My problem with the FPS genre is a snobbishness which reminds me of the attitude of hardcore Pacific Rim fans who insist that Michael Bay Transformers movies are stupid, but Pacific Rim is super smart and totally not at all like Transformers, despite the fact Pacific Rim is cut from the exact same cloth. (Many story-driven FPS games are described as being like Michael Bay movies, often by people who are less than fans of Bay's oeuvre.)
Goldeneye Wii was bashed for having "Call of Duty-like" game mechanics which were actually almost identical to praised games such as Metro: Last Light and Wolfenstein: The New Order.
Battlefield 3 was bashed for its story and gameplay. Both are remarkably similar to the game BLACK, a game which is not painted with the same brush.
Battlefield 4 was bashed for its characters, story, and ending. (Penned by the guy who wrote Modern Warfare 2) I thought the characters were interesting and the ending was powerful.
Syndicate 2012's story, by the same writer as Crysis 2, was criticised for vague reasons which seem to boil down to "WHY ISN'T THIS GAME LIKE THE OLD SYNDICATE GAMES!" (Yet nobody complained that Wolfenstein: The New order isn't like the old 2D Wolfenstein games for some reason.) Despite having almost identical game mechanics to Wolfenstein: TNO, Syndicate's game mechanics were criticised, too.
Call of Duty: Ghosts was heavily bashed for its story, graphics, and game mechanics. In my view, while inferior to Black Ops 2, Ghosts improved heavily upon the older Infinity Ward titles by removing the "follow the waypoint" mission design and replacing it with something more organic. Ghosts may not be the best looking game, but it has extremely high resolution textures compared to previous entries, and the engine received some major DX11 visual upgrades. The game even has Nvidia fur effects for animals, something which Witcher 3 fans seemed to think was something never before seen when shown in Witcher 3 previews. As for the story, I think it had some flaws, but it was reasonably well written, took us interesting places, and Rorke was a compelling villain.
Crysis 2 and Crysis 3 were, in my view, unfairly bashed. They adapted the Crytek formula to an urban setting, which meant a shift away from lots of jungle towards more constrained environments. This was partially due to console limitations, sure, but also because urban environments lend themselves to being constrained by tall buildings and such. The two games explore some very interesting themes around warriors abandoning their humanity and Psycho's angst over his own human frailty after he loses the suit. Crysis 3 also includes the line "IT WAS NEVER ABOUT THE SUIT!" which almost seems like a challenge to the people who grumbled about the nanosuits being altered in C2 and C3, plus the use of your suit malfunctioning as a story point.
All in all, I think that many linear, story-driven FPS games get unfairly treated. Their stories are often not given the attention or respect they deserve, and it saddens me. And there are many strange double standards where Game A does the EXACT SAME THINGS as Game B, but game B is seen as "stupid", but Game A is seen as "smart". And a series like Crysis, which dared to experiment with later titles, is bashed by the same people who bash Call of Duty for not being experimental enough.
I probably should've tidied and rewritten this a few times, but I hope I got my message across. As the release date for Advanced Warfare approaches, I see more and more flippant attacks on CoD: Ghosts as being a "trash" game "everybody" hated, and I see people who hated Crysis 2 all of sudden excited about Advanced Warfare, which seems heavily influenced by Crysis 2, right down to oddly similar set pieces in the trailers. I feel as if people are caught up in a snobbish hatred for "dumb pleb" FPS and a snobbish like for the "smart" FPS games which are usually bizarrely similar to the "dumb" ones if you scratch the surface.
Goldeneye Wii was bashed for having "Call of Duty-like" game mechanics which were actually almost identical to praised games such as Metro: Last Light and Wolfenstein: The New Order.
Battlefield 3 was bashed for its story and gameplay. Both are remarkably similar to the game BLACK, a game which is not painted with the same brush.
Battlefield 4 was bashed for its characters, story, and ending. (Penned by the guy who wrote Modern Warfare 2) I thought the characters were interesting and the ending was powerful.
Syndicate 2012's story, by the same writer as Crysis 2, was criticised for vague reasons which seem to boil down to "WHY ISN'T THIS GAME LIKE THE OLD SYNDICATE GAMES!" (Yet nobody complained that Wolfenstein: The New order isn't like the old 2D Wolfenstein games for some reason.) Despite having almost identical game mechanics to Wolfenstein: TNO, Syndicate's game mechanics were criticised, too.
Call of Duty: Ghosts was heavily bashed for its story, graphics, and game mechanics. In my view, while inferior to Black Ops 2, Ghosts improved heavily upon the older Infinity Ward titles by removing the "follow the waypoint" mission design and replacing it with something more organic. Ghosts may not be the best looking game, but it has extremely high resolution textures compared to previous entries, and the engine received some major DX11 visual upgrades. The game even has Nvidia fur effects for animals, something which Witcher 3 fans seemed to think was something never before seen when shown in Witcher 3 previews. As for the story, I think it had some flaws, but it was reasonably well written, took us interesting places, and Rorke was a compelling villain.
Crysis 2 and Crysis 3 were, in my view, unfairly bashed. They adapted the Crytek formula to an urban setting, which meant a shift away from lots of jungle towards more constrained environments. This was partially due to console limitations, sure, but also because urban environments lend themselves to being constrained by tall buildings and such. The two games explore some very interesting themes around warriors abandoning their humanity and Psycho's angst over his own human frailty after he loses the suit. Crysis 3 also includes the line "IT WAS NEVER ABOUT THE SUIT!" which almost seems like a challenge to the people who grumbled about the nanosuits being altered in C2 and C3, plus the use of your suit malfunctioning as a story point.
All in all, I think that many linear, story-driven FPS games get unfairly treated. Their stories are often not given the attention or respect they deserve, and it saddens me. And there are many strange double standards where Game A does the EXACT SAME THINGS as Game B, but game B is seen as "stupid", but Game A is seen as "smart". And a series like Crysis, which dared to experiment with later titles, is bashed by the same people who bash Call of Duty for not being experimental enough.
I probably should've tidied and rewritten this a few times, but I hope I got my message across. As the release date for Advanced Warfare approaches, I see more and more flippant attacks on CoD: Ghosts as being a "trash" game "everybody" hated, and I see people who hated Crysis 2 all of sudden excited about Advanced Warfare, which seems heavily influenced by Crysis 2, right down to oddly similar set pieces in the trailers. I feel as if people are caught up in a snobbish hatred for "dumb pleb" FPS and a snobbish like for the "smart" FPS games which are usually bizarrely similar to the "dumb" ones if you scratch the surface.