|
|
Welcome to the Exploding Garrmondo Weiner Interactive Swiss Army Penis. |
GFF is a community of gaming and music enthusiasts. We have a team of dedicated moderators, constant member-organized activities, and plenty of custom features, including our unique journal system. If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ or our GFWiki. You will have to register before you can post. Membership is completely free (and gets rid of the pesky advertisement unit underneath this message).
|
|
Thread Tools |
Perks etc in FPS games - Yay or nay?
As anyone who's played an FPS in the last few years will know, the inclusion of perks and extra shit that improve your abilities and stats as you level up is pretty much a staple of the genre these days. From Rainbow Six to Space Marine, CoD to Battlefield, the more you play, the better you spray. Of the games I've played lately, Halo is the only franchise that limits these unlocks to something purely cosmetic, every other game gives you more guns and lets you use them better the more experience you earn.
So do you think this is a good thing or not? Personally, I think it's a bit counter-intuitive to make players better, the more they play. Surely for the sake of balanced games, you should be making things easier for the new or less skilled players, not the ones who've been playing the game for several hundred hours already? This became particularly obvious when I started playing Battlefield 3 online yesterday. As a new player, I'm forced to use the basic equipment, none of the extra bits and bobs and no aids to aiming or anything whilst the people who've been playing it non-stop since it came out have all kinds of gizmos and gadgets and a lot more tactical options, on top of knowing all the maps and having had a lot of practice. Essentially I'm getting killed a lot. I don't mind too much because I know I'll play the game a lot and level the playing field eventually but it's a little disheartening for a new player to say the least. I suspect the reason games developers do this is two-fold. On one hand it's a marketing thing, encouraging players to buy the game as early as possible after release to avoid being left behind by the experience curve. On the other hand it's to do with the weird thing gamers seemed to have picked up whereby they play games to achieve something, rather than playing because it's fun. Reading on forums about people who've hit max level so have no reason to play anymore, or people who set up private matches to boost for achivements is something I'll never understand, I play games because I enjoy playing them. That said, I don't think getting rid of level-up inducements is necessary, I'd just make them less gameplay effective. Halo armour for example is simply bragging rights. Rainbow 6 Vegas 2 let you unlock other guns but actually the ones you start with are more than decent and nobody wears armour online anyway. Space Marine has a great system whereby you do unlock perks and crap as you level but when someone kills you, you can choose to use their load-out when you respawn, meaning you get all their perks and equipment, stopping one load-out from dominating a match. Anyway, do people here like the whole levelling up in FPS games thing or do you prefer a level playing field in your shootan? Jam it back in, in the dark. |
It's not JUST FPS games that have jumped on this shit and tried to go "derp derp let's customize everything while we fail to account for game balance". Even Ace Combat Assault Horizon has airplane multiplayer perks.
And in the case of BF3, some vehicle unlock/perk things that are basic survival tools require unlocking, and it's frustrating as fuck to have to earn those straight away. Flares and aerial vehicle missiles come to mind immediately. The first few unlocks are painful. Shit needs to be fine tuned to hell and back, otherwise it all ends up ridiculously skewed. It's a great concept in theory but I don't think I've ever seen it pulled off well enough where there isn't some sort of lopsided balance problem. MW1 came close but Fragx3 dominated blue slot and only half the red ones were really viable. It'll be here to stay, even in all the wrong fucking genres, for who knows how long now though. In before it's a system in the next Forza game. There's nowhere I can't reach. |
Besides the vehicle thing I'd say Battlefield does it a little better than the Modern Warfare games. It may suck using iron sights for a few games when others have holos and 4x zooms or whatever, but it's not like the guns you start with can't compete just fine with the ones you unlock later. Same with the perks. They may help, but none of them are really game-breaking or overpowered.
Personally, I'm fine with feeling like there's a sense of goals to attain, but not at the cost of game balance. I want to kill new players because I got better with experience, not because I can fire laser guided missiles up their ass from a mile away. This thing is sticky, and I don't like it. I don't appreciate it. |
It doesn't take long to get to IRNV at 100 kills per gun, but that thing is RIDICULOUS. I would make the argument that that thing alone is a game changer. Those who have it versus those who don't at any given time deal with some VERY different scoring ability.
Most amazing jew boots |
Personally, I like a little bit of customization and maybe some a little bit of variety when you level up. If a game takes it to extremes, like TF2, then it starts to get on my nerves since different weapons can really change how you'll play (and they're pretty difficult to get if you only play casually). All the new weapons are probably one of the main reasons I haven't played TF2 in ages. I think the perk system really benefits deathmatch-style games, as I feel something like that would have totally wrecked a game like L4D. Those are great games that really put everyone on the same playing field and relies on skill and teamwork to win. The other way of doing it is a system like Firearms (old HL mod) used to have where you'd earn better weapons and perks each round, so if you joined halfway through a game you'd be at a disadvantage, but if you stuck around and did well at the start then you could really use it to your advantage. I was speaking idiomatically. |
Its a double edged sword:
On the one hand, gaining extra stuff from leveling adds in replay value. On the other hand, making the things you gain actually have the ability to change the sway of how the game plays out is discouraging to new people who just picked up the game compared to those who have been playing since release. Normally, this isn't too much of an issue, since the game will always randomize what players are on what team. However, if a group is in a party, they'll always end up on the same team, and if they're really good, then they'll have all the perks and destroy those who don't. Normally, I'd say it isn't necessary, as achievements add enough replay value to keep people going. However, FPSes these days are the same thing with just slightly upgraded graphics (or heavily upgraded graphics in the case of BF3), so I guess they really needed something to rejuvenate the genre. How ya doing, buddy? |
FELIPE NO |
What, you don't want my bikini-clad body? |
Jam it back in, in the dark. |
Oh, while it's a medium-speed ADS scope due to it being 1x magnification, you can also steady it with the god damn sprint button like you could with a real sniper scope. Turning medium to long range encounters with LMGs and SMGs into winnable encounters.
It's really quite "whoa". There's nowhere I can't reach. |
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Videogames, videogames, video games, games games! | guyinrubbersuit | Pang's Violence Basement | 1 | Feb 26, 2008 07:33 PM |
[General Discussion] LAN Games ! | CryHavoc | Video Gaming | 6 | Jan 13, 2007 06:15 PM |
[General Discussion] So, why is it that EB Games/Gamestop are so adamant about promoting used games? | Spatula | Video Gaming | 8 | Oct 13, 2006 12:51 AM |