I don't like slowly regenerating health either. I prefer it when you have to find health packs or a "regeneration station."
Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Whats the point of having respawn in FPS Games?
- Thread starter Vidder
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
as somebody who plays team oriented shooters with objectives i personally hate player who sit around taking no risks "because it might hurt their ratio" .. while the team is loosing because a capture point jsut got lost or can't be taken because it needs 2 players
that's what i always liked about about day of defeat: captured a flag: 10 points with extra points for the last one
the problem is that even with all the voice and stuff people just can't get team based shooters ... look at battlefield bad company:
i got the game as my first console shooter since the james bond game on the gamecube and after playing an afternoon it seems like i hit the top 3 in my team all the time because i actually care about the objectives isntead of sitting around sniping
I think non-respawning games do introduce a degree of tension to a game, which I really enjoy.
There could be problems with people hiding in corners afraid to be killed; which is why it should only be used in games which naturally bring the game to a conclusion: so it works better in small levels, or in game modes where there is a real-time goal to be achieved with a time-limit (which hiding won't achieve).
The tension when a big multiplayer game is reduced to 1 v 1, you're both low on health and ammo and creeping towards the same point... priceless.
It's not better or worse than the gerbils-on-speed gameplay of games like Quake3; but it's nice to have choice.
There could be problems with people hiding in corners afraid to be killed; which is why it should only be used in games which naturally bring the game to a conclusion: so it works better in small levels, or in game modes where there is a real-time goal to be achieved with a time-limit (which hiding won't achieve).
The tension when a big multiplayer game is reduced to 1 v 1, you're both low on health and ammo and creeping towards the same point... priceless.
It's not better or worse than the gerbils-on-speed gameplay of games like Quake3; but it's nice to have choice.
Ok, waiting does suck, but then there should at least be more of a penalty for dying. Maybe they have to wait 20 seconds rather then 5...maybe their teams total points gets deducted rather then staying the same. (i dunno)
but it just seems that with the current way the online games are played, there is almost zero strategy. I mean, how awesome would it be if you had a team of 10 guys actually WORKING together...covering corners, holding down positions...working as a team with a team leader coordinating all the movements....Rather then just taking off running into a building on full-auto fending for yourself and hoping your team wins?
I dunno...it would be much more fun if people put their mind into it a bit.
but it just seems that with the current way the online games are played, there is almost zero strategy. I mean, how awesome would it be if you had a team of 10 guys actually WORKING together...covering corners, holding down positions...working as a team with a team leader coordinating all the movements....Rather then just taking off running into a building on full-auto fending for yourself and hoping your team wins?
I dunno...it would be much more fun if people put their mind into it a bit.
Then you're playing the wrong games with the wrong people. I used to play TF2 (PC) against friends and it worked perfectly, mics were used, strategies formed. It's when you play public that you're exposed to people who don't play properly.
(forgot about this thread)
PC being the key word. Games are much more easily organized on the PC. I played Ghost Recon and was actually on a team, we had a web site, a forum...the whole deal. (i know. it sounds kinda gay, but that was the best time i ever had on a game!)
Anyway, yeah. You're probably right about playing the wrong games. But then it raises kind of an interesting thought. The main stream FPS games are Call of Duty, and Halo...both of which use minimal strategy...i guess you can say they are sort of "mindless" games. And since they are pretty much the most popular games, that means the creators of the games are marketing for the majority...that majority being mindless-game players. And of course they'll do that because it sells. It just sucks that if they did make a really good strategic co-op FPS it probably wouldn't sell because the majority of the people enjoy playing mind-less games....so they won't bother making a game that will only target a smaller crowd, one of which i'd be a part of.
So i guess i can kiss the good games goodbye.
(also, all the games that were mentioned as the strategic FPS games...are a few years old (for the most part). Which was my point from the start of this thread. So whats the latest strategic, team-based, FPS?)
There's your issue. Unless the people playing on the team know each other, there is no way any player will be chosen as a leader and the others will actually listen to him.
But I do get what you're saying here. I kind of agree. I can actually see this in my cousins, who are both huge gamers. One is older (early 20s) and whenever I play with him, he has everything thought out so well before hand, that the other teams have no chance. But when the younger one joins us (mid teens), he is the kind of player you describe. Just runs in and randomly starts shooting.
Yeah. Thats a good point. It would only work if you knew each other, or played with each other a few times. I just got Battlefield: Bad Company 2 - When i'm playing in a squad I try and make suggestions on what we should do....some times it works. I dunno.
I'd like to get on a team that actually works together...it just makes it so much more fun IMO.
I'd like to get on a team that actually works together...it just makes it so much more fun IMO.
Nice DM reference.
Play TF2, there's all kinds of game modes.... no spawn, delayed spawn and instant. Mostly I want to play instant bc i don't have tons of time to game and don't want to spend the little time I do have waiting around for respawn. Sometimes I'm going nuts just waiting 15 seconds
I mean seriously. You're going to say it's more fun if you were dropping out of a zone 5 seconds from starting, only to have a sniper pick you off and then that's it for 5-10 minutes? I've played TF2 lately where one team will have 5 snipers.... that would be miserable with no respawn.
Play TF2, there's all kinds of game modes.... no spawn, delayed spawn and instant. Mostly I want to play instant bc i don't have tons of time to game and don't want to spend the little time I do have waiting around for respawn. Sometimes I'm going nuts just waiting 15 seconds
I mean seriously. You're going to say it's more fun if you were dropping out of a zone 5 seconds from starting, only to have a sniper pick you off and then that's it for 5-10 minutes? I've played TF2 lately where one team will have 5 snipers.... that would be miserable with no respawn.
There is nothing really realistic about most online FPSs. It's a game and people want to participate, they don't want to get killed early and then sit for another 10 min waiting for the next round. It's arena style play that is twitch centric and kills over deaths are how you are measured against your peers. Although I think UT had an elimination match included.
If you want to do stealth and strategy play a Tom Clancy game. That's ok too, just avoid the UTs, Quake Arenas, Team Fortress etc.
- A team full of snipers would only be effective on a wide open map.
- If you were careful enough not to die first you wouldn't have to wait 10 minutes. So...Yes, I do think it would be better...way better. A team covering corners and "leap-frogging" from corner to corner around a city would be a very effective way to move a unit through a city.
Just think about how ridiculous COD is...most people basically run around and hope they see someone before they see them. Then, suppose you killed them before they saw you...they are then awarded with an after-action camera showing them your exact location so they can just sprint there and get there kill back. Its really ****ing stupid if you think about it. Its a rush around game. Throw in some big jump-punches and you'll have Halo. Its silly.
If you want to do stealth and strategy play a Tom Clancy game. That's ok too, just avoid the UTs, Quake Arenas, Team Fortress etc.
Yeah, I did. I played the original GR. It was awesome. Just haven't found any recent games that compare to it.
Call of Duty isn't the game for you obviously.
I play it because it's FUN. That's all that matters in a GAME. Do you understand where I'm coming from? By the way... there's no killcam in Hardcore mode.
Also, if I kill someone, I make sure I move away from the spot I killed them so that they can't come back and find me. Also, the kill cam prevents everyone from just camping.
I think the game is boring when nobody is running around. How do you get any kills if everyone's hiding in one spot?
By the way, do you play any games that have save-points or auto-saving? What do you do in those games? Do you die and start back at your save point? Why don't they make games where if you die, you have to start the game over again? ... or better yet... make a game so that when you die, you never get to play that game again.
It's called a game for a reason. Yes, Modern Warfare 2 is arcade-style killing. I don't think it's supposed to be like real war.
Don't get all bent out of shape about it. Like I said before, it's not your style of game, so find something else to play. I don't like God of War games but I don't say "What's the point" because other people obviously like them because they're fun "games" to them.
- That's a little off topic but i'll answer anyway.
Yeah, I do play games that have save points. But those save points are awarded in the single player mode of games and you can therefore challenge yourself as you see appropriate. By that I mean that I play those type of games on the hardest level because I find save points make a game way to easy. I like a challenge and since I am given the save points I make myself earn them.
Also games today last a lot longer then a few hours. So in order to complete them you need save points. Its not like Mario...or Contra...or any other Nintendo game that didn't have the technology to save the game.
- I'm not really getting all "bent out of shape". Just so you know. I'm just talking here and sharing my opinions. So take your own advice and don't join the topic if you don't like it.
- Ok. You answered my question. Obviously you find it 'fun' to run around with minimal strategy and hope to get lucky. Well then I want to play the game with people who use some form of reasonable strategy and not with people playing it like morons. The game would be very good without those players. Its not so much "the game" that is ruining the game...but the overwhelming crowd of mindless players that play it.
Baseball, soccer, football (i'm talking real life now)...those are all 'fun' too. I'm sure there are skilled players out there in each sport that would ask similar, relative-to-their-sport, questions that I am asking too.
Baseball -
Q - "Why would they lay down a bunt when they are down by 8?"
A - "Because Johnny really likes to lay some bunts down. He thinks its fun."
Soccer -
Q - "Why would the defenseman take the free kick?"
A - "Ah, he hasn't taken one in a while and he told me yesterday he thinks its fun. So that convinced me."
Football -
Q - "Why does that defense keep on blitzing EVERY single down?"
A - "Cause its really not about winning, we just want SACKS! They are so much more FUN!"
Ok, well if thats your answer then good for you I guess. But I'd rather play in a league where the game is played with some reasonable strategy and not with people playing it like morons.
Play Hardcore (no HUD, no kill cam, more susceptible to damage) or Search and Destroy (no re-spawning), join a clan or just find a different, more team oriented game to play. B*tching about the transient style of play that is typical in MW is like going to the beach for a pick-up volleyball game and complaining that it's not as organized as a sanctioned AVP event.
Lethal
No actually nothing like that at all. Its more like going to a well organized Beach Volleyball pick-up game with timed games and very accurate score keeping. Except everyone on your team runs around your side of the court trying to get every shot, bumping into you, and not being a semi-positioned player all because they want to get as many possible individual points as they can with no care about the overall team-score. They just want to have the most points on their team. And not only that, but its the most popular style of play in Volleyball.
I'm sure you'd agree that you wouldn't enjoy that either. Wouldn't you, if that was the case, just ask yourself (or maybe on a forum) why people enjoy playing like that?
Many people enjoy playing like that because they have fun doing it. What is difficult to understand about that? Don't like it? Don't play. Problem solved.
Lethal
Yeah, and in real life you can't run over a health pack and be instantly better. Also, the weapons don't glow on the ground until you run over them either. It's a game for a reason. If they made it like real life, people wouldn't play it (unless they use it as a simulator for the army or something).
Fact is.. video games are video games and although they're more realistic now-a-days, it doesn't change the fact that a lot of people simply wanna have fun. Running around and shooting people in the face is fun. Sitting in one spot trying to snipe people feels more like deer hunting and is not fun.
Yup. Stupid cliche in games. Instant health or health regen...both are dumb. If you get shot and its not deadly, you should be injured. If it a leg wound, then your guy limps or moves slowly. If its a arm wound...your reticule is wider and makes your aim harder.
This really doesn't have much affect on the gameplay.
I doubt i'm the only one in the world with this thought.
That is all an opinion and totally subjective.
I never said sitting it one spot sniping is the way the game should be played.
It just surprises me that so many people find running around aimlessly fun.
Its difficult to understand because in no other aspect of life could you find this type of behavior unless you look into a grade school. Unorganized, effortless, mindless, clueless strategies.
Maybe that is the case here...maybe most of the players are children. Never actually thought about that.
I could start a thread called "What's the point of tactical shooters with no re-spawn?". It's the same exact thing you're doing. There's a reason for the many different types of games. Many people have different tastes. I find arcade-style shooters like Call of Duty to be extremely fun and entertaining... while you obviously like tactics.
So I'm saying... stop thinking about what's the point and just play the games you prefer.
We answered your question a while ago. The point of respawn is because a lot of people don't like to wait around for minutes at a time while they can't play just because they died. That's a major turn off for me. I get bored quick if I have to wait. I want action, action, action. THAT'S the point.
</thread>
Curious...how old are you? I really think that this style of play is for a younger crowd. I'm 27.
I'm 27 too, but I don't like tactical shooters. They bore me. Why does it matter to you what I like?
You're basically just generalizing that the "younger" crowd goes for those types of games.
Maybe one day I'll get into the tactical stuff, but for now, it's fun to run around and get kills.
By the way... I grew up on Unreal, Medal of Honor and Call of Duty... I'm used to that type of game play.
I don't know what you don't understand about all of this. Play what you wanna play and let other people play what they find entertaining. Afterall, that's really all that matters. Does the game entertain you? If yes, then play it.
By the way... changing my post to read "blah blah blah" is pretty childish... that's what the younger crowd does.