I'm looking for arena shooters like Quake and Unreal Tournament to be reborn. I'm tired of shooters taking less and less skill and constantly appeasing the masses. It's time for competitive gamers to be the top of the food chain again like the 90s era of online gaming. Where being good was the only way to win a match and teach lesser skilled players to pay their dues like we had too. It's time for the kings of online gaming to reclaim their thrones and the ones who spent hundreds if not thousands of hours to reap the rewards. It's time for competitive gamers to rise and take back online competitive gaming! Unreal Tournament 4 and Doom 4 shall bring back what it means to be a competitive gamer! Pubstomping shall become a right instead of a privilege. And all the time we spent learning these games will be for not.
Poll: Shooters - what are you looking for? Realism Vs. Non-Realism
- Thread starter TheIronRuler
- Start date
Recommended Videos
I'll play either but I'll always prefer something like Bulletstorm, Halo, or Turok over CoD or Battlefield. The more a game tries to be realistic, especially if it's considered a big enough selling point to be a major part of the marketing, the less interested I am in it. For example I've beaten Modern Warfae 3 but I didn't buy it. My brother got it from a friend. Played it from boredom and thought it was entertaining but overrated.
I enjoy Red Orchestra and I enjoy Team Fortress 2. I don't really enjoy anything in between anymore, so I guess I like them fairly realistic or super cartoon-y. The pseudo-realistic stuff like CoD or BF doesn't really appeal to me anymore.
Definitely non-realistic. I play video games as an escape from reality (not that my reality is awful or anything, it's just nice to get away from it all every once and a while). Borderlands 2 is my favourite shooter so that should give you an idea of just how realistic I like my shooters to be.
.Johnny Novgorod said:
Have you ever played Bulletstorm? It made shooters into an art form - you got points for the most ludivrious kills and kill combinations. It made murder fun - which is a major part of Non-Realism Shooters. I liked it a lot, especially since the targets aren't really human, so you don't feel an iota of discomfort mowing them down.
Wait... Spec Ops: The Line was realistic? I mean, cynical? Sure. Confronting? Definitely. But actual war zones don't feature feature booming classical music or Deep Purple and Jimi Hendrix playing in the background. Real soldiers die a lot easier than Walker or his men.
My point is, Spec Ops is way closer to Apocalypse Now* than it is to Black Hawk Down or Band of Brothers.
*Which I suppose makes sense, given the shared Heart of Darkness roots.
My point is, Spec Ops is way closer to Apocalypse Now* than it is to Black Hawk Down or Band of Brothers.
*Which I suppose makes sense, given the shared Heart of Darkness roots.
You have a weird outlook on gaming in general I think, I'm not a massive competitive gamer but I think I'll enjoy my Halo,Battlefield, TF2, Planetside 2 and maybe even the new DOOM singleplayer.Artaneius said:
I do love the more tactical realistic shooters, but only to a certain degree. Project Reality is probably one of the best tactical teambased fps games I have ever played and still play. I also still love my none realistic arcade shooters too, just not the CoD, Battlefield 3/4 kind. If I'm going to play a arcade shooter I'd rather play Quake, UT, Painkiller or any similar kind of none realistic shooter.
Spec Ops is definitely not 'realistic', but it tackles subjects in warfare that don't get addressed by a lot of modern shooters, which is why I mentioned it in the OP. PTSD, civilians in a war-zone, morality in a shootout, use of heavy ordnance, friendly fire... that's heavy stuff.