Do you think melee weapons are required in shooters? In games like Ghost Recon and SWAT, you didn't have melee weapons but they were still fun to me. Do you think they need to be required?
Are melee weapons required in shooters to make it good?
- Thread starter mrhappyface
- Start date
Recommended Videos
No...I can only think of one FPS that had any actual melee weapons in it and thats L4D2. The only reason L4D2 gets away with it is because the zombies aren't shooting back. It's kind of difficult getting close enough to kill a terrorist carrying an AK-47, while your carrying about a fire-axe.
The only other FPS I can think of that has melee stuff is Halo with the power sword and big-ass hammer thing. Oh, and a couple of WW2 shooters with bayonetts.
The only other FPS I can think of that has melee stuff is Halo with the power sword and big-ass hammer thing. Oh, and a couple of WW2 shooters with bayonetts.
I thought bashing you enemy with your rifle butt was good enough, but the Knife from Call of Duty 4 onwards works nicely too.
Dedicated Melee weapons? I don't feel them necessary.
Edit: Apart from Dr Freeman's crowbar. I loved that.
Dedicated Melee weapons? I don't feel them necessary.
Edit: Apart from Dr Freeman's crowbar. I loved that.
Left 4 Dead could've uses some melee weapons, but they rectified that in the sequel.
Melee weapons are fun anyway, I like swing an Axe and Mr Freeman would like a word with you too.
Melee weapons are fun anyway, I like swing an Axe and Mr Freeman would like a word with you too.
I dont think you need equipable melee weapons in a game(except maybe in zombie shooters, like KF and L4D) A pistol whip or a swing of the rifle butt is a good function to have though. I'm not too keen on the knife in the recent CoD games it's just too frikkin fast.
TF2 is different though, Cos it's melee weapons are all different and each fill a specific purpose, so it makes sense to have them the way they are.
TF2 is different though, Cos it's melee weapons are all different and each fill a specific purpose, so it makes sense to have them the way they are.
In "normal" FPSs a dedicated melee weapon is not necessary but the option to use a melee attack with your gun is. Helps to conserve ammo and stagger the enemy for a second so you can attack again, or shot them.
Other games that have a setting that make a melee weapon a life of death issue. Mostly survival horror or similar games were the player isn't getting a lot of ammo all the time.
Other games that have a setting that make a melee weapon a life of death issue. Mostly survival horror or similar games were the player isn't getting a lot of ammo all the time.
The Battlefront franchise has no melee weapons or a melee option at all. That's one reason it's not the best, but then again it's still my best shooter.
Halo it's a real pain when you have the gravity hammer then you're close enough to kill them instantly but by that time you're just a corpse sliding into their feet. That's why I keep a spare shotgun, to hopefully not get killed.
Halo it's a real pain when you have the gravity hammer then you're close enough to kill them instantly but by that time you're just a corpse sliding into their feet. That's why I keep a spare shotgun, to hopefully not get killed.
You don't need melee weapons to make an FPS good, but if treated properly (like stealth gameplay), they can enhance the experience. TF2 did this pretty well, I pretty much only play as the Spy, I'll take on one of the other classes if I have to, but I just love being able to sneak up on someone, and back-stab them before they know WTF.
melee is essensial in (almost) every modern shooter to-date. Unless its something thats ment to have players shooting at each others muzzle flashes, (like operation flashpoint) there will be points where you'll close in with the enemy and smash each other up!
Some of the funnest multiplayer experances I've had have been stabbing/slashing/smashing an opponent whilst they're trying there very hardest to do the exact same to you! Dodging, weaving, jumping, then going in for the kill when they're recovering. (This is made ten times better if you kill them while they're recovering, as you get that 'Oh crap' split-swecond from them, when they know they're going to die, and there's nothing they can do to stop it.)
ps. sorry for any spelling mistakes, I'm crud at spelling.
Some of the funnest multiplayer experances I've had have been stabbing/slashing/smashing an opponent whilst they're trying there very hardest to do the exact same to you! Dodging, weaving, jumping, then going in for the kill when they're recovering. (This is made ten times better if you kill them while they're recovering, as you get that 'Oh crap' split-swecond from them, when they know they're going to die, and there's nothing they can do to stop it.)
ps. sorry for any spelling mistakes, I'm crud at spelling.
Not required at all, like many people before me have said, but I do say that they increase the enjoyment. They make a kill more satisfying, that is the theory many people have about why games have more "interesting" weaponry and have gory deaths. If I shoot someone with an AK in Modern Warfare 2. cool. If I shoot someone with an AK in Modern Warfare 2, and their head explodes. HELLLZ YEAHHHH! That is why melee weapons are needed, I would rather risk my life running around with an ax chopping up terrorists, than shooting them. I always prefer the "Style over efficiency method". I am the kind of guy that runs around in Modern Warfare 2 with Model 1887 because it is cool.
Ever since Duke Nukem's Mighty Boot and Doom's Chainsaw, I've always loved melee weapons in shooters. They don't need to be powerful, or even particularly useful. It's just a lot of fun to sneak/walk/run up to an enemy and meleeing them in the face/back/shins, knowing that you've just removed the "Shooter" from "First Person Shooter". 