What is the appeal of modern Shooters?

[BioHazardMan]

I don't know why everyone rags on them, although I agree to a degree the past 3 COD's have had engaging story lines (at least for me). I think the main problem is bad spawning/ cheap multi-player (i.e. Black Ops

 

[dorkette1990]

I love shooters. I like to blow things up and shoot things. I like to get my next weapon so I can become great with it. I want to learn my chosen class, or perk, or role. It's true, shooters aren't necessarily known for their plot - but not always (Bioshock, for example). For me, it's all about being in the enemy's face, seeing gore splatter the screen. And I'm a female well past puberty, so I don't think it's from my overdriven testosterone production.
I personally love games like CoD, fun to shoot my friends.

 

[e2density]

Now there is no appeal, tbh. There's no new innovation. All the games out right now are going to be dead in a year just to be replaced by a game that bears a striking resemblance to the ones before it.

Everyone just cares about graphics nowadays, "Oh, the new CoD has better graphics? TAKE MY $60, I DONT CARE IF THE GAMEPLAY IS EXACTLY THE SAME!"

To be honest they could release most modern games with the exact same story/setting/missions as the previous game and most people would still buy it.

 

[whycantibelinus]

Hello people,
I've got some problems with the modern Shooters nowadays. With their unlikeable hyper-masculin-superheroes (Master Chief, Marcus Fenix etc.), mostly repetitive and uninnovative gameplay, dumb storys, cheap dialogues etc. I don't hate all of them them, I enjoyed some of them, for example "CoD4" (mainly because of the chernobyl mission and the nuke scene), or "L4D" (because it's a hell lot of fun to play it with friends)and "Half-Life 2" (Just a great game and has a super awesome modding scene).
But things like "Halo" or "CoD" (MW2, Blops)and Gears of War (and all their clones!), meh, I tried to enjoy them, but no, just impossible. They're just so immature and they are the reasons why no one in the public takes games seriously.

So my question is: What is the appeal of modern Shooters? Or why so many people do like them?
(I especially would like to hear the answer from fans of CoD Blobs, MW2, Gears of War and Halo)

I can understand, if you want to blow off some steam, but you've got games like Serious Sam and Painkiller for that. They atleast know what they are, they don't take themselves so serious, that's cool.

People who've just hit puberty (or are in puberty, or never came out of it) often like those kind of games, you know this super gory violence kind of games, so they can feel manly or whatever. But I myself are in puberty (I'm 14)and I'm tired of this rubbish! Isn't that a clear sign? Is there anyone who feels the same?

BTW: My hope for the shooter genre lies in a game called: "Spec Ops: The Line" It seems to have potential to become the first anti-war game. So I'll keep looking foreward to that one.

I cant say much for Halo and Call of Duty: MW2 and BLOPS, but Gears of War is a little different. I have always approached the game from the way the Epic Game always does things. Over the top, with as much gratuities violence as possible, and a sense of humor in the background. If you have every played their other games, Unreal Tournament ect. They have this same formula. Also, your not really giving the game credit in the gameplay sector. When it came out, there was nothing that did "Stop and pop" before. Maybe you are just getting phased by the clones of the game, but the gameplay is still very well done. Here is just one way to put it. Try not to take the story seriously, the fact that you can kill dinosaurs with orbital lasers (yes i am quoting yatzee) should at least indicate to you that they aren't taking it seriously either.

I agree with you. This is the same thing with why people "hate" Halo. When Halo first came out there were absolutely 0 console shooters that did FPS as fluidly and easy to learn, Halo was the first, then everyone just started biting off of it's gameplay and making sub-par games and all of a sudden Halo is just lumped in with all these crappy games. Lets put it this way: without Gears of War the combat in Mass Effect 2 would have never been as fluid and fun as it is. Without Halo there would have never been Call of Duty the way we know it (i.e. regenerating health, ability to only carry 2 weapons, the type of pacing that the game has, yes it came from Halo).

Personally I feel that people are jumping on these games now, after the fact when they've been copied and copied over and over again and saying that they fucking suck. You have to take it into context. As for the stories and writing, they aren't terrible at all, Gears is about the connection and devotion of a squad of guys who don't necessarily agree with what they've been told to do and are really just fighting for themselves to stay alive and get out of the shit they are in; the dialogue between Delta team and the way they interact with each other through conversation is an incredibly well written piece of video game story.

I just thought of something, you know what immaturity I'm tired of? The immature 14 year olds who decide for themselves that they are mature, bashing on games that they lack the maturity to even approach maturely. You know why you think it's just a gore fest and they do that because they are trying to be macho? Because you're immature. You know why you don't recognize that they are actually the first types of games that innovated that type of gameplay? Because you're immature. If I'm not mistaken there are ratings on all the games you listed that say they shouldn't be played by people younger than 17/18. Want to know why? Because people younger than that wouldn't be a menatally able, no matter how mature they think they are or not, to approach the game with the maturity needed in order to fully understand the game.

Get off your soapbox and actually analyze these games instead of just bashing because you saw them played once and jumped to a conclusion because you're so high minded.

 

[Darth_Murmeltier]

Hello people,
I've got some problems with the modern Shooters nowadays. With their unlikeable hyper-masculin-superheroes (Master Chief, Marcus Fenix etc.), mostly repetitive and uninnovative gameplay, dumb storys, cheap dialogues etc. I don't hate all of them them, I enjoyed some of them, for example "CoD4" (mainly because of the chernobyl mission and the nuke scene), or "L4D" (because it's a hell lot of fun to play it with friends)and "Half-Life 2" (Just a great game and has a super awesome modding scene).
But things like "Halo" or "CoD" (MW2, Blops)and Gears of War (and all their clones!), meh, I tried to enjoy them, but no, just impossible. They're just so immature and they are the reasons why no one in the public takes games seriously.

So my question is: What is the appeal of modern Shooters? Or why so many people do like them?
(I especially would like to hear the answer from fans of CoD Blobs, MW2, Gears of War and Halo)

I can understand, if you want to blow off some steam, but you've got games like Serious Sam and Painkiller for that. They atleast know what they are, they don't take themselves so serious, that's cool.

People who've just hit puberty (or are in puberty, or never came out of it) often like those kind of games, you know this super gory violence kind of games, so they can feel manly or whatever. But I myself are in puberty (I'm 14)and I'm tired of this rubbish! Isn't that a clear sign? Is there anyone who feels the same?

BTW: My hope for the shooter genre lies in a game called: "Spec Ops: The Line" It seems to have potential to become the first anti-war game. So I'll keep looking foreward to that one.

I cant say much for Halo and Call of Duty: MW2 and BLOPS, but Gears of War is a little different. I have always approached the game from the way the Epic Game always does things. Over the top, with as much gratuities violence as possible, and a sense of humor in the background. If you have every played their other games, Unreal Tournament ect. They have this same formula. Also, your not really giving the game credit in the gameplay sector. When it came out, there was nothing that did "Stop and pop" before. Maybe you are just getting phased by the clones of the game, but the gameplay is still very well done. Here is just one way to put it. Try not to take the story seriously, the fact that you can kill dinosaurs with orbital lasers (yes i am quoting yatzee) should at least indicate to you that they aren't taking it seriously either.

I agree with you. This is the same thing with why people "hate" Halo. When Halo first came out there were absolutely 0 console shooters that did FPS as fluidly and easy to learn, Halo was the first, then everyone just started biting off of it's gameplay and making sub-par games and all of a sudden Halo is just lumped in with all these crappy games. Lets put it this way: without Gears of War the combat in Mass Effect 2 would have never been as fluid and fun as it is. Without Halo there would have never been Call of Duty the way we know it (i.e. regenerating health, ability to only carry 2 weapons, the type of pacing that the game has, yes it came from Halo).

Personally I feel that people are jumping on these games now, after the fact when they've been copied and copied over and over again and saying that they fucking suck. You have to take it into context. As for the stories and writing, they aren't terrible at all, Gears is about the connection and devotion of a squad of guys who don't necessarily agree with what they've been told to do and are really just fighting for themselves to stay alive and get out of the shit they are in; the dialogue between Delta team and the way they interact with each other through conversation is an incredibly well written piece of video game story.

I just thought of something, you know what immaturity I'm tired of? The immature 14 year olds who decide for themselves that they are mature, bashing on games that they lack the maturity to even approach maturely. You know why you think it's just a gore fest and they do that because they are trying to be macho? Because you're immature. You know why you don't recognize that they are actually the first types of games that innovated that type of gameplay? Because you're immature. If I'm not mistaken there are ratings on all the games you listed that say they shouldn't be played by people younger than 17/18. Want to know why? Because people younger than that wouldn't be a menatally able, no matter how mature they think they are or not, to approach the game with the maturity needed in order to fully understand the game.

Get off your soapbox and actually analyze these games instead of just bashing because you saw them played once and jumped to a conclusion because you're so high minded.

Dude, calm down. I played all of these games! If you want me to analyze them deeply, fine! Give some time and I'll do that. As far as I played Gears of War it didn't seemed to be mature at all (I played to point where you fight the giant fish on the tiny boat). The dialouge is a joke it makes me want to punch myself in the face. I played Halo 1 and it was good because it was new I played CoD 4 and it was good because of the chernobyl mission and the nuke scene. And now stop flaming you little insecure fanboy.

 

[MrJKapowey]

I like HALO because of It's epic campaign. Don't tell me 'it's not, it's crap!'. You ain't ever going to change my mind. 'Unlikeable chars'? I sympathised with MC at some points (I agree with you on the Marcus PhoFenix front. No back story at all.

What's so immature about them? (a serious question, not being argumantative)

I find the chainsaw fest of GoW immature, and sometimes Nazi/Pentagon zombies (But that doesn't take itself seriously at all). But what's so immature about HALO? No excess F-bombs. No stupid amounts of gore. No Excessive 'HURH! MANLYNESS! ME HENCH!' like Woods in BlOps.
*shudders*

If I want to blow off some steam, I actually go for AoE3. Seriously, me and a friend play that and we kick seventeen shades of sh*t outta people (Yes I know they have only discovered 7 so far). I've tried Serious Sam. Didn't enjoy it. This doesn't mean I am a 'philistine' like my dislike of DrWho sometimes seems to equal.

BTW: I'm 14 too.

Well, the reason why Halo is inmature to me is that the maincharacter is a damm walking tank(It's like a boy's fantasy (sry)). I can't identify myself with that "thing" (sry) and the story? Please, I played Halo 1 and 2 fully (and played the other ones at a friend's house a bit) the story is just simple and not deep in any way(and a deep story is for me an epic story).

God, the story isn't epic (pretty bland and battery farmed) The scale is what drws me in:
The Covenant
The Ark
Tip of the Spear
New Alexandria

I mostly sympathised with the chars like Jorge, Buck, Johnson and Stacker.

-------------------------------------------------

But, for me the reason why I play the 3 games up there I play (MW2, BlOps, HALO) it is for these reasons:

MW2: Was for the unlock/addiction and for TF141. Thats right, TF141 made me want to play the game. Sometimes I would quit and search again if I was Militia instead of the '141. I also liked the balanced campaign (even on Vet it wasn't too easy or too hard for my skills and play style). I also never met the 'unskilled-doom platoon' or the 'honourable noob-tuber company'. Most matches were tense and played how a shooter is meant to be played.

BlOps: Nazi Zombies - I LOVE Nazi Zombies. The multiplayer is sub MW2 levels (mostly the lack of Lt Riley) whilst the campaign is BS. The only char I like in BlOps is Hudson. BlOps is basically because I was assured it wasn't that bad, it was.

HALO: The scale, the vehicles, the side chars (mainly Johnson and Stacker (http://www.newgrounds.com/portal/view/305369)), the vehicles, the huge maps, the vehicles, Forge and Fire Fight. Did I mention the Vehicle combat?

--------------------------------------------------

Another reason I play them is for the realism.

*laughing dies away*

Yes I know it is as realistic as captain cosmos and Grognak the barbarian from Fallout, but I like the guns that exist today, now. For example: The Enfield; in the cadet group I go to we use the L98 A2 weapon system (cadet version of the SA80) and the Enfield is basically the SA80 in game terms so I use that along with my emblem (a skull wearing a Seven Rifles beret).

Another reason I play CoD is kind of out of respect to Call of Duty 2. Coming in at #2 on my BEST GAMES EVER (ammended) I always hope the next COD will be like that.

--------------------------------------------------

But really: The games I like the most are Western RPGs (mainly Console Oblivion) and RTSs (mainley AoE 3).

 

[Halo Fanboy]

Why bother saying shooters when you so obviously mean T/FPS games? Do you realize that the scrolling shooters out of Japan with their teenage girls dodging purple balls of death are modern "shooters" too.

And what's the distinction between old and modern "shooters?" Are rainbow six and SWAT modern? What's the progenitor of the modern FPS, Counter Strike, Halo, CoD4? Your question is far to vauge to actually answer. The old arena FPSs certainly had hyper masculine protaganists and tactical FPSs had faceless nobodies as protaganists for the most part so everything you bring up is hardly new. And the arguments of why many modern FPSs are considered good are numerous, to numerous to really cover in such a broad conversation.

What ever critisism you did have for specific games is increadably shallow. Immature even. Personally I care about a game being good and you sees to care about a game being "moral" and you prefer to play as a weakling rather than a strong capable protaganist. I don't think I can evaluate games in a way that is even an iota similar to your "standards" so I can't really help you.

 

[Halo Fanboy]

Double post.

 

[garfoldsomeoneelse]

Because they're fun, cathartic timekillers that are easy for beginners to pick up but still provide a serious challenge to veterans. What else does a game need to be to keep you from turning your nose up at it?

 

[Darth_Murmeltier]

Why bother saying shooters when you so obviously mean T/FPS games do you realize that the scrolling shooters out of Japan with their teenage girls dodging purple balls of death are modern "shooters" too.

And what's the distinction between old and modern "shooters?" Are rainbow six and SWAT modern? What's the progenitor of the modern FPS, counterstrike, Halo, CoD4? Your question is far to vauge to actually answer. The old arena FPSs certainly had hyper masculine protaganists and tactical FPSs had faceless nobodies as protaganists for the most part so everything you bring up is hardly new. And the arguments of why many modern FPSs are considered good are numerous, to numerous to really cover in such a broad conversation.

What ever critisism you did have for specific games is increadably shallow. Immature even. Personally I care about a game being good and you sees to care about a game being "moral" and you prefer to play as a weakling rather than a strong capable protaganist. I don't think I can evaluate games in a way that is even an iota similar to your "standards" so I can't really help you.

Ok, I should have been more specific with what I mean with "modern shooters". I mean the most mainstream games i.e. Gears of War, CoD, Halo.
My shallow and inmature criticism: Yes, I should be more detailed on what bothers me, you're right there. As far as I can see, games (espacially FPSs) had always hyper-masculain superheroes with no sign of emotion. Yeah sometimes it's cool to play this kind of character(I like for example Vanquish because of that, of course not only). But we're at a point where we're having enough of these stereotypes, while in some games they are just right(Duke Nukem), I think we need a new kind of protagonists, anti-heroes, who are just humans with their good and bad sides etc.

Not everything has to be artsy or whatever..

This, so much this. I get fucking sick of all this faux high brow crap.

BTW: My hope for the shooter genre lies in a game called: "Spec Ops: The Line" It seems to have potential to become the first anti-war game. So I'll keep looking foreward to that one.

Yeah sure, a game about shooting people is anti war.

You obviously didn't informed yourself at all about this game, did you(watching the trailers isn't enough!)? This game will feature a new innovative scenery, an "apocalypse now" like story, hopefully deep characters and a new moral choice system(not that crappy like in ME2). Yeah and it adds a new mechanic to GoW like cover-based gameplay: Sand^^!

 

[Jabberwock xeno]

I play halo because:

It's fun.

I enjoy the universe and canon, where the charecters DO have depth.

 

[Booze Zombie]

I like playing Serious Sam because it's enjoyable and the humour is nice.
I like playing most other shooters because I have to overcome the challenge of a gunfight, the same reason I play most other games.

 

[ArtanisCreed]

What do you mean "modern shooter"? Cause if u mean modern as in modern age....Gears, Halo, Unreal, etc... wouldnt count as they are futuristic. CoD MW n MW2 are a few years in the future so i guess they would count as Modern Age.

 

[Darth_Murmeltier]

Hello people,
I've got some problems with the modern Shooters nowadays. With their unlikeable hyper-masculin-superheroes (Master Chief, Marcus Fenix etc.), mostly repetitive and uninnovative gameplay, dumb storys, cheap dialogues etc. I don't hate all of them them, I enjoyed some of them, for example "CoD4" (mainly because of the chernobyl mission and the nuke scene), or "L4D" (because it's a hell lot of fun to play it with friends)and "Half-Life 2" (Just a great game and has a super awesome modding scene).
But things like "Halo" or "CoD" (MW2, Blops)and Gears of War (and all their clones!), meh, I tried to enjoy them, but no, just impossible. They're just so immature and they are the reasons why no one in the public takes games seriously.

So my question is: What is the appeal of modern Shooters? Or why so many people do like them?
(I especially would like to hear the answer from fans of CoD Blobs, MW2, Gears of War and Halo)

I can understand, if you want to blow off some steam, but you've got games like Serious Sam and Painkiller for that. They atleast know what they are, they don't take themselves so serious, that's cool.

People who've just hit puberty (or are in puberty, or never came out of it) often like those kind of games, you know this super gory violence kind of games, so they can feel manly or whatever. But I myself are in puberty (I'm 14)and I'm tired of this rubbish! Isn't that a clear sign? Is there anyone who feels the same?

BTW: My hope for the shooter genre lies in a game called: "Spec Ops: The Line" It seems to have potential to become the first anti-war game. So I'll keep looking foreward to that one.

I personally like the Battlefield series because it encourages team work. There's other games out there that do the same (like America's Army or Counter Strike), but it's the way Battlefield does it. You laugh with friends, you make new friends, you fight to the end, you use basic strategy, basic teamwork, etc. I used to play football in highschool (and other sports when I was younger) and Battlefield is the closest a game's ever gotten to giving me the rush I get when I'm on a team that's working together.

Halo, CoD (unless playing on private matches with people who are annoying pricks), etc. have never given me this feeling.

Good answer, thank you!

 

[Phoenixmgs_v1legacy]

I don't understand why people buy COD every year, the COD games are just extremely devolved FPSs with no gameplay depth and the multiplayer is serviceable at best. COD can't even do a spawning system right (just have the teams spawn at separate ends of the map), COD doesn't have proper clan support, COD doesn't have a room system (it's all lame matchmaking), COD can't tell what a player's skill is since you can level up just by playing even if you suck so the matchmaking can't make even matches, COD has health regen, COD has NO LEANING, COD rewards camping, I can go on and on. There only thing COD does well is create a roller coaster ride of a single player with good set-pieces, the online is extremely lacking. Why would someone prefer to play the not-so-good part of the game instead of the part the game actually excels at?

Halo, I really don't respect it's single player as it tries to be some space epic but fails horribly. Halo's gameplay is actually good to pretty solid.

Gears is just a cover shooter so it's limited by that, no great gameplay to see here.

I don't see why so many shooters have to have characters that are obviously taking steroids, it just totally ruins the experience to be playing as a soldier that's the size of 2 or 3 men.

The really good online shooters released this gen are actually all on the PS3:

- Metal Gear Online is the most innovation, old-school, and hardcore online shooter this gen. It's takes longer to master the control scheme than it takes to beat the latest COD game's single player. Metal Gear Online is a 3rd-person shooter that has 1st-person shooting as well and allows you to LEAN while shooting in the 1st-person perspective. Why can't all FPSs do this as their control scheme is so basic? There's no reason to not have leaning in a FPS.

- MAG is the best FPS this gen because it doesn't have moving spawns, health regen, and no 1 button nade tossing (you have to cycle from your gun to your nade, the way it should be)

- Warhawk is just a blast to play and mastering the game takes a lot of time. Warhawk doesn't require ridiculous aiming ability or twitch shooting to play (the assault rifles use auto-aim for crying out loud) but it's loads deeper than COD.

Vanquish is the best offline shooter this gen because 1) it's not a cover shooter (AKA glorified whack-a-mole) and 2) it's not a devolved FPS. Therefore, by default, it's the best shooter this gen. And, Vanquish is better than Uncharted 3 (which will be great) or Gears3 could ever be because, at heart, they are cover shooters and Vanquish is playing at a level beyond what the best cover shooter can play at. Not to mention, Vanquish makes fun of every Western shooter cliche.

 

[MrJKapowey]

Spoiler

Hello people,
I've got some problems with the modern Shooters nowadays. With their unlikeable hyper-masculin-superheroes (Master Chief, Marcus Fenix etc.), mostly repetitive and uninnovative gameplay, dumb storys, cheap dialogues etc. I don't hate all of them them, I enjoyed some of them, for example "CoD4" (mainly because of the chernobyl mission and the nuke scene), or "L4D" (because it's a hell lot of fun to play it with friends)and "Half-Life 2" (Just a great game and has a super awesome modding scene).
But things like "Halo" or "CoD" (MW2, Blops)and Gears of War (and all their clones!), meh, I tried to enjoy them, but no, just impossible. They're just so immature and they are the reasons why no one in the public takes games seriously.

So my question is: What is the appeal of modern Shooters? Or why so many people do like them?
(I especially would like to hear the answer from fans of CoD Blobs, MW2, Gears of War and Halo)

I can understand, if you want to blow off some steam, but you've got games like Serious Sam and Painkiller for that. They atleast know what they are, they don't take themselves so serious, that's cool.

People who've just hit puberty (or are in puberty, or never came out of it) often like those kind of games, you know this super gory violence kind of games, so they can feel manly or whatever. But I myself are in puberty (I'm 14)and I'm tired of this rubbish! Isn't that a clear sign? Is there anyone who feels the same?

BTW: My hope for the shooter genre lies in a game called: "Spec Ops: The Line" It seems to have potential to become the first anti-war game. So I'll keep looking foreward to that one.

I personally like the Battlefield series because it encourages team work. There's other games out there that do the same (like America's Army or Counter Strike), but it's the way Battlefield does it. You laugh with friends, you make new friends, you fight to the end, you use basic strategy, basic teamwork, etc. I used to play football in highschool (and other sports when I was younger) and Battlefield is the closest a game's ever gotten to giving me the rush I get when I'm on a team that's working together.

Halo, CoD (unless playing on private matches with people who are annoying pricks), etc. have never given me this feeling.

Good answer, thank you!

Because It agrees with you? I didn't think Battlefield came into this.

*goes off to formulate response on best MP game ever*

 

[Lonely Swordsman]

The halo series was bad for a long time, but I enjoyed the recent installments, mostly because of all the fun gadgets you get besides your boring standard weaponry.
For all the generic science fiction shooters that we had to endure since Quake, there should've been a lot more games with jetpacks, hologram projectors and the like for multiplayer. The closest I can think of are some Starwars license titles.

 

[Darth_Murmeltier]

Spoiler

Hello people,
I've got some problems with the modern Shooters nowadays. With their unlikeable hyper-masculin-superheroes (Master Chief, Marcus Fenix etc.), mostly repetitive and uninnovative gameplay, dumb storys, cheap dialogues etc. I don't hate all of them them, I enjoyed some of them, for example "CoD4" (mainly because of the chernobyl mission and the nuke scene), or "L4D" (because it's a hell lot of fun to play it with friends)and "Half-Life 2" (Just a great game and has a super awesome modding scene).
But things like "Halo" or "CoD" (MW2, Blops)and Gears of War (and all their clones!), meh, I tried to enjoy them, but no, just impossible. They're just so immature and they are the reasons why no one in the public takes games seriously.

So my question is: What is the appeal of modern Shooters? Or why so many people do like them?
(I especially would like to hear the answer from fans of CoD Blobs, MW2, Gears of War and Halo)

I can understand, if you want to blow off some steam, but you've got games like Serious Sam and Painkiller for that. They atleast know what they are, they don't take themselves so serious, that's cool.

People who've just hit puberty (or are in puberty, or never came out of it) often like those kind of games, you know this super gory violence kind of games, so they can feel manly or whatever. But I myself are in puberty (I'm 14)and I'm tired of this rubbish! Isn't that a clear sign? Is there anyone who feels the same?

BTW: My hope for the shooter genre lies in a game called: "Spec Ops: The Line" It seems to have potential to become the first anti-war game. So I'll keep looking foreward to that one.

I personally like the Battlefield series because it encourages team work. There's other games out there that do the same (like America's Army or Counter Strike), but it's the way Battlefield does it. You laugh with friends, you make new friends, you fight to the end, you use basic strategy, basic teamwork, etc. I used to play football in highschool (and other sports when I was younger) and Battlefield is the closest a game's ever gotten to giving me the rush I get when I'm on a team that's working together.

Halo, CoD (unless playing on private matches with people who are annoying pricks), etc. have never given me this feeling.

Good answer, thank you!

Because It agrees with you? I didn't think Battlefield came into this.

*goes off to formulate response on best MP game ever*

No because he answered my question.