What is the appeal of modern Shooters?

[Blobpie]

I like them because the game play is spot on and most of the stories are interesting.

ps:Remember good and interesting of two different things.

 

[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 mentally 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.

I'm not flaming. I'm just pointing out things, and the reasons why, you missed and saying why it irks me about children spouting off things that they don't understand. I'm not going to argue with you since you clearly came here to try and get people to bolster your point of view. I will bid you adieu and hope that you can approach things with more of an open mind in your apparently very mature future.

*facepalm* I think it's not hard to understand shooters these days. I just wanted to know why people like the shooters I don't really like. What is so inmature about that? What a pitty that you don't want to argue with me anymore.

Alright, I like Gears and Halo because I do enjoy the story of them and I think the gameplay is fluid and fun enough for me to return to the games over and over. I think COD fucking sucks personally, I am not a fan at all of any games in that franchise.

The story of Halo is not shallow, it's actually very well written and rather deep, it takes a lot of reading and sort of paying attention to the cutscenes to get it but it is worth it in my opinion. By reading I mean outside literature such as novels. The reason Master Chief seems unlikeable to some people and not very well written is because Bungie intended him to be a silent protagonist but when M$ bought Bungie they kind of forced them to give him lines, Kind of like wedging in multiplayer to a game that wasn't intended to have it.

That's just what I was asking for! Thank you for sharing your opinion.

 

[scnj]

The appeal is that I enjoy playing them. Not really much more to it than that. Seems to me that you've already made your mind up on the topic, which kind of renders your question pointless.

Yes I've already got a opinion on that, but I just trying to understand. Could you go more into detail why you enjoy them? I mean, if you just want mindless fun, then you can play Serious Sam, because -as I said- they know what they are and they ar not taking themselves so serious like CoD. And man, some people are really getting a bonder when they a screenshot of that game... at least it fells like that.

I very much find things like Serious Sam to be an exercise in frustration as opposed to fun. Shooting up countless waves of enemies is not my idea of a good time. Say what you will about CoD or Gears, but they are generally very well paced and well balanced between action and plot, even if the storylines aren't as deep as your average RPG.

Now, I love a good RPG, but I don't necessarily want that deep experience every single time I load up a game. Many modern shooters have that balance between action that allows me to have some simple fun, with enough story to give me an excuse to keep playing.

 

[Lord Penney]

I don't think gears of war should be included, I always felt that game had a tongue-in-cheek feel to it.

I mean, how can you take a game THAT hyper-masculine, couple it with lines like "THEY'RE SINKING CITIES WITH A GIANT WORM!!" and then call it serious and gritty? To me it's similar to serious sam and painkiller; albeit more (and I use this term very loosely) subtle.

 

[XT inc]

I blame all recent complaints on new shooters on user wear and tear. This shit isn't fresh anymore, we've grown up with them and seen hundreds of stories and worlds unfurl before us. I'm sure if you never gamed in your life and popped in blops you'd spaz out like you found the holy grail.

They have to play it safe because these games take so much more to produce than before, you flop just one time and you are dead in the water, unless you whored yourself out to ads and got paid to make a game a certain way and when it stagnates you have a clear scapegoat to pull you through.

Why do I love Blops, This even I do not know, it somehow treads the nether between too fast and just slow enough, and if I want it more instagibby I can go hardcore. It eclipsed reach for me because I was tired of power weapons, and having to shoot at someone for 10 minutes for them to die, only for them to wing around get a stick and ruin everything.

 

[Tupolev]

If you actually get to the point of asking "Why do people like Halo's story when the protagonist is so poorly developed?", Halo's storytelling has already flown over your head. Not in the sense of understanding details, but in terms of being attuned to the style. You're criticizing a good spaghetti dish for not tasting like chocolate.

To put it another way, Halo is not about the Master Chief in the traditional sense. He's an audience proxy in the same way that the security officer in Marathon is; the grand events occuring around them and their details make up the real story, and the protagonist is ultimately little more than an engine for change, a tool being applied.

Stories do not require developed characters to function. This is fallacious. It is an idea that grows because sometimes stories need more character development, and sometimes they need a more complex plot, and over time these observations somehow turn into principles that are assumed to always hold in all circumstances; "more development is better" and "more plot content is better". If you approach stories expecting character drive, and they don't have it, then obviously you'll be upset because your expectations weren't met, but if you approach a story with a truly open mind, some can work just fine without extensive character development. If this were not the case, Battleship Potemkin probably wouldn't have spent more than a quarter century being widely touted as the greatest film ever made; it only even really has characters in the first act of five, and its plot can be thoroughly described in a few sentences. And it is a unique and fascinating storytelling experience.

This all of course doesn't say that the early Halo games have well-told stories, simply that the angle of approach for many critics is rather skewed. For the things that make the storytelling good, in a very small nutshell, as my opinion identifies them...

Halo CE is simultaneously simple and complex. On the surface, it has a simple plot that can be easily spelled out. But at the same time, if you opt to dig into it, it doesn't become simplistic or fall apart under scrutiny, which did and still does reserve mystery and speculation.
It's also got a very well-paced and shaped narrative flow that works well and ties into just about everything about it (including gameplay flow), making its components are possibly more coherent than in any other game I've ever played; it has no dissonance at all.

Finally, of course, YMMV.

 

[Treefingers]

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.

...

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.

Just been doing some investigation into Spec Ops: The Line. It looks like it has potential, but more than anything it looks like another Gears of War clone.

Though! I think super gory violence and oozing manliness is more descriptive of old school shooters than modern ones. In fact modern ones tend to tone that stuff down significantly in lieu of realism...

Also! Super Gory Violence: Oozing Manliness would be a great name for a game.

I agree on both counts.

 

[Darth_Murmeltier]

I'll make a conclusion here, because I'm afraid that this will go one forever!

GoW, Halo and CoD are average shooter! There's nothing special about them, but they aren't bad!

 

[Flac00]

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.

Uh, the guy you are complaining to didn't read this since you quoted me, not him. Just pointing that out.

 

[Netrigan]

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).

The original "hate" for Halo came from the PC crowd, which pretty much centered on the game introducing some elements that many FPS fans dislike (recharging shields is the biggie) and too many people seeing innovation in recycling the same old FPS cliches. Shamus did a piece praising Halo for various things and the only thing I think he was right about was the control scheme (Bungie gets a lot of praise for building a shooter up around the gamepad instead of just porting features over), but when he claims it brought the FPS out of corridors, he's obviously not aware of *why* corridor shooters took over (the popularity of the Quake engine) and that more open-world shooters had been around for a few years (thanks to the growing popularity of the Unreal engine, which did big, outdoor areas extremely well). Just a lot of simple ignorance on the part of console gamers... I've read lots and lots of professional pieces about the FPS genre in which the only pre-Halo game mentioned is Goldeneye. And seriously, that's fucking annoying, when you see a game like Halo that stands upon the shoulders of PC gaming.

As FPS grew in popularity on the console, I think the Nintendo fanboys joined in, because they saw it as another nail in the coffin of the type of gaming they thought defined consoles (typically the more light-hearted, mascot oriented games). And there's all sorts of other little groups that have legitimate and not-so-legitimate reasons for disliking the genre.

Beyond that, the problem really is that FPS (and their third person cousins) are a very refined game style and over-flowing with cliches. Most of which were entrenched by the mid-90s. Usually when a genre takes root, what follows is a cascade of innovation as people find new and exciting ways to explore the basic game play. But with the FPS, that happened over a decade ago. There really wasn't anywhere new or exciting to go from Halo, because Halo was the sum total of everything the FPS had to offer.

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.

It's simple boredom. Every so often Hollywood will jump on a trend with gusto and after a few years, you're sick and tired of it. Take the super-hero movie trend. While there are still good super-hero movies being released, there's also more and more crappy ones coming out... so when you see the trailer for some hero you've never heard of, featuring the dubious talents of creators you don't respect, it's very, very easy to be cynical. Even good franchises will wear down people, with more and more people wondering why the world needs *another* Spider-Man movie after the last series creatively flamed out by the third installment.

 

[TerranReaper]

- 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.

Does anyone still play those games? Hopefully their servers aren't emptied by any of the newer games.

OT: I wish developers would lean more into this direction:
Combining RTS and FPS seems to have a lot of potential if done properly.

 

[Soxafloppin]

Because there popular and people like to play what there friends play!, online with a few friends is usually good banter.

 

[Taxman1]

To me, they're just fun.
Nothing more, just mindless fun. It's like trying to explain why you like throwing shit at people.

 

[Ironic Pirate]

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.

Oh fuck.

Have mature, thought provoking, innovative games ever been the most popular? Other than the occasional one, no.

Remove the word modern. It makes your already silly post even sillier. And then the assumptions that only people who like them haven't hit puberty. Classy.

I also like how these threads all mention the same few games (all of which were innovative when they first came around), and then complain about the game's lack of innovation.

Pick any genre. Any fucking genre, from any fucking medium. Change out some keywords and plug in some new names, and this rant fits like a glove. ALL these rants would fit like a glove.

What is the appeal of City Building Simulations? What is the appeal of German Death Metal? What is the appeal of Hong Kong Action movies? The answer to every single one is Opinions. You're opinion, despite what you may or may not think, isn't better than anyone else's.


On a side-note, why does it even bother you? I hate turn-based JRPGS with a white hot passion, but after the second one I played, I caught on. I figured out that I hated them, so I stopped paying attention. It doesn't bother me that out there, somewhere, someone is enjoying a game I'd hate. Not in the slightest. Diversity is a very, very good thing on a purely evolutionary level, and for industry growth.

 

[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.

Uh, the guy you are complaining to didn't read this since you quoted me, not him. Just pointing that out.

He read it.

 

[Phoenixmgs_v1legacy]

- 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.

Does anyone still play those games? Hopefully their servers aren't emptied by any of the newer games.

I pretty sure Warhawk and MAG have decent communities still, I'm almost positive Warhawk is still played by plenty. The trick with MAG is that there's so many players in one match that you need a bigger community to keep the game going. Metal Gear Online probably has the smallest community but it's still enough as I still play it weekly and I have been playing the game since it came out over 2 years ago because there hasn't been a better online shooter since. The only hope I have for a better online shooter is SOCOM4.

 

[TheYellowCellPhone]

Why do we like modern shooters.

They're fun. And, *gasp* people enjoy them!

I happen to be a gun nut and love to play shooters because I'm good at them. And not every one is the same.

 

[Geekosaurus]

They're easy and they're fun.

 

[Gindil]

Casual friendliness.

But it's not---

Oh, I see what you did there...