Game Analysis

This is an analysis on the design of two of the biggest multiplayer console shooters recently, Halo 3 and Modern Warfare 2, and how they compare.

Let's start with some general design decisions and how they impact gameplay.

Halo 3:

• Weapon accuracy is the same whether running, standing, or crouching - This lets players move with no penalty to accuracy.
  

• Shields regenerate - This kind of health system offers forgiveness for small mistakes. It encourages players to chase kills because if the enemy doesn't die now, he will be full health later. This encourages aggressive playing.
  

• Radar/Motion detector - This allows players to stay still and move slowly because they can see people coming. This allows for stealthy play styles.
  

• Slow horizontal movement, but high jumping - Strafing is not effective for dodging. This leads to bunny-hopping.

• Melee kills in one hit from behind - This rewards sneaky players.

• Players have relatively high starting health - A lot of accuracy is needed because several consecutive shots must hit. Teammates benefit from concentrating fire on a single opponent (side to side rather than back to back).
  

• Lots of grenades are available - Everyone is guaranteed a powerful combo (grenade plus any weapon). This helps keep the playing field fair, but forces players to use grenades to compete with other players, since everyone else will be using them as part of a powerful combo.
  

• Everyone can melee - Battles at point blank range are practically equal unless you have a point blank weapon (sword or shotgun). If outgunned, running up to the enemy can equalize the battle (be aggressive).

• In objective games, the objective carrier cannot use a weapon - Objective games require thought to maintain the balance between gaining points and killing opponents.

• When you die, you lose everything you'd gained that life - Death carries a heavy price.

• Everyone starts the game equal and must fight for better weapons and gear - This encourages players to move around the maps.
  

Modern Warfare 2:

• The benefit to not dying is that you lose your position and your killstreak potential.

• Accuracy reduced when moving – encourages players to be still (camp?) and crouch or go prone

• Players die very quickly – no room for mistakes. This encourages players to be generous with bullets and conservative with positioning. The person who gets the first shot will probably win, so players are encouraged to stay hidden until they shoot. Teammates are more effective back to back than side to side (shooting two enemies at once rather than the same enemy).

• Players are on radar when shooting – Players are encouraged to not shoot more than they need.

• Kill cam – Anti-camping mechanic (when you are killed, you get to see the last 5 seconds of the game from the perspective of your killer)
  

• Killstreaks – Provide momentum (winning team is more likely to stay winning) and incentive to live.

• All players have a knife for instant kill – If a player has the wrong gun for the situation, he can run in close to equalize the battle. (be aggressive)

• Sprinting – Helps to get into positions and away from enemies, but doesn’t help to kill. Supports the position-based gameplay.

• Leveling up, unlockable upgrades, killstreaks, and classes - Players must think about the metagame.

• In objective games, the objective carrier can still shoot his gun
  

Halo 3's mechanics promote running and gunning, being aggressive, lots of grenades, jumping, playing side to side with teammates, moving slowly, being sneaky, and staying alive.

I see some contradictions in that list: aggressive running and gunning is the opposite of being slow and sneaky. I will address this momentarily.

Modern Warfare 2's mechanics encourage being still, staying hidden, staying alive, playing back to back with teammates, not camping, shooting a lot (but not too much), being aggressive.

I also see some contradictions in this list: being still and staying hidden is the opposite of not camping and being aggressive. Also, "shooting a lot, but not too much," seems contradictory.

Let's look at these contradictions now.

In Halo 3, players benefit from running and gunning and from being sneaky. A player who is running and gunning aggressively will have the following strengths over a non moving enemy (I have removed the strengths that all players share): the potential to gain better equipment, a good position, or objective points. He has the following weaknesses: can be seen on radar.

A player who is sneaky has the following strengths: does not appear on radar, has a higher chance of getting a one hit kill melee from behind or getting the first shot in a battle. He has no weaknesses unless you want to count the fact that stationary targets are easy to hit, but I will assume, based on experience, that when the stationary person engages in combat, he starts moving.

For both of these conditions, the strengths outweigh the weaknesses. The only weakness (being on radar) can be removed by the player with minimal effort. The transition of being aggressive to being sneaky and vice versa allows players to determine what strengths and weaknesses they want at any given time. This creates an ebb and flow of changing playstyles.


In Modern Warfare 2, players benefit from being still and staying hidden and being aggressive and not camping. Also, shooting a lot, but not too much.

Staying still and hidden advantages: increased accuracy, first shot.
Weaknesses: kill-cam (kill-cam affects everyone, but it's the only thing to negatively affect stationary players).

Strengths for being aggressive: potential to get into a good position or score objective points.
Weaknesses: will not get the first shot, accuracy reduced, can be seen and heard coming.

Strengths for shooting a lot: potential to get more kills.
Weaknesses: can be seen on radar.

Strengths for not shooting: can stay hidden more easily.
Weaknesses: fewer potential kills.

The second example (shooting vs not shooting), works similarly to the motion detector in Halo 3. Depending on what strengths and weaknesses a player wants at a given time, he can select which tactics to use. A player can also use a silencer on his weapon to avoid being seen on radar at all, or call in a Counter-UAV to accomplish the same thing. Multiple methods exist to make up for those weaknesses; one of them is the player changing his actions. I think this is good.

The first example, I think, is not good. Stationary players have more strengths than moving players and are only limited by the kill-cam, which limits every player. There are perks that players can use to reduce some of the weaknesses of being a moving player, but there will always be more weaknesses when compared to stationary players.

All weaknesses can be eliminated or reduced by changing the player's actions or weapon/perk loadout, but the kill-cam is a weakness that can never be eliminated (barring changing game modes). This is a "disabling" design choice rather than an "enabling" choice, and I think there are stronger choices that could have been made. For instance, to counter balance the strength of stationary players getting the first shot, the accuracy mechanics could be changed so that moving players have greater accuracy and stationary players have lesser accuracy. Rather than having an ever-present kill-cam, it could be tied to a deathstreak, where only when a player has died 4 times in a row can he see the kill-cam. Maybe stationary players are more visible through thermal sights, since they've been sitting there warming up all their surroundings for a while.

In conclusion, I think the mechanics of Halo 3 are solid, encouraging players to change playstyles during a game to balance their intended goals with their strengths and weaknesses, and enabling players to try different things. I think the mechanics of Modern Warfare 2 encourage camping (and almost force it if you're trying to be competitive) and I think the kill-cam was implemented in a sub-par way, crippling all players rather than enabling them.