Poll: What, in your opinion, makes for a bad FPS?

[Johann610]

I won't hit the list just yet. Here's the answer--don't BORE me. The big S--SHOOTING! I want to shoot things. Preferably, lots of different things, with some surprise enemies, maybe, but let's shoot! I'm not "lining up a shot". I'm not "waiting for my health to regenerate". I'm not "pest control" (lots of little enemies that are annoying to hit). I'm not sitting through your exposition (much). I'm not waiting for the Mission Control to shut the F___ up so I can concentrate. I am not pounding aspirin because you couldn't make decent graphics.
"Dudes over there, kill they ass." --"Yahtzee" Croshaw, Zero Punctuation.
A variety of monsters will keep things interesting. A clever narrative about the world being taken over or all hell breaking loose is engaging. I find unusual weapons like a citrus bazooka might help the escapism I seek. I'll replay a GOOD game if I like it, and make it seem longer. Even two-weapons doesn't seem like too few, if I get to swap out a few times in a level. I'll even say that if you can teach me your stealth and escort tactics, and make them core, ok.
But yeah, regenerating health? Boring. Linearity? Boring. Iron-sights? Boring. Pest Control? Boring. Aspirin regimen? Boring. Mission control? Boring.

 

[Jak23]

Where's the all of the above button? XD

 

[XMark]

I think the Modern Warfare games are really a counter-example than anything else. Like with linearity, Battlefield 3's campaign really made you feel like someone was dragging you through set pieces and just letting you do some of the aiming yourself now and then.

The Modern Warfare games do the same thing, but somehow they do it well, and even though you're going through a linear path it feels a bit more like the path decision you would make yourself anyways.

 

[Wayneguard]

Of those, length is the biggest. Floaty controls are the single biggest turnoff for me though.

 

[Seventh Actuality]

Cliched and lackluster plots. Shooter mechanics are easy enough to get right, and 2-weapon limits, regenrative health and ironsights are all perfectly serviceable mechanics that can be done well, but being in first person is all about the immersion, and if I don't get sucked into the story I'm usually not going to get sucked into the game period.

 

[thestig1214]

Mostly, I hate it when I expect realism and don't get it. Modern Warfare's main selling point is realism, but most of the guns are point-click-kill or totally over/underpowered. I always feel that the MW games are rushed also. Every one has had a bug that needed to be fixed. Battlefield is great with realism, but it doesn't keep me interested because it doesn't have a great selling point, like MW's great story. But war games are now becoming a little over done, like WWII games.

On the contrary, unrealistic games are totally free design-wise. I don't get mad when someone get a ridiculously unrealistic kill on Halo because it isn't trying to be realistic. But Halo's main fault was not being very hardcore. I want a game to make me think "Man, I do not want to be killed like that."

But the biggest downfall of every game is the players. Little brats who whine in your ear about how much you suck or are cheating. Even if you don't talk to them, they don't grip strategy and will mess with your flow. Or you have the guy sabotaging the team, or the guy using the most overpowered weapon. There are too many ways to be a douche online.

We should take a lesson from Fallout. Great story, graphics, not trying to be realistic but still keeping it inside natural laws. Plus, you can be whatever the fuck you want. not just talking good or bad, but will you be the guy to straight up beat someone to death with your bare hands or sabotage their pocket contents.

But, seriously, the game industry needs an original idea. We need to stop with the modern wars, World War II, future wars fighting aliens and zombies. Who is gonna make the World War I or rebellion of the clowns? I mean, who really likes clowns?

 

[LarenzoAOG]

"All of the above" option missing, that's what I would pick.

Pretty much this, also just not being fun.

 

[Pb Zeppelin]

I don't dislike linear games, but I do dislike "corridor" levels in so many FPS's. I know its technically an RPG, but Deus Ex: Human Revolution was a breath of fresh air for me because there were so many approaches. I'd like to see this applied to a straight FPS.

 

[Evil Top Hat]

Focus on realism: Call of Duty 4: Modern Warfare

lol, good one

 

[tippy2k2]

Focus on realism: Call of Duty 4: Modern Warfare

lol, good one

Hardy har har, you win the internet for most original joke ever. Would it help if I named about fifty other FPS's who focus on realism and are not bad?

Most of the arguments listed here are all about personal preferences and are in no way a sign of a bad game.

 

[MarlonBlazed]

How ai spawns in single player untill you move forward and trigger it to stop.

That's a really weak gameplay mechanic that kills the experience instantly for me.

Plus everything you polled on... Just by looking at the answers we all basically want ARMA 2 mixed with some unrealistic fps and BF3 gfx, but that last one is just a bonus for me.

 

[Evil Top Hat]

Hardy har har, you win the internet for most original joke ever. Would it help if I named about fifty other FPS's who focus on realism and are not bad?

Most of the arguments listed here are all about personal preferences and are in no way a sign of a bad game.

1) You completely misinterpreted the meaning of my post
2) Even if I was making the same implication that you thought I was, it usually pays to be a bit more diplomatic than charging in with nerd rage mode activated and your verbal guns blazing whenever you disagree with somebody
3) It's hypocritical to claim that everybody is entitled to their opinion when you respond to my opinion (which you misunderstood anyway) with scathing comments whilst trying to make me look stupid with patronising comments.

I'm not trying to be aggressive or start an argument, I'm just making the point that you should think before you post. Being overly hostile is a good way of getting your account banned.

 

[StriderShinryu]

I vote none of the above. My biggest issue with FPS games is, for lack of a better description, when they just don't feel right. If an FPS feels right (the weapons have the right kick, the impacts have the right response, the aiming is a slight challenge instead of just feeling like a shooting gallery, the speed and flow of play are smooth, etc.) then I can forgive many aspects of design that may be lacking in other areas. A good plot, unique design, etc. are all icing on the cake to me when it comes to the genre.

CoD, for example, has it's hackneyed plots and silly mix of "yes, we're realistic!" and "no, that doesn't make sense in any frame of reality" along with regenerating health that doesn't make any sense within the context, but it just feels so good to play.

Halo, however, is easily my favourite FPS series. It has the great feel that it needs, but it also has a logical regenerating health system (particularly in the first game), interesting characters, a story/world that's fun and also has depth. It's just totally solid all around.

 

[Mark Hardigan]

My answer is other: What truly makes a bad FPS is overused mechanics that are thrown in because "All the other popular FPS's have them." Iron Sights, Regenerating Health, the whole military shtick, multiplayer, grenades, weapon limits, 'real life' weapons, etc. All of these mechanics CAN be useful and very good in the right game, but it seems like every shooter nowadays is throwing them in just because all the other shooters have them, and not because it's a mechanic that will add anything.

Every FPS on the planet is now including multiplayer not because it will add a secondary experience, but because the most lucrative FPS's out right now have it. It's predictable and everyday idiot logic. It's the equivalent of pouring milk into a bowl of Doritos because milk tastes good with corn flakes.

Of course many other things can make a bad shooter, but I would put this at the top of my list because it shows that the designers are guilty of lazy design, and because it's the reason by 99% of all shooters out there right now suck.

 

[Mark Hardigan]

Most of the arguments listed here are all about personal preferences and are in no way a sign of a bad game.

Keep in mind that just because someone (or even millions of people) likes (or doesn't like) something does not mean it is "good," or "bad." quality-wise. Millions of people love the Twilight books, but quality-wise, those books are atrocious. Millions of people like McDonalds, but quality-wise McDonalds is some of the worst food out there. Tons of people in this generation dislike War and Peace because it is such a chore to read, but quality-wise it is one of the best books written in the history of mankind.

 

[Vankraken]

None of the Above.

The real killer for me is guns that feel like they have no force, impact, or effect. That feeling when a gun has the weight of plastic, recoil of a BB gun, and just sounds washed out or just weak. In addition when it takes 30+ rounds from said weak gun to kill anything and the enemy doesn't really seem phased by the attacks until its health is gone and falls down.

The shining example of how this mechanic is done right is Killzone. That game has a ton of weight behind each shot, the weapons handled like they weren't made of air, the animations of throwing a grenade, reloading, melee, etc tossed the camera around a bit to show motion your characters body made (which results in your head not staying perfectly still as it tends to do in most FPS). The sounds where rich and heavy, and it just felt satisfying to shoot.

The game Haze was one game that kinda just didn't have the oomph behind its weapons and just had a lack of weight behind the gameplay. Resistance for me also felt lacking in that department.

 

[tippy2k2]

Hardy har har, you win the internet for most original joke ever. Would it help if I named about fifty other FPS's who focus on realism and are not bad?

Most of the arguments listed here are all about personal preferences and are in no way a sign of a bad game.

1) You completely misinterpreted the meaning of my post
2) Even if I was making the same implication that you thought I was, it usually pays to be a bit more diplomatic than charging in with nerd rage mode activated and your verbal guns blazing whenever you disagree with somebody
3) It's hypocritical to claim that everybody is entitled to their opinion when you respond to my opinion (which you misunderstood anyway) with scathing comments whilst trying to make me look stupid with patronising comments.

I'm not trying to be aggressive or start an argument, I'm just making the point that you should think before you post. Being overly hostile is a good way of getting your account banned.

Your response was "LOL, good one" to myself putting CoD4 as a realistic shooter. You offer absolutely no other words to explain it. Feel free to explain what you actually meant since the only way I can possibly see that statement working is you laughing at the idea that it is a realistic game.

Hell, whatever your intent, that has nothing to do with what this thread is about.

 

[tippy2k2]

None of the Above.

The real killer for me is guns that feel like they have no force, impact, or effect. That feeling when a gun has the weight of plastic, recoil of a BB gun, and just sounds washed out or just weak. In addition when it takes 30+ rounds from said weak gun to kill anything and the enemy doesn't really seem phased by the attacks until its health is gone and falls down.

While I enjoy the Halo games, this reasoning is why I don't like using covenant weapons. They sound like the noises a kid would make when making gun noises in their Aliens Versus Cowboys game that they just made up.

It's also why I would recommend people to get Turtle Beach's (Headphones) or surround sound. The booming explosion that they make is quite epic.

 

[ZZoMBiE13]

I enjoy a lot of the modern FPS. I'm not a big fan of the "modern warfare" scenarios, but they still have their merits. You can't take too many people literally in this or any other forum. Often when someone is complaining about "what is wrong with topic X,Y,or Z", all they're really saying is "I'm not a fan of this type of game, I prefer genre A, B, or C".

I'm a big fan of sci-fi trappings so I like Halo. People who prefer their games with a more realistic slant may prefer BF3 or CoD. And there is nothing wrong with either of those franchises. And I would argue that we have it much better today because there is a wider variety of options to suit almost any players tastes. The only argument I'd say has weight is maybe Activision's annual release schedule, but it would be easier to make that point if the games didn't sell about a billion copies each year.

Bottom line is that it is all subjective. The old "one mans trash is another mans treasure" routine. Half the things I see people get up in arms about are the very things that made me start enjoying the First Person Shooter style of play in the first place. Things like the weapon limits or the regeneration that some lament are things I find make the genre a much more enjoyable game than the more retro offerings from the 90s. Again, just personal taste though. That certainly doen't make my opinion more valid or less valid than anyone elses.

 

[Twilight_guy]

When the game doesn't work properly. If enemies don't die, guns don't fire, you die due to glitches, geometry problems happen, etc. Then I consider the game bad right off the bat. Other then that, its all design decisions and some of them I like and some I don't but I don't condemn any design decision, (besides, let's fuck the player right here and be dicks).