FPS Maps

[BO7H B4RRELS 2,447]

So, I was browsing Reddit and found an interesting thread talking about FPS games and their multiplayer maps.  The thread can be found here.

 

"As "realistic" shooters continue to trend, I find that they all share one aspect that stifles its intentions. In this particular example I was playing Insurgency, which is a quasi-realistic shooter running on the source engine. I have a very hard time competing on some of the maps because since it's a one life per round sort of thing (at least in some game modes) involving capturing points, the players that know the map they are playing in and know all the convenient corners and vantage points have an edge. I realized that has simply been the story of every FPS ever, map awareness is a huge factor especially when the game is very unforgiving in terms of damage and realism.

What would be great if there was a realism-focused FPS that put two teams against each other on a randomly or procedurally generated map, so that every match involves the unknown of where the enemies might be hiding.

Aside from the new challenge of every room being an unknown, it would then prompt the use and/or implementation of gear is otherwise used in the same fashion every round. Now you wont have 10 frag grenades being thrown into the main conflict room. You wont have flashbangs being tossed around the same corner every match. You'll have to listen, communicate, and decide what room should be breached with a bang and what areas should be traversed in silence.

I think perhaps one of the biggest issues would be making it work. It's hard to imagine how you could make procedurally generated CQB style maps that would be interesting and detailed. What do you think, should an FPS try and give us a fresh experience every match, to keep us on our toes?"

 

I'm not sure how I feel about the topic.  I see can points for both sides.  I would love to eliminate the commonly used camping spots, spawn grenade toss places, etc., but on the other hand, there's a skill in learning the maps/spawns/etc.  

 

Do you guys think that this could be the future in FPS maps?  Or do you think people would always choose the tried method of standard maps that can be memorized?  

 

Thoughts?  

[Chookes 965]

While that kind of stuff would be quite cool and would definitel show off some advanced tech, I don't think I'd be a fan. I hate being lost on maps. That's one of the things I don't like about a new COD, I don't know where I am. I feel much more comfortable when I know my surroundings.

[Commander_Undies 618]

I could never see CoD ever going for generated maps. Why? It'll piss people off, I like to know where I'm going when I play CoD. We all know the feeling of popping the new CoD in at the start of November, starting up multiplayer (if it works) and playing that first game. We're dumbfounded. I don't wanna feel like that in every game. Especially in an arcade type FPS, that I can just pick up and play. Could you imagine the camping if people NEVER know where they're going? I wouldn't buy a game like that. In the end, instead of having 14-16 default maps, make more on release. Even then, if you have 30 days played in 2 months in you will know the maps. Someone will always know all of the maps inside and out. This has to be why CoD is making interactive and destructive environments that change the layout of the map. They want the game play to change, and this is the easiest way they can do it. If they can make some more QUALITY default maps and drastically improve the interactive/destructible environments then I'd be happy.

 

I really like the way Battlefield has it. Huge maps and in each game mode it is different because they either make it smaller (TDM), make it max size (rush) or pick a nice part to fight over flags (conquest). Now while in Call of Duty the maps would never be this size (because that would ruin the CoD feel) This is how I like playing maps. Generated Battlefield maps would be crazy. Imagine the amount of running around because you don't know where to go.

[techno 3,476]

I play a lot of Dom in battlefield because its the most old school cod like gameplay small maps high action, fps as said don't need random generated maps but good destructable environments that change how games are played as the game progresses, like golmud on bf4 starts off lots of buildings and cover almost ends up totally levelled and open, makes you play differently throughout.

[J4MES OX4D 9,795]

^Agree with Techno. Battlefield 4's destruction can dramatically have a massive impact on the gameplay of a map from the start and when the destruction occurs which changes the way the map appears and plays. Levolution is a bit messy and glitchy at times plus it can be predictable but the dynamics can change significantly meaning camping areas get obliterated and routes get blocked off. Cover can also be diminished which can drastically alter your approach to situations on the map.

 

COD on the other hand uses the most basic and static designs even with the so called 'dynamic' aspects. These didn't really do much for gameplay with lampposts falling over and the typical spots and flanks always remain the same which isn't really a bad thing. You an play a map on a mode hundreds of times and it doesn't get old. Games will always be different even if you're utliising the same playing style. Learning a map and the way they pan out is still fun in COD. I don't think developers of COD and BF have the knack to design a system where maps can be generated either. There is too many glitches occuring on their flat base maps most of the time so coding in maps with aesthetically changing landscapes could be a horror show.

 

I'm pretty tired of the usual shit from the likes of COD where you get 15 flat maps and then the usual DLC roll-out. Counterstrike Global Offensive has over 1,000,000 players a day on PC and over 20,000 user created maps for free. Some of these are of a much better quality than most of the premium ones we see in COD and are created by players who have considerable experience in playing FPS games. I'd like to see a feature or programme implemented in COD where you can create and publish your own maps upon approval. I just feel there is still this huge corporate gap between the community and the franchise even with the close-knit relationships COD has with so many YouTubers. Most of them are promotional puppets but I think it would be good to have a greater input from the players rather than some shitty survey they recently released. 

 

Shit maps can be disappointing especially with 90% of them in Ghosts but generated maps could add a whole level of shit into the mix. It's an interesting concept but I'd be more than happy just playing on 12+ really good and familiar maps and building knowledge and playstyles tied to those than worrying about what I'm walking into next match. 

[TigerBurge 2,374]

I play a lot of Dom in battlefield because its the most old school cod like gameplay small maps high action, fps as said don't need random generated maps but good destructable environments that change how games are played as the game progresses, like golmud on bf4 starts off lots of buildings and cover almost ends up totally levelled and open, makes you play differently throughout.

Well said Gary. This is how it should be on maps.

[L_C_Scipio 395]

I think the biggest thing this would do is encourage camping. You know how when a new CoD releases, there are lots more campers the first few weeks cause nobody knows the maps? Yeah.