out that the new generations of gamers are not into this genre anymore.

 

[RealGassy]

When people are ready to admit that sometimes they just want to beat the living snot out of a stranger, the arena shooter will see its renaissance.

Not going to happen mate.
Casuals are weak and spineless, they don't like when they are gettin regularly clapped.
They don't understand when they pick up a new game that there's going to be a certain amount of time you're going to get shat on while you learn the ropes.
And then rise above and beyond and become the one who does all the knocking.

I guess the problem is that the average player is simply never ever going to get good enough to reach that place.
And that their true role in the pecking order is always going to be the one of the RECEIVER.

That's why there is all this proliferation of hand-holdy matchmaking systems, training wheels noob friendly gameplay mechanics, etc.

Good times are over and they ain't ever coming back.

 

[Elektro Demon]

I think it rests with Halo Infinite. If Infinite returns to Halo’s classic roots and gameplay then I am confident that Arena shooters can be massive again.

I don't think Halo is an arena shooter. At least, I wouldn't put it in that category.

 

[GermanZepp]

I have the hope that some arena shooter with no heroes or skills could appear nextgen maybe some indie developers can bring back the genre to mainstream
. Quake 3 and unreal 99 were the best though

 

[SpartanN92]

I don't think Halo is an arena shooter. At least, I wouldn't put it in that category.

Classic Halo (1-3) allows the player to run, aim, shoot, jump etc all at the same time without preventing the player from doing any of the above. It’s basically the definition of Arena shooter.

Halo Reach began to change that slightly with the addition of Sprint/Armor Lock etc... Halo 4 and 5 kept pushing the pendulum moving away from Arena status but it still fits.

Classic Halo is an Arena shooter however.

 

[Bonfires Down]

Survive? Probably. Thrive? No. I like them though.

 

[Northeastmonk]

I think it gets mixed in with battle royals and your typical TDM shooters. The genre definitely has a following, but it’s such a mix bag with Fortnite, Apex, Call of Duty, etc.

The genre has been modified. Some parts you see in some games and others offer slightly different gameplay mechanics. UT and Quake stand out, but they’re also running up against a crowd who follows Fortnite, Apex, and CoD. Too many mainstream monsters.

I think exposure is also hurting the genre. You have Star Wars events in Fortnite, Apex has funny, cutsie short films, and then you have the world of Overwatch. It’s a huge mess.

Those people, to me, want fast, snappy gameplay, customizable avatars, and a host of Internet celebs at its helm.

You don’t necessarily have your independent, consciously constructed dominating player backing classics like UT and Quake. It’s all tucked away and honestly I feel like players haven’t exactly proven that they will stick with it.

Quake and UT are fun to play, but people want to be where the crowd is. Where the money is at, isn’t exactly on the classics. I think this is why some F2P shooters do better than others. While others can’t even Last to see their own potential (Lawbreakers). AmaZing games lost in an era of attention seeking shooters.

 

[Phase]

I played UT99 competitively in the 2000s.

It were the best gaming years of my life, and I chase the same feeling and fun I had ever since, but nothing comes close.

I‘m really bummed out that the new generations of gamers are not into this genre anymore.

Ditto. Quake, UT, Tribes. Since Law Breakers died I haven't played multiplayer basically at all (besides some occasional BF3/4). Arena shooters would be the only thing to bring me back, and I hope for their return all the time.

 

[Pallas]

Isn’t CoD in itself technically an arena style shooter? It seems to be doing fine.

 

[Belmonte]

IMO, beyond the high skill floor, arena shooters have another game design challenge if they want to get the new generation: the pacing. There are no cooldowns, no respite from the action, only unadulterated kicking ass action. Fans of the genre like this aspect but the kids today seems to find too intense.

There is no chilling before the match, like Overwatch, the waiting to get a distracted enemy in PUBG or the camping of COD. You stop, you die. You should be always on your toes. There are no "safe areas" like the space near your respawn point in Battlefield/Overwatch. It is like a music in which the pace gets only more and more intense.

Perhaps this aspect doesn't appeal to them because every generation has less attention than the older? Perhaps this is too intense for most of people and gamers in the past didn't have other options? I don't know. I hope the genre doesn't disappear with Quake Champions though.

 

[RealGassy]

IMO, beyond the high skill floor, arena shooters have another game design challenge if they want to get the new generation: the pacing. There are no cooldowns, no respite from the action, only unadulterated kicking ass action. Fans of the genre like this aspect but the kids today seems to find too intense.

Cooldowns, reloading, slow walking speeds and limited mobility, etc all are a noob-friendly "saving grace" mechanics for casuals,
because they limit how much of an asswhooping, absolute and utter domination a skilled player can do.

It puts a hard cap on the amount of DPS and overall impact a good player can have.
Modern multiplayer games are full of this shit.

You either get good, or you get torn a new asshole or two. That's what arena shooters have always been about.

This is also why they are not coming back.
Many genres of video games have died and are probably not coming back, except for an odd indie game or two.

 

[cormack12]

IMO, beyond the high skill floor, arena shooters have another game design challenge if they want to get the new generation: the pacing. There are no cooldowns, no respite from the action, only unadulterated kicking ass action. Fans of the genre like this aspect but the kids today seems to find too intense.

Perhaps this aspect doesn't appeal to them because every generation has less attention than the older? Perhaps this is too intense for most of people and gamers in the past didn't have other options? I don't know. I hope the genre doesn't disappear with Quake Champions though.

Arena shooters were all about getting into a server and just playing, tying down stats and having them reflected by prestige items is the worst thing. Then you have the additional time sync of match making and loadouts etc. It's still faster to leave a server and find another one than rely on matchmaking imo. I remember entering some UT and UrT servers that were far beyond my skill to begin with. 18 months later I was playign on those servers and competing. I've no idea why people are obsessed with progression. It's a game, not a job or a saga. They were fast paced so when you were killed you were back into the action not long after, even in CTF modes.

People could really specialise with weapons back then as well. None of the forced class stuff you see in other games. Also, the proliferation of spongier health to support large maps with loads of players has been detrimental imo. A well designed map with 8-12 players is ideal for arena based shooters. Of course bigger modes like those in UT2K4 require vehicles, but even then there were still choke points and action corridors that got saturated.

Having said that unreal tournament 3 on console was awful.

 

[Fuz]

No, because they take skill that most players don't have. They're not for skilless casuals. When you're bad, you lose. That's why people flocks to fortnite.

 

[LazyParrot]

I don't

Isn’t CoD in itself technically an arena style shooter? It seems to be doing fine.

Only in the loosest possible sense of the term. Kinda like how Destiny is "technically" an MMO. Compared to a game like Quake movement in CoD is slow, sluggish and lacks any sort of skill component. There are no weapons or powerups spawning at set intervals in set locations, which more or less means no real way of exerting pressure via map control. The number of weapons you can carry at the same time is strictly limited and most of them require you to aim down sights, which further slows down gameplay.

I just don't see new games like this gaining much of a new audience. For one, they're a terrible fit for consoles. They're just less fun on a controller compared to games that have been specifically designed with slower, less accurate input methods in mind. PC is a better fit, but this isn't the first time people tried releasing what is essentially a Quake clone (anyone remember TOXIKK or Reflex Arena?) only to discover that there is no real demand for that type of game. I mean, people can just go and play Quake.

 

[Spukc]

UT IS DEAD

i mean look at what epic did to our baby

 

[Wonko_C]

My friends and I still bust out the Dreamcast for some 4-player split screen action.

 

[Paasei]

After Quake 3/live none of them interested me anymore.

The amount of skill that is necessary to play those competitively is insane, though.

 

[Ingeniero]

I played a lot of UT2004 with friends back in the day.
It was awesome.
I think there's a new UT game on the works, I would definetely play it and I think it can be sucessful.

 

[RScrewed]

Isn’t CoD in itself technically an arena style shooter? It seems to be doing fine.

Came here to say this.

It's an arena shooter at its core with a "realism" skin. Unfortunately a few design choices keep the skill ceiling from being as infinitely high as Quake such as movement speed and aim assist, but those are necessary evils to stay internally consistent with the experience it is trying to deliver.

And the formula does thrive.

Used to be a CoD hater especially coming from Bad Company 2 in exclusively HardCore mode, but then I started playing it like Quake and am having a much better time.

 

[Birdo]

No. I think BR has spoiled everyone with gigantic maps.

 

[Belmonte]

Cooldowns, reloading, slow walking speeds and limited mobility, etc all are a noob-friendly "saving grace" mechanics for casuals,
because they limit how much of an asswhooping, absolute and utter domination a skilled player can do.

It puts a hard cap on the amount of DPS and overall impact a good player can have.
Modern multiplayer games are full of this shit.

You either get good, or you get torn a new asshole or two. That's what arena shooters have always been about.

This is also why they are not coming back.
Many genres of video games have died and are probably not coming back, except for an odd indie game or two.

I agree with you if we are talking strictly about aiming and dodging, but in my opinion, reloading and limited mobility aren't casual elements per se. It is how you mix these elements in the game.

Don't get me wrong, Unreal Tournament and Quake are two of the most hardcore shooters ever created, probably the most hardcore, but I wouldn't call Rainbow Six:Siege a casual game because it is slow. Its depth comes from other elements.

Arena shooters were all about getting into a server and just playing, tying down stats and having them reflected by prestige items is the worst thing. Then you have the additional time sync of match making and loadouts etc. It's still faster to leave a server and find another one than rely on matchmaking imo. I remember entering some UT and UrT servers that were far beyond my skill to begin with. 18 months later I was playign on those servers and competing. I've no idea why people are obsessed with progression. It's a game, not a job or a saga. They were fast paced so when you were killed you were back into the action not long after, even in CTF modes.

People could really specialise with weapons back then as well. None of the forced class stuff you see in other games. Also, the proliferation of spongier health to support large maps with loads of players has been detrimental imo. A well designed map with 8-12 players is ideal for arena based shooters. Of course bigger modes like those in UT2K4 require vehicles, but even then there were still choke points and action corridors that got saturated.

Having said that unreal tournament 3 on console was awful.

Yeah, people love progression these days. I won't lie, I like them too, but I don't think it mixes well with arena shooters. Progression only for bragging rights and cosmetics is cool though.

I liked UT2K4 a lot but I'm a casual arena shooter player. Not because I want though. One of my greatest frustrations in gaming is that I always got nauseous after playing arena shooters for some time.

 

[Sp3eD]

i Played arena shooters like a job during the summers of my high school years. Quake 2 / Quake 3 rocket arena were far and away my favorites with UT2k3 and especially UT2k4 coming later during college,

damn I miss playing bombing run. Got to use my movement skills to duck and dodge my way like a world class running back. Good times.

 

[Alexios]

Early halo games played like arena shooter lite tbh. So I guess it all comes down to the marketing.

It's a shame ShootMania didn't really deliver on the concept and/or catch on with gamers.

I'm sure a popular arena shooter can be made again, but none upcoming look like it.

 

[Elektro Demon]

Classic Halo (1-3) allows the player to run, aim, shoot, jump etc all at the same time without preventing the player from doing any of the above. It’s basically the definition of Arena shooter.

Halo Reach began to change that slightly with the addition of Sprint/Armor Lock etc... Halo 4 and 5 kept pushing the pendulum moving away from Arena status but it still fits.

Classic Halo is an Arena shooter however.

But it's an xbox game. Putting the words arena shooter and joystick in the same sentence is just silly.

Just look at the difference in movement.
A proper arena shooter

And a console "arena" shooter


They can't even compare.

 

[SpartanN92]

Isn’t CoD in itself technically an arena style shooter? It seems to be doing fine.

CoD is an Arcade shooter not an Arena shooter.

 

[Katsura]

Sadly no. High skill ceiling competitive games are a niche market and most will likely stick to what they're already playing. The rest will play Fortnite or which ever game is the next craze

 

[RealGassy]

I agree with you if we are talking strictly about aiming and dodging, but in my opinion, reloading and limited mobility aren't casual elements per se. It is how you mix these elements in the game.

Dunno, about Rainbow Six, but, yes, games like CS still has plenty of room for skill, despite being full of shitty casual friendly mechanics.

A casual gameplay element, or "casual friendly" are mechanics that favor the casual player over the skilled one. And overall even out the playing field reducing the impact a skilled player can have.

Reloading? 100% casual element. It basically limits DPS output of a skilled player, thus effectively reducing the amount noobs you can kill per minute.
And you the skilled player - after killing 3 noobs, are now vulnerable because you have reload.
This favors casuals, because they die less times per minute and have an opening to be able to do something.

In many multiplayer games you can't just straight up kill bunch of guys in a row, you kill 2 or 3 and then have to reload. This is especially pronounced in games like TF2 where many of the classes are massive HP sponges, and reloading takes forever with very limited clip sizes.

Slow movement speed is 100% casual friendly. It's easier to shoot at a slowly moving or stationary target. Being stationary even is encouraged in games like CS because it increases accuracy, etc. 100% benefits the casual player. Even jumping slows you down. No bunny hoping, no rocket jumping, no strafe jumping, wall jumping, anything. Shitty mobility also decreses the amount of noobs you can kill per minute, because it takes more time to get to the next one.

Yes, you can still style on people in these casual games, but there's a fairly strict cap of how much carnage you can do. It all benefits casuals in the end.
Like I said, modern multiplayer games are full of mechanics which reduce the impact of a skilled player as much as possible.

If you reduce movement speed, increase HP, reduce DPS, it doesn't matter how much skill you have, your impact is contained to a large degree.

 

[SaturnSaturn]

Yes it can, quake champions is fun as fuck when it works, unfortunatly the game is a laggy piece of shit that keeps rubber banding all the time making it unplayable.

Also fuck epic for killing unreal to focus on fortnite

 

[VertigoOA]

The shooter genre has improved drastically.

So what’s the argument here? Small maps, with little to no cover and doom-like movement?

doom 2016 tried it and its multiplayer was a huge pile of shit that wasted hdd space

 

[Wonko_C]

But it's an xbox game. Putting the words arena shooter and joystick in the same sentence is just silly.

Just look at the difference in movement.
A proper arena shooter

And a console "arena" shooter


They can't even compare.

Coming from Quake 3 Arena and UT99 to the first Halo I was like "Why are people making such a huge deal of this game?" I didn't get the appeal back then, and I still don't get it now.

 

[Otterz4Life]

Twitch shooters are for cowards.

 

[Phase]

Coming from Quake 3 Arena and UT99 to the first Halo I was like "Why are people making such a huge deal of this game?" I didn't get the appeal back then, and I still don't get it now.

It's not as fast certainly, but for those who only had a console it was a perfect storm of fun and competitive play. Equal starts, power weapons on timers placed on uniquely fun maps, with different game modes that put focus on the gameplay and skill. Halo's floaty physics is slow in comparison, yes, but it still retained a huge skill gap.

 

[Belmonte]

Dunno, about Rainbow Six, but, yes, games like CS still has plenty of room for skill, despite being full of shitty casual friendly mechanics.

A casual gameplay element, or "casual friendly" are mechanics that favor the casual player over the skilled one. And overall even out the playing field reducing the impact a skilled player can have.

Reloading? 100% casual element. It basically limits DPS output of a skilled player, thus effectively reducing the amount noobs you can kill per minute.
And you the skilled player - after killing 3 noobs, are now vulnerable because you have reload.
This favors casuals, because they die less times per minute and have an opening to be able to do something.

In many multiplayer games you can't just straight up kill bunch of guys in a row, you kill 2 or 3 and then have to reload. This is especially pronounced in games like TF2 where many of the classes are massive HP sponges, and reloading takes forever with very limited clip sizes.

Slow movement speed is 100% casual friendly. It's easier to shoot at a slowly moving or stationary target. Being stationary even is encouraged in games like CS because it increases accuracy, etc. 100% benefits the casual player. Even jumping slows you down. No bunny hoping, no rocket jumping, no strafe jumping, wall jumping, anything. Shitty mobility also decreses the amount of noobs you can kill per minute, because it takes more time to get to the next one.

Yes, you can still style on people in these casual games, but there's a fairly strict cap of how much carnage you can do. It all benefits casuals in the end.
Like I said, modern multiplayer games are full of mechanics which reduce the impact of a skilled player as much as possible.

If you reduce movement speed, increase HP, reduce DPS, it doesn't matter how much skill you have, your impact is contained to a large degree.

Let me explain how reloading and slow movement can deepen the gameplay when other elements are in place using Siege as an example.

Rainbow Six Siege is a game about information, not so much about aiming or dodging. There is one team which defends a bomb/hostage and other team who attacks. The attackers uses little drones to get information about how the defenders are creating their defense strategy. They can block windows, reinforce walls -many of them are destructible-, where they putting barbed wire, cameras or traps and other defensive tools.

It is a tense game since the time to kill is very short, there is no radar and if you die, you don't respawn until the round is over. You need to talk with your teammates to have a good reading of where everyone is. In many ways, R6 Siege has more in common with XCom and other tactics games than COD or CS.

Most of the time the action happens in the end of the round, when bullets fly. Before there is only tension since you don't know where or when the enemies will appear.

As a defender, many times, after a firefight I had to think: "should I reload now or later? Where are the enemies?" It is a tactical choice. Many times I started the reload animation,the enemies invaded the place and I died and my teammates died too because they trusted me to defend the door/window and were paying attention to other openings . Reload in R5 Siege is not without consequence. Each bullet I use makes my aiming more important, since the need of precision increases. And the need increases because I know I will need to reload one time or another.

Speed is another matter. If the characters had the high maneuverability and precision of a Unreal Tournament character, the tactical aspect would not be as important as it is, since player dexterity would be king.

No reload and high speed are two elements that makes arena FPSs very hardcore. But games can be very deep without them if the other gameplay elements are in the correct place.

 

[The_Mike]

I blame the death of this genre on consoles. Controllers are slow and not very precise, which makes it impossible to play good on a console.

 

[AeonGaidenRaiden]

Q3DM17

All im gonna say

 

[ResilientBanana]

The shooter genre has improved drastically.

So what’s the argument here? Small maps, with little to no cover and doom-like movement?

doom 2016 tried it and its multiplayer was a huge pile of shit that wasted hdd space

Doom’s MP was top notch but I grew up on arena shooters.

 

[Con-Z-epT]

I blame the death of this genre on consoles. Controllers are slow and not very precise, which makes it impossible to play good on a console.

Doom 2016 was really playable on consoles!
I could handle more speed in gameplay with a controler.

Of course you will be always faster or maybe better with mouse and keyboard.

It's all about matchmaking on consoles. Developers should compare for overall accuracy on PS4 and Xbox One for one example. No "levels" whatsoever.

That way you can keep everyone playing. Without specific skill "levels".

 

[F0rneus]

I'll always miss the golden days of Q3A and UT99.

 

[sn0man]

Dunno, about Rainbow Six, but, yes, games like CS still has plenty of room for skill, despite being full of shitty casual friendly mechanics.

A casual gameplay element, or "casual friendly" are mechanics that favor the casual player over the skilled one. And overall even out the playing field reducing the impact a skilled player can have.

Reloading? 100% casual element. It basically limits DPS output of a skilled player, thus effectively reducing the amount noobs you can kill per minute.
And you the skilled player - after killing 3 noobs, are now vulnerable because you have reload.
This favors casuals, because they die less times per minute and have an opening to be able to do something.

In many multiplayer games you can't just straight up kill bunch of guys in a row, you kill 2 or 3 and then have to reload. This is especially pronounced in games like TF2 where many of the classes are massive HP sponges, and reloading takes forever with very limited clip sizes.

Slow movement speed is 100% casual friendly. It's easier to shoot at a slowly moving or stationary target. Being stationary even is encouraged in games like CS because it increases accuracy, etc. 100% benefits the casual player. Even jumping slows you down. No bunny hoping, no rocket jumping, no strafe jumping, wall jumping, anything. Shitty mobility also decreses the amount of noobs you can kill per minute, because it takes more time to get to the next one.

Yes, you can still style on people in these casual games, but there's a fairly strict cap of how much carnage you can do. It all benefits casuals in the end.
Like I said, modern multiplayer games are full of mechanics which reduce the impact of a skilled player as much as possible.

If you reduce movement speed, increase HP, reduce DPS, it doesn't matter how much skill you have, your impact is contained to a large degree.

As another poster previously said Siege and CS have strategy, and additional skills to master (reloading).

i feel like they are a different genre like a military simulator.

I also feel like cod apes each genre of arena and military but adds progression and rpg elements.

maybe a truth table or ven diagram would show how all of these variables work.

 

[bilderberg]

Coming from Quake 3 Arena and UT99 to the first Halo I was like "Why are people making such a huge deal of this game?" I didn't get the appeal back then, and I still don't get it now.

if moving fast is literally the only thing you care about, than sure.

 

[HaveButOneLife]

Is Halo not an Arena shooter? Halo 5 still sold pretty well.

To me, genres are defined by the concept, i.e. Arena shooters aren't class based, they're map based, with as heavy twitchy action as possible. You could easily loosely define them IMO.

 

[JimboJones]

I like the slower paced nature of Halo personally but I can empathize that the lack of a UT or Quake successor must suck for some.

 

[Helios]

How can people even compare games like R6 to arena shooters? They are completely different genres with completely different skill-sets required.

 

[H4ze]

I would love a new UT <3

Arena Shooters are still fun, but the lack of new ones is what's keeping the players away I think.
Quake Champions is fine, but people still clinge to Arena/Quake3 and so on...
And no one wants to invest 100 hours before he is able to make a few kills since the hardcore playerbase will shred you in seconds.

 

[MuleSkinner]

I would play Quake Champions actively if it had players to play against and if I didn't have to wait 5 minutes to start any game mode.

It's a shame because it's a good game and if QC can't succed I doubt other games will.