Slashdot Mirror


On FPS Sniping And The Ruination Of Gameplay

An anonymous reader writes "FiringSquad has a great article today which puts forth the claim that sniper rifles in multiplayer FPS games have made the genre infinitely worse. They take the time to explain why, and what improvements need to be made. It's definitely not the standard 'I hate campers' article." The editorial argues: "Every... 'reason' for the existence of sniper rifles - realism, historical accuracy, weapon diversity, giving players identifiable roles - is a lie", concluding that "...in games, snipers are given a ludicrous advantage over everyone else."

24 of 269 comments (clear)

  1. Same is true: by torpor · · Score: 5, Insightful

    ... in games, snipers are given a ludicrous advantage over everyone else." ... in real life. Snipers are a bitch. It takes very real work to take out a sniper in a battlefield, especially a good one. Snipers are hated in reality because of the real, significant damage they can do to a battle scenario.

    Welcome to realism. Killing people is not as easy as your average Game-Junkie might think it is.

    I find it moderately ludicrous that such an analysis can be made, in all seriousness.

    If anything, this article demonstrates just how big the fantasy world most gameplayers live in can be ... the 'detached delusion' of opiated players looks to have some interesting consequences ... of course snipers suck. That's reality!

    --
    ; -- the corruption of government starts with its secrets. a truly free people keep no secrets. --
    1. Re:Same is true: by rhetoric · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Very good point, although one thing I did agree with in the article was the talk about reload times and the number of shots it takes to kill someone. I always wished games would be more real in that sense.

      --

      "where words meet intent, lies rhetoric's lament"
    2. Re:Same is true: by Pluvius · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I wasn't aware that I was able to call in artillery or airstrikes in CS, CoD, etc, etc. These games give you extremely limited options in every scenario. This has nothing to do with who snipers are in real life, whether they are total bitches, whatever. It is only a question of game balance. If, as the author contends, a half-dozen snipers can shut down the only two approaches that the level designers give the attackers then the game simply isn't any fun.

      Perhaps, then, the author should complain about the badly-balanced games that allow snipers to be unstoppable instead of the snipers themselves.

      Rob (Revolutionary idea, I know)

  2. Rocket Launcher by m0rph3us0 · · Score: 1, Insightful

    The rocket is the sniper's bane. Any serious sniper will soon have half the opposing team on his ass lobbing dozens of rockets at him.

    1. Re:Rocket Launcher by Joe5678 · · Score: 2, Insightful

      If that does happen, that one player has taken half the opposing team out of the game.

    2. Re:Rocket Launcher by NanoGator · · Score: 2, Insightful

      "The rocket is the sniper's bane. Any serious sniper will soon have half the opposing team on his ass lobbing dozens of rockets at him."

      Whenever I played Quake 3, everybody thought the proper protocol when dealing with a sniper was to bitch. In all the games I've ever played, I have never ever seen anybody say "Hey man, you're kicking my butt to the point that I'm not really having any fun. Could you please lighten it a bit?"

      The fact of the matter is that there are people who will become insanely good at whatever weapon they have. You can tweak reload times etc, but the real solution here is to encourge having fun.

      In short, it's more of a societal issue than a gameplay issue.

      --
      "Derp de derp."
    3. Re:Rocket Launcher by Alizarin+Erythrosin · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Then you get called a rocket whore, or some other name that implies you use rockets too much, or are cheap.

      It's the circle of FPS whining.

      --
      There are only 10 kinds of people in this world... those who understand binary and those who don't
  3. Stupid Article by etymxris · · Score: 5, Insightful

    This article was nothing but an ad hominem rant. I almost never play sniper, and suck at it when I do. I do fairly well otherwise. So apparently there must be some skill that snipers possess that I do not.

    I don't like snipers either. But neither do snipers like spies that stab them in the back ;) Just because there is one class that you cannot beat as easily as the others, this does not make the class "bad" or "low skill". In fact, it usually means the opposite.

    There is a reason for every class. In Team Fortress, Heavy Weapons and Rocket guys would be the only classes anyone played were it not for snipers.

    1. Re:Stupid Article by Perdo · · Score: 2, Insightful

      "So apparently there must be some skill that snipers possess that I do not"

      That would be ping, sir :)

      Seriously, I agree with you. Playing engie, I can absolutely rule the battlefield. Playing sniper, I'm dogmeat. If anyone plays sniper against me as an engie, they are dogmeat too.

      Perhaps I'm a bit biased, I quit playing TFC about a month after I had made it to 7th place out of 50,000 players back when the CLQ was still recording stats...

      And no, I did not cheat.

      I actually long to toss a few EMPs occasionally, then I remember what I was like that year. I was working a 9 to 5 in telecom valley, surfing slashdot an hour a day, then played TFC for 6-8 hours just to wake up and do it all over again. That episode of my life lasted nearly 15 months.

      Snipers are OK. It's careing so much about the game that it rules your life that is not OK.

      --

      If voting were effective, it would be illegal by now.

  4. Give that man a pacifier by Torgo's+Pizza · · Score: 4, Insightful
    Yep, another Snipers suck article. First, let me take a shot at annonymous submitter for thinking this is a great article. Everthing mentioned in the article is simply solved by game design.

    Too many people with sniper rifles? Then limit the amount available. Problem solved. Oh no, they fire too quickly. Well, that's easily solved with a change to the reload variable. Problem solved. Boo hoo, they take me down with one shot. Well, duh, that's the whole purpose of a sniper rifle. This simpleton doesn't take into account that a sniper rifle round fires at a much higher velocity than a AK47 and does much, much more damage. Hey, it might not kill you, but it damn will incapacitate you which in a game is pretty much the same thing. Waaah! They have more points at the end of the game. Well, put a ratio penalty on the rifle. Sniper kill is worth 1/2, MP40 worth 1 and a knife kill worth 2 points. Problem solved!

    Good grief, why not write an article about how health packs are unrealistic and how in WWII they didn't have medics running around healing and poisoning other soldiers. If this whiner has a problem with it all... then stop playing and find a game that plays by "your" rules. Gah! FiringSquad needs better editorial control rather than let this drek hit the web.

  5. Very Realistic by arrow · · Score: 4, Insightful

    This article gives no basis to its arguments whatsoever.

    I fashion myself a bit of a sniper, thats the roll I play for the most part in Battlefield 1942. I also take part in competitive long range shooting IRL.

    The truth of the matter is the military employs snipers for two basic reasons: 1 or 2 well placed snipers can hold down 50+ troops. And snipers can create a sense of fear on the battlefield, that any second your head is going to be whisked off your shoulders by an unseen enemy. This same fear is what makes multi-player FPS games fun.

    Like it or not, in the real world a sniper rifle is "the finger of god" also.

    --
    symetrix. We are building a religion, a limited edition.
    1. Re:Very Realistic by cgenman · · Score: 2, Insightful

      That's the point. No individual player on a competitive video game should be able to hold down 50+ troops. It slows things down significantly. What makes multi-player FPS games fun is the feeling that at any moment someone could jump out from around the corner and start mowing you down with a machine gun. Random death without defense is not fun, it is terribly frustrating.

      I agree that the reviewer is smoking crack when he says that sniper rifles aren't effective in real life. In real life, basically any gun is a "finger of god." How many people during the Iraq invasion used the rocket jump trick? How many bullets can a regular soldier take before their armor is depleted and they have to find a medpack?

      You're balancing a video game. Snipers have a huge range and high accuracy. That should mean you balance the equation with a low per-second damage. A 1 second reload time means that you have a near %100 chance of doing %100 damage in 1 second at a tremendous range. No generic repeating gun can match that in a virtual arena.

      The author is calling for balance, not accuracy, in the name of gameplay.

  6. Re:America's army by Apreche · · Score: 4, Insightful

    If you RTFA he says that he's pretty much only talking about CS and other FPS games where the sniper rifle is the "finger of god".

    Right or wrong, what this guy is saying is nothing new. And as history has shown, the games aren't going to change.

    The one point he misses in cs is that the extremely good players can get an aug or an m4 and get across the map and complete the objective without getting killed by snipers. What the sniper rifle does in CS is give the incredibly unskilled players the role of weeding out the average players and each other. The above average cs player will have the bomb planted so fast you'll still be reloading your awm. Kevlar, helmet, flash, aug, five seven, all hostages have been rescued.

    Sure, you may have a better kill ratio. But our team has won ever game, hmmmm. One more thing, the "problem" he describes only exists on public servers. In any sort of real CS game with serious play, sniping is almost nil if you are on the offense team (T on DE map, CT on CS map). In a match the only thing that anyone cares about is which team wins, on the pub people only care about kill ratio. When people care about their team winning they put the sniper rifles away. That's not a game flaw, that's a people flaw.

    This is why NS is gaining a lot of ground and becoming the Half-Life mod of choice. Heck, it IS the mod of choice. It hides the kill ratio. All anyone cares about in a game of NS is the team winning, and all the non-n00bs play as such.

    --
    The GeekNights podcast is going strong. Listen!
  7. Re:I tend to agree. by wowbagger · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Moreover, most modern games don't get one aspect of scopes right - you can look AROUND the scope, to maintain situational awareness.

    The way the old Outlaws game did it was pretty correct - you saw the zoomed view through the scope, but could see the rest of the scene around the scope. As such, if something moved out of the scope you could re-aquire it, and you could look around while waiting for that "prefect shot".

    Modern games basicly "cheat" by altering the zoom ratio of the renderer and masking the display. I'd love to see a game do it right - render the zoomed view, render the scene, then put the scope view in the middle of the main view.

    Also, take time-of-flight into account - the real issue with most games is the sniper rifle bullet is moving instantaniously from muzzle to target - there is no hang time of the round, no time of flight, no windage.

    Add these, and watch the sniper rifle become much less useful.

  8. Gonna have to disagree... by TalMaximus · · Score: 2, Insightful

    I can see that this individual has certainly dealt with some frustrating experiences with sniping opponents. I will have to disagree with sniper rifles being the "bane" of first person shooting though. It seems to me like I've read more about cheating being the bane of online FPS games more so than sniper rifles. Also, just because I would contend against this writer's arguments doesn't mean that I can't use any other weapons. Truth be told, in a FPS I am actually lousy with a sniper rifle and prefer to use other weapons. I have always been a fan of the sniper rifle though and certainly feel that it should be included in first person shooters.

    Secondly if his argument were an "indisputable fact" then there wouldn't be much discussion going on here now would it. It's kind of risky to try and turn one's opinion, or even a summation of multiple opinions into an indisputable fact.

    Arguing against the sniper rifle's lack of realism in FPS is kind of a moot point. I mean most weapons in FPS aren't realistic, unless of course the game is trying to be true to life. In that case I'd say he had a point, but only in the case of FPS that are supposed to reflect realistic weaponry. Games like Halo, Quake, and Unreal Tournament however would fail the realism test when it comes to most every weapon involved.

    All in all I'd say this article was an enjoyable rant which obviously reflects a gamers' frustration which they are entitled to have. I can't agree with it being an indisputable argument however and nor can I side with their opinions. Oh well, five years from now (preferrably much sooner than that) it won't matter anyway.

  9. I know a certain writer... by Alkaiser · · Score: 4, Insightful

    that needs to be beaten with a Physics textbook.

    That was the biggest, smack-my-face-due-to-sheer-idiocy point in the whole article..."Oh look, these bullets are the same size, they should do equivalent damage."

    Well, why isn't an AK-47 used for sniping then, dammit? It fires WAYYYY more bullets. The velocity is way different! F=MA.

    Geez...more like the Fired Squad.

    Sniper rifles require less skill and that isn't realistic with real life...so you think the reason they were giving them to 10-year olds in Somalia is because those 10 year olds were crack Commandos? Hello?! They're supposed to be easy to use, and they're supposed to be effective at killing their targets. That's why they FIRE SO DAMN SLOWLY!

    --
    Netjak.com independent reviews of domestic & import video ga
    1. Re:I know a certain writer... by paploo · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Woah there. Before you say too much, most sniper rifles have a muzzle velocity that is pretty much the same as most assault rifles. Indeed, sometimes the assault rifle has a *higher* muzzle velocity. (Around 2800 ft/s is a standard velocity for most sniper rifles. I've seen the M16 quoted at higher). There are really two other variables that are (part of) what dictates sniper rifle choice.

      The first is accuracy. Sniper rifles are designed to give accuracy out to 1000+ meters. They often have floating barels so that resting on a bipod doesn't bend the barrel and defelct shots. They also tend to have longer bores as that leads to better accuracy.

      The second is round size. The M16, for example, uses a 5.56mm round, whereas most sniper rifles use the 7.62mm NATO round. That added size gives more momentum and energy for the muzzle velocity, and hence more penetrating power.

      A last word of advice, you might want to get your facts straight before taking a holier than thou attitude. (Yup, that's gonna come back and bite me in the ass. :) I do make mistakes though. :) )

  10. Re:I tend to agree. by fireduck · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Part of the reason the games don't let you look around the scope is balance. Yes, looking around the scope is something a person could realistically do. But give a player a 1 shot 1 kill weapon that enables them to see across a map, and you've given them enough of an advantage.

    The limited field of view forces the player to chose: zoomed in, ready to take the shot in a particular area, or zoomed out, looking at other potential target locations (and monitoring your safety). There has to be some disadvantage to sniper rifles, and the inability to see much while zoomed is it.

  11. Absolutely Agree by *weasel · · Score: 2, Insightful

    The problem is in bad game design, not in the concept of a particular weapon itself.

    When accurate modelling of the power of a sniper rifle is not accurately offset by its shortcomings, it's bound to unbalance things. the shortcomings being chiefly - refire rate, recoil, bulk, required stances (prone, propped or seated), range falloff, spotting, support, etc.

    Sniper rifles in video games often ruin balance because they don't model those things at all, or effectively enough.
    They don't have falloff over distance, so the primary skill of sniping is obviated.

    They don't slow you down when moving (in cstrike, just switching to the pistol negates the penalty, allowing you to jump and move unrestricted).

    They don't require you to take a prone, propped or seated position for accuracy. (AA excepted)

    Furthermore, the 'damage' modelling for a sniper rifle is simply a linear scaling of the ambiguous 'damage' applied to the single hitbox on a target (subsets of the hitbox only model increased damage, never decreased as in, for instance, grazing shots).

    Also, when games accurately model even modest anti-sniper technology (eg smoke grenades, thermal imaging) the usefulness against nonmoronic enemies plummets. Particularly given the relatively small spaces rendered in a game.

    Ironically, counterstrike chooses to more heavily restrict the use of smoke grenades than sniper rifles: you can only carry 1 smoke grenade, but you can run and jump with the rifle without too much ill effect. (granted that is likely due to their original fairly high resource consumption)

    Complaining that cstrike should allow more smokes per soldier, or thermal/nightvision imaging is reasonable. (whatever happened to nightvision goggles in cstrike? oh yeah, unfair gamma settings) Complaining that campers own you when you aren't even leveraging the tools at your disposal is akin to bitching that shotguns have an unfair advantage over knives.

    There is always a trade-off in gaming (shooters particularly): reality vs fun. A 'real' sniper rifle would require proper positioning, spotting, support and cover. People don't find that fun. That's not something you can manage in most 'pick-up' FPS matches.

    IMO removing 'sniper rifles' is a moot point - so long as i can fire off headshots over any distance with a stock AK, the AWP isn't necessary to upset balance. All one needs is a precise mouse and a high resolution. They'll likely even still call it 'sniping'. Removing a single weapon or lowering its damage just hides the true problems.
    (bad balance and game design decisions)

    --
    // "Can't clowns and pirates just -try- to get along?"
  12. Re:America's army by lafiel · · Score: 2, Insightful

    To be honest, I agree with you, but I believe you're dumbing down the severity of the issue (in terms of counterstrike). Public servers are the heart of the game, the first thing you play and what the general populace goes to have fun. They're not matches and they're not edge of your seat elite vs elite teams.

    I think he's got a point. Servers without sniper rifles (i've seen them) are actually much more rush-orientated. There's nothing really to do, right? Just get in there and kick some ass. No one's blowing your head off before you rush around the corner and see your first enemy.

    So yeah, in 'serious' gaming, perhaps CS is balanced. But on a pub, you'd probably make a far more 'fun' server by restricting sniper rifles.

  13. one more by Inominate · · Score: 4, Insightful


    Lead Time
    Bullets are not lasers, they have to take time to travel to thier target, which may move. In most FPS games, bullets instant-hit, there is no travel involved, just a laser drawn through the air.

  14. It depends on your mindset I guess by MadCat · · Score: 2, Insightful

    I for one love BF1942 and a good round of Enemy Territory - in those games, sniping actually *does* take skill. Yes, anyone can grab a sniper rifle - but to be good at it, consistently good, requires skills.

    I like being a sniper - in BF1942 especially since there are no real "set" routes to get to a point - as a sniper, you do need to look at the terrain, find a suitable spot (i.e. somewhere you can get a shot off without immediately being mowed down), and actually hope and pray to god that those airplanes overhead didn't see you get in position.

    In Enemy Territory, it's also not quite as easy as you'd like to think, it's easier though than BF1942.

    Both games feature quite realistic action, it takes time to reload, and in BF1942 you actually lose your scope sight. Also in BF1942, a sniper rifle up close is useless. If someone gets close, surprises you, or otherwise hunts you down, you can bet your ass on it that if that player has any skills, they'll kill you.

    And sure, you do have the advantage of the 2 shot kills in ET and BF1942 - the 1st shot is usually easy to get, but most people know damn well that if their health drops suddenly, that a sniper is busy aiming for their noggin, and will most likely take cover.

    You also need to use some tactics and move around, if you just stay where you are, someone will come, find that you are peeking thru your scope, and will unload a full clip in your head because you never saw them coming.

    Oh well, just my 2 cents.

    --
    There is no sig...
  15. Understandable enough by Saiai+Hakutyoutani · · Score: 2, Insightful

    People playing these games are always complaining about "camping", something that's almost always synonymous with "sitting in one place, waiting for the enemy", "sniping", and, of course, "winning".

    The fact that the entire gameplay depends on at least one person moving around at any one time, makes it a bit impractical to include a weapon that enables the player to sit still and shoot from a long distance.

  16. Why Sniper rifles should be included.. by JavaLord · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Jakub, in his ranting listed 4 reasons that sniper rifles shouldn't be included in FPS games. Or 4 reasons that weren't "good enough". But there is only one overwhelming reason anything should be included in any game...

    Fun

    Plenty of people enjoy sniping, in various games. Sure the sniper rifle(AWP) in CS is a bit over powering, but CS is only one game. The sniper rifle in Unreal Tournament is underpowered compared to the shock rifle, rocket launcher and flak cannon. The railgun in quake is powerful, but plenty of people still use a rocket launcher.

    While a camper may take out his or her share of newbies, It takes quite a bit of skill to camp, against very good/great players. All things being equal, a very good player knows all the camping spots and the advantage in any FPS is always with the player who is moving not the one who is standing still.

    To camp against a great player, you need better spots, and you need to be smart about where you camp and where the player has looked. You might have to piston jump, or rocket jump depending on the game to take a good spot. That doesn't take skill? Aiming does take skill? Usually you get one or two shots in most games with a sniper rifle before whoever you are shooting at figures out where you are. You had better make them count.

    All in all, his argument is pretty poor. I could make a better argument about rocket launchers being low skill but included in most games than Jakub has about sniper rifles.