Arena FPS

QuakeWorld > Xonotic > literally everything else

Not including Doom in this because it's not waht I'd really consider an "arena shooter" but it's great.

Reflex and xonotic are the ones I play mostly. Xonotic is fun but it's so fast (in every way concievable) that sometimes it loses the nuance of a good duel. Reflex has fast movement but it's not easy to keep your speed going around a map, and it has a real tracking aim weapon. Arena shooters in general are the masterrace genre

I like to play them with bots because I'm shy

who am I kidding, I just suck

I wish Xonotic's bots would get a better AI one of the coming releases, all they have to do is not jump around the same spot, dive off the maps with water or stay in a corner like a slapped child

...

I play the new UT alpha and Toxikk every day. I've never really liked Quake

Anyone knows if there are good, classic deathmatch servers on UT 2004? I bought it a year ago but the only matches going are those huge open maps with vehicles, not a single vanila arena deathmatch

Because if you like the genre there is literaly no reason to play anything but quake live

Because the genre devolved into lets see how many times we can clone quake 3 for the past 16 years and its pretty fucking boring now.

I wish I could be so easily amused again

As for why I'm not playing them anymore? There aren't as many people on playing them so you're always going against gregor & co instead of that that nice mix of pros, competent players, complete idiots, & "I just installed the game!". Also what
stated.
That being said I wish they were more popular but considering today's average gamer & climate of modern shooters with leveling systems, weapons unlocks, paid skins & other bullshit I'd doubt it if the genre ever makes a comeback unless someone builds upon what Quake & Unreal did, & somehow makes it better & more popular.

what this guy said. except i'm good enough to toss them like a salad.
Tryhards are cute, but annoying. like children, but they can't learn.

Stale genre. Hasn't been improved or experimented with for more than a decade

Because I think shooters are boring. I like games with inventories and maps.

Closest servers to me are always over 100 ping away. This not good for the multiplayer shooters I think.

Last few updates completely ruined the new UT.

Because it's shit. Cartoony gunplay, shit feedback animation, sanic tier speed autism, and multiplayer sucks to begin with. TLDR it's autistic.

so you are a mature gamer?

spoken like a true console gamer

Unrealistic =/= cartoony. Is Warhammer cartoony? Into the trash it goes.

You really have no idea what you're talking about, do you? When you land an airshot with a rocket launcher and hear that beautiful ding of the hit sound and watch as they explode into giblets that crash down to earth with satisfying smacks? The tactile feedback in arena shooters is second only to fighting games.

I can see it now. This cuck staring at the walls moving around at pedestrian speed as real men move around at breakneck speed strafe jumping past him as they fuck him up with a railgun repeatedly. He then cries out in frustration, "this is stoopid!" and instead of gitting gud, goes back to playing his spergonaut weeb games, having convinced himself that it's not that he sucks, the game is just bad.

Confirmed for low-T loser. If competition and human interaction aren't fun aspects in a video game to you, your power level must be out of this world. Go back to your "safe space" beating up braindead AI opponents and talking to your hrpg party members.

Dude, thank you so much for posting this. I've been looking everywhere for inside footage of the QuakeCon demo.

Because arena shooters are pretty boring and mindless - mostly down to muscle memory, knowing where the pickups are, and not having a shit reaction time. Plenty of games out there with more depth and a higher skill ceiling.

Classic case of Holla Forums-tier special snowflake attitude. It wasn't really that good - you just cling to it because the normalfags don't play it; You get to sit atop your shitpile of autistic vidya and disdainfully look down on them neurotypicals.

So yeah. Quake was fun, but there are things out there objectively better, more well-paced and requiring more skill. Every other arena shooter I played to date seems to try to copy either Quake or UT too much - to the point where they might as well just scream in your face - "BUT QUAKE REMEMBER PIXELS AND SOUNDS AND JUMPS AND PEW PEW WITH CRT MONITORS AND STUFF HAHA" - instead of trying to sell it to you as anything other than what it is - a cheap Quake clone.

Warhammer is cartoony as fuck.

No, it's not. There is no "tactile" feedback in Quake, either. Quake is easy, and the feedback never served me as anything other than confirmation of an extremely simple action of repeatedly predicting my opponents' line of movement until they die.

Ad hominems generally take out all oomph out of your argument. Not to say there was any in there to begin with - you're just buttblasted that he pointed out that the speed is indeed too hectic to show true skill.

Agree with the fact that multiplayer is the best part of gaming and always has been.

Because I want more of TF2 so I play Overwatch.
It makes me miss TF2 even more.

Roadhog and Widowmaker are probably the two biggest sources of bullshit in Overwatch.

Roadhog because of his auto-aim hook that all but guarantees a kill, and Widowmaker because she just has to stand back and bodyshot everyone.

Take Widowmaker and put Hanzo in her place.
Not only he can kill you by bullshit hitboxes and shooting the leg, he also has most annoying ult of them all.

So you'd like Hexen then, right?

This is pretty much my justification.

"Why bother if I'm going to get my shit slapped IRREVOCABLY HARD?" That, and I absolutely love Quake 1 singleplayer more than anything else in the FPS industry minus pic related, but that's not an arena FPS so we won't bring it up.

So yeah. If I want virtual helplessness, I can play some ASSFAGGOTS or stupid MOBAs or some shit.

I do play both the new UT and UT2004 my friend. They are pretty popular at non competetive lan parties. Pretty much only CS:Go, Overwatch and league beat it in popularity, because they are so very popular. Arena shooters still do very well. Its just that they aren't very popular online.

For what reason?

Because Tribes Ascend is ruined and the others are all closed corridors trash.

Tribes isn't an arena shooter, it's a team based shooter. Tribes isn't dead either.

What if (free) arena shooters are just training chambers for kill drone AIs?

Oh, then I guess cause arena shooters are shit, if they're all closed corridor trash.

And I said it's ruined, not dead. People still play it but its current state is terrible.

Just play the original Tribes, I just assumed they weren't dead. And no, most arena shooters are quite open, otherwise you'd be totally unable to do half the maneuvers you can in them. The older classic shooters of Doom's ilk aren't arena shooters.

I'd like to point out, because no one in this thread has, is that all arena shooters are basically objective-based. The big pickups are vital and if you're not timing them and basing your strategies around them, you are guaranteed to lose, even if you're a much more "skilled" player. As for disparaging games for being quake clones, the genre basically is quake clones so certain gameplay mechanics should be expected.

Tribes 2 has weekly games on the only server still alive, last I heard.

Dueling isn't the only game mode. There are also team based modes for new people to get started with. You don't get stomped on as much in TDM or CTF.

Training chambers for terrorist gamers.*
Fixed that for you.

Are there any arena shooters or arena shooter maps with weird gravity?

So then, what games exactly are you referring to when you say that there are much betrer games with high skill ceilings?

Are you implying that you're so good at arena shooters that they are below you?

Are you confirming that youre just a shitweeb?

Can you elaborate on that?

store.steampowered.com/app/467820/?snr=1_7_7_151_150_1

Are you Jonathan Wood?

Except their objectives are basically shield, super-shield, health upgrade and double\triple damage.
All these things do is give you an edge in a fight. It's a very good and important edge but it also translates into "player with worse aim wins because his numbers are bigger" and while keeping on top of the pickups is a very important skill on itself, it's not the best implementation with that.

I'll argue that Team Fortress, Overwatch do objective-based gameplay better since their objective is something that serves the purpose of concentrating the fight in a specific place instead of being a pickup that disappears and doesn't matter for the next minute after it's collected.

I'll also add that Arena shooters are fairly repetitive on several levels. I took a liking to play with "species mutator" in UT2K4 because Gen Mo Kai went even faster and because it made every foe seem different. Shooting 3 Ion shots to a Goliath and have him survive or having to dodge more frequently as the frail Gen Mo Kai, especially against the Nightmares that healed from any damage they did or even the superior control of the Egyptians, it shifted the game a lot more with variety during the matches.

This might also be why class-based shooters are enjoyed a lot as well. Because every oponent has a different set of weapons available to them (and Skills can be considered a weapon of sorts) making the variety you can find in a match more more diverese than what you'd get in your average arena shooter.

There's also the fact Arena Shooters boil down to deathmatch and teamdeathmatch. There are more modes but they are considered gimmicks or "beginner friendly", not the real main thing. Meanwhile other shooters, especially class-based ones have deathmatch happening around some other objective for context, and as that Objective changes, so does the battlefield.

For instance, you can go around in UT2004 shooting people with a flak cannon, but that's all you're gonna do for the whole match, on the same map, against mostly the same kind of oponents. Meanwhile, you can boot TF2, pick Scout and get a similar experience, except you gotta keep in mind where the cart is and defend\attack it as well, while the battlefield changes every time a point is capped.

TL;DR: Modern arena shooters are to that genre what CoD is to FPS: an infinite recycling of the same game with no innovation. The focus on deathmatch coupled with the mechanical difficulty of pro-movement does not alleviate the repetitiveness. There's no reason to play any of those games after you've shot every gun at least once since you can have more fun with something else.

CTF scene in q3a was pretty healthy, I know because I watched all the replays. Also you totally forgot "Clan Arena" with rounds like cs.

How much of those TF2 weapons are viable? 2? 3? Besides that your model in TF2 is making that stupid retard step when you want to stand still. It's just fine if you have no experience with good movement, you know like Q3A?

How do the objectives in AFPS not guide the fighting, though? Both players are going to be going for the pickups because pickups lead to more stack which leads to more frags. So naturally, the fighting will be constantly moving around the map from pickup to pickup as they each come up. TF2 and OW also tend to have much larger maps to go with their gamemodes, so they need those static objectives for concentrating the fight.

How is this a bad thing? It's not like it's some MMO where he was grinding for it or paid more neetbux, he just got the pickup that spawns every 30 seconds. It adds depth to the game in the form of map control. The pickups are the very thing that separates AFPS from non-AFPS. It makes the map control-based metagame that is so common to the genre.

While you have to keep in mind where the cart is and contest that in TF2, you also have to keep in mind when the pickups are coming up in Quake and contest them as well.

Deathmatch is constantly happening around objectives in Quake/UT. They're the pickups. Only in FFA matches where people don't know what they're doing do pickups not guide the fight.

That's the thing, it very much matters because those events are just as important as frags. Timing several pickups while trying to out-think, out-shoot, and out-maneuver your opponent is exhilarating, especially when the match is close. You won't get as fast a mental challenge playing pubs in TF2.

See, it's this aproach that makes this conversation useless. If we are going for viable weapons, there's quite a long list competitive servers use that's actually a minority of all the weapons the game has.

Then there's the fact that, in theory every weapon is viable but tweaked for a particular situation and you have to play it in a specific situation to capitalize on that. Best example would be the different Watches the Spy has that all make him play in a different way depending on what you have.

But in the end, it's not about what's viable but rather what's fun. Beggars Bazooka is a shitty weapon that nobody considers viable, but it's fun to unload a barrage of rockets on people and fuck around with it. The Scotish Resistance is considered inferior to every other mine launcher but it's great for defense and specific cases and always fun to spam. The Eureka Effect of the engineer has some very niche uses but very good and fun ones.

And keep in mind, I'm including things here that don't directly harm your oponent but are still weapons, like the Spy's sapper or watch. They are tools that switch the gameplay around when used by anyone and force the enemy and you to adapt.
Now compare that to most arena shooters with a selection of around 9 weapons, sometimes without an alt-fire and you'll see it's quite limited.

Then keep in mind that the game can have characters with different speeds and different health amounts to balance the weapons they get and give each character a unique playstyle you can play with. 300 HP and the minigun would be OP in most characters, but Heavy makes up for it with a larger hitbox and slower movespeed for instance, while the Spy has the ability to kill most people in 1 hit or 2-3 shots and can even cloak but he is frail on purpose to balance it.

Again, much more interesting than every single game running flak cannon, ion rifle and rocket launcher mostly with the other weapons around until you find one of these 3.

Concurrent objectives means at any time the players could head in different directions and not find each other. Fail number 1.
Then when they reach the point, it might be taken and there's nothing left to do here but move onto the other point so they don't stick around the objective. Fail number 2.
Even when they meet at the same point, as soon as it's taken they can just scramble when low on health and go to another pickup, making this one a moot point. Fail number 3.

Now compare that to the Arena mode in TF2 with a single point that a team can take to force the other out of hiding, making the fighting centered on a point that one can't ignore nor simply take and make a moot point for the next 45 seconds.

It's not. But the process to increase those numbers ain't a very interesting one, you just keep a mental timer on pickups and an optimal route to cycle them, that's it.
It's also a bit hypocritical when AFPS players complain about class-based shooters giving players advatantages based around their class thus making encounters unbalanced between them when they are perfectly fine with players having a difference in "numbers" when they meet for other arbitrary reasons.

The difference is the amount of time you spend roaming to the next objective and the time you spend fighting over it as well as how you fight for it.
In Quake, you'll spend far more time moving to the next objective than actually contesting it and as soon as you pick it up, you'll move to the next.
In TF2 and similar games, both teams will surround the objective and try to protect it, clumping around it with the offense and defense teams defending it in different ways, usually giving a small advantage to the defending team but fundamentally changing how you handle the objective depending on your team for the round.

Or to put it simply, contesting objectives in Quake gets stale and repetitive much faster than in other class-based arena shooters and doesn't even account for half the game. The rest is roaming and hoping you meet the guy.

You misunderstood me.
You an an enemy reach the room with the Shield pickup. You are ahead of him and you dodge a rocket he sends your way, managing to pickup the Shield.

As soon as you do that, the other player will turn tail and rush for the other Super Shield pickup because this one is taken and you have a numerical advantage over him. This point stops being important for him and as he leaves, it stops being important to you again.

Instead of having to stand on top of the shield for 5 seconds to claim it, thus forcing players to fight before one of them can claim the pickup, the first to catch it takes it (placing an heavier emphasis on movement, but that's not a bad thing) and now it's a moot point for 45 seconds.

Now compare that with TF2 where a team capturing a point must stand their ground on top of it for several seconds and the enemy team even has enough time to respawn one or two times to try and contest the point. It accomplishes the goal of centralizing the fight and involve as many players as possible much better.

yes

UT 4 is really the only hope the genre has.
Hopefully it gets put into beta sometime in the next year.

It's not multiplayer FPS I'm looking for, it's singleplayer.

Any game that involves thinking and planning further than run and gun.

I'm good enough to get bored with them.

Nope

Getting a steam release would be the real cuckoldry you ignorant faggot

...

Strafe jumping ruined the genre. Its' just spamming the jump and fire buttons like an autistic retard, thinking you're amazing because you hit someone in your' high speed spastic jumping fit. It's not fun and only a small group of pitiful retards still enjoy doing it because of nostalgia to a time when they were "skilled" at a game everyone else quickly realized was boring and gay and stopped playing.

I don't think we need to be that extreme, it's not the single thing that ruined the genre. The staleness in characters, weapons, gamemodes, maps and movement always relegated to exploiting glitches, alltogether ruined it for everyone.

But yes, being proud that you can bunnyhop and strafejump around to reach lightspeed is like being proud you can actually play an RTS in a madcats controller. No, it does not make the experience any better nor does it make any more fun. You can get used to pain and even orgasm from it, doesn't mean a hammer to the hand is any better.

For all the waffling people usually spew about those mechanics, most of those games never feature things like mantling or wallrunning and very few will even include wall jumping.
And yet everyone that defends it still feels a sense of superiority when all they have is a bigger movespeed that could be achieved by tweaking an INI and it doesn't even matter since if your oponent is as skilled as you, he'll be moving at the same speed. So either speed doesn't matter for the current match or you're out\underskilled compared to your oponent.

Play UT then. That game didn't really ever have bunnyhoppping.

What genre is better then this?

*than

Too true and well put.

my niggaaaaaaaaaaaa

Class-based shooters. You different characters for a good variety of playstyles and with multiplayer and human players, this results in unique matches all the time.
Just keep in mind that you'll never be a respected menber of the bunnyhoping community since those are casual games. If you care about that, stay away from them.
But if you just want to go fast and have fun, get TF2, pick Scout, unlock the fish and go beat people with it lolnope, play Dirty Bomb, or Paladins, or Overwatch, or whatever else other similar game there is.

If you want a more standard aproach, try Red Eclipse. It's a neat game that has a lot of movement maneuveurs you can easily learn including wall running, sliding, wall jumping and surfing. Pretty cool game, gets boring a bit fast though.

You're doing it wrong. If the players have any idea what they're doing then the fight will be concentrated by map size and pickup spawns more than sufficiently. The video and audio cues and multiple vs single fights over a particular objective are all that's really different between TF2 and AFPS. I don't understand, is your point that the two games are different or that multiple attempts to take an objective is objectively superior design?

Mantling and wallrunning in shooters are usually implemented in ways that make them painfully easy to use though. You typically have them mastered in a few minutes. Strafe jumping is pretty easy to learn but could be improved for years. Not everyone who play good matches move anywhere near the same speed; it's just one factor that doesn't tend to decide matches unless the gap in player skill is high.

between TF2 and AFPS objectives*

Fuck that.;

I've come across a lot of playstyles for AFPS as well, but they're not as explicitly defined or enforced like character/classes. Such as players that primarily do one or more of the following, in certain patterns or behavioral quirks

Class based gameplay has a lot of variants in it between the games, but the matches aren't always unique. I.e each singular class is generally more limited, and some are designed around counters to other classes, and (like AFPS) some optimal definitive tactics that will fall into a common pattern.

You don't hear Bombing Run or Double Domination mentioned very often when talking about UT either. Gimmicky gamemodes that people don't really play unless they feel like giving an handycap to the newbies aren't really a good argument here…

Those happen BEFORE the pickup is taken, afterwards it's back to the same problem. And even then, it's those strategies that have interest, the pickup is still a terrible objective to orient fights around it as it doesn't last.
In fact, timers for pickups are done in such a way that at some point, two unlock at the same time, giving players the option to get the one his oponent isn't rushing. This is a balance measure but it only makes it seem even worse when it comes to steer the gameplay around them.

My point is that two different games of Quake will be more similar between each other than two games of TF2 for instance.
You'll be playing with the same guns, same pickups, same objectives, same oponents, same strategies, same movement, same roaming&hunting.
Meanwhile, in class-based shooters you can switch to a defensive class for a more relaxing round, something more sneaky to fuck around, some medic to help your team if you're not feeling confident in combat or a sniper to kickback and care only for your K/D. Or just pick the straight damage classes and enjoy oponents that all have different abilities and therefore require that you adapt on the spot to them.

I mean, how is this an hard concept to understand?
You meet an Heavy+Medic combo or an Engy+Pyro combo and both are handled in vastly different ways that require thinking on the spot.
Meanwhile you meet someone with a Railgun or a Rocket Launcher, you're gonna do the same thing. Dodge projectiles, get higher ground, shoot gun at him. You do have fairly more guns at any time but it's still only 9 out of which about 3 trump all others 95% of the time.
Even the objectives, the cart changing location as it's pushed exposes you to different parts of the map and changes combat around it, same thing for the Inteligence or capture points. Meanwhile, the 5th time you're running for the Shield Pickup will be an exact repeat as the other 4, with the same aproach and tactics.

How do you expect a game like that to compete with games like there are today? It gets boring, it's insanely more repetitive and it has all the "harcore nature" that ancient console games had simply because there was no alternative back then and you had to make do. Of course people are gonna hype around bunnyhop, that gives depth to the only game they had to play back then. Now you have competition and the prize isn't "who's more skilled" but rather "how much fun can I have with this game" and it just so happens that one game gets stale and boring fast while the other offers a lot of cheap and easy but vastly superior variations.

Comparing both together is like comparing Worms Armaggedon with all the weapons versus the same game but Bazooka only. Yeah, you can do insanely amazing stuff with just that gun. Doesn't mean it's fun to only play with that every round, every day.

because everybody knows how real and serious Overwatch and Battlefield is amirite

High ping on all the active servers I'd like to play on.

So why hasn't nearly all of the Arena shooter community decided to choose UT4 as "their game"?
It seems to have the most money behind it and is the most promising. It is also the prettiest and has the most promising future.
Instead we see dozens of small communities playing different games.

Because the game isn't about seeing who does those things better than anyone else. It's about using those things while you play, they are no different than simple movement and shooting, a tool to play with and have fun. The challenge is the other players, not the controls.

Funny that I actually agree with this but not in the way you'd like. See, that's true. Strafe jumping is so easy to learn, it's boring to use because it has little to no depth to newbies, just mash Space and move your mouse. But improving it for years is even more boring, nobody wants to do the same maneuver in a sucession of games for a year getting marginnaly better every game. There's no point to it, you could instead be playing a game with a fast base movement speed and learn other things like reflexes, tactics, team coordination, etc. Or be extra hedonistic and play more recent games to watch pretty explosions and scenario. Really, why limit yourself with old games when their only incentive is that you can spend a year improving a particular autistic movement tactics?

Does this sound like it would convince anyone to join up? With the large selection of games out there that don't force that long learning time on players?
Because at least better aim for professional players can be balanced for new players with tactics in class-based shooters and there's classes specifically geared to ease them into the game so they still help and contribute even if they aren't as good.

Keep in mind, I loath TF2. It's a terrible game and not for the aesthetics. The balance of classes is completely out of place and many of it's decisions in terms of gameplay are outright retarded. They might as well remove the T since the only teamwork there is done by either the Medic or the classes Valve hates the most (Pyro and Engineer) but it still manages to be a better game and if I had to pick one to play, I'd boot TF2 instead.

...

Because retards are too afraid to download it because they get scarred when they see the word "Alpha"

Wasted trips on someone with so little reading comprehension or arguments.

I don't "praise" or "insult" any of those games. I value some individual aspect I think they do better than the other.

Arena shooters are fun, I loved playing UT2K4, still one of my favorite games and I have GrendelKeep memorized, as well as several other maps. The last fight in the tournament is still one of the best boss fights in a videogame I've ever seen, the weapons are all pretty cool (even the Biorifle)
I've also tried other arena shooters, Red Eclipse being one I already mentioned and I do enjoy the speed and simpleness of just shooting dudes while going fast.

However, there's very little tactical planning there or variation between matches. I do mostly the same thing every round unless I restrict myself to practice a specific gun for instance. I'm sure I still have lots of space to improve my skills but at this point any further improvement doesn't sound particularly fun to develop. Arena shooters as they were are something I can enjoy 2-3 rounds before getting bored and wanting to play something else.

And here comes OW, Paladins, Dirty Bomb, TF2 and many others. Instead of playing another game, I can switch to a different class and enjoy the same game from a whole new perspective. I can for instance choose to only play with the Lightining Gun in UT2K4 to improve my aim and reflexes with it (or the ion rifle for mostly the same thing) or I can instead pick Sniper and have fun with the rest of his weapons and skillset as well, against oponents that act in different ways to me shooting them.

I have no problem saying that running fast as Scout or wall running as Genji\Hanzo is braindead simple, but since what I want is to shoot people while doing those things, not do those things and feel awesome because I can still shoot while doing them, I can have much more fun in those games than in old school arena shooters.

One point I can't deny is how easy these games are to play but one point you can't deny is how much more variety they have in their content.
Now stop acting surprised that nobody wants to play AFPS anymore like they used to be. It's a niche genre, it's treated as a niche genre by everyone including it's community and it's forever be a niche genre at best or dead at worse because it evolves as much between each iteration as CoD does.

You can blame Holla Forums for the "early acess" meme if that's gonna be the argument, though.
I prefer to think UT simply doesn't have the same pull it used to have after UT3 aka "Gears of Tournament" disapointed so many people. Cool ideas there, I loved most of the vehicles but the designs for a lot of things was straigth up retarded.

Ebin joke friendo.

For me it's been

etc

None of those games did anything new. Class-based FPS started with Hexen, then it came back again and into popularity with mods for Quake like Team Fortress.

Does anyone remember the name of an arena shooter with tachikomas and hook shot assisted movement?

Imagine if you combined Arena FPS with a class-based strategy game like Guild Wars, except instead of going halfway there the way "hero shooters" have been doing it, you go all the way there and have the full complexity of all aspects.

Weapons spawn across the game map:
Generally equal for every character. We'll say 100.
Provides a shield. Can only be equipped with one-handed weapons. Destroyed once it takes enough damage.
Starter weapon for Warrior. Melee. Fast, melee, kills in a couple of hits.
Starter weapon for Dervish. Melee. Makes rapid sweeping attacks in the area in front, kills in a few hits.
Weapon spawn on map. Melee. Slightly slower than sword, but it penetrates shields.
Weapon spawn on map. Melee. Not so fast, but inflicts kill in one hit. Two handed, so no shield.
Starter weapon for casters. Comes in different damage types - fire, cold, earth, air, chaos, holy, spirit. Two handed. Kills in a few hits. Area of effect on strike. Slowest weapon with slowest projectile.
Starter weapon for Paragon. Projectile weapon with high speed and high damage, kills in a couple of hits.
Starter weapon for Assassin. Lowest damage, but fastest weapon in melee, giving it high DPS if you can get onto an enemy. Speed boost when equipped, no shield.
Weapon spawn on map. Damage below sword, about same fire rate, but ranged projectile that moves rather quickly.
Weapon spawn on map. Used in place of shield. Increases energy for the use of special skills.
Starter weapon for Ranger. Good damage, fires faster for slightly less damage than spear. Different bows could spawn - flatbows firing with a higher arc, shortbows firing fastest, hornbows penetrating shielding, longbows firing the furthest, recurve bows with fastest projectiles.

Characters could be customized, with everything from appearance to being gear remaining at the hands of the player to alter. Every character would have a skill bar which they could equip skills into. You would have primary and secondary profession, allowing you to assign attribute points to attributes governing certain skills. Your primary profession would determine your base armor and special class specific skill tree (expertise ranger, energy storage elementalist, etc.). You would have one elite skill.

Receive 70% damage from attacks; 50% from physical. Strength attribute increases damage with melee weapons. Slow energy recovery. Uses adrenaline. Lower energy.
Receive 85% damage from attacks; 50% from elemental. Expertise attribute decreases cost of skills.
Energy storage dramatically increases amount of energy available for skills. Fast energy recovery, higher energy.
Fast casting causes skills to recharge faster. Fast energy recovery, higher energy.
Divine favor increases healing from skills. Fast energy recovery, higher energy.
Soul reaping recovers energy when a creature dies nearby. Fast energy recovery, higher energy.
Receives 85% damage from attacks. Critical strikes increases chance for critical hit (instant kill). Fast energy recovery.
Spawning power makes summoned spirits more powerful. Fast energy recovery, higher energy.
Receives 70% damage from attacks. Leadership causes energy to be regained when using skills on allies. Slow energy recovery, higher energy. Uses adrenaline.
Receives 85% damage from attacks. Mysticism increases armor when using enchantments and decreases cost to use them. Fast energy recovery. Increase hit points (base 125).

You get to bring eight skills into the battle. The mechanics would be a bit different, of course, but the theory would remain fairly similar. Skill casting times would be about the same, so you can't go around spamming Meteor Swarm. Unless you prep a Glyph beforehand, of course, and then reign hell on a location of your choice. Skills would be targeted; hit the button for a skill, and then use M2 to activate it at the targeted location. Some battle modes would focus on individuals, others would be designed to pit teams against each other. Very fun.

It's nice to know you give up this easily…

Most of your points can be sum up as "this guy is more mobile and has better aim". You're also just mentioning the differences between players with an higher skill level, almost none of the game mechanics matter or change either of that. If a player is doing any of that, can you use something available to you that forces him to change tactics? And how many of those options are available? Now compare it with class-based shooters for that kind of content…

Hexen was still PvE mostly. A very fun game but not really what we were talking about. And if those games innovated to little, what to say about Reflex, Xonotic and similar compared to Quake?

I've only been playing afps a few months and it only took me a week to be able to move well enough to do well in deathmatch. It took effort but was totally do-able.

This, honestly. There are many skills that a player might be strong on so matches with different players offer a lot of variety, something you rarely see in TF2 and the like (Soldiers and demoguys will skirmish, rush, or jump, pyros will ambush, and scouts will harass, etc). The random chaos of 16 player is complex in it's own way but all the options a single player has in an afps makes for extremely unpredictable gameplay. I like that games like tf2 force players to work together but I feel I can't push myself nearly as hard as in an afps.

Because the game is pretty far from complete.

You're the one saying that Arena Shooters are iterative. I merely stated that class-based shooters are old and not all too original. Not to mention the fact that there's so many of them nowadays (your post lists 4 fucking games that play very alike, and I can think of many, many others) Also

But they do. For example, a player with a higher accuracy than me, can still be a slow and predictable mover. Additionally I can still attack out of line of sight because of projectile weapons, both travel time and bouncing, and I can prioritize acquiring health and armor (while denying the higher accuracy guy) such that a direct fight is better in my favor. If the other guy is more mobile, I would have to take opportunities to pin down areas and fire explosives that will interfere with his momentum.

Overwatch with Dva and Widowmaker? :^)
I think it was called Section 8 but I'm probably mistaken.

There's something already similar in games like Battle for Newerth and Natural Selection where you pick classes and then gear them according to how you want to play.
Character customization could be a cool aspect especially if you go nuts with the amount of classes and the option to dual-class.

However, that would need massive maps with a massive amount of players or several NPCs doing things around like guarding specific parts of the map or following players.

The funny thing is, you could make it so cosmetics are entirely customizable outside of the game so your Spear looks different than another player Spear and yet in terms of balance, it's the same thing. Perfectly jewable without upsetting the game balance. So don't expect anything like that.

I took 1 day to learn trimming and when I revisited maps in UT that had those funny ramps you couldn't climb, I finnaly understood their purpose and it greatly expanded my mobility. However, I still run around the map hunting the other players, shooting with Ion\Lighting rifle from a distance, Flak from short range, Rocket Launcher in tight spaces and Shield Gun or Enforcers to fuck around.
Trimming was piss easy to learn but it did not changed how I played the game that much. That's my point about all that autism.

And keep in mind, you said you can improve it for years. Playing the same game to master a mechanic you are already aware of for years, that's what's actually autism. You can spend the same time putting blocks down in Minecraft to improve your Great Pyramid with 500X500 chunks for size. Doesn't mean it's fun.

I personnaly hate Sollyfags and think the balance of the game is ruined in their favour so it hurts me to say this… But there's a lot of depth to rocket jumping and it's one of those skills you could spend years mastering. Weird having you rail on them when it's the same thing… They also don't engage every class the same way, try to rocketjump to reach an Heavy or a Sentry Nest, see how that works out. Mostly same thing for Demos.

Or follow teammates and spycheck. Or counter other Pyros. Or reflect projectiles, which is also another "mirrion years to master!!" skill. Or be a Pybro and help the Engy defend his nest.

Or cap points, or cap intel, or finish stragglers, or hunt spys (second best class for that)

No it does not. At any point there's a specific weapon that trumps all others and you'll switch to it if you actually want to win. At any point there's a specific point to move and you'll go there if you want to win. At any point you're firing a gun, there's a specific place you're supposed to aim depending if it's projectile or hitscan.
And with only 9 guns, the decision is simple.

Get long range hitscan (railgun), get short range burst damage (flak cannon) and get AoE damage (rocket launcher) switch between long range and short range depending on where your oponent is and pick the AoE damage if he is in tight spaces and can't dodge as well. Use Hitscan if he is above you, use the other 2 if he's below you.

Every other weapon sees use until you find one of these 3 that performs better in the same situation or if you want to have fun instead of winning. It's the same thing over and over again.

Except the point of Hexen isn't for players to compete against each other, the game features an inventory, pickups and player progression throughout the match and the only thing you fight is PvE. It's not an Arena shooter at all nor does it have anything to do with current class-based arena shooters. It's a coop game and that's it.

Nope, sorry. Dirty Bomb plays fundamentally differently (worse, TBH but it has it's charm) than the others with the Loadouts and characters having traits that let them interact with the map in a different way and Paladins even more so since it ditches the rigid class roles in favour of soft ones, with a faster and snowbally gameplay that neither Dirty Bomb nor Overwatch has.

Meanwhile, Xonotic, Reflex, Warsow and similar play so fucking similar a newcomer could think they are graphic packs for Quake. The differences are there, I know that, but they are so nuanced it takes a knowledgable player to notice them straight away.
At least Red Eclipse had some original ideas of it's own with the 2 weapons loadout (unique for Arena shooters :^) and Stamina based maneuvers while mixing different grenades there as well.

Oh come on, the game is a blast. The Assassin is kinda pointless but it's fun to go around hacking people off as the Warrior or Paladin.

I enjoy it and play it at a higher level but there's not that much more to the tactics

The most you can do is 'play from a different perspective', but I always prefer to play from one really well fleshed out perspective than a dozen others that interact with eachother in an almost rock paper scissors fashion (though I admit, if one is playing casually it is somewhat fun to take on a clearly disadvantageous situation and win).

I can't say much about TF2, I never played it extensively.

The only game I've played with good grapple hooks is probably Xonotic, but I doubt that's what you're thinking of

Also being able to move well means being able to attain higher of speed in shorter distances. A lot of the maps are designed around being able to accomplish certain jumps that will lend an advantage, whether its saving health that would've been taken away in a rocket jump and avoiding giving an audio cue. It's not able going at light speed and many times the tight corners and turns makes it hard to preserve velocity, and at times necessitates sacrificing some velocity to avoid losing all of it to hitting a wall.

Hardly matters if he can drop you faster with a Railgun. And that just sounds like a TF2 Sniper.

Unless they can bounce like grenades, I fail to see how you can have decent accuracy with them unless you'll be guessing. And guessing you will, since the other player will see the projectiles and move away, probably to flank you without you even seeing it. Great strategy… Also, that's Demo\Soldier vs any other class.

So you can run around not playing the game to get an advantage over the other player? And that's fun?
And what is he doing during that time, isn't he also getting health and armor? Seems pointless against human players, you're quoting straight from the final fight in UT2k4 here.

So spam is a tactic. Uh. Also present in any other game, including class-based shooters. Go see why people hate Junkrat for instance.

No, it really doesn't. Classes are less "rock, paper scissors" than TF2 or other arena shooters, they instead have strengths and weaknesses you gotta know how to exploit as well as synargies with other people that can give you the advantage. You hardly ever snowball unless the other team is that bad, your Ulti as Pharah doesn't mean anything if you've just been poking people and charging Zenyatta's Ult for instance.

This is a personnal opinion so feel free to disregard it if you wish, but I far more enjoy exploring how a class can work with it's limits and strengths, how it interacts with other classes both enemies and teammates. Everyone will tell you that Mei or McCree is the counterpick against Tracer but good Tracers still perform well against those two heroes as well and being a Tank that works to keep your healers Ult charged faster is pretty sweet too but dangerous as well.

Basically, I find that trying to play a certain Hero and still be viable against every enemy or trying to come up with new ways to use him and be even more effective is much more fun than trying to improve my bunnyhopping technique. I'd rather study Sentry Placement for Ambush Purposes with Symetra than keep mashing keys to go a few microseconds faster.

That's not quite the game I'm trying to remember, but Section 8 is a gud gaem. Kinda wish I could remember it, since it looked amazing.

Might be Titanfall 2? It has a grappling hook and mechs.

I know there are 3 games based around the GITS franchise (but 2 are unofficial). Neotokyo is clearly not what you are looking for, Section 8 is the other one. There's a 3rd with the actual characters from the series but last I heard, it's Pay2Win as fuck.

It's definitely not Titanfall2. I think the game was being developed by a one or two man team, and had a map featuring zero gravity elements.

It's hard to explain a fight to someone unwilling to visualize it, but a lot of times I go against players who have an advantage over me in one way or another.

A railgun is hitscan but it is for line of sight. This means out of line of sight weapons are still a viable option if fighting in line of sight gives so much of a disadvantage. Firing out of line of sight doesn't necessarily mean spamming from a corner, it could just be utilizing the travel time of the projectile and the predictability of the opponent. Usually the projectile weapons will grant some varying degree of splash damage.

And prioritizing health and armor doesn't mean running around and picking up items is the only thing to do because as you've said, it's a human opponent. They will be also looking for health and armor. Denying health and armor as it spawns, taking advantage of where they'll go to pick up an item, or ensuring health and armor is above the damage done by a sniper are valid tactics to help in a fight against a better aiming opponent.

Also maybe the playstyle similarity is there, often times I assume a slow moving but accurate hitting opponent is from Counterstrike, but the opponent will not be constained to the limitations imposed on Sniper and its almost never the only trick being done.

Nexuiz (the original, not the one on steam. Now it's Xonotic) has that in its instagib mode on most servers.

Severe under-appreciation of the strategies available in these games. Most the afps players have put a lot of time into both types of games, it's clear when someone who's only seen the surface of these games bashes the genre.

It's one thing learn the mechanic and another to integrate it into your play. I understand if you want to take it easy and not actively seek improvement when you game but if you thrive on constant challenge, an afps with a decent community can be a lot of fun.

Similar, yes. But not identical. There has been no attempt to make a game at that complexity level, likely because no developer wants to risk losing the casual audience.

The main thing that limits Arena Shooters is that there is only a finite range of human skill. It's easy to determine that one player is absolutely shit, but once you get to the point of good players, the differences in different skill sets (knowledge, speed, accuracy) become smaller and smaller. You can still pin-point those flaws with enough skill of your own, sometimes.

Class-based shooters as they have been presented so far have a different problem where the confine becomes the classes themselves. A person can be shit at a certain character or good at it, but there will always be certain constraints to a very specific character which will always be presented.

The way to resolve it, then, is to remove the "hero" aspect from the game. Having a game where you customize the skill bar and abilities, and putting it in a team setting, means you now create all of these factors to look for:

It would also be difficult to always be accurate with these. You see a Ranger - try to send a Warrior in to meet him in melee. Except this particular Ranger took a secondary profession in Elementalist and has a bunch of area-of-effect elemental spells prepared, so the moment you get close, you're going to get fucked by low damage vs elemental. Or maybe he's a Necromancer with vampiric-type touch spells, a Ritualist who spawned a bunch of spirits behind the corner to gang rape you. Maybe he's an almost pure Ranger, and he set half a dozen traps in the corridor in front of you, so you'll be dead before you even get close.

In the actual game Guild Wars, the issue is that the game isn't nearly as fast moving, and you have an overhead view of the battlefield. Force the player into first-person view and increase the gameplay speed and you don't have the same amount of time to put together a strategy. You have to think fast, and let your team know what you're planning.

You don't play much CS, do you? Neither do I but they are far from slow, mate. It's just that the TTK for that game rewards aim more than speed and several guns force the oponent to lose speed anyway, so might as well focus on that when bullets start flying but before contact happens, there's a decent amount of movement going there.
Still a shit game

The Sniper doesn't have any limitations either except for a subpar short range weapon for self defense compared to everything else but he does have quite a lot of tricks up his sleeve for short range combat anyway.

I thrive on challenge provided by my oponents, not the controls. If I understand the mechanics, I should be able to use them to 100% of it's potential and the rest is learning WHEN to use them, not HOW. If the controls are harder to master than my oponent, than that's a bad game, period. And if you disagree, feel free to hook a controller to your PC and come play Overwatch with the added chalenge. I'm sure it will only take a decade to master the controller up to the point you can beat M&K players.

There's a limit to how much complexity you can put, though. And feedback becomes mandatory as well when it goes farther a certain point.

In your example for instance, that Ranger would need some special effect placed on him revealing his second nature (trailing fire for Elementalist, shadowy mist for Necro, Sigils around him as Ritualist) so the other player can know what class he is dabbling in before he engages or uses any ability.
Knowing what that character has done with that class should stay a secret until revealed but knowing both of it's classes is important so the other player has more information to consider.

That reminds me that multiplayer for Dark Messiah of Might and Magic is dead and I never got to try it…

It's pretty snowbally. I've played in a team against professional teams in my country. Damage charges ult, staggering the enemy spawn gives you a huge advantage that, if you do it properly, will lead you to constantly having an ult economy advantage. It can flip quite easily, but there's no denying it can be extremely snowbally (especially 2CP maps - in any teamfight, getting an early pick will snowball in your favour, and due to the big disadvantage defenders get initially, seeing both points capped in 1:30 is sometimes more common than seeing it drawn out).

Perhaps I was simplifying it a bit, but team compositions have been practically worked out for you, and beyond neutering the enemy team's favoured picks with counter picks and strategies (what I meant by rock paper scissors) there's a tried and true strategy that everyone uses. And dive comps I guess.

Also only terrible players will say Mei is a counter pick, but a good Mccree would always outplay a good Tracer.

Admittedly, I primarily played Genji and pretty much did what you said, worked at being viable in every situation (and as a result, practically never switched off him when I got in a team). Once you reach the highest level of play though, you feel *very* restricted with what you can do. You would lose every fight if you didn't strictly play with a Reinhardt shield, take fights where you have numbers advantage, and initiate with the proper ults (outside of jumping onto points with dive comps, but that's a minority of the time). Which is why I was a Genji specialist - I had more freedom of movement and approaches than pretty much any other class, and could have fun zipping around the moment we got an advantage and began deathballing, but it's still very limited (unless you're just pubstomping, then you can do whatever).

For me, arena shooters are faster and are less 'solved' to me, so I have so many different approaches and things to learn in them compared to hero shooters, but they're even more dead here than they are in america, so Overwatch is the only fast-ish and fun online shooter I can play.

CS in its usual mode is a slower paced game than AFPS. That kind of slow. Additionally some players have sensitivities low enough to be a hindrance for strafe jumping, so often times I see the accuracy/movement speed compromise in players.

Comparatively The Sniper will not be able to rocket jump, use explosives, and move fast. This is not to say that The Sniper is an inadequate character for his game, but an opponent in an AFPS generally has more options to consider including shifting tactics from a pseudo-Sniper style.

That's a good analogy for how I feel about TF2 now. Controllers feel pretty limiting after playing M+K for a while. TF2 feels pretty limiting after putting a few weeks into an afps.

The way GW itself handled it was that would see the class of the opponent displayed. For lack of display, the only thing you could really tell is the primary profession (by the armor).

I think if you were to make elite skills a function of either class, being able to identify secondary would be important. But if you make it so that elite skills are tied to the primary profession, I don't think it's much of a problem.

The reason is the reverse side. In the given scenario, you are a Warrior rushing the Ranger. But that might not be all you have. If you took Monk, you might be able to throw up a few protection spells and just soak up the damage he casts out. You might take Assassin, allowing you to shadow step behind him and get some free shots on the rear before he can retaliate. Maybe you have a recovery skill, so when you trigger his crippling trap, you can immediately purge it and rush his ass.

Too much complexity is the defense of the casual. The game could always use more things. You have to test every aspect of the player - reflexes, pre-planning, on-the-fly strategy, teambuilding, environmental awareness. All of it.

Oh, on that I'll agree. It's kinda the point of the game and really not my cup of tea, but that's what the game is all about.

Why do you think I shifted from TF2 to Overwatch (and sometimes Paladins)? Because Widowmaker has a grapling hook and a dual weapon while Hanzo can wall run so they aren't the slow perchers from TF2.
I find that playing Hanzo tends to be more interesting since he's mostly about perching from unexpected locations, getting a kill and relocating while Widow can do mostly the same but less often and with even more places available.
Ence why I don't like TF2, because Soldier and Demo get all the fun mobility and everyone else gets gimmicks instead.

That's cause you're playing a different type of game the same way you played the other. If you're just gonna play it like a team deathmatch, it IS gonna feel limited. But if you just want to smack people with fishes and inspire panic on players or enjoy comfy sentry rounds, it's much better.

I personnaly like to hop on 2Fort with the Spy, then make my way to the Sniper battlements. Then, I stab one and immidatly cloak with the Cloak&Dagger watch so I can stay invisible forever and perch on the outer side of the balcony, very little players know there's a bit of geometry you can stand on there. Then just keep spamming "Spy!" or uncloak, shoot one bullet and cloak again. It's hilarious to see 3 Snipers swinging their machetes looking for me in panic.

You compared a sniper (or railgun) inclined opponent in an AFPS to The Sniper in TF2 and I only sought to dismiss that comparison. Not to further discuss your preferences for Overwatch.

It's a good game and I have a good idea how to play each class effectively but these genres are as different as MOBA is from RTS. It doesn't feel more limited, it is more limited and that is by design.

I suppose that if the secondary class skills aren't as powerfull as if it was the primary class, as well as elite skills being restricted to the primary class, it wouldn't be a problem. The secondary class would be more like a surprise the oponent isn't expecting.

Uh… No. It's not that linear. I mean, I'd like that weapons and armor had a cost in resources to equip (and you had to re-equip everytime you respawned) and those resources where collected by your team as you captured points around the map with an economy that allows you to get a resource advantage but not snowball with it (the hardest part really) so every resource spot is a location that you must attack and defend with NPCs defending it bought and equipped by your team.
I'd also like that time of day, phase of moon and season changed as the game went one and all that had an effect on gameplay (no, I'm not joking here, all of this could be implemented for more content)
I'd also like random events to pop up that rock the boat and help prevent snowballing so the game lasts a bit longer and isn't decided too fast. Something like an invasion from demons or robbers that target the strongest team.

But let's keep in mind that TF2 overbloated the game with a lot of weapons and concepts that sometimes kinda clash against each other and need severe rebalancing. Adding more content is pointless if you make it redundant with other content in the game and it also increase the load to keep the game balanced, otherwise you'll have content that doesn't matter since nobody bothers with it.

There's a difference between "more content" and "more complexity". So for instance, a game having eight classes and different weapon sets is at a set complexity level. Having dual-classes increases the complexity by taking what is present and making it harder to pin down. Adding a new type of skill, such as minion summoning, would be adding complexity. Doubling the number of skills, with those skills all being roughly the same as prior ones except minor differences (slightly lower damage for slightly lower cost, for instance) would be just putting in more content. Content can be good or bad - bad in the case of TF2 where you overbloat it, or when things start to clash at an aesthetic or thematic level.

Well I'll keep that comparison up since the Sniper in TF2 has oponents (assuming other classes) that can't fight long range as well as he does. He's supposed to be efficient with his kills and support his team so he doesn't have to rely on short range combat at all and the few cases where he does (spy) he has proper tools to handle with that.
So while you see a limitation, I see balance that allows him to be quite good with his weapon provided he actually supports his team and stiffles his playstyle if he keeps engaging people alone.

I'll disagree there, it's limited on some parts, it's not on the others. Melee combat, while still shit, is better altogether and with much more variety of tactics and weapons. There's nothing similar to the Sentrys, Dispenser or Teleporter (closest to them is the Translocator), Invisibility is relegated to an Adrenaline combo, if even that, Baby's face Blaster rewards damage with speed, weapons that cause bleeding\fire had more emphasis to health pickups, the entire class of medic and a minigun that feels like an actual minigun or the fun shenaningans you can do with the Sticky Launcher.
All these are things you're not gonna find in traditional AFPS and Overwatch, Paladins or Dirty Bomb has even more than that.

You can't do everything at the same time like in traditional AFPS, but the toolkit you'll get with most classes is pretty unique and fairly different from others.

Arena shooters aren't really fun until you git gud, and you can't git gud if you're not having fun. That's my take on it anyway. Mad respect to those who take the time to master the techniques in those games.

This comparison especially fails when AFPS doesn't necessarily involve team play (and there the dynamics are different as the weapon versatility remains for team roles), but more often includes free for all and 1v1. So yes, while a sniper inclined opponent may be a long range fighter, it is only a generality.

The rest about the balance within TF2 is kind of irrelevant since this isn't a TF2 thread. Again, the limitation is that The Sniper in TF2 does not have as many options as an opponent in AFPS- this isn't a discussion of what is balanced in which game.

maybe people would play more arena shooters if the genre actualy evolved and improved. if they just stay the same there is no reason to not just keep playing quake 3.

Reasonable. Most who played an afps for any amount of time were already pretty comfortable aiming and moving in a fps. Rocket jumping learned from TF2 and a bit of mentoring from experienced players for how a game usually goes made a big difference for me. A lot of the old ones don't have many new players but the ones that do (Reflex, Xonotic) gives enough time to get comfortable with the mechanics without being stomped every game.

you can't beat perfection user. Can you name one way to improve the formula?
Games like Tribes I personally enjoy a bit more but that is basically a completely different genre.

It still hurts. The pain is searing red from the salt rubbed in by Hirez's incompetence.

There is still a little bit of hope

I dislike the direction Midair is going. For me, they're attempting to siphon off players from Ascend with cheap tactics that Hirez used. Autos look like they're going to be abused, and I can't say I enjoy the art style of it.

I am hoping the game just looks like that because it is so early.
Considering Hirez literally said that the way they handled Ascend was a mistake and is why it is dead maybe they can try again one day but not fuck it up.

because it's an alpha and it really shows. should get better once it gets a bit more polish.

I just refuse to play another free to play game centred around unlocking weapons and the possibility of no or gimped mapping tools.

This is the only "arena shooter" I play, the dev is a pretty cool dude.

Aww shit, that's the game I was looking for.

Like Quake? embed related

Also just please name one game with more depth than Q3/UT

What's the point? Playing with randoms is not fun.

Sure it is?

It's a cool concept but I don't have much faith in a game being made by only one guy.
Gives me some nice Tribes vibes though.

This.
I hear the same casuals say

Every time without fail.

archive.is/http://8ch.net/v/res/10896428.html

All of those games are dead and I'm bored of playing with high pings on the few servers that exist.

That's why you have dueling partners. Playing with randoms is fun for me though

Of course the thread in that OP would mention OW you idiot. It was mentioning how Quake is clearly trying to become an OverWatch clone, which it is.
Also notice how most of the people mentioning Overwatch are idiots saying how it's le totally better! and the people replying to their bullshit.

literally beta hawken
rip hawken ironically killed by tryhards who wanted MUH SPEED

...

If you like quake as opposed to UT UT4 doesn't offer much. If you like UT then yeah UT4 is pretty good. The UT side of AFPS isn't very fractured, it's mostly just the quake side.

Only owns some stock in the company you autist.
What would you expect from a free game?
All maps are free and are really good
Nope. They were re-directed towards a shitty MOBA but it flopped and they are moving back. Also they have many modders helping out.
Different maps, Movement mechanics, weapons and soon vehicles.

Yeah, you are a faggot.

What's wrong with not playing them?

You can join Speck's group. They host UT '99 / 2004 pretty frequently. Some pretty cool dudes, and they also host some Jedi Knight and shit.

They also have a discord/IRC channel if you use stuff like that.

Because ut99 is the only shooter I will ever need. Anyone up for some facing worlds later?

back to the rice fields with you

So less than half.

A shit ton of people on Holla Forums bought fucking Fallout NV despite it Bethesda being far worse.

haw haw haw sirry birry, go straight to rice fierd do not pass go not correct 200 pin ming. plenty of other (better) fps out there that arent owned by dog lah

bethesda is not worse than tencent LOL, i bet youre one of those duds who voted EA most ebil company

Name the things worse than taking the IP of a company than suing them after the original owners try to use the IP that is originally theirs. All Tencent does as far as vidya is concerned is make bullshit rip offs of other games.
It never did. They don't own them. They just own some stock.
What is with the surge of retards not knowing that a goalpost is?

Oh or the multiple times bethesda purposely crippled a promising company so they can buy them up for cheap.

Because I'm just bored of 'em. Something got really stale to the point where I just can't enjoy them like I used to.

LOL BUTTHURT