Poll: What, in your opinion, makes for a bad FPS?
- Thread starter The Breadcrab
- Start date
Recommended Videos
Ok list time!
What breaks a game of the FPS type?
1. Why does my gun sound like a staple gun?
2. Ok the ai is stupid or way too smart.
3. Two clips in the face and you are still not dead?
4. Single player is crap= me no buy.
5. Not fun
My good shooter list:
Perfect Dark
Metro 2033
STALKER SOC
Fear
Bioshock
Starwars Battlefront II
What breaks a game of the FPS type?
1. Why does my gun sound like a staple gun?
2. Ok the ai is stupid or way too smart.
3. Two clips in the face and you are still not dead?
4. Single player is crap= me no buy.
5. Not fun
My good shooter list:
Perfect Dark
Metro 2033
STALKER SOC
Fear
Bioshock
Starwars Battlefront II
Realism. I don't care what you say, a game shouldn't be realistic. Especially when the so-called realism is just as surreal as the rest.
honestly it is a mix of almost all of the options save for the last for me.
I think the single worst thing about the majority of the "recent" shooter games is how samey most of them are. Then again that is not exactly a new problem. but the whole "call of honor: battlefield " hodgepodge of shooters really take the cake. there so similar that i personally have a hard time telling them apart these days.
Second worst is they have managed to remove every iota of feeling like a bad ass and moments of tension out of the games. your not leading the charge, your not kicking ass and taking names. your baby siting and being babysat by the game and squad mates. you don't feel like there is danger any where. Get shot up six ways from Sunday? Just sit behind a chunk of wall and suck your thumb and ask mommy to kiss the boo-boo and make it better.
Back in my day if you managed to get your self stuck with a boat lode of enemy's in front of you, while you were down to 10 hp and only had 6 rounds remaining, you figured out how to make it work and you liked it! /geezers off to bed
I think the single worst thing about the majority of the "recent" shooter games is how samey most of them are. Then again that is not exactly a new problem. but the whole "call of honor: battlefield " hodgepodge of shooters really take the cake. there so similar that i personally have a hard time telling them apart these days.
Second worst is they have managed to remove every iota of feeling like a bad ass and moments of tension out of the games. your not leading the charge, your not kicking ass and taking names. your baby siting and being babysat by the game and squad mates. you don't feel like there is danger any where. Get shot up six ways from Sunday? Just sit behind a chunk of wall and suck your thumb and ask mommy to kiss the boo-boo and make it better.
Back in my day if you managed to get your self stuck with a boat lode of enemy's in front of you, while you were down to 10 hp and only had 6 rounds remaining, you figured out how to make it work and you liked it! /geezers off to bed
Length is less of an issue to me if it does not need it. If a game was designed from the start to be 4 hours long, and not expected to be some vast epic, it's okay. Just so long that the narrative fits in fine and doesn't feel unfinished or stretched it is a fine length.
I'm thinking that COD4 has a lot of these issues, but it still works because it has some sort of cool modesty to it. It's realism and thus believability and immersion stems from the fact that it holds itself back just that little bit, doesn't overblow itself or anything at all. It's not the "realism" or weapon limit or regenerating health, it is how they keep trying to be progressively more shocking in their stories. From an unusual death of a main player character to it happening 2 or 3 times a game now. What makes a bad FPS is the same thing as what makes a bad musician: blowing your quality to death with an unhealthy obsession with volume and shock.
I'm thinking that COD4 has a lot of these issues, but it still works because it has some sort of cool modesty to it. It's realism and thus believability and immersion stems from the fact that it holds itself back just that little bit, doesn't overblow itself or anything at all. It's not the "realism" or weapon limit or regenerating health, it is how they keep trying to be progressively more shocking in their stories. From an unusual death of a main player character to it happening 2 or 3 times a game now. What makes a bad FPS is the same thing as what makes a bad musician: blowing your quality to death with an unhealthy obsession with volume and shock.
Pretty 'lulz', though your statement is vague. Care to elaborate? I dislike when people crap on something without giving reasons for their bowel movements.Aethren said:
Personally, I think a heavy emphasis on Multiplayer (on line specifically), like with just about every single shooter that's come out since the first Halo can severely hurt even the best FPS (or any type of game period). Especially when people judge the game solely on the multiplayer experience and blame the game for how other people play it (either by cheating or using 'noob weapons').
Of the reasons listed, however, my vote goes to cliched or lackluster plots and stories. The extremely cliched and poorly executed twist in Sniper: Ghost Warrior instantly killed all interest I had in finishing the game, despite the pretty cool, interesting and fun shooting mechanic (especially on the harder difficulties).
And a good deal of the Home Front plot weakened the game considerably, though there were many more reasons why that game was a steaming pile of shit that deserves to be wiped from existence.
Of the reasons listed, however, my vote goes to cliched or lackluster plots and stories. The extremely cliched and poorly executed twist in Sniper: Ghost Warrior instantly killed all interest I had in finishing the game, despite the pretty cool, interesting and fun shooting mechanic (especially on the harder difficulties).
And a good deal of the Home Front plot weakened the game considerably, though there were many more reasons why that game was a steaming pile of shit that deserves to be wiped from existence.
Overpowered explosives, a focus on vehicles, campy gameplay, or anything that isn't gun-focused run and gun infantry combat.
See: MW2, Battlefield series as examples of BAD FPS games in my opinion. CoD4 or any PC shooter of the mid-late nineties as examples of GOOD FPS games.
See: MW2, Battlefield series as examples of BAD FPS games in my opinion. CoD4 or any PC shooter of the mid-late nineties as examples of GOOD FPS games.
Story--or a lack of one--is what makes a good FPS for me. It has to be engaging to me though. Example:
F.E.A.R was nothing more than killing the same, let's see...I think six enemies in the same rooms over and over again. Boring doesn't begin to cover it. However, the story--What Fettel was doing, who was Alma, what was Alma, what's going on--put those flaws into the back of my mind. I loved the game because the mystery of the story kept me going.
A bad example is Battlefield 3. Sure, it looked pretty, but the story was pretty much every cliche they could think of. Throw in the fact that characters were not developed, questions were never answered, and the plot just sort of stopped without closer, and it's an example of what I consider to be a bad FPS.
So yeah, I voted for the cliche plot option.
F.E.A.R was nothing more than killing the same, let's see...I think six enemies in the same rooms over and over again. Boring doesn't begin to cover it. However, the story--What Fettel was doing, who was Alma, what was Alma, what's going on--put those flaws into the back of my mind. I loved the game because the mystery of the story kept me going.
A bad example is Battlefield 3. Sure, it looked pretty, but the story was pretty much every cliche they could think of. Throw in the fact that characters were not developed, questions were never answered, and the plot just sort of stopped without closer, and it's an example of what I consider to be a bad FPS.
So yeah, I voted for the cliche plot option.
Bad gameplay, if the other things are present but the gameplay is rock solid, i might be able to give it a chance, however if the setting is unique, the characters interesting, had inspired art and an incredible open world with a multitude of ways to handle any given situation, BUT it had bad gameplay, well then im sorry, it may not be worth it
Worst thing an FPS can do is make the shooting itself a chore.
1. mouse acceleration like it's some 360 controller
2. little feedback and poor sound fx (can fit under boring weapons)
3. terrible inaccuracy
Poor, repetative encounter design comes a close second.
1. mouse acceleration like it's some 360 controller
2. little feedback and poor sound fx (can fit under boring weapons)
3. terrible inaccuracy
Poor, repetative encounter design comes a close second.
If the controls are rubbish, if the guns feel like peashooters and if it's imbalanced.
Personally I don't mind CoD, the biggest issue I have with it is the killstreaks and perks in MW2 and BlOps. If I had to pick any game as the closest to perfect multiplayer FPS, I would pick WaW. I like CoD's class system, but in MW2 there's too much. WaW is much more stripped down, and the killstreaks are fairer. The maps are well designed and the tanks are useful, but they're not invincible. I guess it's not got a brilliant campaign, but it's not half bad. Also, Nazi zombies is always fun with friends.
I guess FPS games by and large are very similar so it's easy to be nitpicky. For instance, I think all the guns in TF2 feel like crap to use (a problem that I think there is in a lot of Valve games).
Personally I don't mind CoD, the biggest issue I have with it is the killstreaks and perks in MW2 and BlOps. If I had to pick any game as the closest to perfect multiplayer FPS, I would pick WaW. I like CoD's class system, but in MW2 there's too much. WaW is much more stripped down, and the killstreaks are fairer. The maps are well designed and the tanks are useful, but they're not invincible. I guess it's not got a brilliant campaign, but it's not half bad. Also, Nazi zombies is always fun with friends.
I guess FPS games by and large are very similar so it's easy to be nitpicky. For instance, I think all the guns in TF2 feel like crap to use (a problem that I think there is in a lot of Valve games).
All of the above, plus bad aiming controls on the consoles.
I've played a few games like F.E.A.R. 3 where the aiming (always w/ auto-aim off) was really smooth.
And then there are other games where the aiming just feels really jerky, even with the sensitivity adjusted. As much as I enjoy Crysis 2, it has this problem.
I never got why some games get it right and some games don't. You'd think making it so that the aiming controls on consoles are nice and fluid would be a universal thing, but I guess not.
I've played a few games like F.E.A.R. 3 where the aiming (always w/ auto-aim off) was really smooth.
And then there are other games where the aiming just feels really jerky, even with the sensitivity adjusted. As much as I enjoy Crysis 2, it has this problem.
I never got why some games get it right and some games don't. You'd think making it so that the aiming controls on consoles are nice and fluid would be a universal thing, but I guess not.
I said plots, examples that come to mind include Crysis 2, Resistence Fall of Man, any COD or BF, ect. But most of the options there are valid complaints. Far out, I am so sick of this horrid abuse of FPS being put on console, marketed to meat head morons, and being so massively popular. FPS on PC only, thats the way it should be.The Breadcrab said:I've been on the Escapist long enough (Read: not that long) to hear people complain about pretty much every FPS in existence at one point or another. However, I'm trying to pinpoint exactly what people dislike about the so called 'modern FPS', or at least the most widely hated aspect of them. MW3 is coming out and BF3 is already spinning in consoles/straining PC graphics cards, so without further ado, I allow you to vote on the aspects of modern FPS games that you hate the most, and why.
Is it regenerative health? Maybe you feel there is little freedom in the design? Or is the standard 'kill russians, save USA' plot what turns you off? Also, what makes for a 'good' FPS in your opinion? I want to know! Poll and comment away!
EDIT: If you can, PLEASE try to state an example of what you think a good shooter is! I keep hearing negativity towards games these days but rarely do I hear praise unless it's a review of the game itself. Shout out some of your FPS favorites! Doesn't matter what generations they're from, we want to see some examples.
The short campaign length and the fact that every top selling FPS in the past several years has had a focus on ultra-realistic "modern warfare" style. It saddens me that all of these games sell millions of copies and have yearly releases. At least Battlefield 3 (while I'm not buying it nor do I plan on playing) looks halfway decent in the graphical department.
This is why games like Duke Nukem Forever (yes) and Bulletstorm make me a tad bit more enthusiastic about the FPS market now. While these games didn't make a ton of money, it was a change. Half-Life is a series that I think could bring dignity back to the FPS genre if Valve ever decides to put out the next installment.
This is why games like Duke Nukem Forever (yes) and Bulletstorm make me a tad bit more enthusiastic about the FPS market now. While these games didn't make a ton of money, it was a change. Half-Life is a series that I think could bring dignity back to the FPS genre if Valve ever decides to put out the next installment.
Extreme linearity. I don't need too much freedom, but at least make flanking an option.
But Battlefield 3 was a whole new level of linear and scripted.
But Battlefield 3 was a whole new level of linear and scripted.