Jump to content
CyReN

Halo 5: Guardians Discussion

Recommended Posts

CS: GO is one of the most popular games on the planet and it places skill at the forefront of its design. I really don't get where this argument comes from. MOBAs are extremely dense games with a significant learning curve as well. In what way are they casual friendly aside from offering skill-matching to prevent noobies from getting immediately stomped by high level players (a feature, I might add, that no real Arena shooter has ever had). I've literally never heard of Bloodline Champions, but if it was part of the massive wave of games wanting to get in on that LoL/DotA money, I can't say I'm shocked that it failed.

 

If you want to talk about Arena shooters "struggling," when was the last MAJOR arena shooter actually released? Honest question. Quake 4 (which I understand to be somewhat of a disappointment anyway) was released in 2005; UT3 in 2007. Anything I've missed? Minor indie titles (Toxikk, Reflex, etc) in early access and the new Unreal Tournament, also in early access. Who has actually made a major investment in the arena shooter formula in the past ten or so years? This is giving me flashbacks to the "classic Halo needed to evolve to stay relevant" argument. How can you argue that it's struggling when basically no one is even trying to make it work? Make a good arena shooter and people might actually play it.

 

​And speaking of classic Halo, that just happened to be a formula with significant Arena elements that was also casual friendly and accessible, and now it isn't courtesy of ham-fisted attempts at modernization, poor ranking, and poor social features. I certainly wouldn't point to Halo 5 as a failure of arena shooters. It's a joke competitively next to a game like Reflex (yet casual players basically think it's Reflex, because they sweat so much), its ranking system is broken, and its social experience isn't even close to on par with modern CoD (or games like H3 and Reach).

So why is it that no big company has tried an arena shooter? Or why they seem to get watered down with each passing game?

 

What big AAA company is going to attempt this knowing that not a single arena shooter has become remotely popular in almost the last decade. THQ and Illfonic remade the nexuiz games, which were great arena shooters, and were forced to shut down their studio. They literally pulled their game from the marketplace even though I thought it was a fantastic arena shooter that offered more fun and accessibility compared to most.

 

I don't see the whole point of "well nobody has done it so how can you say?" One, smaller devs have done it and they've all failed to capture any popularity or even make enough money to sustain themselves. Two, Why would a larger company risk this? Why wasn't the new Doom game's multiplayer true to its roots? I think it's because game developers are smart enough to realize that arena shooters are a niche target in this day and age. From a business standpoint it doesn't make sense for a AAA studio to invest into.

  • Upvote (+1) 1
  • Downvote (-1) 1

Share this post


Link to post

If diabotical fails, Arena shooters last hope will be Quake champions imo, and Id seems to be making "modern" compromises with that game as well.

 

Diabotical seems very promising from a casual and competitive standpoint though.

Share this post


Link to post

You also have to keep in mind that Arena shooters have been struggling to stay relevant since the late 90's. It's no surprise to anyone that skillful games that places skill at the forefront of their design aren't the most popular. Hell, it's not even exclusive to FPS games. Bloodline Champions was a super competitive 3v3 game on PC, heralded to be the next big thing, and that failed to get any traction because it wasn't casual friendly at all. The controls were just like any MOBA/Overwatch, but without giving the ability for anyone of any skill level to be relatively competent from the get-go, it was doomed from the start.

 

Until someone finds a way to reform the basic tenants of an Arena shooter into a casual friendly experience that is on par with what the games of today offer, I feel like arena shooters as a whole will stay extremely niche like they have been. Personally, I feel like that isn't really possible without sacrificing what makes an Arena Shooter what it is.

An arena shooter doesn't have to have to have a massive skill gap though. It doesn't have to be daunting for casual players.

 

H5 is less of an Arena shooter than ce/2/3 but is more intimidating and harder to get in to for casuals.

  • Upvote (+1) 6

Share this post


Link to post

If diabolical fails, Arena shooters last hope will be Quake champions imo, and Id seems to be making "modern" compromises with that game as well.

 

Diabolical seems very promising from a casual and competitive standpoint though.

Quake Champions is already stillborn with its loadouts.

  • Upvote (+1) 6

Share this post


Link to post

So why is it that no big company has tried an arena shooter? Or why they seem to get watered down with each passing game?

 

What big AAA company is going to attempt this knowing that not a single arena shooter has become remotely popular in almost the last decade. THQ and Illfonic remade the nexuiz games, which were great arena shooters, and were forced to shut down their studio. They literally pulled their game from the marketplace even though I thought it was a fantastic arena shooter that offered more fun and accessibility compared to most.

 

I don't see the whole point of "well nobody has done it so how can you say?" One, smaller devs have done it and they've all failed to capture any popularity or even make enough money to sustain themselves. Two, Why would a larger company risk this? Why wasn't the new Doom game's multiplayer true to its roots? I think it's because game developers are smart enough to realize that arena shooters are a niche target in this day and age. From a business standpoint it doesn't make sense for a AAA studio to invest into.

Name a small indie shooter from any sub genre that has been succesful.

 

FPS is a AAA dominated genre. Probably more than any other.

 

You really can't say something will be unsuccessful until it's done right and fails. Nobody would have thought minecraft, rocket league, etc would have hit it big pre launch.

  • Upvote (+1) 1

Share this post


Link to post

If diabotical fails, Arena shooters last hope will be Quake champions imo, and Id seems to be making "modern" compromises with that game as well.

 

Diabotical seems very promising from a casual and competitive standpoint though.

Isn't H5 an arena shooter  :bman:

  • Upvote (+1) 1

Share this post


Link to post

So why is it that no big company has tried an arena shooter? Or why they seem to get watered down with each passing game?

 

What big AAA company is going to attempt this knowing that not a single arena shooter has become remotely popular in almost the last decade. THQ and Illfonic remade the nexuiz games, which were great arena shooters, and were forced to shut down their studio. They literally pulled their game from the marketplace even though I thought it was a fantastic arena shooter that offered more fun and accessibility compared to most.

 

I don't see the whole point of "well nobody has done it so how can you say?" One, smaller devs have done it and they've all failed to capture any popularity or even make enough money to sustain themselves. Two, Why would a larger company risk this? Why wasn't the new Doom game's multiplayer true to its roots? I think it's because game developers are smart enough to realize that arena shooters are a niche target in this day and age. From a business standpoint it doesn't make sense for a AAA studio to invest into.

 

I'm not arguing that simply making an Arena shooter is a guaranteed success, but are you under the impression that the reluctance of triple-A devs to do anything counter to popular trends is the result of some greater knowledge about the state of the industry? I'm hardly shocked that taking anything resembling a risk is pretty rare, hence why Halo continues to chase the modern shooter audience instead of appealing to its own, despite the non-existence success of apparently playing it safe.

 

I'm not terribly familiar with Nexuiz (I played the original mod at one point), but just being a "good" game is not enough. I think that is pretty clear at this point. What makes a game a staple is the entirety of its experience. Did Nexuiz have skill ranks? Did it have a meaningful social progression system? Did it have robust community features? What is it offering aside from presumably decent core mechanics? Did it have any real marketing (I doubt it)? I have no idea. How is it appealing to people who aren't explicitly seeking out that kind of game and what reason does it provide long time arena fans to move on? I mean, I can look at a game like Reflex, which is a great game, and I can see no shortage of factors holding it back. As of now, it is a multiplayer-only alpha build. It has no match-making, no skill ranking, a pretty barebones progression system, and so on. A lot of that stuff is on the roadmap, but it isn't there now. It is the kind of game that pretty much only people looking for a Quake 3 CPMA-type experience are going to gravitate towards and god help some poor noob who hops into a game not knowing what to expect. This is the kind of limitation imposed by extremely small developers working on arena shooters as a passion project and using them to justify triple-A studios continuing to copy each other doesn't make much sense to me.

 

A studio like Id could make a game like that, with an incredible feature set around it, top notch visual and audio design, a marketing budget, and a brand name people know. That is a vastly different scenario from your example of some tiny developer I have never heard of remaking a Quake mod for XBLA. Will Quake Champions be that game? Maybe, but again I see a lack of faith in fully committing to an Arena shooter and instead cramming in a popular trend that no one asked for (thanks, Overwatch). If that game fails to live up to its legacy, is that another failure of Arena shooters or is it yet another example of major developers/publishers not having the balls to actually make an Arena shooter?

 

​And you don't see the point? Really? Because it is a niche in the current market that is not currently filled? Copying the most successful games doesn't seem to work very well (as the failed CoD and MOBA wannabes clearly attest to). Offering something unique in the current market always has potential, even if it ends up more of a hardcore niche like fighting games. You brought up Doom, which is fairly odd, given the reality of that game. The campaign was a kick-ass, balls-to-the-wall old school shooter and the multiplayer was compromised with almost H4-esque, completely out-of-place concessions. It was too hardcore for CoD players, and too much of a console kiddy game for PC players. So who the fuck was that going to appeal to? OF COURSE it died. Are you saying that was an intelligent direction for that series?

  • Upvote (+1) 6

Share this post


Link to post

I've been playing video games since I was in first grade, and MOBAs look like nerd gibberish to me.

Ditto. That's why it makes absolutely no sense to me how they have such high viewership. Insane.

  • Upvote (+1) 4

Share this post


Link to post

If the doom's MP had stuck true to its roots like the campaign did it would have been 100x more popular then it ended up being.

 

Doom somehow ended up being my most surprisingly good and disappointingly bad game of this year.

  • Upvote (+1) 3

Share this post


Link to post

If diabotical fails, Arena shooters last hope will be Quake champions imo, and Id seems to be making "modern" compromises with that game as well.

 

Diabotical seems very promising from a casual and competitive standpoint though.

 

Quake Champions is not an arena FPS. It's a class-based (or now hero-based) FPS. Plain and simple. Absolutely no one would be calling Quake Champions an arena FPS if it didn't have Quake in the name. It's just id's desperate attempt to hopefully fool as much people as people to get the game. Don't fall for it. If they need to rely on the Quake brand for their game to be popular instead of owning up to what it actually is then that's all you need to know.

 

Hero shooters

  • Overwatch
  • Quake Champions
  • Lawbreakers

 

Arena shooters

  • Diabotical
  • Unreal Tournament
  • Reflex

 

If id somehow got the Gears of War franchise, they would make it a 1st person shooter and then say "It's still a 3rd person shooter but now the camera is closer."

  • Upvote (+1) 5

Share this post


Link to post

Ditto. That's why it makes absolutely no sense to me how they have such high viewership. Insane.

Yeah it makes no sense to me. I have absolutely NO idea what the fuck I am supposed to be looking at. Third person MOBAs are easier for me to follow, but even then I'm still lost.
  • Upvote (+1) 1

Share this post


Link to post

CS: GO is one of the most popular games on the planet and it places skill at the forefront of its design.

This is true, but far from the whole story.

 

From a competitive standpoint, CS:GO is a juggernaut for many reasons, from its matchmaking to its omnipresent dev support to its (often controversial) balance patches, but I think the biggest factor is that its simply a great game to spectate, its simple. The game is extremely easy to follow; 2 teams of 5 spawn, they buy guns with money, they play one of a small handful of maps, and we get to watch the teams execute strategies which are risky and exciting as a byproduct of the round system. The strategy and skill required to play the game are more comparable to reality than arena shooters; managing recoil and strategic placement of your soldier guy and your teammates are less abstract and strenuous concepts than timing 3 power items at once, managing fast movement in 3 dimensions, and deciding which of your 7 weapons to shoot the opponent with, all decisions and mental activities you'll be doing a lot and very quickly, at nearly all levels of play. CS:GO is a little more involved, but its sort of like Halo 1 in that the complexity of a match is decided by your skill level and understanding of the metagame; player growth is more natural in those games than in a pure Arena Shooter where all these mechanics are simply thrust onto you.

 

 

In the same vein as Halo, CS:GO provides lots of incentive for more casual players to play; skins and alternative gamemodes ensure that even terrible players have something to do besides get their ass kicked. Maybe you just lost a competitive match, but that's fine, you'll just hang out in a surf server and show everyone the knife you just got for a bargain...success in CS:GO can be found in other venues besides "getting good", and unlike in most arena shooters where you're provided a silly gamemode or two that have no real meaning or competition, trading and even surfing to a lesser degree can get very competitive and require almost none of the skillsets you find in default gameplay.

  • Upvote (+1) 3

Share this post


Link to post

This is true, but far from the whole story.

 

From a competitive standpoint, CS:GO is a juggernaut for many reasons, from its matchmaking to its omnipresent dev support to its (often controversial) balance patches, but I think the biggest factor is that its simply a great game to spectate, its simple. The game is extremely easy to follow; 2 teams of 5 spawn, they buy guns with money, they play one of a small handful of maps, and we get to watch the teams execute strategies which are risky and exciting as a byproduct of the round system. The strategy and skill required to play the game are more comparable to reality than arena shooters; managing recoil and strategic placement of your soldier guy and your teammates are less abstract and strenuous concepts than timing 3 power items at once, managing fast movement in 3 dimensions, and deciding which of your 7 weapons to shoot the opponent with, all decisions and mental activities you'll be doing a lot and very quickly, at nearly all levels of play. CS:GO is a little more involved, but its sort of like Halo 1 in that the complexity of a match is decided by your skill level and understanding of the metagame; player growth is more natural in those games than in a pure Arena Shooter where all these mechanics are simply thrust onto you.

 

 

In the same vein as Halo, CS:GO provides lots of incentive for more casual players to play; skins and alternative gamemodes ensure that even terrible players have something to do besides get their ass kicked. Maybe you just lost a competitive match, but that's fine, you'll just hang out in a surf server and show everyone the knife you just got for a bargain...success in CS:GO can be found in other venues besides "getting good", and unlike in most arena shooters where you're provided a silly gamemode or two that have no real meaning or competition, trading and even surfing to a lesser degree can get very competitive and require almost none of the skillsets you find in default gameplay.

 

My larger point is that I don't think making a game with an extremely large skill gap is in itself a major barrier to entry. I understand the gameplay difference, yes. Arena shooters have a lot of extremely fast moment-to-moment execution and multi-tasking that isn't necessarily as immediately intuitive in the same sense. I realize that CS and Quake are not equivalent. However, I think it's the totality and presentation of the experience that matters more (I already went into a fair amount of detail on this in my last post). Social features, skill ranking, robust unlock systems, user-generated content, a variety of possible "social" modes, compelling branding, and so forth allow new players to become invested and to feel a sense of progression at their own pace instead of trying to jump into a Duel match and getting their giblets smeared across the walls by an experienced player the first time they start up the game. A new player doesn't need to understand how the hell strafe jumping works if they are in matches with other players who don't know either. In terms of broadcast presentation, a smartly designed spectator mode with an informative UI (which CS does have) would go a VERY long way towards making an arena shooter like Reflex much more comprehensible. Again, the experience AROUND the game is just as if not more important than the core game itself. MOBAs are the furthest thing from intuitive as far as I'm concerned, and yet League is the biggest game in the world and is played by ludicrous numbers of people.

 

And, as I've said, I don't necessarily expect this ideal arena shooter to come out of the gate and jump straight to the top of the Twitch charts or something, but I do think it could be a clear success by taking some cues from the presentation, branding, and feature sets of games like CS and OW.

  • Upvote (+1) 1

Share this post


Link to post

We need armour effects back.

 

I always thought armour effects were distracting and looked awful. Love the rest of the post.

  • Upvote (+1) 2

Share this post


Link to post

Quake Champions is not an arena FPS. It's a class-based (or now hero-based) FPS. Plain and simple. Absolutely no one would be calling Quake Champions an arena FPS if it didn't have Quake in the name. It's just id's desperate attempt to hopefully fool as much people as people to get the game. Don't fall for it. If they need to rely on the Quake brand for their game to be popular instead of owning up to what it actually is then that's all you need to know.

 

Hero shooters

  • Overwatch
  • Quake Champions
  • Lawbreakers

 

Arena shooters

  • Diabotical
  • Unreal Tournament
  • Reflex

 

If id somehow got the Gears of War franchise, they would make it a 1st person shooter and then say "It's still a 3rd person shooter but now the camera is closer."

 

Okay, but Quake Champions and to a much lesser extent Lawbreakers are basically Arena FPS with "heroes" instead of playable characters like UT and Quake have always done. In the case of Quake Champions, the "Heroes" from the looks of it are nothing more than classic Quake characters with the movement attributes/physics from the game they come from. For example, Anarki in QC has QW-style air control and movement while Ranger has Q3-style movement. Its nothing to freak out about its mostly just a marketing gimmick from id to try and lure some of the herd from the "hero shooter bandwagon." Go to a Quake forum like ESR and say Quake Champions is not an Arena shooter and they will laugh at you, its just a joke that its "Quake-watch" it doesn't really play like a Hero shooter and wont in competitive play which will be duel most likely or otherwise heavily modded to be more like Q3A. Lawbreakers might be more 70/30 in terms of Arena versus Hero shooter but make no mistake its weapon design, movement, and map design all have roots in Arena FPS design. QC is like 90/10 in my opinion of what I have seen.

 

Tons of UT players hate UT4's "simplified" movement compared to UT2004 as well, which makes it less of an Arena FPS in some people's eyes. It just feels wrong to call a game with strafe-jumping(the trademark of classic Arena FPS) and what will be by far the fastest AAA FPS on the market not an Arena FPS, while UT4 is still considered one and I have been active in supporting the development of UT4.

  • Upvote (+1) 2

Share this post


Link to post

We need a great UI like Reach had, we need achievement based cosmetics like Halo 3. We need less, more exciting medals. We need skin-based weapon progression. We need well designed levelling and appropriate awards like armour, skins, and currency. We need armour effects back. We need deep Reach style customisation back, we need micro transactions to be cosmetic only and higher quality. We need 3-piece custom emblems back. We need black undersuits back.

Disagree on the Reach customization, only because it was superfluous as fuck, and there're many ways to do aesthetics properly or deeply, without just giving a bunch of options that'll end up being aesthetically/visually useless. And that isn't me taking a stand against giving people "options", I'm just against (IMO, ugh) stupid options, given the type of game Halo is. It isn't a third person shooter where your player model is constantly in view. It's a first person shooter, where the most you see are your HUD, hands, and legs.

 

I personally think 343i's idea of armor customization is a great start. Having only the body and helmet be altered in a simplified way is really good, especially with how they go about designing their Spartan models. That being, the armor isn't attached to a base, unalterable set (Mark V (B) or Mark VI), but is instead entirely different from the body itself, and attaches to the body in different ways. To me, that's leagues ahead of where Bungie was already, because it allows for armor to be based around a human body which is much more versatile, and acts as a better launch pad for designs than one set of armor does. It also makes the act of choosing a set simple. As long as the designs are good, I don't see an issue with keeping it limited because the focus shouldn't be on armor at that level.

 

Now, to add upon Halo 5's customization in a proper way, would be to add things like armor grime/shininess, ala Doom, add a color wheel for both armor and visors. Enable tertiary colors like Halo 3 did, so even in MM, you still have a little band of color representing you in it. This color could be put on your glove for example, since the design of Halo 5's GEN2 gloves allows for more color in a nice unobtrusive way. That way, you'd actually SEE the color you pick, rather than it just being on you. But you'd also be aware of which team you're on. 

 

Also, add HUD layout and color customization. Halo 5's campaign showed it can happen without being a hindrance to how the game operates, while looking spectacular with stuff like Buck's ODST-esque HUD. Just make each layout operate the exact same, radar wise, and allow us to use colors to change how they look. Given the HUD is something we look at constantly, give us the power to change it, so we don't look at the same drab blue/green each game. 

 

Don't just go for black undersuits. Go for color customizable undersuits. Don't get me wrong, I love black suits as much as the next guy/gal, but I've constantly thought of having a white colored Spartan with a dark purple undersuit, or a black Spartan with a bright red undersuit. With the aforementioned glove/undersuit designs, you could do this, and present it to the player in an FPS view. It'd also be constantly visible to the enemy player, and allow for more options in simply coloring your Spartan without being stupidly small alterations. To be honest, though, the only thing that'd be an issue is how 343i partially colored the suits, over completely coloring them.

 

Honestly, this next point is just a miniature gripe, and doesn't need to be taken into consideration, but Halo 3 had armor lights that would be shaded whatever team color you were on. Basically white with a tad of red, blue, green, purple, etc. Bring those back. One issue that started with Reach was armor lighting being minimal and it makes EVERY design you have so drab and devoid of life. You don't need to go overboard, but having small lights like Achilles prototype design did would be really cool, add some life to the armor and give the impression of it being powered up. Hell, even look to how the Didact was designed in Halo 4, or how Locke was, with glowing lights running up their spines. The Halo 3 Elites also had prominent cyan lighting.

 

Take any of the Noble Team suit spine designs, add lighting to that, and you have a design that's classic-based, but still has that bit of "life" to it. Add lighting to armor in ANY capacity bar visually annoying is my point. Don't just make drab white lights. Make them colored again, make them more prominent like Halo 3's but a little further. Make them pulse when shielding's down, etc. I've seen some sets which have lights but you wouldn't realize it until you actually looked at it, because it has no brightness or anything. Mark V Alpha being a prime example. 

Ap6Ikfg.png

636px-H4-Didact-ArmorBack-Detail.jpg

You could also take it a step further and allow us to have shield color customization, because you can see that when you look at your wrist/hand/legs when you have broken shields. It's a minor thing too, so it isn't necessarily something you need to include/the game would die without, but it'd be cool to see given how newer Halo's have emphasis on your shields, even in FPS view.

 

Now, go past armor customization. Go to weapon skins. These are an insane missed opportunity by 343i, especially given you see them the most in game. Over armor, over maps, over anything. Give us a FULL range of colors, emblems, and skin choices to color and design our weapons with, and make them personal to represent us. Make skins as they are now patterns you can apply to a weapon, but have a three color system to make it unique, like armor sets/emblems. Allow us to apply emblems or our service tags to the skins. And this potential grows with the concept of 3-tiered emblems, although you could go with the plain secondary emblem they used now (hovers behind your Spartan  in the menu) and it'd work. This wouldn't stop 343i from creating their dumb fun skins, like Pizza, or Old Abe skins if they wanted to, but it'd allow for MUCH more personal visual variety than any armor customization ever would because you're constantly holding a weapon.

 

With that, give us the option to either have our weapon skin appear when we pick up a weapon lacking it (Like BF4 does for weapons/vehicle skins) or allow us to see others by turning that off, which provides the opportunity to see others.

 

Take THAT a step further, too. Allow us to alter the color of Covenant or Forerunner projectiles/lighting on weapons and give said weapons skins, ala Halo 4. This wouldn't intrude on making unique variants for REQs but would allow us to spawn in a basic Carbine/Lightrifle with our own spin on it, much like loadout weapons. Blue lit Forerunner Lightrifle firing red rounds plz? Kthx. You don't need to do that for weapons that fire actual ammunition, like human weapons, but Covenant weaponry being plasma based, and Forerunner being light based can range wildly in the color spectrum entirely, and their projectiles generally glow/have some vibrant color to them. Capitalize on it.

 

I dunno, I just feel there's so much more you can do with visuals than play dress up with shit that won't matter in game. 

  • Upvote (+1) 2
  • Downvote (-1) 1

Share this post


Link to post

Okay, but Quake Champions and to a much lesser extent Lawbreakers are basically Arena FPS with "heroes" instead of playable characters like UT and Quake have always done. In the case of Quake Champions, the "Heroes" from the looks of it are nothing more than classic Quake characters with the movement attributes/physics from the game they come from. For example, Anarki in QC has QW-style air control and movement while Ranger has Q3 movement. Its nothing to freak out about until further notice. Go to a Quake forum like ESR and say Quake Champions is not an Arena shooter and they will laugh at you, its just a joke that its "Quake-watch" it doesn't really play like a Hero shooter and wont in competitive play which will be duel most likely or otherwise heavily modded to be more like Q3A. Lawbreakers might be more 70/30 in terms of Arena versus Hero shooter but make no mistake its weapon design, movement, and map design all have roots in Arena FPS design. QC is like 90/10 in my opinion of what I have seen.

 

Tons of UT players hate UT4's "simplified" movement compared to UT2004 as well, which makes it less of an Arena FPS in some people's eyes. It just feels wrong to call a game with strafe-jumping(the trademark of classic Arena FPS) and what will be by far the fastest AAA FPS on the market not an Arena FPS, while UT4 is still considered one and I have been active in supporting the development of UT4.

 

"They're not classes, they're champions." Yes, the people developing this game have said exactly this. Look, if you think it's not going to get far worst and that they will do their best to stray away from Quake gameplay at every chance they get from here on out, then bless your heart. These people don't want to make a Quake game. They just want to use the IP/branding to boost their sales as much as possible so they can chase Overwatch because they're not confident enough to create a new IP for their new game. That's why I don't have a problem with Lawbreakers.

Share this post


Link to post

"They're not classes, they're champions." Yes, the people developing this game have said exactly this. Look, if you think it's not going to get far worst and that they will do their best to stray away from Quake gameplay at every chance they get from here on out, then bless your heart. These people don't want to make a Quake game. They just want to use the IP/branding to boost their sales as much as possible so they can chase Overwatch because they're not confident enough to create a new IP for their new game. That's why I don't have a problem with Lawbreakers.

 

Tim Willits the lead designer on QC has been with id since 1995 and worked on every Quake game(level designer on most I think), there is no doubt he is a hardcore Quake fan and the rest of the team is mostly id vets from what I hear. This is no 343 IMO. Here is his explanation, he clearly knows how hardcore Quake fans are and the gameplay must be Quake to its core but he also knows he cant just remake Q3A with better graphics.

 

So what Champions is – and it’s a tight focus – is it takes that visual style and the Elder Gods and Lovecraft, Cthulhu, and Shub-Niggurath… that look and feel and grittiness, and it incorporates that in a Quake III/Quake Live style of strafe-jumping, rocket-jumping, air control. So it’s very important for us to be true to that feel, and then it adds the champions, with their abilities, as an evolution of our genre. It adds a layer that makes it a little more advanced, gives more stuff for people to do; it modernises it to some degree.

Share this post


Link to post

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use.