First person shooters...

[Neb]

quote:

---

Originally posted by JR Jansen:


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 ]

---

JR, sometimes a single unexpected move can mess things up so badly that rethinking your strategy won't help, example:

You're playing some random RPG, you're fighting some foes and have cast your various protection spells, but then one of your foes cast a spell of EXACTLY the kind that you DIDN'T protect against, killing 3/4ths of your party, that might weaken you enough that rethinking your strategy won't help in any way.

Same like that in Chess, perhaps that one unexpected move was enough for your opponent to checkmate you in two more moves with you being unable to prevent him from doing so.

[JR Jansen]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Neb:


JR, sometimes a single unexpected move can mess things up so badly that rethinking your strategy won't help, example:

You're playing some random RPG, you're fighting some foes and have cast your various protection spells, but then one of your foes cast a spell of EXACTLY the kind that you DIDN'T protect against, killing 3/4ths of your party, that might weaken you enough that rethinking your strategy won't help in any way.

Same like that in Chess, perhaps that one unexpected move was enough for your opponent to checkmate you in two more moves with you being unable to prevent him from doing so.

---

Yes, yes, yes of course but the whole point is that you at least have the time to think about it. Playin chess or rpg's are designed that way that you can get killed if you have an unexpected encounter but at least you get the time to think of some strategy that may block it. Maybe their isn't any but you don't need to depend on your reflexes to save you. It comes down to the players brains to get him out of the mess and not some quick keystroke.

[Thoran]

quote:

---

Originally posted by JR Jansen:

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.

---

The splatball games I pay are very similar to our approach. You plan a strategy before the game starts... then once the game is on you try your best to stick to it. I don't recall more than a quick yell to try to change strategy... things are just happening too fast once you're engaged. I seem to recall a quote from a famous General that went something like "Strategy is the thing that plans out every step of an engagement... until the shooting starts". The fog of war is a term that describes this phenomena. Many sports start out with strategies and in they end the games turn into tactical response to the opponents actions.

I guess I don't see any difference between pauses between multiple matches and halftimes. We still of course keep track of which team has won the most matches... and the pauses give people a chance to relax and discuss what's working and what's not.

I also disagree with your assessment of tactics. Every person who plays a sport has certain ways of doing things. They employ their own set of tactics to result in success (whatever that may be), sometimes that's a cool move that results in a goal. Sometimes it's a tendency to charge out of the net to block a breakaway. We've all got our own way of doing things, and sometimes other players have input... sometimes they don't.

Guys on the offensive team in a CTF match will all go about attacking in their own way... some like to sneak in the back door, some like to go in as a group, etc. Once your engaged of course it's reactions and training, but there's constant strategic adjusting involved in these games... especially when you're probing the oppositions defenses for weaknesses. Your offensive team might try a dozen approaches before they find one that works, all the while your opponents are attacking your defenses... trying to do the same thing. It's a classic combination of strategy, tactics, and training. All three are necessary for success.

[Neb]

quote:

---

Originally posted by JR Jansen:


Yes, yes, yes of course but the whole point is that you at least have the time to think about it. Playin chess or rpg's are designed that way that you can get killed if you have an unexpected encounter but at least you get the time to think of some strategy that may block it. Maybe their isn't any but you don't need to depend on your reflexes to save you. It comes down to the players brains to get him out of the mess and not some quick keystroke.

---

JR, it seems to me that you're forgetting that these split-second decisions and "quick keystrokes" also rely on the player's brain, albeit forcing it to think fast and make decisions quickly instead of giving it a long time to think.

I don't think we're ever going to convince the other that one of us is right here, I will admit that RPG's and strategy games USUALLY have MORE thinking than FPS games, though I still say that many FPS games require thought, and not just quick reflexes.

[JR Jansen]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Thoran:



The splatball games I pay are very similar to our approach. You plan a strategy before the game starts... then once the game is on you try your best to stick to it. I don't recall more than a quick yell to try to change strategy... things are just happening too fast once you're engaged. I seem to recall a quote from a famous General that went something like "Strategy is the thing that plans out every step of an engagement... until the shooting starts". The fog of war is a term that describes this phenomena. Many sports start out with strategies and in they end the games turn into tactical response to the opponents actions.

I guess I don't see any difference between pauses between multiple matches and halftimes. We still of course keep track of which team has won the most matches... and the pauses give people a chance to relax and discuss what's working and what's not.

I also disagree with your assessment of tactics. Every person who plays a sport has certain ways of doing things. They employ their own set of tactics to result in success (whatever that may be), sometimes that's a cool move that results in a goal. Sometimes it's a tendency to charge out of the net to block a breakaway. We've all got our own way of doing things, and sometimes other players have input... sometimes they don't.

Guys on the offensive team in a CTF match will all go about attacking in their own way... some like to sneak in the back door, some like to go in as a group, etc. Once your engaged of course it's reactions and training, but there's constant strategic adjusting involved in these games... especially when you're probing the oppositions defenses for weaknesses. Your offensive team might try a dozen approaches before they find one that works, all the while your opponents are attacking your defenses... trying to do the same thing. It's a classic combination of strategy, tactics, and training. All three are necessary for success.

---

Hmm, and how many wars are won in one single battle ? None. One battle plays out and one party retraits and rethinks strategy. Then the next battle occurs.
On the subjest of matches. You start one, it ends, you begin a NEW one. In half-times or time out periods, you don't start a new match from scratch, you have to try to win the current one.
Yes, every player employs his FAVOUTIRE tactic most. I have mine and most of my opponents on the field now this but that doesn't mean that i'm not capable of executing other moves and employ a different strategy of the situation occurs.
But still, you plan from the start and when the battle start you play it out. Adhering to the talked about strategy without much time to rethink it. And starting a new match with a revised strategy is not a point because the match plays out with that strategy, you only change it when you start a new match. Again that is the idea i got from your previous post.

[JR Jansen]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Neb:


JR, it seems to me that you're forgetting that these split-second decisions and "quick keystrokes" also rely on the player's brain, albeit forcing it to think fast and make decisions quickly instead of giving it a long time to think.

Again, imo, a quick decision tacken when you have to think fast are ussually not god ones. Because you can't plan for a lot of the unexpected moves that might still occur.

I don't think we're ever going to convince the other that one of us is right here, I will admit that RPG's and strategy games USUALLY have MORE thinking than FPS games, though I still say that many FPS games require thought, and not just quick reflexes.

---

Probably not.

[Thoran]

quote:

---

Originally posted by JR Jansen:

Hmm, and how many wars are won in one single battle ? None. One battle plays out and one party retraits and rethinks strategy. Then the next battle occurs.

---

Exactly... I'm glad we agree that engage then regroup and plan is an accurate approximation of the way a conflict occurs... since that is exactly the way we've played MP games since my friends and I started playing together (Doom). Of course back then the multiplayer aspect was very limited, but since then it's gotten quite sophisticated. Games like Return to Castle Wolfenstien's "Assaut" maps are pretty intricate team maps that require significant planning (on defense especially)

quote:

---

Originally posted by JR Jansen:

On the subjest of matches. You start one, it ends, you begin a NEW one. In half-times or time out periods, you don't start a new match from scratch, you have to try to win the current one.

---

That's an unimportant implementation detail in my opinion. There are many sports that employ scoring schemes that break the game into smaller components that a player or team wins or loses individually. Volleyball, Tennis, and games of that type are almost universally of this type.

quote:

---

Originally posted by JR Jansen:

Yes, every player employs his FAVOUTIRE tactic most. I have mine and most of my opponents on the field now this but that doesn't mean that i'm not capable of executing other moves and employ a different strategy of the situation occurs.
But still, you plan from the start and when the battle start you play it out. Adhering to the talked about strategy without much time to rethink it. And starting a new match with a revised strategy is not a point because the match plays out with that strategy, you only change it when you start a new match. Again that is the idea i got from your previous post.

---

Pretty accurate description I think, I believe there are many activities in life that follow this pattern... including REAL war. Now I'm not saying we do this to simulate real combat... because we really do it purely for fun, but there are a LOT of people who participate in wargame type activities for enjoyment... I believe they challenge people in ways they don't experience in everyday life.

The point is that these games have the potential to fulfill all the requirements of a good team challenge. Not a sport certainly because there's no physical component... but the full measure of intellectual challenge compared to your average fast paced team competition.

I think I understand your position but I just don't see the huge distinction that you obviously do. Many solo FPS games do get formulaic after you solve the strategic and other puzzles they throw at you... but the true experience of the FPS is in the multiplayer game, and in my opinion they are significantly more immersive and engaging than any other game genre in that realm. I think the popularity of the online multiplayer aspect of those games relative to other game types (orders of magnitude I would guess) bears out this point.

[KHaN]

quote:

---

Originally posted by JR Jansen:


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.

---

I have to agree with you that most of the older FPS don't have riddles or puzzles (well not hard ones) and that OF COURSE FPS revolve around killing, that should be obvious. I must also say that you should know better than to tell me that you can finish MOST rpgs WITHOUT resorting to killing ALOT of monsters...no matter how you twist or turn it, rpgs also integrate killing in order to make higher levels so you can fight the end boss. Lets look at it this way; do newer fps have a plot? yes. Do they require you to kill alot of bad guys to eventually reach the end boss OR go to the next level/map/scene? yes. Do rpgs have a plot? yes. Do rpgs require you to kill alot of bad guys to eventually reach the end boss OR go to the next level/map/scene? yes!
The biggest difference is that traditionally rpgs have alot more roll playing to them (hence the name) then fps...BUT daggerfall could be considered a FPS and yet had strong rpg elements. What about Diablo...mostly point and click but yet again had elements of rpgs. Try and play Max Paine JR and see if it doesn't involve alot of roll playing and thought.

[ 02-16-2002: Message edited by: KHaN ]

[Scholarcs]

You should remember that FPS games have changed recently. No longer is it "kill all". For example, counterstrike. If you kill one of your team mates (which is about half the players) then will be most likely kicked off the server. If you kill a hostage, you lost s***loads of money.
You have to think about new plans of attack, communicate with your team mates, be on the edge of your seat in case an enemy is hiding around the corner (but dont be so ready to fire that you kill a team mate). You have to think. You dont just rush into close quarters with a sniper rifle. Nor do you spend all day at the end of a long alley with a pistol.
There is more to it than hack-n-slash now.

[Curian The Paladin]

Hey have you ever tried Counter-Strike???!!! it's waaaayyyyy to cool!!!!!!!!

where you'll play against your friends in a LAN game. if i'm not playing BG2 you'll find me playing CS.


Sir Curian
Protector of Good
[img]graemlins/tgestar1.gif[/img] [img]graemlins/1djsmile.gif[/img] [img]graemlins/tgestar1.gif[/img]

[ 02-16-2002: Message edited by: Curian The Paladin ]