New Huxley Gameplay Footage - Looks better than you thought it would.

[geldonyetich]

For the record, I never used the term "twitchtard" nor really wanted to suggest that those who enjoy twitch gameplay are degenerates.  Twitch gameplay has a viable place as it's own genre of FPS games.  Bunny hopping rocket arena madness can be good fun when its the name of the game.

I just think that Planetside and Huxley would be a lot better off if they didn't try to adapt kinds of gameplay that their massively multiplayer latency plagued, squad-based mechanics won't be able to properly support.  Thus, what you read wasn't me "going monkeyshit at the `twitchtards'", I was saying the Planetside developers were fools to listen to a camp whose concept of an ideal game could not be properly realized due to the technical limitations of the game they were making.

This thought had originated from the instastrafing rocket arena madness that was evident about the 15 second point of the Huxley video in message #2 of this thread.  That's not going to fly for squad-based combat or MMO-level internet latency.  Clearly those Webzen developers are repeating the same mistakes the Planetside developers did, except perhaps they seemed to have made the decision to go heavier twitch emphasis sooner in the development cycle.

I'd like to say that balancing the game to support twitch play earlier in the development cycle would make all the difference, but given we're talking about a massively multiplayer squad based game, I doubt one can balance a heavy twitch emphasis to work.  Unless, perhaps, it's a heavily instanced game that is barely squad-based at all.  In that case, I have to say I lost even more interest.

[Sky]

That's where my bile-ishness comes from, as well. BF1942 was on the side of 'kneel, fire in short bursts, prone is better' and the franchise is moving in the direction of UT/Quake. I've played the UT and the Quake, and it's fun, but I prefer the slower, more thoughtful and strategic stuff. There's already the UT and the Quake, no need to put it in all fps, and if Huxley goes that way, I'm definitely not interested. And as Geldon points out, that fast twitch play really doesn't translate to a large-scale game very well, so it's rather puzzling. Finally, the UT crowd are the ones who most stridently protest the monthly fee, so it's a real boneheaded move to pander to them.

[Nija]

Sky did you ever play Vietcong back when it first came out and actually had active servers? It was pretty tactical and fun. The AK in that game is my favorite fps gun ever.

VC2 has a really crappy engine that pretty much killed it for me, otherwise it seemed like that was a good sequel. Neither are very popular games, because it's downright hard to find the guy prone in the bushes that is taking your head off as soon as you leave the base.

bf1942 is like RIDGE RACER, real environment with real machinery that doesn't work like it really should.

I"m hoping Quake Wars ends up good - I like that they are "making their own game" instead of bf*, which takes a tiny piece of history and makes it into the online game equivalent of Afterburner. I don't really want Falcon 4.0 online, but I don't want Afterburner, either.

[Margalis]

In 5 years Quake style games will no longer exist. For a few reasons:

1. They have been done to death.
2. They look incredibly stupid viewed from 3rd person where it becomes 100% clear how silly the physics and movement are.
3. They don't work on consoles.

Quake style games exist because they are easy to make. You don't have to worry about acceleration speeds or how much people can reasonably turn. You can make guys move sideways and backwards at the same speed they move forwards, or run in a straight line while spinning 720 degrees.

All of that looks incredibly awful viewed from 3rd person, and that general control scheme simple doesn't work on a console where things like turning speed are naturally limited by the controller.

The skillset required to play Quake-style games is very narrow and easily filled by 1 decent game every 3 years or so. They are a very basic test of aiming while moving. That's basically it.

I can see how that appeals to people but it will be a niche market.

[Trouble]

Just wanted to make a small point here about the differences between Counter-Strike type games and Quake type games. They both have a large twitch component but that's about where the similarities end. Makes me sad to see you lumping them together in one big category of bunny hop retard games. =(

[geldonyetich]

I don't think too many of us are lumping Counterstrike and Quake together.  Counterstrike actually uses cone of fire a lot - it's evident on many of the submachine guns, for example.  Counterstrike is considerably fast paced, though, and that's why it's possible for one hyperactive deathdealer to dominate an entire other side.

[Trippy]

All of that looks incredibly awful viewed from 3rd person, and that general control scheme simple doesn't work on a console where things like turning speed are naturally limited by the controller.

Umm...no. There are probably hundreds of 3rd person console games that allow you to make "insta turns" with the controller just by pushing the stick/pad in the direction you want to move. It is true that for games like RE that have discrete turn buttons that your turn speed is limited.

[Trippy]

Just wanted to make a small point here about the differences between Counter-Strike type games and Quake type games. They both have a large twitch component but that's about where the similarities end. Makes me sad to see you lumping them together in one big category of bunny hop retard games. =(

Ha! You missed the good old days in Counter-Strike when people were bunny hopping like mad (Beta 4 was the bestest!).

Edit: fixed typo

[Margalis]

Umm...no. There are probably hundreds of 3rd person console games that allow you to make "insta turns" with the controller just by pushing the stick/pad in the direction you want to move. It is true that for games like RE that have discrete turn buttons that your turn speed is limited.

In most games when you turn there is at least some decelleration and re-acceleration, it isn't totally instant. Also that control scheme doesn't work well in an FPS because if backwards means turn around and go straight back how do you actually backpedal?

In a third person game moving the character relative to the camera makes sense. In a 1st person game it is a bit odd to press back to turn 180 degrees because the camera is in your head, now you are holding down but still moving in the same direction relative to the camera.

Although along that vein as consoles take over I would expect more 3rd person shooters and fewer FPS.

[Trippy]

Umm...no. There are probably hundreds of 3rd person console games that allow you to make "insta turns" with the controller just by pushing the stick/pad in the direction you want to move. It is true that for games like RE that have discrete turn buttons that your turn speed is limited.

In most games when you turn there is at least some decelleration and re-acceleration, it isn't totally instant. Also that control scheme doesn't work well in an FPS because if backwards means turn around and go straight back how do you actually backpedal?

In a third person game moving the character relative to the camera makes sense. In a 1st person game it is a bit odd to press back to turn 180 degrees because the camera is in your head, now you are holding down but still moving in the same direction relative to the camera.

You said 3rd person in your original example. I agree that what I just said doesn't apply to FPS games.

[Trouble]

Just wanted to make a small point here about the differences between Counter-Strike type games and Quake type games. They both have a large twitch component but that's about where the similarities end. Makes me sad to see you lumping them together in one big category of bunny hop retard games. =(

Ha! You missed the good old days in Counter-Strike when people where bunny hopping like mad (Beta 4 was the bestest!).

Nah I was there for that and even partook in some of my own bunny hopping. =D It was always a fringe thing though, it wasn't THE WAY TO PLAY. I just wanted to differentiate between the general style and speed of movement in counter-strike versus Quake or what's in this Huxley vid.

[Megrim]

I don't think too many of us are lumping Counterstrike and Quake together.  Counterstrike actually uses cone of fire a lot - it's evident on many of the submachine guns, for example.  Counterstrike is considerably fast paced, though, and that's why it's possible for one hyperactive deathdealer to dominate an entire other side.

This is why i can't help but to label you Captain Shoelaces. You continue to spount clueless statements like this one and pretend they mean something. The only weapon that has has a random cone in CS is the Glock, and even that is manageable by simply not firing as fast as possible. As far as SMGs go? Ahaha, ok! Dominate with aim alone my ass.



re: Margalis,

Quake has inertial player acceleration during movement. This is why it is possible to build up continuous speed via strafe-jumping.

[Margalis]

Quake viewed from the 3rd person looks retarded. Whether or not it has "intertial player acceleration" it sure doesn't have anything resembling real physics, even the most basic distillation. Super Mario 1 has more realistic movement.

[Trippy]

Quake viewed from the 3rd person looks retarded. Whether or not it has "intertial player acceleration" it sure doesn't have anything resembling real physics, even the most basic distillation. Super Mario 1 has more realistic movement.

Yes we understand you think it looks stupid but we don't care. Those games are all about running around blowing other people up not about wondering why the game let's you spin around freely or why you can run as fast sideways and backwards as you can forward.

[Megrim]

Quake viewed from the 3rd person looks retarded. Whether or not it has "intertial player acceleration" it sure doesn't have anything resembling real physics, even the most basic distillation. Super Mario 1 has more realistic movement.

lol, so?

[damijin]

Mario can jump high.

[geldonyetich]

This is why i can't help but to label you Captain Shoelaces. You continue to spount clueless statements like this one and pretend they mean something. The only weapon that has has a random cone in CS is the Glock, and even that is manageable by simply not firing as fast as possible. As far as SMGs go? Ahaha, ok! Dominate with aim alone my ass.

Bust out FRAPs and show me a video of pinpoint accuracy with fully automatic fire on an FN P90 in Counterstrike.  I know that CS is heavy on the upward-direction bullet spreads on automatic fire, but what you're seeing is not just recoil but a bit of cone of fire thrown in.  That's why the TMP is more accurate than the P90.  It's why an assault rifle is preferable to a SMG at long range combat.  Until you can prove there's absolutely no cone of fire in CS, Captain Shoelaces is saying put up or shut up about his apparent cluelessness of CS.

[Falconeer]

Proof of existance of Cone of Fire could be the fact that your sight get smaller when you crouch and larger when you jump (since 1.4 only IIRC), no matter if you are moving, standing of which weapon you are wielding. Apparently there's definitely a cone of fire mechanic in Counterstrike, but still CS is the more pixel precise (on first gun shots at least) shooter out there.. you have to be a surgeon to be good at CS, a combat surgeon.
Counterstrike to me it's the proof that the cone of fire mechanic can be implemented so good to be almost non-existant, or not perceivable, and that's what every good FPS player loves and loved in CS.
Too me CS is not realistic.. definitely not important. But it's one of the few shooters that plays like if it were 100% skill. If you can play it well, if you are good, it's probably the most rewarding shooter ever, and that's even because its very well hidden cones of fire.

[Megrim]

This is why i can't help but to label you Captain Shoelaces. You continue to spount clueless statements like this one and pretend they mean something. The only weapon that has has a random cone in CS is the Glock, and even that is manageable by simply not firing as fast as possible. As far as SMGs go? Ahaha, ok! Dominate with aim alone my ass.

Bust out FRAPs and show me a video of pinpoint accuracy with fully automatic fire on an FN P90 in Counterstrike.  I know that CS is heavy on the upward-direction bullet spreads on automatic fire, but what you're seeing is not just recoil but a bit of cone of fire thrown in.  That's why the TMP is more accurate than the P90.  It's why an assault rifle is preferable to a SMG at long range combat.  Until you can prove there's absolutely no cone of fire in CS, Captain Shoelaces is saying put up or shut up about his apparent cluelessness of CS.

Why? I never claimed that weapons in CS were pinpoint accurate. Try re-reading what i wrote Me not bothering to prove anything has nothing to do with your lack of knowledge as far as CS is concerned, sorry. Nice try though.

[WindupAtheist]

Personally, I find having my whole display jerked around in a tactical game to be more annoying as, realistic or not, it's pretty disruptive to the thinking man's focus.

Thinking man = noob who sucks at twitch, give auto-hit plz

I don't really care about FPS, but Geldon is so insufferably smug that I can't help flaming.

[geldonyetich]

Why? I never claimed that weapons in CS were pinpoint accurate. Try re-reading what i wrote  Me not bothering to prove anything has nothing to do with your lack of knowledge as far as CS is concerned, sorry. Nice try though.

Yeah, I did notice you tried to go both ways about it.  First you said that the only weapon with a cone of fire was the glock, then you gaffawed at the idea that anyone could p0wn through aiming alone with the SMG.  Then you called me a newb because of a quoted passage where I said Counterstrike uses a cone of fire. 

Or maybe you were more offended at the part where I said "one hyperactive deathdealer" can dominate the other side?  Well, I've seen that happen often enough to know it's true.  I'm not saying said deathdealer lacked skills, I'm was just saying that Counterstrike is balanced in such a way that this can happen moreso than a slower paced FPS where twitch skills aren't so overwhelming.  Listen to Captain Shoelaces, he knows what he's talking about here.

Thinking man = noob who sucks at twitch, give auto-hit plz

I don't really care about FPS, but Geldon is so insufferably smug that I can't help flaming.

First line: Lies.  Just as often thinking man = guy who's good at twitch but wants to play something more challenging.

Second line: I had forgotten you cared how smug I appear to be to you.  Would an apology help stem your urge to flame?

[Falconeer]

First line: Lies.  Just as often thinking man = guy who's good at twitch but wants to play something more challenging.

Wait.
I must have missed some steps then:
Why do you assume that "twitch" is not challenging enough?
Maybe I got it wrong...

[Megrim]

Yeah, I did notice you tried to go both ways about it.  First you said that the only weapon with a cone of fire was the glock, then you gaffawed at the idea that anyone could p0wn through aiming alone with the SMG.  Then you called me a newb because of a quoted passage where I said Counterstrike uses a cone of fire.

You mean sort-of like this:

I don't think too many of us are lumping Counterstrike and Quake together.  Counterstrike actually uses cone of fire a lot - it's evident on many of the submachine guns, for example.  Counterstrike is considerably fast paced, though, and that's why it's possible for one hyperactive deathdealer to dominate an entire other side.

I know that CS is heavy on the upward-direction bullet spreads on automatic fire, but what you're seeing is not just recoil but a bit of cone of fire thrown in.

So which is it then? Oh and you've even seen something happen, so it must be true?! Wow! You haven't perchance, seen... God, have you? The TMP is more accurate than the P90? What are you basing this on; last time i played they were about the same, with the P90 being arguably more controllable at range. Assault rifles are preferred over SMGs at range? Why, because of their firing patterns? Would that on full-auto or in bursts? Because if we are talking about full-auto, you should try the UMP. It's also cheaper than assault-rifles too.

You are doing well, you really are!

[geldonyetich]

Wait.
I must have missed some steps then:
Why do you assume that "twitch" is not challenging enough?
Maybe I got it wrong...

Twitch is challenging.  Yes.  It can be tough to learn how to put a tiny crosshair over an unpredictably moving target.  But, to hit something with a tiny bullet that lands unpredictably somewhere within a bigger crosshair can be even more challenging, no?  The involved tactics of maneuvering closer, doing things that shrink or expand the crosshair, and playing the odds are what makes games with cones of fire more tactically interesting than games that totally lack a cone of fire.

But I may have jumped the gun a bit (if you pardon the inadvertent pun).  Twitch versus tactical is not really a matter of better or worse, skilled or unskilled.  Rather, it's a matter of choice, of which skills you want to use.

So which is it then?

You got me, it's both.  As you can see in my quote boxes, I believe counterstrike uses both a cone of fire and recoil.  So does BF2 and Half Life 2, for that matter.  Really, it's hard for me to find a game that doesn't do both but just one or the other. 

I've been called out on this a few times:

Personally, I find having my whole display jerked around in a tactical game to be more annoying as, realistic or not, it's pretty disruptive to the thinking man's focus.

I'm basically just saying that a game that has jacked up recoil that causes the screen to jump around all hurdy gurdy is a lot less user friendly than a game that has less recoil but a cone of fire.  Once again, it's not a matter of whether or not recoil by itself is good or bad - I was never criticizing recoil.  Instead, it's a matter of how extreme it is - too much recoil, much like too much cone of fire, can be a bad thing.

Since you're fond of quoting, perhaps you could explain these to me:

The only weapon that has has a random cone in CS is the Glock, and even that is manageable by simply not firing as fast as possible.

I never claimed that weapons in CS were pinpoint accurate.

I must be missing some subtle distinction between there being only one weapon in the game with a cone of fire versus no weapons in CS being accurate.  You do know that a cone of fire exists in the inaccuracy on the core level before the first shot is fired on an inaccurate weapon, right?

As for the specifics of various weapon accuracies in CS, I'm not going to bother because it's not the point.  The point (if you remember) is whether or not cones of fire are a good thing for gaming.  Counterstrike has cones of fire, it seems we agree on that now because you've agreed that some weapons are more accurate than others.  That's all we need to know about Counterstrike.

You'll notice that (as Falconeer points out) the cone of fire can be so mild as to not totally eliminate the importance of a player's aiming skill.   I was never suggesting that players shouldn't have to aim at all in a FPS.  Indeed, for a cone of fire to work, you at least have to aim well enough to put the opponent's body into the cone, and the more body to cone there is the better towards your chance of hitting them.  Does that mean we were agreeing all along?

[Daeven]

Personally, being relatively good at twitch, cone of fire annoys the hell out of me. Cone of fire for a sniper rifle would drive me BONKERS because the main essence of a sniper is the fact that he can take aim over a long distance and one shot someone. If a game such as those being discussed does use a cone of fire, they should simply not put any sniper classes in to begin with. I know snipers piss people off, it's a pretty universal thing. Death from "above" with no ability to prevent it or fight back, I don't think it has a place in a MMOG.

It seems to me that a 'Cone of Fire' should be a variable dependent on conditions and firearm. Fanning a pistol? Your cone of fire will be equivalent to the State of Texas. Carefully aiming a braced .50cal sniper weapon? The cone should represent gravity, wind and air resistance - as in very small.

You know, that whole 'realism' crap.

Conversely, it is sometimes fun to blow shit up, so to hell with realism.

So. Um. What were we talking about again?

[Furiously]

I'm still waiting for the game where I can move the butt of the gun and the barrel seperately for some real aiming. Then I'll show those bunnys.

The solution of course to the whole cone of fire thing is this:


Of course then you get the guy who holds it 2 inches from the screen.

[Falconeer]

The involved tactics of maneuvering closer, doing things that shrink or expand the crosshair, and playing the odds are what makes games with cones of fire more tactically interesting than games that totally lack a cone of fire.

Ok, I'll see your point. But "more tactically interesting" is different from "more challenging".
I am not necessarily disagreeing, just see those two things as different kind of challenges for different "athletes", with different psycho-physical attributes.

Not sure if this could be a valid example, but while a shooter with large use of the cone of fire could be challenging as a 1500 meters Olympic dash, CounterStrike and twitchest ones (or the less cone-of-fire oriented) are like the 100m sprint. Is that less challenging? I don't think so. Less tactical? Most likely.

[Falconeer]

But I may have jumped the gun a bit (if you pardon the inadvertent pun).  Twitch versus tactical is not really a matter of better or worse, skilled or unskilled.  Rather, it's a matter of choice, of which skills you want to use.

Oh, looks like we agree after all. I wasted a post. Sorry :)

[geldonyetich]

It's nonetheless good you pointed out that "more tactically interesting" is different form "more challenging" though, because that may be the reason why I'm rubbing Megrim and a few others the wrong way.  When I say a "thinking man's game" or "a squad-based tactical game" or even "cones of fire add more levels of depth", I'm not saying that these are superior games.  I'm just saying that they emphasize different skills.  They might seem superior to me, but only because that's the type of play I want.

[5150]

Still bored because still not about the Hux!

[Megrim]

Haven't you been paying any attention? We've already established that Huxley is nothing but mindless twich and therefore can not be interesting in any way.

[Sky]

Hey, is Carl Rove helping you write posts?

Mindless twitch is fine. Not my thing, but it's cool. Just don't put it in my tactical shooter, eh?

Mindless twitch in an mmofps makes very, very little sense and the title is going to bomb.

[geldonyetich]

Besides, at closer look at the Huxley footage I'm not convinced it's as twitch-balanced as I initially feared.  The interface is turned off for purposes of recording the trailer, and the video is not high quality enough to see the bullet spread, so it's entirely possible that it could have cones of fire just as big as Planetside.  Maybe bigger. The only really damning thing I can see on the video is instastrafing inertialess movement of some of the units but, as I mentioned a few times before, those might be special scout units that die to a couple light taps anyway.

I do know that if it's as fast paced as it appears in that video, they probably have highly instanced architexture.  In other words, instead of traveling for 5 minutes by vehicle to disembark in a big city and capture an objective that might have enemies nearby, you probably just jump in a jeep-on-rails and are teleported to one of several completely sealed off instanced area arenas where battles are going on.  That's not very massively multiplayer, but it is a way they could accomidate such fast paced play at Internet latency levels - by keeping the interacting player count low.  Unfortunately, my interest in a glorified quake lobby is about nil.

[Sky]

Yeah. It didn't look like run & gun at all.

I saw a trailer for Hellgate and I'm now completely uninterested in that game (as opposed to my previous 'tentatively curious'). 1996 called and it wants its gameplay back.

[geldonyetich]

Checking out this trailer, I have to agree.  Lots of tedious monster slaying, but where is the depth?  Hopefully not in the fully customizable weapons alone.  Hellgate will probably be the best 3D Diablo-alike made, but it doesn't hold much hope as a tactical shooter.