First person shooters...

[Neb]

quote:

---

Originally posted by JR Jansen:


OK, so you sit there for a while thinking up your strategy. You see an opening and think now the time is right. You act just to see someone comming from behind that wall you didn't see before with a flamethrower or whatever. You can't call time out then to revise your strategy. Maybe you can flee and think over another one if you can flee at all.

---

It's like that in all games, in an RPG you can think up a strategy, but then an enemy might suddenly know a spell that you didn't realize that he did.

Same for RTS games, your foe might have cloaked units that you didn't see.

It's like that everywhere, there might always be some factor that you hadn't counted on or just hadn't seen at all.

And it's often useless to try to change your strategy once you've been surprised by that, in all things.

[KHaN]

quote:

---

Originally posted by JR Jansen:


Exeptions always exist. And i'm not that familiar with that game but is the only why to gain experience combat or do you gain experience from solving quests aswell ?

---

If you like RPG's then you might want to try Wizardry 8. You can earn experience from performing quests/tasks (like all good RPG's) but in order to gain the nesessary levels required to make it to the end of the game, the majority of your levels will come at the end of a sword. Almost all RPG games are built around this principle.

[WOLFGIR]

quote:

---

Originally posted by JR Jansen:


OK, so you sit there for a while thinking up your strategy. You see an opening and think now the time is right. You act just to see someone comming from behind that wall you didn't see before with a flamethrower or whatever. You can't call time out then to revise your strategy. Maybe you can flee and think over another one if you can flee at all.

---

Hi JR, first of all thanks for your reply, I think we have gotten as far as we can in that line of discussion I understand you and ou hopefully understand me.

Here is just some butting in!

I have trained and competed in martail Arts as my sport activity, and you can´t call for a timeout there, and you know that most strategies made up in advance is poof when you get on the floor or in the ring. You have to improvise alot all the time and study and learn as you go on. Thus, your sport angle IMHO carries only so far, depends as greatly as the sport as the game.

For a team to play online you take certain positions in your team, it´s like an ongoing game of american footbll in some types of the gaming, just that instead of being tackeld you got a countdown and have to start over from a different position or have to wait until the game is over and time for next run.
I also grant that "SOME" fps are only intended to blast everything that comes t you, like serious sam and so on. But there are games that are actually more complex than that out there, (thanks for that! ) And yes, Fallout is a game where your character steers most conversations, but have you thought of something? Most games have the same options when you play it again?

Have you tried DeusX by the way?? If not you should, a great game combining some of the FPS with alot of RPG flavour in it!!

[Thoran]

quote:

---

Originally posted by JR Jansen:


Well, if you were in sports you know that you can study your opponent. See what he does, where are his weaknesses and try to counteract that. Either you do it yourself or let your coach do it. Then you can talk about it with him (or in my case, her), talk with my teammates, with other people of my club, etc, see what they think. Wait, i hear you comming 'But that is what we do aswell. We look at our opponents and try to capitulize on their weaknesses.' Well yes, but in sports you have other ways. Most sports have halfs or quarters and most of some have a time out period wich you can take to revise strategy. If in an fps game, your opponents comes up with something unexpected, it's ussually bye bye.
Remember that, imo, a really good strategy is a well thought out strategy and not something someone decides in a blink of an eye.

[ 02-15-2002: Message edited by: JR Jansen ]

---

Let me explain how our games usually play out... we all get together, get our PC's networked and go get something to eat and some beverage. Then we decide teams and start playing. Usually we set the frag limit so each match lasts a half hour or so. After the match we all stretch, get a drink, rearrange the teams if they were uneven, and discuss the previous match. If someone has an excellent strategy for the map we usually discuss it then, as well as what we're going to do next match. Sometimes we do play straight deathmatch... becuse it does take less planning, but it gets old fast. Straight deathmatch (among relatively equal competitors ability wise) is a contest of who can plan the best route to resources for any given map. It's not really about who's the fastest or best shot, but who knows the map and has thought things trough before hand (because it can be difficult to do once you're in the game).

The only difference between a well designed team muliplayer fps and a wargame like splatball capture the flag (which I also like to play) is the physical activity. Mentally they have the same components. I do agree that team sports often have more extensive planning phases (preplanned and detailed plays, and formations), but I don't think that necessarily negates the comparison... the degree of preparation varies widely in sports. American football has a very detailed and rigid play structure, while faster paced more realtime games tend to have plays that are more flexible and fluid. Both approaches provide challenging games to the players.

A strategy does need to be planned and thought out, that's why it's usually done pre-game. Once the game starts, the rapid reaction we've been talking about is more correctly termed "tactics". Sure when things go wrong it becomes necessary to adjust your strategy (a challenge when you don't have time outs you can call)... but if you don't have a strategy going into a game it's very difficult to win if the other team has one.

[Tiamat]

Halo, its the best FPS IMHO, that totally kicks butt..... you got yure cyborg hero, your english speaking Covenant, and..... im not tell yu wat u find in the 5th mission.. go rent Xbox and paly Halo.

[JR Jansen]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Thoran:



Let me explain how our games usually play out... we all get together, get our PC's networked and go get something to eat and some beverage. Then we decide teams and start playing. Usually we set the frag limit so each match lasts a half hour or so. After the match we all stretch, get a drink, rearrange the teams if they were uneven, and discuss the previous match. If someone has an excellent strategy for the map we usually discuss it then, as well as what we're going to do next match. Sometimes we do play straight deathmatch... becuse it does take less planning, but it gets old fast. Straight deathmatch (among relatively equal competitors ability wise) is a contest of who can plan the best route to resources for any given map. It's not really about who's the fastest or best shot, but who knows the map and has thought things trough before hand (because it can be difficult to do once you're in the game).

The only difference between a well designed team muliplayer fps and a wargame like splatball capture the flag (which I also like to play) is the physical activity. Mentally they have the same components. I do agree that team sports often have more extensive planning phases (preplanned and detailed plays, and formations), but I don't think that necessarily negates the comparison... the degree of preparation varies widely in sports. American football has a very detailed and rigid play structure, while faster paced more realtime games tend to have plays that are more flexible and fluid. Both approaches provide challenging games to the players.

A strategy does need to be planned and thought out, that's why it's usually done pre-game. Once the game starts, the rapid reaction we've been talking about is more correctly termed "tactics". Sure when things go wrong it becomes necessary to adjust your strategy (a challenge when you don't have time outs you can call)... but if you don't have a strategy going into a game it's very difficult to win if the other team has one.

---

I'll try to post a response to different people in this one post so bear with me OK.

To Neb
If you play everything real time, you are right but most rpg's have either a turn based style of combat (either as an option or not) or as it is in the BG series a pause function. I had battles gone wrong in rpg's due to an unexpected factor but if something like that happens you can rethink your strategie on your turn or pause the game and apply a different strategy. You can pause fps games but you if you can't change to much of your strategy unless you rely on your own reflexes. And in the time it takes to change a weapon for instance in the middle of a fight your enemy will have put a few holes in you.

To Khan
Agreed that combat is in integral part of rpg's but again it's not the only part. In fps games it IS the only part. No mater how you twist or turn it, it always evolves around killing. And avoiding a guard to not be detected is not the same as solving a quest in an rpg in which you have to solve riddles, puzzles and so on.

To Wolfgir
I'm not that familiar with martial arts but aren't there rounds. I know they have them in kick boxing. In Judo for instance when the ref calls for a mate (sp) then you have time, all be it, a short one to cenverse with your coach. That is very hard to do in fps type games.
Your argument about American foorball has merit but both teams have that option between plays or during time outs. The coaches converse with their players to anticipate what is coming next. Not only what they are going to do but what is likely what the other team is going to do. That can also be done in an fps game but you know that your gun will never jam or you know that you need to eliminate your enemies. In sports, an injury can occur, a mild one, with wich the player can still play but is hampered by it. In most fps games you either are dead or not.

To Thoran
So you take time to discuss and you set a time limit but what you do is start a new match, if i understood you correctly. You said we talk and then start a new match. Well, in sports, you don't start a new match every half hour. The match starts and your strategy isn't working out. Half time, talk it over with the people in your team, and adjust for the same match. Not a different one.
Even in splattball, you can retreat and talk strategy for a while. That is almost impossible in an fps game, unless you pause the current match and talk over strategy, but i'm betting that not everybody woud be happy if you just pause because you are having a hard time.
And rapid action is not good for having a good strategy. If you have to act quickly, probably not everybody in your team might be ok with the tactic you employ. If you are playing in a team, you only employ a 'tactic', as you call it, if your other team mates are fully aware and are ok with what you are doing, otherwise it isn't a good tactic. As said before a good tactic, or strategy, can only be achieved when you have thought about it and can not be achieved in a blink of an eye, unless you are just lucky.

[Redblueflare]

quote:

---

Originally posted by /)eathKiller:
Halo's pretty freakin' good...

---

Yeah Halo is good. Of course you would know how I feel about it since i've played it at your house! A game that would give me a reason to respect the X-box has to be good. [img]smile.gif[/img]

Okay back on topic. Some FPS games do require a bit of strategy. Should I use the bigger gun, or use the smaller one with a scope and go for a head shot.

You don't kill absolutely everything all the time. Oh this guy is on my side, I shouldn't shoot him. And if I do shoot at him everyone else will shoot at me.

As for puzzles some of them in MGS2 were friggin annoying. (I don't really know if I can use that game as an example though, since you could swith from first to 3rd person.) There was a lot of talking and story in that game too.

[JR Jansen]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Redblueflare:
Okay back on topic. Some FPS games do require a bit of strategy. Should I use the bigger gun, or use the smaller one with a scope and go for a head shot.

You don't kill absolutely everything all the time. Oh this guy is on my side, I shouldn't shoot him. And if I do shoot at him everyone else will shoot at me.

---

And you need to be a real genius to figure that out. Oh, i better not shoot at my teammates, sheesh. And if you are having troubles deciding if you would use the bigger gun or the smaller on with the scope then don't play rpg's because in those not all enemies can be hit by the weapons you are carrying some need other stuff to be eliminated. And if that is the only choiches you have to make....
And it says a lot if you find puzzles annoying in an fps game.

Sorry for the sarcasm again.

[ 02-15-2002: Message edited by: JR Jansen ]

[Neb]

quote:

---

Originally posted by JR Jansen:


I'll try to post a response to different people in this one post so bear with me OK.

To Neb
If you play everything real time, you are right but most rpg's have either a turn based style of combat (either as an option or not) or as it is in the BG series a pause function. I had battles gone wrong in rpg's due to an unexpected factor but if something like that happens you can rethink your strategie on your turn or pause the game and apply a different strategy. You can pause fps games but you if you can't change to much of your strategy unless you rely on your own reflexes. And in the time it takes to change a weapon for instance in the middle of a fight your enemy will have put a few holes in you.

---

Sorry to have to say this JR, but you are WRONG! Even if it's turnbased an unexpected enemy action can often kill you, ever played... Chess? Overlook one possibility there and you might be DEAD, and what is Chess? Yes, that's right, Chess is TURN-BASED.

And listen, a well-planned strategy always has a back-up plan of action, so in case of unexpected enemy reinforcements or enemies being more skilled than expected you will in an FPS game, if you're not 100% confident of victory, spot such things as nearby air vents and holes in which you can hide should the enemy prove to be stronger in order to buy some time to plan a new strategy and reload your weapons/use a medikit/regenerate/something else.

So in that case you won't be acting on pure reflexes.

But anyway, when it's reflexes and speed of action then RTS games are just as bad, a smaller force might win there because one player is faster at issuing orders than the other is.

[JR Jansen]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Neb:


Sorry to have to say this JR, but you are WRONG! Even if it's turnbased an unexpected enemy action can often kill you, ever played... Chess? Overlook one possibility there and you might be DEAD, and what is Chess? Yes, that's right, Chess is TURN-BASED.

And listen, a well-planned strategy always has a back-up plan of action, so in case of unexpected enemy reinforcements or enemies being more skilled than expected you will in an FPS game, if you're not 100% confident of victory, spot such things as nearby air vents and holes in which you can hide should the enemy prove to be stronger in order to buy some time to plan a new strategy and reload your weapons/use a medikit/regenerate/something else.

So in that case you won't be acting on pure reflexes.

But anyway, when it's reflexes and speed of action then RTS games are just as bad, a smaller force might win there because one player is faster at issuing orders than the other is.

---

Your chess analogy doesn't fly. Of course an unexpected move can cause you to loose (or die) but you get the time to rethink strategy and you mostly (unless you have very little time on the clock) don't need to react in the blink of an eye. That means that you get time to maybe do such a move as to avoid loosing.
And how would you be getting to those nearby air vents ? Exactly, you count on reflexes.

[ 02-15-2002: Message edited by: JR Jansen ]