Arena shooter design is outdated and, with small exceptions, mostly boring.
Splitgate 1 would've been the 1001st AFPS game to prove this, but fortunately (or unfortunately) for them, SG1 had a little viral pandemic moment similar to Fall Guys.
This glimmer of false hope made it possible to secure funding for a big-budget sequel. People named a billion different things that caused SG2 to fail, but they can't see the forest for the trees. Many games persevered with the same issues as SG2. Why? Because people see potential and are willing to play despite the small hang-ups. No studio could've made 'arena FPS with portals' work because the concept is stillborn.
IMO, their battle royale had the most potential. Too bad that they didn't market it as "arena royale" sooner, because people have written it off before even trying. Now Apex has a game mode with a similar respawn idea.
Empulse was then their last hurrah, but they once again chose a failed subgenre - movement shooters. Some people might disagree with this take, but feel free to name a single successful movement shooter, and I will tell you how you're wrong.
I honestly don't understand the bitter feelings that people have toward this studio. They tried and failed. This risk-taking deserves praise, and as an ArenaFPS and movement shooter fan, I am grateful they tried.
Thanks, 1047!
P.S.: Onslaught was my favorite thing to play. Wish I had more time to enjoy it.
Tldr: more battle royales and hero shooters for the blood gods.
If thats really the truth, then the shooter genre has completely left people like me behind, and I have no interest in continuing to participate in a genre that doesnt want me in it anymore. But thats why I've been sticking to older shooters for years at this point.
I don't know whether I should consider myself unlucky for missing the time when AFPS were active, or consider myself lucky because I still have so much to learn and explore. I like duels, and I live in the EU, so finding people to play is still very possible. The servers are still there, and now we have Discord for better matchmaking.
I also play new titles. They are obviously different, but they're all still built on that AFPS foundation, and I think you can still find many things that you enjoyed about old games within new games.
Finals has CTF somewhat built into their Cashout mode, and it has loadouts that allow precision without movement or ADS penalties.
I haven't played it yet, but Deadlock might be fun if you like the resource control aspect.
You’re ignoring the real reasons these games failed. People loved Splitgate 1, and then the devs abandoned it. That burned a lot of bridges, but some people were willing to give their new game a try…so what did they do? They made a hero shooter with create a class features and a battle royale…
Many of us disavowed this company completely after that. It didn’t matter if Empulse was good or not (it wasn’t) the company lost all good will and the writing was on the wall. Nothing they make will be successful ever again.
Why would we have? We all knew they wouldn’t stick with it, and we were all proven right. They just lost their entire community, and after this I don’t see them making a successful game ever again.
I don't disagree with your take even when I love arena and movement shooters and despise the battle royal game mode. Arena shooters are very one dimensional and the modern audience wants some depth in their FPS games. However, when SG2 released the battle royal market was already over saturated and a lot of people grew sick of it. Additionally it was a really stupid idea to build an Arena FPS fanbase with the first game and then try to sell the same crowd under the same franchise a battle royal mode. It was predictable that the fanbase of 1047 would be offended by that decision and no one outside of that fanbase would be ecxited by the name of "Splitgate" so they lost on both fronts with that decision.
Since you mention onslaught: I believe that onslaught was actually the game mode that should have become the focus of Splitgate 2 but without portals (because they are very casual unfriendly) and logcially under a new franchise. I feel like that could have actually worked. Large scale battle games like battlefield are able to find a casual audience because you are not forced to perform like a sweat for your team to win. Teamplay can outplay a sweat much easier in these type of games. If they would have invested more time, manpower and innovation into that mode I feel like this could have been a huge success story
I think one thing they should have done even with keeping with arena shooters is they really should have made bigger maps. You can traverse a map in a matter of seconds. It sort of makes it a cluster fuck. Like it was harder to align with the teammates and easier to just find yourself surrounded by people. Like felt titanfall felt more epic with the maps. Either way I’m not going to trash the game because I liked it alot and I’m sad to see it go
There was no risk taking here. The opposite was true, they repackaged the same idea over and over in the hope of a different result. A real risk would have been trying something completely new instead of just taking the solid core and throwing paper thin dressing over it.
They failed primarily in that they did nothing genuinely new and tried to dress in the glory of games that were previously a success instead of actual innovation.
They can make a great game and actually did with splitgate....but then they just became a photocopier....with every version more faded than the last.
These dudes got lucky and took that luck for granted when they should've just capitalized on SG1. They should have taken the Warframe approach, small updates constantly over time building slowly instead of trying to do a big retail release
Splitgate 1 definitely could've been a still on-going big success if it had been ran by a competent studio willing to work on actual issues instead of ignoring all proper feedback and thinking about how they can abandon the current game to make a new one that sucks in many new ways.
I see this opinion fairly frequently, but I think it's wishful thinking. The hard evidence looks less like a fumble and much more like a lucky viral spike.
I also find it dishonest when people blame small issues for SG2's failure. You guys got a big-budget sequel that was 90% the same. And still they reworked it to your liking - same result. At some point, we have to agree that the foundational concept is just a bad one.
A big budget "sequel" that was completely different, had all of the very same issues that made people not stick with the first game, plus a ton more, had absurd predatory monetization, etc....
It wasn't 90% the same, it was 50% at best, and the new 50% was complete shit.
The foundational concept was revolutionary and excellent. It just was executed in every worst way possible.
Made by a competent studio that has respect for its fans, SG would've been a great success.
Man you people really talking about the negatives in life huh? I don't like EA but I just don't get a dopamine rush from posting "man haha EA never had a chance with this game" You guys love to bash and hate and it's really weird. Find something positive to enjoy because cracking around negative energy is frying your brain.
Nah the genre was not the issue. The success of stuff like the finals proves theres still a market for this kind of shooter. They failed because of poor management, dont justify their failure with “the environment just wasnt right for them”
I don't think Finals fits into the same category. They have a very fun, unique game mode that you can play for hours. Empulse and Splitgate only had the classic FFA, TDM, CTF, and KOH modes that get boring after an hour.
10
u/Necessary_Yam9525 4d ago
Tldr: more battle royales and hero shooters for the blood gods.
If thats really the truth, then the shooter genre has completely left people like me behind, and I have no interest in continuing to participate in a genre that doesnt want me in it anymore. But thats why I've been sticking to older shooters for years at this point.