[deleted]
> 2533274825830455;13503:
> > 2533274943854776;13500:
> > > 2533274801176260;13499:
> > > > 2533274807537946;13467:
> > > > Halo 5 refocused the game on map pickups and map control after Halo Reach and 4 focused on Loadouts and jet packs. H5 is more Arena than Halo’s been in years.
>
> As far as ambitious tasks go, trying to get people of various generations to agree on a vague term that describes a subgenre of games is pretty high up there. To amuse yourself, all you need to do is to google “arena shooter” and expose yourself to a variety of discussion ranging from “UT was not an arena shooter” to “Gears of War; arena shooter or tactical shooter?”
Had to Google, was surprised, but not disappointed.
Overall though. One thing I think has gone atleast this thread by, or I just missed it, is the radar change test.
In short, non-sprint speed will not show on the changed radar, sprint however will.
Will the very balanced Sprint now be even more balanced? Some say sprint is balanced.
Is it regarded as Default speed getting an indirect buff?
Will it be yet another argument to keep sprint due to more risk / reward stuff being thrown in on sprint?
Personally I see sprint getting even worse, and thus less reasons to keep it.
Yes, it’s a test and not a direct change, but chances are it’ll stick.
> 2533274795123910;13505:
> Will it be yet another argument to keep sprint due to more risk / reward stuff being thrown in on sprint?
>
> Personally I see sprint getting even worse, and thus less reasons to keep it.
I pretty much see any nerf on sprint as only strengthening the argument against it. Since its introduction in Reach, the ability has gone through one nerf after another with every iteration, and one might ask that if every iteration of a mechanic only makes it less useful, and it still remains problematic, it seems more and more like the mechanic is just inherently flawed in the gameplay context you’re trying to cram it to.
I said it long ago: the only way to reconcile sprint with the gameplay of Halo is to nerf it to oblivion. All I’ve seen since then has been exactly that: making sprinting less and less advantageous for the player.
How about 343 just ditch sprint altogether? And while the trash can lid is open, lets drop the AA’s in there too. I’m in favor of removing all current transgender…I mean transgenre features and restoring halo to its core mechanics.
> 2533274825830455;13506:
> > 2533274795123910;13505:
> > Will it be yet another argument to keep sprint due to more risk / reward stuff being thrown in on sprint?
> >
> > Personally I see sprint getting even worse, and thus less reasons to keep it.
>
> I pretty much see any nerf on sprint as only strengthening the argument against it. Since its introduction in Reach, the ability has gone through one nerf after another with every iteration, and one might ask that if every iteration of a mechanic only makes it less useful, and it still remains problematic, it seems more and more like the mechanic is just inherently flawed in the gameplay context you’re trying to cram it to.
>
> I said it long ago: the only way to reconcile sprint with the gameplay of Halo is to nerf it to oblivion. All I’ve seen since then has been exactly that: making sprinting less and less advantageous for the player.
Of course. With this radar test change I see it as an indirect nerf on sprint, or perhaps an indirect buff to default speed. Nevertheless, relative to Default Speed, sprint is worse of than with a regular radar. I didn’t imagine seeing yet another such instance for Halo 5, first one being from the Beta.
That as well, many of the things that made sprint useful, mind you not liked, has been rendered useless, mainly escaping. However map traversal as well as the delta between sprint and default speeds were decreased from Beta to Retail.
Perhaps with the praise Doom got, the popularity of Overwatch, the enduring CS and so forth, along with the continued nerfing of Sprint, we’ll see a removal of sprint further down the line?
> 2533274795123910;13508:
> > 2533274825830455;13506:
> > > 2533274795123910;13505:
> > > Will it be yet another argument to keep sprint due to more risk / reward stuff being thrown in on sprint?
> > >
> > > Personally I see sprint getting even worse, and thus less reasons to keep it.
> >
> > I pretty much see any nerf on sprint as only strengthening the argument against it. Since its introduction in Reach, the ability has gone through one nerf after another with every iteration, and one might ask that if every iteration of a mechanic only makes it less useful, and it still remains problematic, it seems more and more like the mechanic is just inherently flawed in the gameplay context you’re trying to cram it to.
> >
> > I said it long ago: the only way to reconcile sprint with the gameplay of Halo is to nerf it to oblivion. All I’ve seen since then has been exactly that: making sprinting less and less advantageous for the player.
>
> Of course. With this radar test change I see it as an indirect nerf on sprint, or perhaps an indirect buff to default speed. Nevertheless, relative to Default Speed, sprint is worse of than with a regular radar. I didn’t imagine seeing yet another such instance for Halo 5, first one being from the Beta.
>
> That as well, many of the things that made sprint useful, mind you not liked, has been rendered useless, mainly escaping. However map traversal as well as the delta between sprint and default speeds were decreased from Beta to Retail.
>
> Perhaps with the praise Doom got, the popularity of Overwatch, the enduring CS and so forth, along with the continued nerfing of Sprint, we’ll see a removal of sprint further down the line?
I can only hope so. All of those games have proven that you don’t need default sprint to be great. Hell Overwatch is MP only and it won GoTY while CoD’s sales declined despite still being #1 and BF increased for keeping the GAMEPLAY THE SAME and changing the setting. Now if only 343 would realize this.
[deleted]
> 2535464451695009;13504:
> > 2533274943854776;13500:
> > > 2533274801176260;13499:
> > > > 2533274807537946;13467:
> > > > Halo 5 refocused the game on map pickups and map control after Halo Reach and 4 focused on Loadouts and jet packs. H5 is more Arena than Halo’s been in years.
> > >
> > > Either you’re trolling or you have no idea what constitutes as an Arena Shooter.
> > > Quake, Unreal Tournament and co. are known for constant combat capabilities. These games don’t even have reload, let alone a mechanic like sprint that forces your gun down for extended periods of time. With infinite sprint, H5G is the furthest away from Arena Shooters the franchise has ever been…
> >
> > Is there a universal definition for an Arena shooter? If not, we really should make one, not only for the sake of the conversation or my personal health, but also just for the people!
>
> Generally, an Arena Shooter is a game with map pickups and pseudo-tactical gameplay though map control. They’re also extremely easy to learn and understand, but have some sort of difficulty curve to be the best player. Maps are also typically designed with a room focus instead of a lane focus. So maps like Midship, Lockout, and Ascension are typical arena maps. Maps like Dust2, Blood Drive, and Nuketown aren’t recommended for Arena play. Player gameplay doesn’t really matter, just as long as there is an emphasis on map pickups and dynamic gameplay.
You clearly have never played an actual arena shooter.Tell someone who’s a dedicated quake player halo is an arena shooter,and you’ll be laughed out.The most critical part for them is fast movement ,and pickups.And when I say fast I mean fast.Halo is at crawl speed while quake and ut are sprint speed.Halo’s in a wierd spot but if I were to describe it it would a squad based fps that took a couple cues from arena shooters.
Why am I only saying a couple? Because weapon pickups are the only arena shooter thing that halo has ever really had.In actual arena shooters there’s a meta that revolves around armor/health pickups,and the mind games surrounding them.
> 2535449545792902;13511:
> > 2535464451695009;13504:
> > > 2533274943854776;13500:
> > > > 2533274801176260;13499:
> > > > > 2533274807537946;13467:
> > > > > Halo 5 refocused the game on map pickups and map control after Halo Reach and 4 focused on Loadouts and jet packs. H5 is more Arena than Halo’s been in years.
> > > >
> > > > Either you’re trolling or you have no idea what constitutes as an Arena Shooter.
> > > > Quake, Unreal Tournament and co. are known for constant combat capabilities. These games don’t even have reload, let alone a mechanic like sprint that forces your gun down for extended periods of time. With infinite sprint, H5G is the furthest away from Arena Shooters the franchise has ever been…
> > >
> > > Is there a universal definition for an Arena shooter? If not, we really should make one, not only for the sake of the conversation or my personal health, but also just for the people!
> >
> > Generally, an Arena Shooter is a game with map pickups and pseudo-tactical gameplay though map control. They’re also extremely easy to learn and understand, but have some sort of difficulty curve to be the best player. Maps are also typically designed with a room focus instead of a lane focus. So maps like Midship, Lockout, and Ascension are typical arena maps. Maps like Dust2, Blood Drive, and Nuketown aren’t recommended for Arena play. Player gameplay doesn’t really matter, just as long as there is an emphasis on map pickups and dynamic gameplay.
>
> You clearly have never played an actual arena shooter.Tell someone who’s a dedicated quake player halo is an arena shooter,and you’ll be laughed out.The most critical part for them is fast movement ,and pickups.And when I say fast I mean fast.Halo is at crawl speed while quake and ut are sprint speed.Halo’s in a wierd spot but if I were to describe it it would a squad based fps that took a couple cues from arena shooters.
>
> Why am I only saying a couple? Because weapon pickups are the only arena shooter thing that halo has ever really had.In actual arena shooters there’s a meta that revolves around armor/health pickups,and the mind games surrounding them.
There’s really no hard definition of arena shooter, however both of your points fall somewhere in what in my opinion most people consider an arena shooter. Halo 5 isn’t closer to an arena shooter than halo 4, but it is still missing the movement like you mentioned. I really don’t think health packs would be required for it to be an arena shooter.
> 2533275035781111;13512:
> > 2535449545792902;13511:
> > > 2535464451695009;13504:
> > > > 2533274943854776;13500:
> > > > > 2533274801176260;13499:
> > > > > > 2533274807537946;13467:
> > > > > > Halo 5 refocused the game on map pickups and map control after Halo Reach and 4 focused on Loadouts and jet packs. H5 is more Arena than Halo’s been in years.
> > > > >
> > > > > Either you’re trolling or you have no idea what constitutes as an Arena Shooter.
> > > > > Quake, Unreal Tournament and co. are known for constant combat capabilities. These games don’t even have reload, let alone a mechanic like sprint that forces your gun down for extended periods of time. With infinite sprint, H5G is the furthest away from Arena Shooters the franchise has ever been…
> > > >
> > > > Is there a universal definition for an Arena shooter? If not, we really should make one, not only for the sake of the conversation or my personal health, but also just for the people!
> > >
> > > Generally, an Arena Shooter is a game with map pickups and pseudo-tactical gameplay though map control. They’re also extremely easy to learn and understand, but have some sort of difficulty curve to be the best player. Maps are also typically designed with a room focus instead of a lane focus. So maps like Midship, Lockout, and Ascension are typical arena maps. Maps like Dust2, Blood Drive, and Nuketown aren’t recommended for Arena play. Player gameplay doesn’t really matter, just as long as there is an emphasis on map pickups and dynamic gameplay.
> >
> > You clearly have never played an actual arena shooter.Tell someone who’s a dedicated quake player halo is an arena shooter,and you’ll be laughed out.The most critical part for them is fast movement ,and pickups.And when I say fast I mean fast.Halo is at crawl speed while quake and ut are sprint speed.Halo’s in a wierd spot but if I were to describe it it would a squad based fps that took a couple cues from arena shooters.
> >
> > Why am I only saying a couple? Because weapon pickups are the only arena shooter thing that halo has ever really had.In actual arena shooters there’s a meta that revolves around armor/health pickups,and the mind games surrounding them.
>
> There’s really no hard definition of arena shooter, however both of your points fall somewhere in what in my opinion most people consider an arena shooter. Halo 5 isn’t closer to an arena shooter than halo 4, but it is still missing the movement like you mentioned. I really don’t think health packs would be required for it to be an arena shooter.
No my point still stands.CE,2,and 3 are all slower than halo 5 movement wise,and halo 5 is most definitely not an arena shooter.2nd You need health pickups in a 100% arena shooter,this isn’t a matter of of opinion it’s fact.Halo has never been,and never will be an arena shooter.A unique squad shooter that took a couple aspects from arena shooters,yes.An arena shooter,no.
Halo 5 was actually the first big game to move away from the arena shooter formula back when CE came out so calling it an arena shooter is as ludicrous as it is stupid.
[deleted]
> 2535449545792902;13513:
> > 2533275035781111;13512:
> > > 2535449545792902;13511:
> > > > 2535464451695009;13504:
> > > > > 2533274943854776;13500:
> > > > > > 2533274801176260;13499:
> > > > > > > 2533274807537946;13467:
> > > > > > > Halo 5 refocused the game on map pickups and map control after Halo Reach and 4 focused on Loadouts and jet packs. H5 is more Arena than Halo’s been in years.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Either you’re trolling or you have no idea what constitutes as an Arena Shooter.
> > > > > > Quake, Unreal Tournament and co. are known for constant combat capabilities. These games don’t even have reload, let alone a mechanic like sprint that forces your gun down for extended periods of time. With infinite sprint, H5G is the furthest away from Arena Shooters the franchise has ever been…
> > > > >
> > > > > Is there a universal definition for an Arena shooter? If not, we really should make one, not only for the sake of the conversation or my personal health, but also just for the people!
> > > >
> > > > Generally, an Arena Shooter is a game with map pickups and pseudo-tactical gameplay though map control. They’re also extremely easy to learn and understand, but have some sort of difficulty curve to be the best player. Maps are also typically designed with a room focus instead of a lane focus. So maps like Midship, Lockout, and Ascension are typical arena maps. Maps like Dust2, Blood Drive, and Nuketown aren’t recommended for Arena play. Player gameplay doesn’t really matter, just as long as there is an emphasis on map pickups and dynamic gameplay.
> > >
> > > You clearly have never played an actual arena shooter.Tell someone who’s a dedicated quake player halo is an arena shooter,and you’ll be laughed out.The most critical part for them is fast movement ,and pickups.And when I say fast I mean fast.Halo is at crawl speed while quake and ut are sprint speed.Halo’s in a wierd spot but if I were to describe it it would a squad based fps that took a couple cues from arena shooters.
> > >
> > > Why am I only saying a couple? Because weapon pickups are the only arena shooter thing that halo has ever really had.In actual arena shooters there’s a meta that revolves around armor/health pickups,and the mind games surrounding them.
> >
> > There’s really no hard definition of arena shooter, however both of your points fall somewhere in what in my opinion most people consider an arena shooter. Halo 5 isn’t closer to an arena shooter than halo 4, but it is still missing the movement like you mentioned. I really don’t think health packs would be required for it to be an arena shooter.
>
> No my point still stands.CE,2,and 3 are all slower than halo 5 movement wise,and halo 5 is most definitely not an arena shooter.2nd You need health pickups in a 100% arena shooter,this isn’t a matter of of opinion it’s fact.Halo has never been,and never will be an arena shooter.A unique squad shooter that took a couple aspects from arena shooters,yes.An arena shooter,no.
>
> Halo 5 was actually the first big game to move away from the arena shooter formula back when CE came out so calling it an arena shooter is as ludicrous as it is stupid.
I never claimed that your post was wrong. There isn’t a set definition for arena shooter city trying to claim that your definition is a fact is foolish. Health packs were all but irrelevant in CE and were removed in 2/3. I also never said halo 5 was an arena shooter, I just said that’s it wasn’t much closer than halo 4. Halo 5 was not the first game that move away from the arena shooter formula, reach was. The movement speed only matters in scale, however in the older games kills happened more often, which could be looked at as a faster game.
> 2535464451695009;13514:
> > 2535449545792902;13513:
> > > 2533275035781111;13512:
> > > > 2535449545792902;13511:
> > > > > 2535464451695009;13504:
> > > > > > 2533274943854776;13500:
> > > > > > > 2533274801176260;13499:
> > > > > > > > 2533274807537946;13467:
> > > > > > > > Halo 5 refocused the game on map pickups and map control after Halo Reach and 4 focused on Loadouts and jet packs. H5 is more Arena than Halo’s been in years.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Either you’re trolling or you have no idea what constitutes as an Arena Shooter.
> > > > > > > Quake, Unreal Tournament and co. are known for constant combat capabilities. These games don’t even have reload, let alone a mechanic like sprint that forces your gun down for extended periods of time. With infinite sprint, H5G is the furthest away from Arena Shooters the franchise has ever been…
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Is there a universal definition for an Arena shooter? If not, we really should make one, not only for the sake of the conversation or my personal health, but also just for the people!
> > > > >
> > > > > Generally, an Arena Shooter is a game with map pickups and pseudo-tactical gameplay though map control. They’re also extremely easy to learn and understand, but have some sort of difficulty curve to be the best player. Maps are also typically designed with a room focus instead of a lane focus. So maps like Midship, Lockout, and Ascension are typical arena maps. Maps like Dust2, Blood Drive, and Nuketown aren’t recommended for Arena play. Player gameplay doesn’t really matter, just as long as there is an emphasis on map pickups and dynamic gameplay.
> > > >
> > > > You clearly have never played an actual arena shooter.Tell someone who’s a dedicated quake player halo is an arena shooter,and you’ll be laughed out.The most critical part for them is fast movement ,and pickups.And when I say fast I mean fast.Halo is at crawl speed while quake and ut are sprint speed.Halo’s in a wierd spot but if I were to describe it it would a squad based fps that took a couple cues from arena shooters.
> > > >
> > > > Why am I only saying a couple? Because weapon pickups are the only arena shooter thing that halo has ever really had.In actual arena shooters there’s a meta that revolves around armor/health pickups,and the mind games surrounding them.
> > >
> > > There’s really no hard definition of arena shooter, however both of your points fall somewhere in what in my opinion most people consider an arena shooter. Halo 5 isn’t closer to an arena shooter than halo 4, but it is still missing the movement like you mentioned. I really don’t think health packs would be required for it to be an arena shooter.
> >
> > No my point still stands.CE,2,and 3 are all slower than halo 5 movement wise,and halo 5 is most definitely not an arena shooter.2nd You need health pickups in a 100% arena shooter,this isn’t a matter of of opinion it’s fact.Halo has never been,and never will be an arena shooter.A unique squad shooter that took a couple aspects from arena shooters,yes.An arena shooter,no.
> >
> > Halo 5 was actually the first big game to move away from the arena shooter formula back when CE came out so calling it an arena shooter is as ludicrous as it is stupid.
>
> By your definition, would Reach be more Arena than CE just because it has “fast movement”? Both games have health pickups as well.
>
> Why are you so defensive about what games classify as Arena shooters anyways? Make a separate topic for it if you’re so insistent about discussing it. Halo has had everything an Arena shooter should have except for movement. Why should not having one aspect make it not an arena shooter? Are Call of Duty 1-3 arena shooters because they have health pickups and “fast movement”?
>
> Either way, sprint has no place (mostly) in a mainline Halo game.
I’m incredibly defensive because calling halo a full blown arena shooter is flat out wrong.There are many different aspects to the genre: very fast movement(very important),equal starts(very important),pickups(.A important side note is that while weapon control is very important,most arena shooters have weapon tiers like halo 5 not power weapons),long kill times,non recharging health,verticality,and multiple weapon slots.
The reason any fan of the arena genre would throw a fit if they included sprint is because it simplifies the movement.You go from bunny hopping,rocket jumping,air control,strafe jumping,high wall jumping,and circle jumping to name a few.Halo at no point in the entire series has had that depth of movement.Halo 5 is the closest the series has come to deep movement,and it still has incredibly simple movement (not including sprint,which doesnt add anything except for a couple of mason jumps).
PS:I’m not for sprint,I just wanted to correct this misconception that halo is a full blown arena shooter.
> 2535449545792902;13516:
> I’m incredibly defensive because calling halo a full blown arena shooter is flat out wrong.There are many different aspects to the genre: very fast movement(very important),equal starts(very important),pickups(.A important side note is that while weapon control is very important,most arena shooters have weapon tiers like halo 5 not power weapons),long kill times,non recharging health,verticality,and multiple weapon slots.
> The reason any fan of the arena genre would throw a fit if they included sprint is because it simplifies the movement.You go from bunny hopping,rocket jumping,air control,strafe jumping,high wall jumping,and circle jumping to name a few.Halo at no point in the entire series has had that depth of movement.Halo 5 is the closest the series has come to deep movement,and it still has incredibly simple movement (not including sprint,which doesnt add anything except for a couple of mason jumps).
> PS:I’m not for sprint,I just wanted to correct this misconception that halo is a full blown arena shooter.
He’s more right than you are, “arena shooter” isn’t some well defined thing with a set of boxes to tick. There is no single commonly agreed upon definition that the vast majority of people agree on. There is no right or wrong here, there are just people and groups with different notions of what constitutes an arena shooter. Don’t waste your breath on getting defensive about the meaning of a term which has multiple meanings, else you might have a heart attack when you open a dictionary.
[deleted]
> 2533274795123910;13508:
> > 2533274825830455;13506:
> > > 2533274795123910;13505:
> > > Will it be yet another argument to keep sprint due to more risk / reward stuff being thrown in on sprint?
> > >
> > > Personally I see sprint getting even worse, and thus less reasons to keep it.
> >
> > I pretty much see any nerf on sprint as only strengthening the argument against it. Since its introduction in Reach, the ability has gone through one nerf after another with every iteration, and one might ask that if every iteration of a mechanic only makes it less useful, and it still remains problematic, it seems more and more like the mechanic is just inherently flawed in the gameplay context you’re trying to cram it to.
> >
> > I said it long ago: the only way to reconcile sprint with the gameplay of Halo is to nerf it to oblivion. All I’ve seen since then has been exactly that: making sprinting less and less advantageous for the player.
>
> Of course. With this radar test change I see it as an indirect nerf on sprint, or perhaps an indirect buff to default speed. Nevertheless, relative to Default Speed, sprint is worse of than with a regular radar. I didn’t imagine seeing yet another such instance for Halo 5, first one being from the Beta.
>
> That as well, many of the things that made sprint useful, mind you not liked, has been rendered useless, mainly escaping. However map traversal as well as the delta between sprint and default speeds were decreased from Beta to Retail.
>
> Perhaps with the praise Doom got, the popularity of Overwatch, the enduring CS and so forth, along with the continued nerfing of Sprint, we’ll see a removal of sprint further down the line?
Hopefully, the best Halo’s do not have sprint, and if 343 takes sprint out. I feel they could make an awesome Halo multiplayer.
> 2533274923562209;13501:
> I’d give H4 being the furthest from an arena shooter than h5. Loadouts made map pickups pointless and you could spawn in weapons by ordnances, it too even had sprint (no idea if it was infinite or not but does it being infinite really matter if it still drops combat capabilities)? H4s jumping is all I’d give it over h5 since you could still jump left, right, backwards but h5 lessened the base jump so much that you can’t make jumps that you could in past games without the use of clambor. I guess I need more to agree with your stance on h5 being further.
Well, to me it mostly boils down to movement and weapon consistency.
Halo 4 hat default sprint, and that alone is already a far cry from the Arena-influences the franchise had in the beginning, but at least that iteration dropped you out of sprint after a certain time and forced you back into action. H5G can’t be bothered with that, sprint on until hell freezes over. (Then again, Halo 4 did have a perk that gave you infinisprint.)
The other thing - that I didn’t want to touch initially, given that it’s off-topic - is the ADS. While Halo 4 already had spread buffs on precision weapons, at least all the other guns behaved consistently, regardless of zoom or not. Hip-fire is a vital aspect of arena shooters and H5G completely butchers that one as well.
I concede that loadouts and ordnance drops went against core principles of the genre, but at least the moment-to-moment gameplay was more in tone with Arena shooters than H5G’s is (if only ever so slightly). I guess I just want to say that Halo 4 feels more combat-focused while H5G feels more evasion-focused.
But I guess it’s a question of choosing between pest and cholera…
> 2533274923562209;13501:
> as for halo being an arena shooter, I’d say you’re right. (and believe we actually argued this topic a year or two ago but I’ve changed stance since, I was very stubborn to anyone arguing vs halo being an arena game). Halo has some elements but not enough to really strictly classify it as such. It’s a hybrid arena/tactical/fps with some elements at best, not enough to really give it a specific title besides a first person shooter. Even then, it’s minor arena elements are/were part of why I enjoy/enjoyed the game over other fps out there, plus console wise you don’t see many “good” arena games out there (I gave the new doom a try but no one really plays it’s multiplayer).
The problem is that Halo’s genre was never actually named, so everybody just calls it whatever they please. There are (were) definitely Arena influences, but also from tactic shooters (weapon-carrying-limit, anyone?) and wherever the recharging shield came from.
Mind you, I’m not arguing that “Arena = better”. Not trying to turn Halo into Quake Reloaded or whatever. It just baffles me how many people throw this word around nowadays without knowing what it means, just because 343 (wrongfully) applied it to their own game.
> 2533274825830455;13503:
> Rather than trying to make vague words less vague, we should instead seek to make our own language clear to other people so that we can spend less time discussing about semantics, and more time discussing about whether this and that should be in Halo.
> 2533274825830455;13517:
> He’s more right than you are, “arena shooter” isn’t some well defined thing with a set of boxes to tick. There is no single commonly agreed upon definition that the vast majority of people agree on. There is no right or wrong here, there are just people and groups with different notions of what constitutes an arena shooter. Don’t waste your breath on getting defensive about the meaning of a term which has multiple meanings, else you might have a heart attack when you open a dictionary.
I vehemently disagree. While there might be some debate about the finer nuances of Arena Shooters (hitscan vs projectile, etc.), there is a large consens what the central pillars of this genre are:
- Constant motion
- Weapon variety
- Map pickups
- Player consistency (aka same abilities, starts, etc.)
- Gameplay consistency (aka no mechanic interferes with any other mechanic)
Some people using clickbait titles for their posts/aticles (as in the case of “UT was not an Arena Shooter”, which doesn’t even talk about what it claims) or just flat-out misusing the word for games it does not apply to (i.e. Gears of War) does not change that.
Definitions are never 100% applicable. The gray-are is always a little fuzzy. Hell, I’m a physicist and for about a decade or so I’ve been seeing people tear each other apart about what is and isn’t a planet. That doesn’t mean that we should stop using them.
Consistent and precise wording is the way to “make our own language clear to other people”. By allowing people to redefine what agreed-upon terminology means, you’re just hurting the discussion in the long-run, as sooner or later nobody will understand each others interpretation of certain words.
If you’d rather paraphrase the Arena shooter genre (or any specific term) with a 100 word essay every time instead of using one consise expression, be my guest. I, however, don’t…
> 2533274801176260;13521:
> > 2533274825830455;13503:
> > Rather than trying to make vague words less vague, we should instead seek to make our own language clear to other people so that we can spend less time discussing about semantics, and more time discussing about whether this and that should be in Halo.
>
>
>
> > 2533274825830455;13517:
> > He’s more right than you are, “arena shooter” isn’t some well defined thing with a set of boxes to tick. There is no single commonly agreed upon definition that the vast majority of people agree on. There is no right or wrong here, there are just people and groups with different notions of what constitutes an arena shooter. Don’t waste your breath on getting defensive about the meaning of a term which has multiple meanings, else you might have a heart attack when you open a dictionary.
>
> I vehemently disagree. While there might be some debate about the finer nuances of Arena Shooters (hitscan vs projectile, etc.), there is a large consens what the central pillars of this genre are:
> - Constant motion
> - Weapon variety
> - Map pickups
> - Player consistency (aka same abilities, starts, etc.)
> - Gameplay consistency (aka no mechanic interferes with any other mechanic)
> Some people using clickbait titles for their posts/aticles (as in the case of “UT was not an Arena Shooter”, which doesn’t even talk about what it claims) or just flat-out misusing the word for games it does not apply to (i.e. Gears of War) does not change that.
> Definitions are never 100% applicable. The gray-are is always a little fuzzy. Hell, I’m a physicist and for about a decade or so I’ve been seeing people tear each other apart about what is and isn’t a planet. That doesn’t mean that we should stop using them.
> Consistent and precise wording is the way to “make our own language clear to other people”. By allowing people to redefine what agreed-upon terminology means, you’re just hurting the discussion in the long-run, as sooner or later nobody will understand each others interpretation of certain words.
> If you’d rather paraphrase the Arena shooter genre (or any specific term) with a 100 word essay every time instead of using one consise expression, be my guest. I, however, don’t…
I don’t disagree with the notion of trying to make your words precise, obviously. It’s not like I’m not trying to have a good definition of terms I use in my head, but at the same time, I try not to get upset when people have a different definition of those terms. I’m definitely not going to call someone’s definition wrong because it differs from mine when it happens in a context in which there’s no single universally accepted definition.
That’s the thing, there’s no single agreed-upon definition here. There are some vague ideas of what an arena shooter should contain that many people can agree on, such as the existence of map pick-ups, but there is no single definition that even the vast majority of people interested can agree on. So, you can’t really allow people to redefine agreed-upon terminology, because there’s nothing to redefine here. And speaking of that: “sooner or later nobody will understand each others interpretation of certain words” isn’t a thing. Not strictly moderating people’s use of language does not mean that all language will diverge because everyone just goes about using their own definitions, as evidenced by the existence of languages. Language is ultimately a tool for communication, and people will just get tired of you if you use language differently from them just to be stubborn.
There are two key things that went wrong here that initiated this discussion. First, one person made an unorthodox without explaining it, bad communication. Secondly, another person responded to that claim, and declared that the original poster doesn’t understand what they’re talking about without knowing what the original poster was going for (because the original poster chose to communicate their opinion in an unclear way). The best course of action would probably have been to ask for clarification, not to go for the attack.
I haven’t really had a huge problem with avoiding the term “arena shooter” when necessary since I noticed that it really only works on people who agree with me on most things to begin with. In what situations would I want to use it anyway? Most of the time I really need only one property anyway, like “map pick-ups”, without needing to be specific about anything else. In a situation where I would want to describe a game in detail, “arena shooter” isn’t going to cut it (and neither is the 100 word essay, to be honest). The only situation where I can imagine it to be the most fitting description is when I’m recommending a game to someone. Then that term is just enough to give them a vague idea of what the game is about.
Because that’s what genres are for: to quickly give someone a vague idea of what some piece of art is about. You may describe a TV series as a political thriller to someone who doesn’t know about it, but when you’re discussing with another fan, that term really isn’t going to bring much to the discussion. If you think the series has veered away from that, and the other person disagrees, it’s much more likely that you’re both just paying attention to different nuances of the story than that the other person just doesn’t understand what a political thriller is. At that point you have to explain precisely what aspect of the story you have a problem with, and throwing in the name of the genre didn’t help you make your point any better. Ultimately, the term “political thriller” only encapsulates part of what you like about the series. There might be other political thrillers out there which you’re just not that into, but this particular series has something special that specifying the genre doesn’t encapsulate.
> 2533274825830455;13522:
> That’s the thing, there’s no single agreed-upon definition here. There are some vague ideas of what an arena shooter should contain that many people can agree on, such as the existence of map pick-ups, but there is no single definition that even the vast majority of people interested can agree on. So, you can’t really allow people to redefine agreed-upon terminology, because there’s nothing to redefine here.
In the sense that there is one memorandum that holds highest authority over the meaning of the word? No. But most people still have a clear grasp of what an Arena shooter is. You’d be hard-pressed to find anybody claiming that Quake isn’t an Arena shooter but, say, Call of Duty is. The disagreement only starts when considering hybrid genres or games (which includes Halo and is probably the reason this issue pops up so oftern) and in very specific details of the games that ultimately only a very select few people consider to be an additional requirement (like the aforementioned hitscan/projectile debate or the question whether or not it has to be on PC to count). Just look at that “UT was not an Arena Shooter” thread we talked about. If you scroll down, they asked the users to give their very own definition of Arena shooters. And while their exact phrasing might differ, almost all of them mention the same criteria. (Except that one guy that names classes and kill-rewards as a requirement, whom I think is merely trolling.) That is still a definition, even if it wasn’t explicitly written down in a dictionary.
One can’t just label anything an Arena shooter just because one so pleases, is all I’m saying…