Are melee weapons required in shooters to make it good?

[Sacman]

Real shooters don't even need guns...

 

[Hybrid Sight]

I don't think that they specifically need melee weapons. However, you do need to be able to melee with your gun, or use a knife.

 

[Guitarmasterx7]

Not required, but they certainly help.

 

[Kuchinawa212]

Nah, it doesn't MAKE it good, it just allows the player a fall back option in case the start to run dry on bullets. Like say, half life, You use guns for about 98% of the time for combat. But you never feel like your defenseless just because your SMG runs out of ammo, because you can use that crowbar

 

[Romblen]

It depends, it really helps to at least be able to pistol whip enemies that are too close. However, in multiplayer games, especially those with friendly fire, it's annoying.

 

[ReinofFire]

I think its a good thing to have once in a while.
Also Halo's melee weapons are not fallbacks since most of the time they kill you in one hit. That isnt a fallback.
Melee weapons are not supposed to be used for when you run out of bullets, they are used when the person using them cannot use a gun.

 

[Viivrabe]

Ive always been surprised at how effective running up and hitting people with things is more effective than 30 bullets to the face...

like in halo you run up to someone and hit them with the but of your rifle= shield gone
shoot them in the chest with said rifle 30 times = sheild gone

now i think stopping a rifle butt travailing at o lets see, 1000 feet per second (give or take) should be easier than stoping a small bullet travailing at 10x that (EZ math 10000).
i can understand it stunning the person getting hit giving the hitter more time to kill you but a bullet should kill you faster.

 

[Flour]

A melee weapon(or ability) should be added to break down possible item boxes/secret areas but a good shooter should never put you in a position where you have to melee anything.

 

[CryptoKeyblade]

You don't need a melee weapon, but you should certainly have a melee attack.

 

[KeefJM]

Not required, but I have to say.

Nothing is more demoralizing to the other player, being able to get within 3 feet of them and kill them without the use of a single bullet while they are holding a gun.
Its not necessarily skillful to do so, but it is no easy feat either.

 

[maninahat]

Games should provide a melee weapon, but only when the game is good enough to allow someone to use it. I remember lumping a machete around in FarCry, barely able to use it, whilst the damn thing took up lots of inventory space. Inversely, I found guns pretty useless in STALKER, shadow of Chenobyl, so I ran head long into the zombie soldiers, trying to knife 'em to death.
TF2 has some great implementation of melée weapons. There is nothing funnier then seeing a Heavy come at someone, swinging an oversized pair of boxing gloves.

 

[mornal]

Ive always been surprised at how effective running up and hitting people with things is more effective than 30 bullets to the face...

like in halo you run up to someone and hit them with the but of your rifle= shield gone
shoot them in the chest with said rifle 30 times = sheild gone

now i think stopping a rifle butt travailing at o lets see, 1000 feet per second (give or take) should be easier than stoping a small bullet travailing at 10x that (EZ math 10000).
i can understand it stunning the person getting hit giving the hitter more time to kill you but a bullet should kill you faster.

tis a balance issue. Ranged attacks allow you to hide behind cover. Melee forces you into the open and into point blank range. The general feeling is you should be rewarded for that risk, thus melee attacks are more effective.

 

[Viivrabe]

Ive always been surprised at how effective running up and hitting people with things is more effective than 30 bullets to the face...

like in halo you run up to someone and hit them with the but of your rifle= shield gone
shoot them in the chest with said rifle 30 times = sheild gone

now i think stopping a rifle butt travailing at o lets see, 1000 feet per second (give or take) should be easier than stoping a small bullet travailing at 10x that (EZ math 10000).
i can understand it stunning the person getting hit giving the hitter more time to kill you but a bullet should kill you faster.

that makes sence but you should never be encouraged to take risks for easier glory, melee should be for turning a corner and ther they are, or Suppries (as you get behind them)

tis a balance issue. Ranged attacks allow you to hide behind cover. Melee forces you into the open and into point blank range. The general feeling is you should be rewarded for that risk, thus melee attacks are more effective.

 

[mrhappyface]

Well, i think Melee weapons are not required in very realistic games like Operation Flashpoint and Ghost Recon. Just like in real life, you're hardly if ever are going to use it.

 

[iFail69]

I feel that they are needed (the lack of a knife/fists in insurgency made me cry...)

especially in games like TF2 where they are used A LOT

 

[Hobo Joe]

I suppose they'd be good fun but really, your title answers itself; no a shooter does not require melee weapons to be good, they could certainly be a fun addition but in the multi player section of the game they're usually much too weak to bother with.

 

[annoyinglizardvoice]

Some sort of melee attack is needed, but I don't mind if it's from a dedicated melee weapon or not.

 

[FLSH_BNG]

They aren't required... but it's nice to have something to kill someone with quietly that doesn't waste ammo... Though I would just use a bayonet or crack them over the skull with the butt of my rifle.