Modern Shooter Conventions: Do They Work for Every Game?

This topic is locked from further discussion.

Avatar image for GAMERALL
#1 Posted by GAMERALL (455 posts) -

While playing Bioshock Infinite, I was put-off by the game's desperate attempt to paint itself a "modern" outlook. The first and second games let you select your weapon, save and replenish at will, while the third game limits you to a pair of weapons, puts you under the checkpoints mercy and traps you within the AI's poor judgement.

How important these conventions are in the eyes of devs and gamers? do either party think they're essential to the success of modern games? I think these conventions detracted from Infinite a lot more than they added to it.

What do you guys think? are games with Bioshock-equal conventions more playable than games with Bioshock Infinite-equal conventions or vice versa? What other games or franchises are worthy of this debate?

Avatar image for Lulu_Lulu
#2 Posted by Lulu_Lulu (19564 posts) -

ofcourse they work ! Maybe

Avatar image for Lulu_Lulu
#3 Posted by Lulu_Lulu (19564 posts) -

lol I didn't reas the OP until now.

You think have 6 different plasmids and weapons at once was a good thing ha ha haha ! Welcome to 2013 grandpa !

Avatar image for muthsera666
#4 Posted by muthsera666 (13271 posts) -

I think it depends on the style of the game. In games going for realism, the two weapon policy makes sense. In games where realism takes a bit of a backseat for the sake of storytelling or gameplay, I think most methods of weaponization can be allowable. The structure has to support it, however.

Personally, overall, I like having multiple weapons available. I enjoy using sniper rifles, but in some games I avoid picking them up, because I don't know when I might find a different weapon. An assault rifle and shotgun are a basic combo that work well, for example. I enjoy being able to carry one of each weapon type and being able to swap between them on the fly.

Avatar image for MirkoS77
#5 Edited by MirkoS77 (13297 posts) -

@muthsera666 said:

I think it depends on the style of the game. In games going for realism, the two weapon policy makes sense. In games where realism takes a bit of a backseat for the sake of storytelling or gameplay, I think most methods of weaponization can be allowable. The structure has to support it, however.

Personally, overall, I like having multiple weapons available. I enjoy using sniper rifles, but in some games I avoid picking them up, because I don't know when I might find a different weapon. An assault rifle and shotgun are a basic combo that work well, for example. I enjoy being able to carry one of each weapon type and being able to swap between them on the fly.

Pretty much this.

Avatar image for Ish_basic
#6 Edited by Ish_basic (4896 posts) -

I prefer two weapons and one sidearm, but two weapons works okay. I don't like the old days of weapon wheels and walking armories. I don't look at it as realism so much as the potential for strategy in a genre usually devoid of it. Realism flies out the window even in these games where you can only carry two weapons when you consider the assload of ammo you're carrying and how changing a magazine mid-clip doesn't result in losing ammo.

Limiting to two vigors is kinda senseless, though. It's not really strategic because you can always go into your menu and change your loadout (unlike having to scavenge for a different gun). It's not realistic because these are mental powers - you should be able to change them at the speed of thought, without the annoyance of having to page through menus.

Avatar image for Lulu_Lulu
#7 Edited by Lulu_Lulu (19564 posts) -

I'l be the 1st one to say it, since nobody else will, Irrational Games does have some difficulty design intuitive gameplay mechanics and control schemes, should've let digital extremes make a Bioshock game, they're is far simpler and better.

Avatar image for Jacanuk
#8 Posted by Jacanuk (16441 posts) -

@GAMERALL said:

While playing Bioshock Infinite, I was put-off by the game's desperate attempt to paint itself a "modern" outlook. The first and second games let you select your weapon, save and replenish at will, while the third game limits you to a pair of weapons, puts you under the checkpoints mercy and traps you within the AI's poor judgement.

How important these conventions are in the eyes of devs and gamers? do either party think they're essential to the success of modern games? I think these conventions detracted from Infinite a lot more than they added to it.

What do you guys think? are games with Bioshock-equal conventions more playable than games with Bioshock Infinite-equal conventions or vice versa? What other games or franchises are worthy of this debate?

Well, despite Bioshock infinite´s obvious design changes, its almost identical to Bioshock.

But i think Bioshocks infinite works better, i felt a much better flow with weapons and powers.

If Infinite just had put more effort into what you are going to use it on , perhaps like better enemies and not just recycle the same shit over and over again.

Avatar image for StrifeDelivery
#9 Edited by StrifeDelivery (1901 posts) -

It seems to be cropping up more and more sadly.

Bioshock allowed you to have every weapon, whereas Infinite limited you to two.

Max Payne 1 and 2 allowed you every weapon, whereas 3 limited you to two large weapons and a handgun (or 1 large weapon and a handgun?).

In games like Max Payne or Bioshock, I'm not looking for realism. You're looking for fun. If a series started out with certain mechanics, people generally come to expect them. If people want super-realism, they can go to games that have that, like say Arma.

Avatar image for Ish_basic
#10 Edited by Ish_basic (4896 posts) -

@Jacanuk said:

@GAMERALL said:

While playing Bioshock Infinite, I was put-off by the game's desperate attempt to paint itself a "modern" outlook. The first and second games let you select your weapon, save and replenish at will, while the third game limits you to a pair of weapons, puts you under the checkpoints mercy and traps you within the AI's poor judgement.

How important these conventions are in the eyes of devs and gamers? do either party think they're essential to the success of modern games? I think these conventions detracted from Infinite a lot more than they added to it.

What do you guys think? are games with Bioshock-equal conventions more playable than games with Bioshock Infinite-equal conventions or vice versa? What other games or franchises are worthy of this debate?

Well, despite Bioshock infinite´s obvious design changes, its almost identical to Bioshock.

But i think Bioshocks infinite works better, i felt a much better flow with weapons and powers.

If Infinite just had put more effort into what you are going to use it on , perhaps like better enemies and not just recycle the same shit over and over again.

I don't mind seeing the same enemies over again as long as you give me many diverse options with which to kill them, which Bioshock does not.

One easy way to improve things would be to offer branching evolution paths for each power and once you pick one, the other one or two are shut down. So, as quick and dirty example, let's say you have 3 paths, offense, defense and stealth. For the shock vigor, with stealth you could have unlock the em cloak ability by holding the vigor button, turning your character invisible until you run out of vigor or dispel. For defense, em shield and for offense, a sort of thunder stomp where you teleport to location on a lightning bolt, cause a shockwave when you materialize (like Ride the Lightning in Guild Wars, which is too fun). Any way, it doesn't have to be that. Just something better than flashy grenades and wasted potential, which is all we get with this franchise.

Avatar image for Lulu_Lulu
#11 Posted by Lulu_Lulu (19564 posts) -

^ You have some very cool ideas.

Avatar image for Jacanuk
#12 Posted by Jacanuk (16441 posts) -

@Ish_basic said:

@Jacanuk said:

@GAMERALL said:

While playing Bioshock Infinite, I was put-off by the game's desperate attempt to paint itself a "modern" outlook. The first and second games let you select your weapon, save and replenish at will, while the third game limits you to a pair of weapons, puts you under the checkpoints mercy and traps you within the AI's poor judgement.

How important these conventions are in the eyes of devs and gamers? do either party think they're essential to the success of modern games? I think these conventions detracted from Infinite a lot more than they added to it.

What do you guys think? are games with Bioshock-equal conventions more playable than games with Bioshock Infinite-equal conventions or vice versa? What other games or franchises are worthy of this debate?

Well, despite Bioshock infinite´s obvious design changes, its almost identical to Bioshock.

But i think Bioshocks infinite works better, i felt a much better flow with weapons and powers.

If Infinite just had put more effort into what you are going to use it on , perhaps like better enemies and not just recycle the same shit over and over again.

I don't mind seeing the same enemies over again as long as you give me many diverse options with which to kill them, which Bioshock does not.

One easy way to improve things would be to offer branching evolution paths for each power and once you pick one, the other one or two are shut down. So, as quick and dirty example, let's say you have 3 paths, offense, defense and stealth. For the shock vigor, with stealth you could have unlock the em cloak ability by holding the vigor button, turning your character invisible until you run out of vigor or dispel. For defense, em shield and for offense, a sort of thunder stomp where you teleport to location on a lightning bolt, cause a shockwave when you materialize (like Ride the Lightning in Guild Wars, which is too fun). Any way, it doesn't have to be that. Just something better than flashy grenades and wasted potential, which is all we get with this franchise.

I can agree that the enemies doesn't matter as much if there is a diverse way of killing them, but in Bioshock Infinite you have the same options in guns all the way through, which just makes it boring and too repetitive

But other than that some nice ideas and you should tweet Levine and tell them :D