Is anyone else concerned about the proposed “faster pace” of combat?

[raykor]

The pace of combat in a shooter—both the TTK and general pace of activity on the battlefield—is crucial in defining the personality of an FPS.

I love the pace of combat in PS1. It is one of the key features the original devs got right.

During my 7 years of on-and-off play, I often logged 4+ hour sessions. I’ll even admit to quite a few 10+ hour marathon sessions. The short breaks in action are what made long play sessions enjoyable. I would NEVER play for that long in a constant action, fast-paced shooter. They literally nauseate me after a while. (Mind you, I have my copy of BF3 pre-ordered and I do enjoy modern shooter pacing…but only to a point.)

The devs have stated that they feel PS1’s 2-3 sec. TTK is simply too long. I think it is perfect. It allowed for meaningful one-on-one encounters where strafing and aim mattered. A shorter TTK will result in the first person to shoot getting the kill nearly every time and thus a whole lot of camping. It will also result in many nearly instant deaths from enemies you rarely even see.

PS1’s reasonable 2-3 sec TTK allowed you to stay alive just barely long enough to encourage pushing down a heavily defended stairwell. In PS2 you will die the instant you turn a corner before the enemy characters are even drawn on your screen. What the devs don’t seem to realize is that PS1’s TTK was in practice often much shorter as you were usually being shot by multiple players.





P.S. The insta-gibbing headshot sniper kills (after 1.7 years of training the appropriate skills) are also going to be a disaster.