Hitzel

...and by competitive, I mean a truly competitive console game; along the lines of Melee, H1 and Shadowrun.

We all know why Halo 3 isn't competitive - because it appeals to the majority. And we all know why Shadowrun failed - because it appealed to the minority.

Looking back at great competitive console shooters, a strong community is needed in order for it to work. In other words, it has to be both popular and competitive at the same time. In the modern console world, that sounds like an oxymoron.

So what kind of game can "work"? What kind of game can be popular and competitive at the same time? What kind of game appeals to both the majority (them) and the minority (us)?

The answer is an Arcade game.

An Arcade game can be fine without 16 player battles, vehicles, random wall textures that snag you (but don't they look nice?), huge maps and a plethora of more gimmicky content to add bullets to the back of the box. The reason being is that the majority doesn't expect a focus on graphics, gimmicks, extra content, etc from one. Smooth, flat walls will be hailed as great graphics. Small maps and room sizes will be considered normal. Dev focus of gameplay first will go over fine from everyone.

Something like 60% of Arcade trial downloads become full purchases. A game like this would only cost ten bucks, as opposed to sixty.

And all of this is possible because it's "only an Arcade game." Luckily for us, it's all we need.

__________________

GoatLove

What is your definition of a competitive shooter?

__________________

Kholdstare

Without getting into the whole arcade vs. full retail game (I will do so after I go see Smart People tonight) I want to say one thing as of right now.

As much as I love Shadowrun and I always will, I think in the end Halo 3 is much more of a competitive game and requires more skill overall (I'm taking into account the different types of skill).

The most important things to take into consideration when talk about the differences between the games. The two biggest things in my mind are the variety in the gametypes available and the main damage dealing weapons.

Halo has more gametypes overall which means more strategies are needed to stay ahead of the other teams. And the main weapons are largely different. The BR from Halo (while it can be inaccurate) requires you to hit the target and aim for the head on the last burst. The SMG from Shadowrun has less to do with pure aiming skill (not saying it doesn't take any) and more to do with the proper bursts and getting the shot in first.


More will come later as I would love to talk about this. I'm really rushed right now as I should have left so if any of this doesn't make sense just let me know and I'll rewrite it.

Mofogo

interesting idea. I don't think it would go over. Unless you could somehow bill it as the next competitive game and it had tons of support, then maybe. I hardly ever download arcade games, and the ones I do are usually old school games. I don't see the big player competitive game leagues going for a non blockbuster type game. People tend not to try to go backwards in the gaming industry but move forward. Forward for now is not simplistic skillful gameplay but graphics and gimmicks, and I do not think it will change any time soon.

Everything can be competitive with a few rules. The competitiveness comes not from how difficult it is to learn the game and be good at it, but from the level of play that it takes to compete on the team level. Games don't have to be perfect as long as rules are made to curtail exploits such as getting out of maps, and patches to at least make the oddities (halo melee) a little more transparent.

Its like trying to make football harder than it is. You don't require that the skill need players to be able to throw a football 60 yards, and the receivers be able to run sub 4.3 40 yd dashes. You simply make the game, make the rules, and then the individuals and the team separate how competitive it is, while still having the lesser players be able to still play and have fun.

__________________

Hitzel

Competitive (the way I used it) is a relative term, because everything has some competitive aspect to it.

My personal definition of a competitive game is one where I can play to win and have fun. The MLG community's definition (who I wrote this for originally) is one that has a high skill cap, learning curve, depth, and activity.

Halo 3 is not a competitive game. I say this with extreme confidence. There are too many factors in it that promote randomness, lack of difficulty, stalling, lack of options, forced outcomes, etc to be skillful. It's on the circuit right now because of that last bullet - activity. And it's at an extreme.

Generally, every game has a learning curve. Once you've passed this curve, the game's competitiveness becomes clear. The game can range from shallow to deep, and that has an overwhelming effect on the metagame. Halo 3's design to appeal to the casual gamer as opposed to the serious one pushes it far into the shallow end.

As for progression, that's my whole point. The majority isn't going to buy a game that doesn't progress in graphics and gimmicks, unless it's a game that they don't expect and demand to progress in graphics and gimmicks. My point is that an Arcade game is the only kind of game right now that can easily be competitive and mainstream at the same time by default.

__________________

ex0rc1sttoyou

I'm Mr. Exorcist, and I approve of this post.

To Hitzel mah DAWG: Although Shadowrun is a great competitive game, Roth proves a good point. A game cannot be competitive when there is no competition. Now Shadowrun is considered to be the most competitive console game by the people that play it, but how many people actually play it?? The answer is, there are less Shadowrun players in total then the amount of Halo 3 players that ONLY play competitively. This makes it very hard for SR to be a competitive title. I love Shadowrun, and I will continue to play it, trust me it is the greatest console shooter made in my opinion, but it just doesn't have the support that it needs to have a tournament background.

Is Shadowrun fun? YES!
Could it have been competitive? Absolutely.

But what the game has become just draws it away.

__________________

Hitzel

I understand how and why Shadowrun failed. That wasn't my point. My point was that, by a strictly gameplay basis, Shadowrun is far more competitive than Halo 3.

My other point is that an Arcade game is most likely to hold a community if it's designed to be competitive, because they are cheap and people don't expect an arcade game to have the gimmicks that plague the current console gaming market.

__________________

Azeron

You might be right Hitzel. The question is if anyone will step up to making a competitive XBLA game, after all every publisher has their market analysts telling them that arcade ports and familly/casual games are the way to make money on the arcade marketplace right now. I wonder if anyone will be willing to take the risk to make something so diffrent.
Though I agree that the implementation of the SMG and minigun in Shadowrun were lacking, I think this is a very narrow view of competitive gaming. Though technical execution is an important aspect is seperating the good from the bad players it is just one aspect of a good competitive game.

In my opinion, the cerebral element, the ability for players and teams to outsmart eachother is very important. If a team can't come up with their own original strategies and tactics to outplay eachother then all you're left with is just a shooting competition. Not very fun to play or watch if you ask me.

Halo 3, in my opinion is a moderately strategical game. It's about memorizing spawn times for weapons and in certain situations having some setups for effective team shooting, but during the game itself it's mostly execution.

Aside from that, there's no reason why you can't have more complexity in your weapons either. Unreal Tournament is my favourite example of this, the weapons are well balanced but each have an optimal situation to use them in, this creates a nice mental game around the weapons where the players who both picks the best weapon for the situation and uses it the best wins.


Thank you, that's exactly how I feel about the game, but I was never able to put it into words that well, those last two things in particular matter a lot to me.

__________________

Kholdstare

I was trying to imply in my original post that I know there are more to a competitive game then just shooting skill and teamwork. I believe those are the most important aspects of a good competitive shooter even though other parts exist. I never meant to imply those other things didn't matter.

I understand Shadowrun is all about counters and the many strategies that one can come up with using tech and magic. I just feel that (even though it does exist) the skill when it comes to duals is diminished because of the main weapons spray nature and the potential advantage you can have from tech and magic. I feel that Shadowrun is more about the teamwork with less focus on personal skill, and Halo is more about individual skill with less focus on teamwork (though I still think Halo has a lot of teamwork involved).


The games competitive scene is active because the game is competitive. I agree that active games do get more attention but look at the competitive player base for Halo... It's freaking huge. If more people thought Shadowrun was a more competitive game (by your definition or MLG's) don't you think the community behind it this early would be bigger?

And when it comes down to fire fights I see Shadowrun as being a more random game weapon wise then Halo. The reticule bloom makes a huge difference when using a pistol or sniper. I'm pretty sure all of us Shadowrun players feel the difference of getting lucky in a pistol fight (or quick scopes with the sniper).

Also where did you get the data for the Arcade convergence rate? That number seems absurdly high...

Hitzel

First off I want to say that I don't think the main weapon in Shadowrun is the SMG. In competitive play, team Rifling means a lot. SMG spray is rampant in pubs, but SR pubs and competitive SR matches may as well be two different games.

I know this kinda eludes your point, but that conversation we had no too long ago about vertical teleports and how to approach and defend with them is a big indicator of Shadowrun's depth and skill, and that's just one example. You don't have conversations like that about Halo 3 simply because there's nothing to talk about.

Halo 3 requires an insignificant amount of individual skill, both mental and technical. 1v1 situations have very limited options and are forced, because everything takes so long to do. If the other guy gets the first shot, you either die or run away. Halo 2 took relatively little individual skill, I don't see how you could say Halo 3 takes more when there are even less options and every action takes longer to preform.

All that matters in Halo 3 is teamwork. That itself is limited by dull map design where options are also limited and forced upon the player. Besides that, there is little reason to flow around the map because the weapons aren't balanced in a way to allow spawn objectives a 'la Halo 1. Spawn times are long. Setups dominate. It's like PDZ, but without having to worry about armor. In the end, Halo 3 takes basic teamwork skill simply because it's a shooter, but that's a blanket statement and doesn't give it any credit of being any more competitive than any other shooter.

Yes, Shadowrun has random elements to it, but those elements can be avoided and/or countered, without resorting to teamwork. That isn't true of Halo 3.

I believe it was major nelson I real that number from? It was around 50%.. but now that I think about it I don't think it was 60. It was an even number though I remember if numbers are even or odd. The article basically said that the number is absurdly high and was bragging about XBL Arcade's success. I'll try to find it.

Either way, I think we're beating a long-dead horse (Halo being dumbed down). I want to discuss the possibilities of a competitive Arcade catching on vs a normal competitive game catching on, because I feel that at this point in the market, an Arcade game has much, much higher chances.

__________________