I'm kinda interested because I really liked the three "Witcher 3 ripoff" AC games, but I tried Far Cry 3 and 4 and just couldn't get into them. I don't know if it's the using guns rather than melee or first person perspective or what.

[–] TotallynotJessica@lemmy.world 6 points 11 months ago (1 children)

Shooters work best when there's plenty of cover or when projectiles move slow enough to dodge. Open world melee games often have wide open spaces with little cover, but shooters can't work in those environments. Open world shooters need dense urban settings, areas with plenty of trees and shrubbery, or only have fights take place in those locations. When there's too much wide open space, it becomes a game of waiting for enemies to peak and hiding to prevent getting shot. That's not as interesting as fighting in close quarters where you can move around more and can choose when to engage enemies instead of waiting for the NPCs to peak.

Unfortunately, dense environments are also more demanding on computers, especially in open world games where you can go almost anywhere. In a linear games, areas can be blocked off and never need to be modeled, but open world games need to simulate a large area around the player, requiring even more resources. Heaven forbid the game needs to simulate the interior of a building 4 blocks away holding an NPC that needs to be able interact with the player at a moments notice. It's why most open world games have loading screens when entering interiors or mostly inaccessible buildings.

Melee based games don't need dense environments to have interesting combat, but shooters do, with denser and more dynamic being better. Open world shooters with dense environments need more beefy hardware to run, so they haven't been possible until recently.

[–] samus12345@lemmy.world 2 points 11 months ago (1 children)

That's a good point I hadn't really thought about. I'm trying to think of other open world games that primarily use ranged that I liked and the main one that comes up is GTA. Firefights are usually done in areas with a lot of cover (and the times it isn't are noticeable for how irritating they are) whereas, as you say, Far Cry has a lot of wide open bases when you're shooting, which I just don't enjoy.

[–] TotallynotJessica@lemmy.world 2 points 11 months ago

Far Cry often has foliage to hide in, and the main places where you encounter enemies have buildings, hills, or other cover. Animals sneak up on you using flora, otherwise you'd be able to kill then before they got to you. Far Cry actually designs around these problems, but it's less repayable because hitscan gunplay is only fun the first time around. Once you lean the strategy, implementing it successfully requires little skill.

What actually made the Doom reboot and Doom Eternal have better gunplay than Call of Duty style games was making damage avoidable through movement alone. In COD style shooters, bullets travel instantly or move too fast to dodge. In multi-player hitscan can work because positioning and aiming takes skill, but in single player games, this isn't the case. It becomes a game of hiding behind cover, shooting until you take damage, hiding until you heal, shooting until you take damage, and so on. It's less repayable and not very deep.

Doom simply made almost every enemy ranged attack into a slow moving projectile. You have few long range hitscan weapons yourself, and your most powerful weapons have disadvantages that prevent long range fighting. However, if you stay close to enemies for too long, they all have fast and powerful melee attacks. This forces you to constantly move and dodge projectiles, attacking enemies with your shotgun before moving far enough away to dodge projectiles again.

What really makes wide open spaces bad in single player shooters is your inability to avoid damage. The best melee based games also make avoiding damage essential to survival. Hitscan shooters just can't do it as easily, instead giving you enough health to get out of the open and behind cover. It's less interesting.