Why does every fuckin shooter now need to be class-based or each character have some 'special ability' shit...

Do they still do that?

You got me, user!

Unfortunately, no.
Now it's two guns, a sidearm half of the time, a knife and some stupid gadget.

Last I checked, yes, but then again I don't really know of any shooters that have come out recently.

You haven't refuted my point in that it makes people act like a team. I mean say call of duty or unreal tournament, what is the point of having teams in those games if the performance of your team is just who you got placed with and your only real goal is personal performance. If you want to play an arena shooter that's fine, but play it free for all as teams don't make sense in that case.

You could argue that Tribes 1 had "classes," and Team Fortress Classic DEFINITELY had classes. There are probably earlier examples but I can't think of any off the top of my head.

Because variety, user. You go to any of those games and sum up all the weapons and abilities they have, that adds up to quite a nice chunk. Would be a bit hard to have a single character using all of them at the same time.

And then there's balance. Some weapons\skills are quite powerfull and therefore can't be placed on every character. You'll accept having a drawback that balances it so you can actually get the weapon itself.
For instance, Heavy in TF2 having the Minigun and larger HP pool at the expense of movement speed or the Spy having the ability to become invisible and kill everyone in one hit but being very squishy to make up for it.

Huge simplification there, that's counter-picking indeed but counter-picking doesn't always decide the game and might not even be featured in the game despite there being classes. Dirty Bomb is one where I don't think there are any "hard counters" and so is Paladins that instead places it's "counters" on the items you can buy.

The original idea wasn't even that, the idea was to have a game that can include several different playstyles in the same game so you have fresh perspectives if you want to play in a different way or if you prefer to play in a different way. This has nothing to do with counter-picks but rather with playstyles.
Someone might be bad at aiming and would prefer a support role. Engineer and Medic. Someone might prefer movement, Scout and Soldier. Someone might want to ambush people instead. Pyro and Spy.

I'm mentioning TF2 mostly because it's what I expect more people to be familiar with, but you get the idea.
If you were playing Quake, you wouldn't have anything different than Scout with Bazooka\Shotgun\Sniper and everything else would not only be impossible to include, it wouldn't even make sense.

but tf2 isn't a modern shooter its old
dont shit on it

I'd say Battlefield but I think that's pushing it

Shadow Warrior 2 released recently, has a weapon wheel were you can equip 8 weapons and acess with MMB.
And even then, you can just pause combat, reconfigure any weapon and put it in any slot, go back to the action and use the new gun. Pretty fun game.

Well, there was the Link Gun for UT that was about teamwork… Except you were better off shooting at the other guy instead unless you trusted on the aim of your teammate. Then again, if you trusted his aim better, you're being carried to victory…

The idea of teams in CoD is mostly about flanking and combining different weapons for different ranges, but that's as far as it goes. At least I'm assuming that's what they like about team deathmatch, I don't play the game. From what I see people playing, they just run around all the time shooting people unless they have a nametag above their head and teammates are more of a "hey that guy was shot, someone I can kill must be nearby!"

There's Quake Fortress even before TFC.

My bad, I glossed over what you said after calling me mad. Saying that got me mad.

Why does having a bunch of classes make it team-orientated? Sure, 1 guy goes class A, two go class B etc, but what's the difference between having 6v6, all players being equal?
If someone fucks about and picks the wrong class, does the whole team lose because someone didn't play Class A?

Classes and "abilities" in shooters are only there to make skill less important, and to a lesser extent, YouTube bait with "sick headshot bro xD".

But why do you need to be locked into a certain playstyle after round start/respawn? Why not give the player a 2/3 weapon cap, and they can pick the weapon they desire to use off the ground, or pick up whichever ability works bet for them.
By implementing classes and locking away playstyles, it's just a pain. What if I go heavy, to borrow your TF2 analogies, and seige an area, clearing out the enemy. Now I want to guard it from said enemy, but can't, as there's no engineer around, nor can I just swap to engineer without dying.

Because FPS based around weapon pick ups and loadouts have been done to death. Mobas are huge, its natural progressions on things.

Engineer > every copycat though, shame TF2 is so shit now

Play better games. That means not TF2.

Classes these days are to make baby players feel unique and useful because they fulfill some sort of role. Add noskill classes like engineer and heavy and they'll feel even better.

Class based is usually better than loadout based, the later usually ends up being the usual min-max metagame where everyone picks the same weapons, with classes you usually try to build an optimal team composition.

Classes are implemented because nowadays every FPS has to be objective-oriented, that objective being something other than "frag the most dudes" or even "steal their flag and take it to your flag". Objective-oriented gameplay implies the necessity for offensive and defensive gameplay archetypes - especially since most games are designed now with respawn waves, where a whole bunch of people spawn simultaneously.

I am not saying it's a good trend, I am simply explaining why it's done. As for why objective-oriented gameplay is so popular - to most people it feels like a more team-oriented way to play, because humans being social creatured like to flock together.

To focus on tf2 and its nuances, rather than overwatch because I still hold that it's more of FPS MOBA than class based, it's about being able to play differently, and also being able to play more passively. Classes like engineer and medic are for those who like helping people, while classs like scout are for those who are aggressive and twitch shooters. This means that having a team with different skills is important, so for a medic player learning positioning and how to rocket surf is more important than aiming as a asniper or air shotting as soldier. As opposed to UT where your team needs to be good in the same ways, good movement and aim, rather than having skill sets. This also means that in UT, if you've been practing with the rocket launcher and someone picks it up before you do, then tough luck, where as in TF2 you can be soldier no matter how many you already have or you can ask a team mate if they want to switch classes.

Cool

Story

Bro

Spaz

Harder

Reddit

And even then, there is a sector of their playerbase that keeps playing them like that.

Well, that's the subset of people who would play an arena FPS, but the problem for them is that in those games, everyone else is also playing for the kills. Meaning they can't frag people who are just trying to mind their own business as part of a team.

Because each class has limitations that a good player will exploit and you can try to mitigate them as much as you can however at some point, you're gonna need someone else to cover for you.

Teamwork in class based shooters is about mitigating each other's weakenesses while exploiting each other's strengths.

Same difference between a box full of chocolate chips with 1 flavor and a box of chocolate chips with 6 flavours. Variety.
If everyone is equal, you know what to expect and you don't even register your teammates except if they are near you or not.

They are there to put more value in different skills other than aiming and reflexes. And even then, some classes value those skills more than others anyway.

Because at some point some autist is gonna figure a composition that works the majority of the time and everyone else will do the same thing so they at least have 50/50 odds of winning and the game becomes a boring mess where everyone does the exact same and the point of class customization was lost to begin with.
See competitive TF2 for a good example of that.

You stop pretending you are the only person in your team and let the Engineer defend it for you. And if there are no Engineers, maybe you should have picked one and left your team to take the point instead or trying to do everything yourself. Rely on your team.

I would compare class based vs loadout based using Counter Strike for the later, isn't there like at most two meta loadouts for most games?

what if i want my zerglings to build photon cannons and heal eachother without having to mine resources? stupid game, is this about fighting a war or collecting pretty rocks?

Objective oriented, much like class-based gameplay, tends to add some more variety to the game. Free-for-All is fun but you mostly do the same the whole match while Objective Oriented has you defending or attacking or even alternating between both in CTF or just changing the scenery if there are multiple points to take on the same map.
It avoids staleness, that's why it's done.

Please, let's not go that way. The use of Skills is the only qualifier that makes people think it's a MOBA when it misses all the actual trappings a MOBA actually has, stop diluting that word or pretty soon it's gonna be like RPG and everything is one.

Yeah, the ones that lose every match "because of everyone else but me!"

That's probably why I have over 200 hours in Heroes & Generals despite it being a grindy F2P piece of shit. It's also fun with friends and tanks are nice too, I guess.

Well what is overwatch then? Because I wouldn't call it class based. A hero shooter?

This, giving certain characters disadvantages and advantages encourages teamwork unlike COD and arena shooters where doing well solely relies on your personal skill rather than how well you can work together as a team.

Right, the game where you're an idiot if you don't buy an AWP or do "cash-rounds" until you can buy one. Someone has the WEBM of that final championship where a dude changes from the AWP to his revolves to kill the last dude and even lands 3 shots before he turns around and shoots him with an AWP and the commentators go "Oh, really shouldn't have done that, should have used the AWP…"

It IS class based, even if the aspect of every character is tied to it's class. You can think of it like Diablo 2 where the aspect of your class is locked as well. Hero Shooter works well too, I guess but the distintion here seems to be "he's an established character, not an archetype".
If TF2 had "Cell Conagher" instead of "Engineer" and the same for the other classes, would it be an Hero Shooter instead?

...

OP, look up the word "trend". You might find some answers.

Overwatch doesn't feel class based for me though, the characters' roles can get very muddied, for example roadhog has a ton of health and is classes as a tank, but is better suited to damage dealing and picking off characters like a sniper. It feels to me that because there are 22 characters and counting the roles become too vague to call them classes, but I could be wrong.

Well, the big difference comes from TF2 characters having loadout combinations that sometimes change their playstyles, still, their base kit stays the same, Spy always has backstab and sapper, engi always has sentries and dispensers, etc.

Not the first one to complain. Symetra and Sombra are on wrong categories according to most people. But that's just what happens when Heroes are made versatile, they seem to be capable of performing much more than the default role. Hanzo is a sniper but he can flank and gank as well, for instance.

Not really, no. He's hook has good reach but not that good and while he has a lot of health, it will disappear very fast if he is alone. Roadhog is more often used to charge your Support's Ult, trying to keep him healed gives you so much charge it's not even funny.

There are a lot of overlaps but they all have some kind of difference between them, though.
Both Torbjorn and Symetra are Builders that place shit down to help their team and control an area. But Torbs is all about the damage and using his turret or himself as a distraction as well as preventive medicine while Symetra is about preventing ganks and flanks while increasing your team mobility and her turrets are more about assisting than actual firepower.

Similar thing for Hanzo and Widow. Hanzo trades range for mobility and stealth (relatively speaking). Or McCree and Soldier, with the second having much more mobility and self-heal.

It usually goes like this: you think up a role you want to play and you'll have 2-3 heroes that fit in it. You'll play them all and then figure out that there's a specific hero that does that role in the way you feel more confortable with, so you'll stick with it. Or you'll pick a role but notice the situation is a bit different than usual and you need to tweak it a bit.
For instance, when I'm playing Mercy and nobody can actually kill shit, I switch to Zenyatta. It's the same role (healer) but I traded some heal potential for killing potential.

Overwatch fits several gaggles of characters into roughly defined roles, ie tank/healer/attacker. TF2 does the same thing but its characters are more customizable and generally less likely to be caught with their pants down in situations not favorable to their Attack/Defense/Support role.

In a nutshell, it establishes specific roles that have strengths and weaknesses which cater to team play.

Let's look at Counter Strike even though it doesn't really have classes or abilities it has three distinct types of weapons that have existed in every iteration of the franchise: the AWP/Scout, AK/M4, and everything else (typically close-ranged). Depending on what a player has equipped, they will setup in different locations with different requirements of their team. When looking at it from defense, an AWPer will watch a long stretch of the map that he exhibits strong control over but will lack that control if the enemy ever gets close. That's where a teammate with any other type of weapon can come in and prevent enemies from getting close to the AWPer who has dominant control of most of the map. The AWPer prevents the enemies from pushing major routes but needs his close-ranged flanks covered. Their relationship is mutually beneficial. They are teammates. Other players can't cover those long ranges due to the class they are assigned by their weapon. Players with close-ranged weapons typically need to be together with them to overwhelm any opponents because they can't outrange them. A player with a rifle is a jack of all trades but a master of none, the basic class. There are many other "classes" depending on being on offense or defense that are too much for me to go into. These ones in Counter Strike are more subtle than what you see in TF2, Rainbow Six, or Overwatch, but they're just as important.

If classes didn't exist to give each player a unique role, there wouldn't be a damned reason to play with a team. That's why Quake, Doom, and Reflex shine in arena formats. You are the team if you can fulfill every role alone, which you can in these games. Teams are the hit thing right now so that's why these class-based FPS seem so ubiquitous.
But there is a problem. Quake Champions is different in that it will be Quake with classes and abilities. Which is inherently the opposite of Quake. It'll probably be shit. I just hope there will be some way to play the game and avoid that part and just play some good ol' Quake.

On a final note, I think FPS has recently been heading in a better direction. There are more risks being taken with the genre now than there has been since Halo caused the genre to stagnate. It's becoming more free from the shackles of controllers and consoles to allow greater player input and skill. Happy fragging!

balance is a good point, you can have weapons tools and abilities on a character that isnt something game breaking because that class is designed with all the other classes in mind. you can introduce something new to the game without upsetting that balance too much.

focus on objectives provide incentive to use tactics that arent just "rack up a bunch of kills" which leads to more varied playstyles in classes and their gimmicks that would otherwise not be so useful. driving an enemy back with a powerful character who is easy to avoid (the hooby for example) would be less useful in a deathmatch setting. whereas with objectives hes preventing the enemy from controlling something important, theres now more pressure on the enemy and they have to do something other than look for an easier kill. maybe even something risky that they wouldnt even consider if k/d were top priority. in my opinion thats where the fun comes in.

Don't thank me user.

Nah shooters have started doing weapon selects differently. Like the weapon wheel system is popular where all of your weapons are easily selectable via this wheel you toggle via a button. It's something the original Saints Row popularized.

Other games just use the dpad and limit your selection to four weapons. I can't remember the last shooter I played that came out recently that limited it to just two. It's a trend games started to move away from.

Because Quake already exists.

Because teamfortress 2 managed to keep a paying community for 9 years
Then Blizzard (Tencent) wanted their money
Then people wanted the money they had

...

OG Halo would have been panned for being a Mary Sue power fantasy game, and being too hard because lack of cover.
as it should have been when it was released, except it was best console fps evar !!!1!1!
halo pc is fun but it's not designed to be a tacticool or serious game, and its only really fun with rocket hogs and teamwork

muh unique playstyles

I'm going to have to disagree. Halo has always been a game of the times. Back then it was a sci-fi shooter with decent weapon variety, many that had strengths and weaknesses depending on what enemy you were fighting. It also had good enemy variety and vehicle sections that didn't suck. It was all packaged in a co-op experience because co-op was in the times then.
Nowadays Halo is essentially space-cod, with loadouts, melodrama and ironsights. That and no local multiplayer. I honestly wouldn't be surprised if after Halo 6 they decided that Halo should try its hand at being a class-based shooter. They have enough things to try it. The entire covenant roster, the flood, the spartans, whatever new shit came from Halo 4 onwards, etc. Here, it's easy, I'll even set it up for them.

Cortana somehow, probably with a robot body

Anyway, my point was, original Halo's only fault was slowing down FPS games, but it certainly wasn't a bad game and its not to blame for the state of modern FPS, even if it kick started a lot of trends.

It kind of is, considering it actually took into account that you can't aim as precisely or accurately with a controller as you can with a mouse.
Same with 2 3(odst) and reach.
If I remember right they went with the heavy burly super soldier thing for the excuse for the slower more deliberative gameplay.
Halo PC is the shit when you get into the mods for it and modded weapons

OP games like that are seen as having no content and not worth the price when you can easily just have an incremental upgrade system to inflate the 'content' numbers for some nice PR buzz and matchmaking as a shitty workaround to how you just created a game where gear > skill and some skills on characters to use a crutch and add to that 'cinematic' effect. people have become accustomed to this shit and now expect every game to have it otherwise its just boring. if counterstrike never existed and got released without the cancerous drops and trading it would turn out as well as strike vector did

Free-for-all first person shooters were proper skill showdowns.

go back to cuckchan, kid.
check 'em

Precisely because that was unbalanced as shit OP. Games just turn into "whoever can get to that place where the really powerful gun spawns first wins". The irony is that anons like would then insist that games where you make sure you always have a better weapon than your opponent were more skillful.

But I thought the whole idea of classes in a team-based game dated back to the original fucking Battlefield games.

Short answer
As for a long answer, casuals have ruined the flow of fps. For all the excuses any faggot will give for class based combat the games of today hold your hand more often than not with their mechanics. Gone is the idea that you will see a player play skillfully and trying to imitate or improve on how the game is played to boost the base game beyond original intention. Now we are stuck with casuals and complete faggots who piss and moan when someone gets good with a class because complete skill over a class is now shunned upon. So fuck any faggot who thinks current year class based games are anything more than a fucking casual ride like WoW is to MMOs.

Newfag confirmed

So you can clean up house as the default class that has no abilities.

Because having a cast of colorfulu and unique characters that are self-promoted by the community sells?

Now shut up, I've got eskimo slut to jerk off to.

But halo was a bad game- you even point out in your post that it was the first to implement a lot of the things that are bad about modern FPS games today. Halo's gameplay is very dumbed down compared to other games at the time, like quake 3 arena, and that hasn't changed at all.

...

Vid related

Class based shooters are the new gimmick and no longer a sub-genre.

I miss when the weapons were the abilities so to speak. When you finally gained a weapon that let you attack a certain way, you would associate that ability with that weapon. In a way it made the weapons seem like a character in their own right. Now weapons themselves are all boring and characters that use them are annoying fuckwads.

So e-celeb cancer was already present back during Quake, is that what you are saying?
Because faggots still do that shit, they see Seagull or some other faggot play the game in a certain way and immidiatly try to imitate him and do what he does.

That doesn't even make any sense, nobody gets angry when someome plays a certain class really well. Maybe they'll complain the class is unbalanced if there's no possible counterplay but if there is, they'll be told to fuck off and gitgud. Case in point: Bastion.

Why do RTS games need multiple factions? Or even multiple units and buildings per faction? Why can't everyone just have a worker, a building to farm resources and a barracks to make infantry and send the other player? Wouldn't that be more skillfull as you both are in the exact same conditions?

Why do fighting games need a large roster of characters? Why can't we all play the exact same guy that can punch, kick and punck/kick while jumping or crouching? Wouldn't that make the game more interesting as it's all about personal skill?

Why do racing games feature multiple cars? What's the point, it just makes for a retarded experience where some people make up for their shitty ability at turning curves with higher aceleration cars. Why can't we just drive the same car so it's more skillfull?

Why does every RPG feature multiple classes that have to work with each other to achieve victory? Why isn't everyone the Hero class, that can attack with weapons, cast spells, blessing and curses, summon minions, use items and equip every type of armor and weapon simulatenously? That would make the game much more fun and chalenging since you'd need to use the right tool for the job and you had them all at your disposal.

Why do rythm games feature different musics? Why can't we just play a single music for all stages so it's about skill and not how well you know that music? Why don't rythm game players want skillfull execution in their game and instead prefer to play with the songs they like?

Using weapons for every new idea constrains what you can do with them though in several ways. It's a bit hard to create a weapon that produces shields or heals people in an area without it being a gimmick like the Shield Gun in UT and there's some more unconventional stuff too that you'd hardly find a way to place in a gun.

Then you have guns being mostly about firing a projectile of some kind that produces an effect. You can have variations on the projectile (grenade, hitscan, projectile, multiple shots, arcing shot) and even in the firing mode (automatic, semi-automatic, bolt action, charged) but you're still limited on what you can do and most of it is gonna be somewhat limited.
Unless it's a /k/tier game where both a revolver and an assault rifle are viable choices for different situations do to their unique characteristics, you're not gonna make weapons different enough to warrant their existance at all.

And then you have the problem with switching back and forth between weapons to use them, something that's not a problem if they are skills instead. You could pretty much Blink just like Tracer does in Unreal Tournament with the Translocator, but that required you to get it out to use it. The game would be improved if you had a keybind to just fire\use the Translocator and another to recall the last shot. Same for grenades that can't be added except as a gun nobody uses because they could be shooting anything else instead.