What is the appeal of modern Shooters?

[repeating integers]

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.

This is my new favourite post on this site. Thank you, good sir, that was an excellent read.

OT: I think I should make my own contribution.

Mr. Tupolev has already covered the story aspect, so I think I'm going to cover the gameplay. I already sent a PM to somebody regarding this - I will paste it here.

attentiongrabsnip

Areas in the Halo games are typically quite open, rather than being a linear corridor. An example is in the third level of Halo: Reach, which has a section shaped like this, except it takes place at night:

You have a selection of different weapons earlier in the level to choose from before you enter this bit, and you also have some allies you can give some of those weapons to. Combine these two things with the extreme intelligence of the enemy AI, and the variety of enemies and weapons, and not only do I have to think carefully and use tactics to beat my enemies, but things never happen the same way twice.

You'll find situations like this in every level of the Halo games, and it's pretty much the main reason I love playing through their singleplayer campaigns over and over again - it's always different, and it's always fun and challenging. And also, it's tactical.

 

[Mcface]

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.

Can you show me an example of a good shooter?

seriously, old school shooters just cant compare.
Same gameplay, fewer guns, no customization, worse graphics, etc. take the nostalgia goggles off broski.

 

[No_Remainders]

I don't play L4D because I find it too simplistic and shallow. Same goes for TF2.

You can hardly call TF2 "simplistic and shallow" when you just said that you enjoy playing CoD.

CoD is far more simplistic, whereas with TF2 you have to actually USE tactics as a team to win...

I'm not gonna both arguing.

OT: Shrug. They're fun.

 

[Glademaster_v1legacy]

I really don't agree with you on so many points. The games are very aware they are immature adrenaline filled gorefests/your in an action movie well except for CoD in portions. They use this to their advantage. Also if people have fun playing it why do you care? If you don't like that style of gritty Die Hard action movie type shooter then go play TF2 or Cryostasis or Necrovision or whatever. You don't have to play CoD because everyone else does. Just play the shooters you feel conform to your standards.

 

[nuba km]

I would assume that people like modern shooters because their twitch isn't good enough for old school shooters. xD
snip
Also! Super Gory Violence: Oozing Manliness would be a great name for a game.

I actually play a lot of the remakes (doom, dukenukem and serious sam) because they aren't 'twitch' games rather 'omg god giant robot(insert anything here) that shoots laser beams out of (name part of thing) is attacking me as well as (insert number above 30) (insert any type os creature) and all I have is (insert upper cool weapon) and (inser more ammo ten a person could carry) for it' games. this is why I love borderlands because its a modern day version of it but bad company two is also fun. as for the name of that game it should either be made by gear box or people can fly.

snip

there is one great thing about MW2 and that is the co-op missions they kick ass.

 

[Glademaster_v1legacy]

snip

Ok as much as I dislike the way CoD is going I disagree on so many things.

- Metal Gear Online allows you to LEAN while shooting

COD has NO LEANING

CoD allows to lean in the PC versions. Don't go bad mouthing a whole game due to devs not being able to fit enough commands on a controller due to lack of buttons or a bit too many unnecessary features take your pick.

no game play depth and the multiplayer is serviceable at best.

I guess someone has never played on a server with Promod or a server than bans imba mechanics or any form of competitive CoD. Yes as a general experience CoD can be quite imba of late no one can dispute it isn't but if you don't like the vanilla game/rules there are ways around it.

COD can't even do a spawning system right (just have the teams spawn at separate ends of the map)

This is generally how a spawn system work. In fact this doesn't even address the actual problems with CoD's spawn system whatsoever. You have really lost out on what could of been a good point.

COD doesn't have proper clan support

This is really only relevant for consoles which I am assuming you are playing it on.

COD doesn't have a room system (it's all lame matchmaking)

I am sorry but rooms are equally as bad as matchmaking and are a major fault in current console online. Dedicated servers with a server list will always be better. Once again only affects consoles.

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

A number beside you're name never is a true measure of player skill. In fact even attempting to go by this in any game is an awful guage of skill. Except maybe sometihing like the True Skill in Dawn of War 2 but you can't really apply that system to FPS games.

COD has health regen

There is nothing wrong with health regen it is a design choice same as linearity if you don't like it play something else.

COD rewards camping

No game rewards camping unless you are refering to spawn camping in CoD which is one of the genuine problems with CoD spawns. Conventional camping on CoD can be easily over come with a cooked grenade or a stun grenade or flash grenade or gas grenade or since they are camping jump in and shoot where you know they will be as they are camping.

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?

This is really just your opinion and if you only like CoD's single player then play it and let the other people be happy with their slightly imba shadow of the series' former self.

 

[Johnmcl7]

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.

To be fair to Halo I think that's a fault of the terrible Halo community not the game itself which there's not much Bungie can do about. Halo is one of the games I've always found to be particularly enjoyable in team games, right back to the first version my workmates and I used to bring in Xboxes to play 4v4 team games (four per TV) during lunch which I found was Halo at its best. With Halo 2 I had a good group of friends who used to play together on the big team battle playlist and decimate other teams as the game really rewarded those who worked well together. With Reach I enjoy the invasion mode again because it particularly rewards teamwork even more than the previous games, individual pairs who work well together to keep each other spawned in and co-ordinate with the other pairs can easily walk over other teams with much higher skill levels.

 

[Throwitawaynow]

Hello people,
I've got some problems with the modern Shooters nowadays.

Hello people,
I've got some problems with the Nintendo games nowadays, namely Wii games. With their unlikeable hyper-ridiculous-superheroes-that were ruined or have been run in to the ground (Samus, Mario 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 "Rock Band" (mainly because of the fact it can played on PS3 and Xbox360), or "Guitar Hero" (because it's a hell lot of fun to play it with friends).
But things like "Other M" or "Super Smash Bros" and Mario (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 Wii games? Or why so many people do like them?
(I especially would like to hear the answer from fans of Mario, Other M, Super Smash Bros and Donkey Kong)

I can understand, if you want to blow off some steam, but you've got other consoles for that. They atleast know what they are, they actually play good games, that's cool.

People who havn't hit puberty (or are 50 years past it) often like those kind of games, you know this super easy kind of games, so they can feel like they accomplished something or whatever. But I myself have gone throw puberty (I'm 20)and I'm tired of this rubbish! Isn't that a clear sign? Is there anyone who feels the same?

Also, what's up with people who like asparagus? That stuff is disgusting! The texture, taste, after taste, things served with them, and that smell they make you pee afterwards.

And, why doesn't everyone love Iron Maiden are these people stoopid? They r da best band evar!

 

[^=ash=^]

People like current gen. shooters because the guns go bang, people fall down and there is a bit of story caught up in it to give you a reason to make the guns go bang. Not everyone is hooked on nostalgia so they only play old games, I play new games because they look nice and are fun to play, sure some older games Half Life for example are great fun but the aesthetics aren't all there so are less immersive.

 

[Johnmcl7]

Master Chief is a Twat whos fanbase is made up of people who think skulls are cool and all aliens are evil and should be shot without even knowing a damn thing about what they're supposed to be doing and why.

Awe man! Everyone thought it was a good plot device in Bioshock that Jack just killed and didn't ask questions, why does it suck in Halo when Master Chief was genetically engineered to do the exact same thing just like jack was?

The Master Chief wasn't genetically engineered at all, he was chosen at six years old based on natural genetic attrbutes (along with 74 others out of total pool of 150) and then at 13 years old had biochemical enhancements to provide the physical improvements to his body.

As for the rather stupid generic and stereotypical comments from the quoted poster above, replying to that sort of post gives it more credit than it's due (which is none)

 

[irishstormtrooper]

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.

Well, there's your problem. You want to play these games for great stories. There are other games for that. Modern shooters are more like the recent Transformers movies. Their stories serve to provide you, the player, with explosions. People don't play Blops or Gears of War for deep stories and interesting characters, just like people don't watch Transformers for subtle commentary about modern life. Anyway, most people play the multiplayer of modern shooters, which, might I add, is really goddamn fun.

 

[imperialreign]

Depends on one's definition of modern shooter.

Personally, CoD4 was the last decent one, and only because the MP was fun. Otherwise it, like numerous other games, kinda sucks.

STALKER, though, is great - it doesn't feel like every other shooter out there. Neither did Metro2033, but this game is more similar to what else in on the market.

Crysis was fun the first time through, it allowed for some flexibility and you could choose whatever kind of approach you prefered (assault, stealth, sniper, etc.) . . .

 

[Phoenixmgs_v1legacy]

- Metal Gear Online allows you to LEAN while shooting

COD has NO LEANING

CoD allows to lean in the PC versions. Don't go bad mouthing a whole game due to devs not being able to fit enough commands on a controller due to lack of buttons or a bit too many unnecessary features take your pick.

The FPS control scheme is so basic there's no reason to not be able to have leaning on a game controller. Metal Gear Online is a TPS that has FPS leaning. If a TPS with a more complex control scheme can do FPS leaning, why can't a straight FPS do it? I remember reading in another post that leaning was taken out of the PC COD games as well and it's back in BLOPS, correct me if I'm wrong.

no game play depth and the multiplayer is serviceable at best.

I guess someone has never played on a server with Promod or a server than bans imba mechanics or any form of competitive CoD. Yes as a general experience CoD can be quite imba of late no one can dispute it isn't but if you don't like the vanilla game/rules there are ways around it.

I don't play PC games because I don't like playing games at my PC. So everything I say has to do with the console versions.

COD can't even do a spawning system right (just have the teams spawn at separate ends of the map)

This is generally how a spawn system work. In fact this doesn't even address the actual problems with CoD's spawn system whatsoever. You have really lost out on what could of been a good point.

I was talking about team deathmatch spawning, which should have set spawning areas for each team. I really only played TDM and search & destroy when I played CoD4. Plus, the fact that you say there are other spawn issues means that CoD fails with its spawning system. CoD is supposed to be the gold standard for online FPSs and it doesn't even have a decent or good spawn system.

COD doesn't have proper clan support

This is really only relevant for consoles which I am assuming you are playing it on.

Yeah, console and there's no reason a game like CoD shouldn't have real clan support on console or PC.

COD doesn't have a room system (it's all lame matchmaking)

I am sorry but rooms are equally as bad as matchmaking and are a major fault in current console online. Dedicated servers with a server list will always be better. Once again only affects consoles.

Rooms are better than matchmaking because if you find a good room, you can be set for hours. Plus rooms allow you to set up clan battles much easier. Matchmaking is lame in COD because if you party up with friends and you guys are good players, you are matched up with randoms and a team of good players almost always beat randoms so you can't play even matches. Dedicated servers are better but not an option on consoles. Metal Gear Online allows a player to be a dedicated server for the room plus there's game modes (survival and tournaments weekly) that use dedicated servers. Metal Gear Online offers 2 very competitive modes; Survival and Tournaments. In Survival, clans and friends put together 6-player teams and you are matched up on dedicated servers to battle other teams so you play a wide range of teams from average teams to the best teams with the top players in the game. And, Survival mixes up the maps and game modes so you have to be a good at all the game modes and maps to be a good Survival player. Survival happens 3 days a week for a 4 hour span each day so the game gives everyone time to play competitively instead of having to use a 3rd party like GameBattles to set up clan battles and whatnot. Tournaments are like Survival but in a tournament structure, once you lose, you're done.

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

A number beside you're name never is a true measure of player skill. In fact even attempting to go by this in any game is an awful guage of skill. Except maybe sometihing like the True Skill in Dawn of War 2 but you can't really apply that system to FPS games.

Metal Gear Online has a level system that determines a player skill pretty well, it based on how well you play against lower levels, same level players, and higher level players. A team of level 16s will almost always beat a team of level 15s. You can boost levels but you can tell rather quickly if someone boosted their level as they will suck.

COD has health regen

There is nothing wrong with health regen it is a design choice same as linearity if you don't like it play something else.

I'm not all for realism (as Metal Gear Online is not realistic) but there's certain basic rules I think a game based in the real world should abide by. For example, you shouldn't automatically regen health and it's just a bad gameplay mechanic. It's a bad gameplay mechanic because if player A shoots player B from afar (not killing), player B can then work their way up to player A and be at full health and an even playing field when player A should have the advantage. The only way health regen makes sense if there is some technological reason for it.

COD rewards camping

No game rewards camping unless you are refering to spawn camping in CoD which is one of the genuine problems with CoD spawns. Conventional camping on CoD can be easily over come with a cooked grenade or a stun grenade or flash grenade or gas grenade or since they are camping jump in and shoot where you know they will be as they are camping.

The killstreak rewards can very well reward camping. I'm not talking about people hiding in one corner the whole time. An online shooter should have game modes setup to get players together with objectives to do like MAG does.

 

[Bihac]

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.

So, you are suggesting that games like Serious Sam, Painkiller and L4D - would help the public take games seriously?

Anyway, to answer your actual question;
CoD - Single Player, I like to see if they've come up with anything new (it should be noted, I only own 2 CoD Games, Finest Hour and MW2.) And the multiplayer aspect, not for the random folk, but because there is little feeling as rewarding, as getting an AC130, and helping a friend who's surrounded with bombs from the sky.

GoW - If you didn't detect that this game was over the top, gore fest, and blow shit up for laughs series from very near the start, that's on you. The Story telling isn't particularly bad, though neither it nor the story are earth shatteringly amazing. Again, after playing the campaign, my only real interest was playing Horde Mode with my friends on insane, and trying to beat level 50. (Which is the reason you cited liking L4D)

Halo - I think this has more than adequately been conveyed by other posters before me.

 

[Glademaster_v1legacy]

The FPS control scheme is so basic there's no reason to not be able to have leaning on a game controller. Metal Gear Online is a TPS that has FPS leaning. If a TPS with a more complex control scheme can do FPS leaning, why can't a straight FPS do it? I remember reading in another post that leaning was taken out of the PC COD games as well and it's back in BLOPS, correct me if I'm wrong.

Well you're wrong for the most part that was only for one game that was a spin off and not even part of the main series(MW2). Also there aren't enough buttons on a controller with the current control scheme to allow for lean on consoles. As well as that games that have a TPS/FPS element can allow for different buttons to double for completely different commands given certain requirements ie going into first person.

I don't play PC games because I don't like playing games at my PC. So everything I say has to do with the console versions.

Well that's fair enough but so many of your problems would be fixed by playing on PC just saying. If you prefer consoles that is fine too.

I was talking about team deathmatch spawning, which should have set spawning areas for each team. I really only played TDM and search & destroy when I played CoD4. Plus, the fact that you say there are other spawn issues means that CoD fails with its spawning system. CoD is supposed to be the gold standard for online FPSs and it doesn't even have a decent or good spawn system.

Ok hold on there I don't know what bullshit you have been listening but CoD is NOT in anyway shape or form other than for money bags the gold standard for FPS games. Very few games do have a decent spawn system and in fact CoD does have the potential to have one of the best spawn systems in FPS gaming. It is also a well known fact that CoD has major spawn issues it is not even worth bringing up. The fact you play TDM only really just makes it worst. In any game TDM is the worst game type as it encourages the worst behaviours and strategies.

Yeah, console and there's no reason a game like CoD shouldn't have real clan support on console or PC.

Well I have no idea what it is like on console for clan system as I never took a look at it but it is perfectly fine on PC also we have even better clan systems like xfire and steam but that is kinda off topic.

Rooms are better than matchmaking because if you find a good room, you can be set for hours. Plus rooms allow you to set up clan battles much easier. Matchmaking is lame in COD because if you party up with friends and you guys are good players, you are matched up with randoms and a team of good players almost always beat randoms so you can't play even matches. Dedicated servers are better but not an option on consoles. Metal Gear Online allows a player to be a dedicated server for the room plus there's game modes (survival and tournaments weekly) that use dedicated servers. Metal Gear Online offers 2 very competitive modes; Survival and Tournaments. In Survival, clans and friends put together 6-player teams and you are matched up on dedicated servers to battle other teams so you play a wide range of teams from average teams to the best teams with the top players in the game. And, Survival mixes up the maps and game modes so you have to be a good at all the game modes and maps to be a good Survival player. Survival happens 3 days a week for a 4 hour span each day so the game gives everyone time to play competitively instead of having to use a 3rd party like GameBattles to set up clan battles and whatnot. Tournaments are like Survival but in a tournament structure, once you lose, you're done.

Ok first off a player can not be a dedicated server. To be a dedicated server the server must run near constantly and be fully dedicated to that one thing and not shared with anything else so no a player is not a dedicated server unless s/he buys a server and sets it up as such.

Secondly the bit in bold is BS. Why would dedis not work on consoles? There is no reason they would not. As Resistance and a few of your glorified PS3 exclusives have dedicated servers and they run just fine. As well as that Gears 3 is getting dedicated servers. There is no reason they would not work on consoles in any stretch of the imagination. It is ridiculous that every game on consoles doesn't use dedicated servers especially the main ones.

Metal Gear Online has a level system that determines a player skill pretty well, it based on how well you play against lower levels, same level players, and higher level players. A team of level 16s will almost always beat a team of level 15s. You can boost levels but you can tell rather quickly if someone boosted their level as they will suck.

See the problem here is Metal Gear has level system that determines player skill. CoDs system does not and should never even be treated as such. The CoD system is for gaining equipment not skill level. The fact people can boost even if they do suck shows that the system is still faulty.

I'm not all for realism (as Metal Gear Online is not realistic) but there's certain basic rules I think a game based in the real world should abide by. For example, you shouldn't automatically regen health and it's just a bad gameplay mechanic. It's a bad gameplay mechanic because if player A shoots player B from afar (not killing), player B can then work their way up to player A and be at full health and an even playing field when player A should have the advantage. The only way health regen makes sense if there is some technological reason for it.

Yes and that's is what you think and that is your opinion and it is fine. I have no problem with your opinion but it is not a bad gameplay mechanic in itself. It works and is not broken. If player A did not kill player B or not move and subsequently gets killed then it is player A's fault and they deserved to die. Player A should not have the advantage because they shot first. They have lost their advantage of surprise and they now on even terms so there is nothing wrong with this. If you don't like the mechanic that much then stop playing the games no one is making you play them but it is not a broken mechanic.

The killstreak rewards can very well reward camping. I'm not talking about people hiding in one corner the whole time. An online shooter should have game modes setup to get players together with objectives to do like MAG does.

I actually find it funny that you think games should get people to play together when you mostly played TDM. TDM is the perfect of example of a game type that doesn't work with team work. There are so many problems with the gametype in general. If a person gets that good of a score they were obviously doing something right or the other team was doing something damn stupid. Why are you playing CoD if you want teamwork anyway? CoD is a game developed around lone wolf play. It is why the maps have been getting increasingly small with increasingly small player caps. You went into CoD expecting it to be a comepletely different game that it was.

 

[ArtanisCreed]

Master Chief is a Twat whos fanbase is made up of people who think skulls are cool and all aliens are evil and should be shot without even knowing a damn thing about what they're supposed to be doing and why.

And the CoD games are there for people who wont accept that Modern War is actually boring because these days we just make bomb threats to one another and replace real police with fresh army recruits as an act of peace.

Gears of War is great! Eat Shit and Die.

Umm isnt this guys bashing Halo for something that happens in Gears?

 

[bl4ckh4wk64]

Well, I play Mod Warfare 2 and Blops just to see how inaccurate their portrayal of the guns are and to arm myself against the impending "I know what this is and I'm an expert on it because I saw it in CoD" storm.

I play Halo for the insane amount of customization. Yes, I can do that on PC, but some of my friends that have crap PC's won't be able to.

 

[Phoenixmgs_v1legacy]

The FPS control scheme is so basic there's no reason to not be able to have leaning on a game controller. Metal Gear Online is a TPS that has FPS leaning. If a TPS with a more complex control scheme can do FPS leaning, why can't a straight FPS do it? I remember reading in another post that leaning was taken out of the PC COD games as well and it's back in BLOPS, correct me if I'm wrong.

Well you're wrong for the most part that was only for one game that was a spin off and not even part of the main series(MW2). Also there aren't enough buttons on a controller with the current control scheme to allow for lean on consoles. As well as that games that have a TPS/FPS element can allow for different buttons to double for completely different commands given certain requirements ie going into first person.

I didn't know you replied because you didn't technically quote me.

With leaning, you can easily have it setup on the controller to have left/right on the d-pad lean when looking down the sights. That's how MGO does it and it works out extremely well as the PS3 d-pad is analog to boot, I don't see why it wouldn't work in a FPS.

I don't play PC games because I don't like playing games at my PC. So everything I say has to do with the console versions.

Well that's fair enough but so many of your problems would be fixed by playing on PC just saying. If you prefer consoles that is fine too.

I just don't care for playing at my computer desk and my PC is from 2001 and going strong as I tweak everything like windows services so it runs as efficient as possible (I don't even run an Anti-virus program anymore as it's really not needed). Plus, when I play a game, I don't want to have to tweak stuff as I'll try to get the game running as best as possible, and that's just taking away from game time. I've helped with and witnessed several of my friends' PC game issues and the solution just sometimes takes long to figure out as someone on some forum figured it out and you just gotta find it. I tried playing Deus Ex: Invisible War and that was just a pain as the game was developed for the Xbox first and there was a hole bunch user created fixes and stuff.

I was talking about team deathmatch spawning, which should have set spawning areas for each team. I really only played TDM and search & destroy when I played CoD4. Plus, the fact that you say there are other spawn issues means that CoD fails with its spawning system. CoD is supposed to be the gold standard for online FPSs and it doesn't even have a decent or good spawn system.

Ok hold on there I don't know what bullshit you have been listening but CoD is NOT in anyway shape or form other than for money bags the gold standard for FPS games. Very few games do have a decent spawn system and in fact CoD does have the potential to have one of the best spawn systems in FPS gaming. It is also a well known fact that CoD has major spawn issues it is not even worth bringing up. The fact you play TDM only really just makes it worst. In any game TDM is the worst game type as it encourages the worst behaviours and strategies.

I realize there are better FPSs than COD but it really seems like according to the gaming media and lots of COD players that COD is the gold standard for FPSs, not that it actually is; more to do with perception than actuality. In my view, TDM should play out like a game of tug-of-war as each team tries to move their front lines up further, but moving spawns really kills it for me. I'm not trying to say TDM offers great strategy (it doesn't) but moving spawns kinda makes TDM into a plain Deathmatch type mode as you don't know where the enemies are coming from if you don't know how the spawning system works. I actually played search and destroy more, I just played TDM when I felt like playing a respawn mode.

Yeah, console and there's no reason a game like CoD shouldn't have real clan support on console or PC.

Well I have no idea what it is like on console for clan system as I never took a look at it but it is perfectly fine on PC also we have even better clan systems like xfire and steam but that is kinda off topic.

I'm just saying a game can do clan support much better (whether console or PC) than just having the player put 4 characters before their name for their clan tag; that is the entirety of COD's clan support, it's just plain sad if you ask me.

Rooms are better than matchmaking because if you find a good room, you can be set for hours. Plus rooms allow you to set up clan battles much easier. Matchmaking is lame in COD because if you party up with friends and you guys are good players, you are matched up with randoms and a team of good players almost always beat randoms so you can't play even matches. Dedicated servers are better but not an option on consoles. Metal Gear Online allows a player to be a dedicated server for the room plus there's game modes (survival and tournaments weekly) that use dedicated servers. Metal Gear Online offers 2 very competitive modes; Survival and Tournaments. In Survival, clans and friends put together 6-player teams and you are matched up on dedicated servers to battle other teams so you play a wide range of teams from average teams to the best teams with the top players in the game. And, Survival mixes up the maps and game modes so you have to be a good at all the game modes and maps to be a good Survival player. Survival happens 3 days a week for a 4 hour span each day so the game gives everyone time to play competitively instead of having to use a 3rd party like GameBattles to set up clan battles and whatnot. Tournaments are like Survival but in a tournament structure, once you lose, you're done.

Ok first off a player can not be a dedicated server. To be a dedicated server the server must run near constantly and be fully dedicated to that one thing and not shared with anything else so no a player is not a dedicated server unless s/he buys a server and sets it up as such.

Secondly the bit in bold is BS. Why would dedis not work on consoles? There is no reason they would not. As Resistance and a few of your glorified PS3 exclusives have dedicated servers and they run just fine. As well as that Gears 3 is getting dedicated servers. There is no reason they would not work on consoles in any stretch of the imagination. It is ridiculous that every game on consoles doesn't use dedicated servers especially the main ones.

I think we just have different terminology for dedicated server. To me, a dedicated server in an online is just any kind of computer (which could be a PC, a console, or full on server) handling the connections of every player in the game. If it's just a PC or console being the server, then obviously, a player can not be playing in the game from that console or PC. I don't see why the dedicated server has to be running constantly for it to be a dedicated server. If the server just runs games for an hour a day, you get the same game experience for that hour that you would get a 24 hour run dedicated server, it's just not constantly running but the game experience is the same. Basically, a dedicated server is just having all the connections being handled on one machine; a lot of shooters have player counts low enough that one person's connection has enough bandwidth to handle all the connections, shooters usually aren't MMOs. You either have games on dedicated servers (a machine handling all connections) or one of the players in the game is the host, those are the 2 methods of hosting games. Dedicated servers are obviously better so that there's no host advantage. In MGO, you can create a room that you host but don't play in, so MGO supports dedicated hosts created by other players who aren't actually playing.

I worded that part about dedicated hosts not being an option on the consoles rather poorly. What I meant by dedicated hosts aren't an option on the console is that most console games have a player of the game be the host, so then you don't have the option of having a dedicated server to begin with. PC games have a history of having certain features that consoles don't have. PC games have a history of using dedicated servers whereas consoles do not. PC gamers expect them, console gamers don't. On the PC, if a game publisher doesn't actually run any dedicated servers, players are usually given the opportunity to create and run their own servers (I know several PC games can still be played online long after support has been completely dropped by the publisher and players keep the game going), which is a feature console games just don't have. MGO is the only game I know of that allows players to run their own dedicated server. Therefore, a console game utilizes player hosts or dedicated servers and most console games use player hosts so you just don't have the option of dedicated servers most of the time. Anyways, that's what I meant by dedicated hosts not being an option because most console games just don't allow for them, not that they can't, just that they usually don't.

Metal Gear Online has a level system that determines a player skill pretty well, it based on how well you play against lower levels, same level players, and higher level players. A team of level 16s will almost always beat a team of level 15s. You can boost levels but you can tell rather quickly if someone boosted their level as they will suck.

See the problem here is Metal Gear has level system that determines player skill. CoDs system does not and should never even be treated as such. The CoD system is for gaining equipment not skill level. The fact people can boost even if they do suck shows that the system is still faulty.

I think every game that utilizes matchmaking should have a system in place to determine a player's skill. If you don't have that kind of system in place, how are you going to put players into even teams for your online matches? If the game had public room support, it wouldn't be a big issue; however, when there's just matchmaking, it's a big problem.

I'm not all for realism (as Metal Gear Online is not realistic) but there's certain basic rules I think a game based in the real world should abide by. For example, you shouldn't automatically regen health and it's just a bad gameplay mechanic. It's a bad gameplay mechanic because if player A shoots player B from afar (not killing), player B can then work their way up to player A and be at full health and an even playing field when player A should have the advantage. The only way health regen makes sense if there is some technological reason for it.

Yes and that's is what you think and that is your opinion and it is fine. I have no problem with your opinion but it is not a bad gameplay mechanic in itself. It works and is not broken. If player A did not kill player B or not move and subsequently gets killed then it is player A's fault and they deserved to die. Player A should not have the advantage because they shot first. They have lost their advantage of surprise and they now on even terms so there is nothing wrong with this. If you don't like the mechanic that much then stop playing the games no one is making you play them but it is not a broken mechanic.

I don't play games with health regen. I got into COD4 for a bit because it was my first FPS online experience. I will make just one more point about health regen is that I feel it reduces teamwork as well; if I hit someone and take say a third of their health, then when one of my teammates and that guy meet, my teammate should have to only take 2/3s of his health because I already shoot him up a bit. But with that said, I'm guessing we will have to agree to disagree here.

The killstreak rewards can very well reward camping. I'm not talking about people hiding in one corner the whole time. An online shooter should have game modes setup to get players together with objectives to do like MAG does.

I actually find it funny that you think games should get people to play together when you mostly played TDM. TDM is the perfect of example of a game type that doesn't work with team work. There are so many problems with the gametype in general. If a person gets that good of a score they were obviously doing something right or the other team was doing something damn stupid. Why are you playing CoD if you want teamwork anyway? CoD is a game developed around lone wolf play. It is why the maps have been getting increasingly small with increasingly small player caps. You went into CoD expecting it to be a comepletely different game that it was.

I played more Search and Destroy than TDM, I just played TDM when I wanted a match with respawning. In MGO, TDM is probably my least favorite mode. MAG is my favorite FPS this gen and it doesn't even have TDM.

With COD's killstreaks, sometimes it's not about the other team allowing a player have a good match, it's about the game itself letting it happen. I only played MW2 for an hour at my cousin's place before realizing it was just plain garbage. You can literaly just camp around get a few kills (probably 5 is all it takes), and just use the killstreak rewards to get you more kills and more rewards to get more kills, you see where this is going. So someone can literally be a smart moving camper, get a few legitimate kills, and end up with an awesome match. In MAG, if you camp, you are literally not helping your team whatsoever; whereas in COD, camping can be very effective in even objective modes.

 

[warm slurm]

I don't know, but I know I'd rather play a rousing game of Left 4 Dead than play any more of a motion sickness-inducing, boring as hell game like Okami that everybody calls "art."