If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(PC Gamer)   "Call of Duty has almost ruined a generation of FPS players." Boom. Headshot   (pcgamer.com) divider line 209
    More: Unlikely, Call of Duty, FPS, collective responsibility, Great Basin Desert, training wheels, knee-jerk reaction, Infinity Ward  
•       •       •

5161 clicks; posted to Geek » on 14 Mar 2013 at 3:42 AM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



209 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | » | Last | Show all
 
2013-03-14 08:51:03 AM

Egoy3k: I found it unplayable due to the systems lack of a second analog stick, the floaty feeling and the jarring sound. Compared with what was available for the PC during that time period it was not really a great game.


Well, I'll agree THERE.  I remember playing a lot of the "Future vs Fantasy" mod on Quake around the same time.  But Goldeneye, to me, was a decently constructed FPS boiled down to essentials.  It got a lot of people hooked and just widened the player base.  If a few of them went beyond that and started playing more in depth FPSs after, all the better.
 
2013-03-14 08:53:09 AM
Every day I keep telling myself this is the last day I play Black Ops 2.  The lag is terrible, half the time is spent "migrating hosts", the hitmarkers are awful, the guns are inconsistent, the quickscoping is ridiculous, nobody plays objectives they just camp and boost their KD, everytime I join a Ground War game it's already in progress and some goober on their team is 76-2 with every single scorestreak up at the same time.  And yet I still keep popping in the disc and playing it... I don't know why.

Oh, and the single player campaign reeks.  Boring old guy in wheelchair who cusses unnecessarily too much telling stories to retarded looking young guy who cusses unnecessarily too much.  Yawn.

As a diversion the last week and a half I played the new Tomb Raider and was floored at how great the game was.  The differences in quality of the game didn't fully reveal themselves until I beat Tomb Raider and popped Black Ops 2 back in... ugh, wow.  Treyarch you're terrible.
 
2013-03-14 08:53:16 AM

BurningMan03: That's what I was getting at.  Like I said, I've been a console guy my whole life, and Goldeneye was the first game that I can remember where my friends would have get-togethers just so we could all play the game.  It grew the genre in a way that Doom or Wolfenstein never could because of them being PC based.  If you go solely off of console FPS shooters, they haven't changed all that much.  I never played UT, Half-Life, or Counter-strike, although I had friends who were really, really good at CS.

With that being said, I'm glad to have you here to diagnose MY taste in video games.  I'll be sure to re-examine everything I've ever thought about the games I like.


You should.  Because you are missing out on a wealth of REALLY great games in favor of playing the blandest of games.
 
2013-03-14 08:53:48 AM
Bah.  Every FPS franchise has it's quirks and style.  COD is more arcade style, Battlefield more team/objective oriented.....just play what you like and don't play what you don't like.
And get a PC you filthy simpering subhuman console scum.

/master pc race.

//Chivalry is alot of fun for a medieval FPS.

///stop liking what I don't like
 
2013-03-14 08:56:12 AM
Most of the people that hate COD and other FPSs tried them on consoles. Consoles suck the life out of shooters, with their 'player assist' and plethora of kids running around. I play COD WAW and Bops on the PC, and only on a crouch server (Polite and friendly). The Crouch slows the game down, and the P&F servers are always admined so the kids are kept in line. Battlefield 2 is OK, but the wide range of guns and attachments, plus the long and tedious progression to get the later weapons make it a bi too much for me. Also, I hate huge maps- who wants to walk or ride for 3 minutes from your spawn, only to get sniped and have to start all over again?
 
2013-03-14 08:56:55 AM
Arma III laughs at call of duty

media.pcgamer.com
 
2013-03-14 08:58:12 AM

Testiclaw: I miss old Day of Defeat.

Wasn't it v1.3 that had the bleeding still? It was awesome.

I picked up the first Mass Effect a while ago because everybody recommended it to me, to get me into the story for 2 and 3, but I'm not quite sold on it yet. It feels like a railway shooter that's heavy on the dialogue right now.

/new gaming PC building this summer
//yay!


I think I started DoD on Beta 1.1. 
Great game and it was incredibly promising every release. 
My favorite was Beta 1.3b as it was around the longest. 
Wow, those were the days. 24 hour Battle For Europe tourneys.
As fun as it was I'm glad I set down the keyboard and moved on with my life.
Uninstalled every game off my computer and didn't play any for years because of DoD

Mass Effect picks up down the line. The first one is fun to play but doesn't hold up against time as the second one did.
Best part is unlimited ammo (in bursts)
 
2013-03-14 08:58:19 AM

thisiszombocom: God-is-a-Taco: At least we have Thief 4 to look forward to, right?

http://www.gameinformer.com/b/features/archive/2013/03/13/meet-the-n ew -garrett-from-thief.aspx

Haha just kidding. The PR guys themselves can't hide how awful they're making it.
There are key words to pay attention to in the video, like "modern audience", "console market",  "mainstream".

"We took a game many people enjoy, and we changed everything good about it so that no one will enjoy it."

you mean thief 3.

/ original thief fanboi
// looks down on those whose first thief experience was 3


Rats.... always rats...
 
2013-03-14 09:00:55 AM

Enemabag Jones: Slightly off topic question.
Played Quake, doom, castle wolfenstein, ect on pc.

Trying to play Borderlands on Xbox, the controller just feels wrong.  I suppose it takes time but it feels less accurate then the keyboard.

Do I need to give it more time, or are PC gamers really the master race?


It feels heavy and slow, right?  The problem is you're used to a mouse that can move several inches in any direction with almost zero friction.  The xbox thumbstick moves at most an inch, has a dead-spot in the center, and spring resistance.  You'll have to relearn how to shoot.  You'll get used to it, but it will never be as good as a mouse and keyboard, like god intended for FPSs.
 
2013-03-14 09:05:04 AM

PanicMan: It feels heavy and slow, right?  The problem is you're used to a mouse that can move several inches in any direction with almost zero friction.  The xbox thumbstick moves at most an inch, has a dead-spot in the center, and spring resistance.  You'll have to relearn how to shoot.  You'll get used to it, but it will never be as good as a mouse and keyboard, like god intended for FPSs.


I'm really hoping that the next generation of consoles make a wireless keyboard and mouse a forgone conclusion, and that all console makers include support standard.  I know it won't happen, as two generations of fans have been conditioned to the gamepad being the one and only way, and they would get slaughtered wholesale by a decent kb/m combo.  It would alienate far too many folks, but man it would be fun in the meantime to watch the kids screaming about "HACKERS!" because I'm able to turn around in less than three full seconds.

/would also have to remove aim assisting, which would leave the poor befuddled controller folks wondering where all their bullets are going
 
2013-03-14 09:05:25 AM
If there is no real difference in skill level in CoD why do some people have KD in the 2, 3 or 4 range and they are the ones that are always at the top of the score board?  They just that much luckier than everybody else?

And trying to make it seem like CoD is the only FPS where lag is a major factor is ridiculous.  I have played loads of FPS (Quake, Unreal, Tribes, Planetside, BF series,  etc.) and lag is always a major factor in each and everyone of them.
 
kab
2013-03-14 09:06:53 AM
You have an entire generation of gamers who grew up thinking that controllers + aim assist are how FPS should be experienced.

What other reaction were you expecting, Mr. Developer guy?
 
2013-03-14 09:09:50 AM

toetag: If you try to use any other strategy everyone on the maps starts pissing their wheaties about the "camper". "Camper? You've seen me at nearly every point on the map. How is that camping?."


Why do you care what brats think?  If you're unconventional they'll gun for you, but unless it's the sort of game where developers keep adding patches to nerf anything innovative, a little creativity can counter 1000 hours of mindless practice.
 
2013-03-14 09:10:27 AM
What a bunch of whiny babies this group is. Holy hell. You want a hard strategy based cod game play hardcore sabotage. You want to run and gun play normal ctf. What the hell! Seriously almost every post here is whining about something. Waaah young people play this game and I don't like the way they play. Waaaah a particular game mode (that no one is forcing you to play) has rules I don't like. Waaaah There's no long sight lines so I can't snipe as long as I would like (which is also untrue on a lot of cod boards). there is no master formula. Play the game, game modes and boards you like. Don't like tdm on nuketown? Don't play it. There's millions of people playing these games at any given time. Sometimes you get matched up with idiots and get destroyed in an objective game by guys who work together. Sometimes you're on the good team and destroy other people. Want to mitigate that get a clan and play together. bottom line stop crying because a game like cod has game modes you don't like. I don't like corner hiding crouchers so I don't play tdm. I love the excitement of running with the flag so I play ctf and hardcore ctf. See how easy that is? sometimes I love knowing where the battle will be so I play demolition to ensure that I'll encounter most of the enemy team at one place trying to do one thing. Cod offers every variety you could want aside from maybe having huge boards. Even the biggest boards aren't huge compared to some other franchises. But overwhelmingly people don't want to run for ten minutes before seeing an enemy. Understand that people who want to play this way are in the extreme minority and thus aren't going to be catered to. Even with that caveat there are still at least tens of thousands of people looking to play that style and you can find them if you want to. want real hardcore play arma or dayz. this is like music snobs crying about pop music popularity when there are more choices and delivery methods for music than ever. Enjoy what you want. Banging on someone as stupid because they have different tastes is kind of ridiculous because that lens can just as easily be turned on you.
 
2013-03-14 09:13:19 AM

Boxingoutsider: wall of itg text


...and if you don't like 'Merica get the fark out and stop ur whinin'
 
2013-03-14 09:19:01 AM
I'm not a huge gamer, but I really don't like how when I'm stuck somewhere in say, Half Life 2, all I have to do is keep playing the same area over and over again until I find/memorize where all the enemies are. To finally get through a rough spot doesn't really offer me a huge sense of accomplishment, but instead I feel like I'm just glad that part's over with. To replay the same level at that point is almost always as easy as the last way you memorized the level.

I know you can change up your method at that point and do it all over, but I think I'd like to see more randomization of enemies every time you replay so that skill and overall strategy really are more important than just memorization. Then again, I'm not a game designer and I don't know if that kind of thing would really play out very well in the end.
 
2013-03-14 09:19:57 AM
Itg? I'm a realist. I play what I like. Sometimes I play hardcore stuff that makes me work hard and be careful. Sometimes I run and gun. in general people who cry about stuff they aren't forced to take in are babies and need to just go back to what they like. In todays world with so many ways to entertain yourself there's bound to be something for everyone. I don't like soap operas but I understand how they appeal to people. I don't like Ives but I understand that people do like his music.
 
2013-03-14 09:21:27 AM

theurge14: Every day I keep telling myself this is the last day I play Black Ops 2. The lag is terrible, half the time is spent "migrating hosts", the hitmarkers are awful, the guns are inconsistent, the quickscoping is ridiculous, nobody plays objectives they just camp and boost their KD, everytime I join a Ground War game it's already in progress and some goober on their team is 76-2 with every single scorestreak up at the same time. And yet I still keep popping in the disc and playing it... I don't know why.


Same here.  It's because it's designed to take advantage of the non-thinking, primeval, pleasure parts of your brain.  And after a long stressful day, I kind of need that.

I kind of want it, too.  It lets me shut out all the other crap.  I may only get a few minutes before I'm interruped with a real world obligation, so I can't play anything deep or complicated.  It's a bad habit.

And I'm currently playing Borderlands 2 and God of War Ascention with someone, but since they go to bed early I can't finish them up to start another story game.  So I'm kind of stuck with the cheap thrills of Black Ops 2.
 
2013-03-14 09:22:25 AM

sxacho: I'm not a huge gamer, but I really don't like how when I'm stuck somewhere in say, Half Life 2...


Then again, maybe they've gotten better since then. I'm not exactly playing the newest games.
 
2013-03-14 09:53:48 AM
And nothing of value was lost.

The developer's argument:
I built a game.
People think it sucks.
Therefore, the games that people don't think suck are responsible and suck.

Fark that guy.
 
2013-03-14 09:55:04 AM
(God dammit, I can't not be verbose today)

dragonchild: Thing is in most cases you'll wind up with something scattershot.


That would be the point of randomized maps. Instead of knowing that the bottom right corner of the top window is where the unseen sniper's head is going to be because you've played the map a million times and know every line of sight and angle of fire possible, you have to think and adapt to the situation. It becomes strategic and tactical, rather than muscle memory and map memorization.

And I have to completely disagree with the rest of your opinion in your first paragraph. Interesting terrain is simply variety and the unknown. A creek-bed here, a building there, what's on the other side of that hill? That's not something you need a guy to sit down and conceive.

Regarding realism, there's actually a large and multi-faceted debate to be had over whether it's desirable or not which is outside the scope of this thread I think. I will say this, though - Realism is not solely walking blindly into a field of fire and being cut down, or nerve-gassed in the trenches. Granted, it does occur, but that's the struggle, to have that not happen. Which is actually much more easily accomplished when you can't throw a grenade from one side of the map to the other, when there are more than 3 choke-points, and when you can actually go around a potential kill-zone.

dragonchild: As for CoD, I understand it's intended to cater to a simple-minded market, but to some extent might the limitations of the game experience be precisely because the participants are simple-minded?  I never played it so I don't know, but it seems more frustration here is leveled at the multiplayer brats than anything else.


Not really. I mean it does cause its own problems, but the game is still narrow in scope and shallow in depth, regardless of who you're playing with. Same sort of thing happened in MMO's with WoW and its predecessors and potential rivals. You dumb down the game enough to coax the masses into trying it out, but then you're stuck if you ever want to offer them (or anybody else) something with any sort of depth or complexity. They don't want to go get owned in a game they have to actually put thought and effort into when they can just run around mindlessly and maybe break even, or get top kills/deaths without moving their crosshair more than a few inches, or just aim in the general direction of what they're trying to hit and get a boom headshot. And you -have- to make these sorts of games if you want to make the big bucks. Because unfortunately, these people didn't play video games before the welfare epics started flowing. If you were to remove WoW and CoD from the market they'd go back to whatever it was they were doing. Playing the foosball or whatever.

I disagree with TFA, I don't think any gamers have been ruined by CoD, I think it's only because of CoD that they're gamers. They're why being a gamer is no longer the same thing as being a nerd. Or is it geek? I've forgotten the definitions.

I remember the first Team Fortress being a conventional, if enjoyable, FPS until my then-college roommate (who is an effin' genius and went on to get an MD) took that game places.  He really didn't play that much, but when he did he'd innovate something nasty (and I was basically his Padawan).  There were plenty of brats then, but we didn't mind them because we ate them for lunch.  We only entered sessions where we'd be outnumbered 2:1 because otherwise we'd get bored.  Just one example among many dozens -- he set up a sentry gun near the bottom corner of a central moat.  It took him a couple of drowning deaths, but the resulting hilarity was well worth it.  The thing had line of sight to the opposing sniper's nest (and everyone played sniper, even back then) but was obscured by the water, so snipers kept getting annihilated by a gun they couldn't see.  He'd name himself the furthest thing from macho crap, like "a Totoro", so you'd get to see messages flashing on screen like, "AceSniperKillshot dies of a Totoro's mysterious tropical disease."  I think he did more to push the level of play in that game than anything in the game itself; I seriously doubt the developers predicted even half the stuff he thought of.

That's one of the points many are trying to make. There's very little room for innovation within these games.

In direct response to what you seem to be saying, I don't think anybody here is saying that we're unable to play these games effectively. At least I'm certainly not. What you just described still happens constantly, it's simply good placement of a stationary gun. Once you've found a good spot to put that stationary gun it will continue to be a good spot whenever that map comes up. So even the dumbest can stumble into winning tactics eventually, simply through trial and error, or monkey-see monkey-do. The problem, for me at least, is that even effective game play, coming in at #1 for kills/deaths, most points on the team, most objectives captured, whatever metric is being used when you mash tab, is a boring victory. I always knew exactly where the threats were, I never had to move my crosshairs away from the small handful of chokepoints that allow you to control a map, I knew exactly where to toss a grenade to wipe out the enemy spawn, I knew exactly where that sniper fired from that got my buddy, I know if I put a claymore here the retarded knifer will step right into it because he runs the same god damn lap every time.

This...this sounds like me bragging. That's certainly not my intention. There are dudes that are insanely good at these games, and would out twitch and out map-memorize me any day of the week. My point is that the battles are damn near scripted after the game's been out for a week. Variety is the spice of life, CoD does not has. Also? Small maps are teh suxx0rz.
 
2013-03-14 09:58:03 AM
Complaining that fps players don't have to develop better "skills" in order to enjoy playing is like complaining that masturbation has too low a dificulty curve.
 
2013-03-14 10:01:15 AM

Arthen: Complaining that fps players don't have to develop better "skills" in order to enjoy playing is like complaining that masturbation has too low a dificulty curve.


OMG!!  IT'S GONE HORRIBLY WRONG!!  MEDIC!!!
 
2013-03-14 10:02:58 AM

sxacho: I know you can change up your method at that point and do it all over, but I think I'd like to see more randomization of enemies every time you replay so that skill and overall strategy really are more important than just memorization. Then again, I'm not a game designer and I don't know if that kind of thing would really play out very well in the end.


Aside from all the other shiat that developers have to put up with, the toughest problem to tackle is reconciling a game's potential for fun vs. how people will actually play it, which makes randomization risky.  On the contrary, the easiest way to make a game "safe" is to make it extremely linear, because you can exert complete control over how it's played.  Which sucks, at least for me.

The best games, in my opinion, can be "broken" because the developers didn't put in any overly restrictive limitations on how the game was played.  They just threw up a challenge and let everyone sort it out.  Grand Theft Auto: Vice City is a prime example of that.  I watched my friend (an old school RPGer) play through it and he really bought into the role of the protagonist being a slimy guy working his way up the crime ladder, so when it came time to do the stupid "race through town" minigame he got out of his car and tossed a few grenades under the other cars during the countdown, to hell with the consequences.  He wasn't trying to be cunning, wasn't using any guide and half expected to lose by default; he was just role-playing.  The other cars all blew up and, to our astonishment, the minigame continued.  So he hopped back in, completely unopposed, and (both of us laughing the whole time) started running errands en route to the most hilariously bad 1st place finish in the history of driving games.  In my opinion, this is how all games should be made.  Not necessarily sandbox so much as throwing up challenges and daring the gamers to figure them out.  It's boring when a level, mission or boss has one blatantly optimal path to completion.

The problem with these games, which gets back to FPS, is twofold:  One, they make the worst multiplayer games because their inherent flexibility makes them easy to "break".  Unless the developers are VERY good, invariably some asshole who takes gaming waaaaay too seriously will find some unstoppable combination.  To me, having grown out of my FPS phase, on-line multiplayer is a kiss of death for a game not because I'm antisocial so much as it completely changes the scope of the game -- it has to be painstakingly playtested to nerf any sort of creative combinations.  Second, and ironically, just because the game allows gamers to be creative doesn't mean gamers will actually be creative.  An extreme example was The Sims.  I heard that the vast majority used it as a sort of virtual suburbia simulator.  It's a pity, because the code in that game was robust and WIDE open.  I guess it was successful, but I had to teach others how enjoy that game.  This is a legitimate risk; if gamers don't figure out how your game is supposed to be enjoyed they'll think it's a bad game and congrats, creativity is rewarded with red ink.  Some studios are good at encouraging creativity but that's not the aim of FPS creators.
 
2013-03-14 10:05:06 AM
I just cannot play twitchy instant respawn on small map FPSs.  When the heck are you supposed to drink your beer?  CS gives me minutes to take a few sips and watch the action.

/not a good CS player but it is still my go to after alllllll these years.
 
2013-03-14 10:08:52 AM
If you want realism, play World War II Online.

Enjoy waiting to hitch a ride on a truck to be transported 5 min to the battlefield only to be staffed by a Stuka right before you arrive.
 
2013-03-14 10:10:33 AM

MugzyBrown: If you want realism, play World War II Online.

Enjoy waiting to hitch a ride on a truck to be transported 5 min to the battlefield only to be staffed by a Stuka right before you arrive.


Or actually even worse, for the idiot truck driver to go off a ditch and hit something and kill all the soldiers aboard
 
2013-03-14 10:18:08 AM

Eddie Ate Dynamite: What you just described still happens constantly, it's simply good placement of a stationary gun. Once you've found a good spot to put that stationary gun it will continue to be a good spot whenever that map comes up. So even the dumbest can stumble into winning tactics eventually, simply through trial and error, or monkey-see monkey-do.


Think that didn't happen?  Not only did others steal my roommate's ideas; on more than one occasion someone claimed to have invented it in his presence (even though the gun was positioned in the exact same spot, not even in the opposite corner or something).  Thing is, he was also always the first one to break down his own tactics.  A few days after he put a sentry gun in the water, he was taken out by. . . an underwater sentry gun.  After a few tries he'd found a way to defeat it, and over time several different ways, at which point the monkeys caught on and it became a non-viable tactic.  At that point he was already doing something else.  Again. . . he ate brats for lunch.

But whatever; I was curious about CoD because most complaints didn't seem to differentiate between gameplay and gamer.  Or at least, the shallowness of the game isn't immediately obvious from the complaints.  It's a non-issue for me because my game time is now so limited that any game with an extended learning curve is more unfeasible than anything.
 
2013-03-14 10:19:04 AM
Also, is mentioning WoW in a video game discussion a version of Godwin'ing?

/That would mean WoW is Hitler
 
2013-03-14 10:54:33 AM

Shadowknight: PanicMan: It feels heavy and slow, right?  The problem is you're used to a mouse that can move several inches in any direction with almost zero friction.  The xbox thumbstick moves at most an inch, has a dead-spot in the center, and spring resistance.  You'll have to relearn how to shoot.  You'll get used to it, but it will never be as good as a mouse and keyboard, like god intended for FPSs.

I'm really hoping that the next generation of consoles make a wireless keyboard and mouse a forgone conclusion, and that all console makers include support standard.  I know it won't happen, as two generations of fans have been conditioned to the gamepad being the one and only way, and they would get slaughtered wholesale by a decent kb/m combo.  It would alienate far too many folks, but man it would be fun in the meantime to watch the kids screaming about "HACKERS!" because I'm able to turn around in less than three full seconds.

/would also have to remove aim assisting, which would leave the poor befuddled controller folks wondering where all their bullets are going


Dust 514 (in open Beta on the PS3) has full mouse/keyboard support.  Pretty fun game from what I have played; only real down-sides so far: how slow it is to level up skills; you only get 3 char slots; real-money transactions (base game is free to play though).  But I am burnt out on FPS games for the time being and have started in on Ni No Kuni and holy fark what an addictive game that is....haven't had this much pure enjoyment from a game in a long time.
 
2013-03-14 11:00:07 AM
PanicMan
It feels heavy and slow, right? The problem is you're used to a mouse that can move several inches in any direction with almost zero friction. The xbox thumbstick moves at most an inch, has a dead-spot in the center, and spring resistance. You'll have to relearn how to shoot. You'll get used to it, but it will never be as good as a mouse and keyboard, like god intended for FPSs.

Thanks for the advice.  Heavy and slow maybe, akward and not precise for sure.
 
2013-03-14 11:04:04 AM
There sure is a lot of navel gazing 'it was better back in my day, all games now are too easy/suck/etc' in here.

My most fun moment in shooters was always running BF3 with a squad full of friends on teamspeak. Because I suck at shooters, and could play a strategic support role like medic or support gunner, and suppressive fire, etc. and it was a blast to shiat talk with my friends. We would often take best squad despite 2 of our 4 being terrible. The sum was greater than its parts, and strategy plus actual role use was great.

Cod doesn't offer that same sense of teamwork. It's a more individual shooter, and that's fine. I also like RPGs and crap. They evolve and change.

If you find the old school shooters with static health, no shields, etc, fun, you can recreate those. Personally I need liked the micro management. I play video games to get the 'brazen war hero saves the day' feel. Not be stomped down for hours.
 
2013-03-14 11:15:30 AM
Though I did enjoy some BF:BC2 for a while, I haven't really found an online FPS worth playing since Half Life 2 Deathmatch. Guess after spending so much time with Quake and UT99 that I'm just stuck in the old-school frantic twitch shooters as online FPS games go.
 
2013-03-14 11:24:13 AM

Wittenberg Dropout: I worked on Modern Warfare 1 and can honestly say that that was the best game ever with the best devs ever. Worked on several AAA titles later and they still don't matchup.


MW1 on the PC was a deep and interesting shooter. It wasn't as deep as some of the more traditional FPS games but it was definitely interesting.


Every single CoD since MW1 has been a Hollywood cash grab. They are terrible games and have created a sub culture of childish, whiney, mediocre players who wouldnt last 6 seconds in a game like natural selection or even counter strike.
 
2013-03-14 11:29:23 AM
Only complaint with War of Roses is that I'm late to the game. Still trying to build my way up to the more awesome weapons and armor. Every server I've played on lately is just dude's in plate armor with two handed axes/swords.
 
2013-03-14 11:33:58 AM

envirovore: Though I did enjoy some BF:BC2 for a while, I haven't really found an online FPS worth playing since Half Life 2 Deathmatch. Guess after spending so much time with Quake and UT99 that I'm just stuck in the old-school frantic twitch shooters as online FPS games go.


Try natural selection 2 on steam. I think you'll like it. It's FpS RTS.
 
2013-03-14 11:43:07 AM
I live Assassin's Creed multiplayer because it's different and emphasizes skill, but nothing ruins the game faster than some CoD dink running around bouncing off rooftops without any regard for stealth or skill.
 
2013-03-14 11:45:42 AM
The reason Goldeneye was so great was that you could beat your friends in the same room and then fart on them as part of your gentlemanly wager.
 
2013-03-14 11:55:47 AM

ThreadSinger: balisane: Feh. I find that Mass Effect fulfills all my possible FPS jones; all I really want to do is lay traps and snipe the deepest field possible, anyway, and that only between juicy story chapters. If it were at all possible to completely forget your arsenal and get though every situation with your stock pistol, I would do.

Import your character through all the games. I beat ME3 (with my biotic from ME1), replayed ME3, and I'm level 55 a third of the way in the game. 

At such levels, your stock pistol, and the unholy power of your singularity+warp combo, is all you need.

/playing on Insanity
//Vancouver burns brightly


I don't have 1 (PS3 player), but do have a similar-level import from 2. If only I didn't love sniper rifles so much; the highest difficulty sucks a lot of the fun out of setting up those long-distance horror shots. T___T


I would absolutely love an FPS type with regular bow or crossbow options. Ask anyone about my maniacal giggling in Skyrim whenever one managed to pick off a guard with a flaming arrow from the shadows three rooms away.


/faint scream
//tiny sploosh
///*titter*
 
2013-03-14 11:55:48 AM
COD really jumped the shark with 2. That was the first one to make spray and pray bunny hopping a viable strategy. Pulling that crap in the first COD or UO would get you killed and laughed at. The reason COD 2 was terrible multiplayer wise was because it was the first COD to cater to the console goons. Games designed for console use will ALWAYS suck from its pure PC origins. Look at Operation Flashpoint. The second they made the game for dual platforms, the concessions necessary to make it viable on consoles doomed it (Dragon Rising, Red River). The PC only versions, now called ARMA are freaking glorious. I have no doubt that they will make an ARMA game for the next wave of shiat boxes and when they do THAT series will go to pot.


I still miss the German Front mod for Call of Duty....
 
2013-03-14 11:56:13 AM

doglover: Mike_LowELL: I like how the comment thread for an article discussing how nobody will play a game which does not look, move, and function like Call of Duty has been completely derailed by discussion of stealth and medieval FPS games.

But we're all old guys. I never liked Call of Duty. It was too much money(ie more than $0.00 USD) for "just another FPS"

We're not the kids in the article. We didn't cut our teeth on CoD, so we know better games are out there and getting good takes time.


My favorite multiplayer FPS was always the original Rainbow Six (and Eagle Watch).  Maximum of four players on a team and eight in a match.  If you got hit in the leg, your guy hobbled around until the round was over.  If you died, you had to wait patiently for the match to finish.  We learned very quickly not to die, cause it was damned boring waiting for the match to end.

/Ding Chavez FTW!
 
2013-03-14 12:00:31 PM
They never needed to get good at their twitch skills with a mouse.

Really?  I feel like all COD is being good at twitch skills.
 
2013-03-14 12:00:35 PM
All of mt favorite FPS have been ruined by stupid design choices, not so much anything else.

As a result, im just now moving to Planetside and away from BF BC3 and MW1.
 
2013-03-14 12:02:16 PM

Snotnose: I don't get why CoD is so popular.  The single player games are fun, but not worth $60.  The last 3 titles (BOPS 1 and 2, MW3) have serious lag issues.  MW2 got taken over by cheaters so I can't go back to that.

Seriously.  What's most important to you in a multiplayer FPS:  1) your skill; 2) strategy  3) tactics  4) teamwork.  If you answered 1-4 then CoD isn't for you because the number 1 factor is lag.  If you're on the wrong end of the lag curve (which I seem to always be) then your hosed no matter what.

/ Didn't get BOP2
// Forums are full of people biatching about lag, I got Borderlands 2 instead.




CoD4 player here. Other people lag make it more difficult, not my lag. Dedicated server too. Plenty of them.

I will pwn you.
 
2013-03-14 12:04:19 PM

Trocadero: The reason Goldeneye was so great was that you could beat your friends in the same room and then fart on them as part of your gentlemanly wager.


EXACTLY!  This gentleman knows what he is talking about.  The game wasn't GREAT per se, it was that YOU and three friends could split a pizza and play against each other IN THE SAME ROOM.  Then play Mario Kart then Perfect Dark then...

Yeah Half Life came out a year later and it was RIDICULOUSLY good, probably my favorite FPS game of all time (that and Q1) but I couldn't play against a group of friends in the same room unless we all had expensive computers and a network set up and the space for a bunch of PCs/monitors...

Like it or not Goldeneye made a FPS a FUN party game.  And like it or not Halo did the same thing for the X-box generation.  Yes there were WAY better FPS out there, none as fun to play in the same room against a group of friends on the same screen.
 
2013-03-14 12:05:01 PM
Thread getting derailed:

"Consoles are crap for aiming, you heathens."

TRANSLATION:

"I really suck at using console controllers but I won't admit it."
 
2013-03-14 12:06:49 PM

Mentat: I live Assassin's Creed multiplayer because it's different and emphasizes skill, but nothing ruins the game faster than some CoD dink running around bouncing off rooftops without any regard for stealth or skill.


One of the very few multiplayers I actually enjoy. Generally, I have no patience for the every-man-for-himself, surprise PvP crap, but AC puts the kibosh on it by design. ME multiplayer is surprisingly good for this, too; I don't have to hunt too hard to find a group of random strangers who return favors and work well together.
 
2013-03-14 12:07:53 PM
SharkaPult:
Like it or not Goldeneye made a FPS a FUN party game.  And like it or not Halo did the same thing for the X-box generation.  Yes there were WAY better FPS out there, none as fun to play in the same room against a group of friends on the same screen.

Agreed.  Gears of War 3 on Horde mode is pretty fun with a living room full of friends and a fridge full of beer.
 
2013-03-14 12:08:46 PM
My experience is so jacked up and unlike most folks'.  Well, based on these type threads anyway, maybe there's plenty out there with a similar history.

The last console I owned was a ColecoVision.  First PC was just a few years later, then upgraded to 3D video a few years after that.

So, all the "old school" FPS PC games I learned to play (and still do) was stick in left hand (which was  a leap for me, right-handed) and mouse in right.  I'm too fumble-fingered to go KB/mouse, and many newer PC FPS don't support stick.

I have practically ZERO experience with modern-era console controllers, and every time I've tried to play an FPS with one, I fail miserably.

So, I'm stuck playing UT99 (there's neat mods out there now-I really enjoy monster hunt).  As far as military-style games go, I played StrikeForce (the CounterStrike equivalent for UT99) quite a bit when it was new.  Dunno if any servers are still running it.  So, I'm content to play old-ass games like Kingpin, UT99, Tribes II, and SoF.

I suppose I'm stuck here forever, unless I upgrade my gear, and kind find more PC FPSs that support me Saitek.
 
kab
2013-03-14 12:16:32 PM
theurge14:
"I really suck at using console controllers but I won't admit it."

Translation:   I can't kill anyone without aim assist.
 
Displayed 50 of 209 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report