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

[Gorilla Gunk]

All of the above, plus bad aiming controls on the consoles.

I've played a few games like F.E.A.R. 3 where the aiming (always w/ auto-aim off) was really smooth.

And then there are other games where the aiming just feels really jerky, even with the sensitivity adjusted. As much as I enjoy Crysis 2, it has this problem.

I never got why some games get it right and some games don't. You'd think making it so that the aiming controls on consoles are nice and fluid would be a universal thing, but I guess not.

 

[Conza]

I've been on the Escapist long enough (Read: not that long) to hear people complain about pretty much every FPS in existence at one point or another. However, I'm trying to pinpoint exactly what people dislike about the so called 'modern FPS', or at least the most widely hated aspect of them. MW3 is coming out and BF3 is already spinning in consoles/straining PC graphics cards, so without further ado, I allow you to vote on the aspects of modern FPS games that you hate the most, and why.

Is it regenerative health? Maybe you feel there is little freedom in the design? Or is the standard 'kill russians, save USA' plot what turns you off? Also, what makes for a 'good' FPS in your opinion? I want to know! Poll and comment away!

EDIT: If you can, PLEASE try to state an example of what you think a good shooter is! I keep hearing negativity towards games these days but rarely do I hear praise unless it's a review of the game itself. Shout out some of your FPS favorites! Doesn't matter what generations they're from, we want to see some examples.

I said plots, examples that come to mind include Crysis 2, Resistence Fall of Man, any COD or BF, ect. But most of the options there are valid complaints. Far out, I am so sick of this horrid abuse of FPS being put on console, marketed to meat head morons, and being so massively popular. FPS on PC only, thats the way it should be.

 

[parasyteFMA]

The short campaign length and the fact that every top selling FPS in the past several years has had a focus on ultra-realistic "modern warfare" style. It saddens me that all of these games sell millions of copies and have yearly releases. At least Battlefield 3 (while I'm not buying it nor do I plan on playing) looks halfway decent in the graphical department.

This is why games like Duke Nukem Forever (yes) and Bulletstorm make me a tad bit more enthusiastic about the FPS market now. While these games didn't make a ton of money, it was a change. Half-Life is a series that I think could bring dignity back to the FPS genre if Valve ever decides to put out the next installment.

 

[Nudu]

There's nothing in particular that makes an fps bad. If the shooting is satisfying it's usually not painfull to play. But it has to do something to make it stand out if I'm going to have any motivation to buy it.

 

[Onyx Oblivion]

Extreme linearity. I don't need too much freedom, but at least make flanking an option.

But Battlefield 3 was a whole new level of linear and scripted.

 

[Johann610]

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

 

[Jak23]

Where's the all of the above button? XD

 

[XMark]

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

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

 

[Wayneguard]

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

 

[Seventh Actuality]

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

 

[thestig1214]

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

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

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

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

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

 

[LarenzoAOG]

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

Pretty much this, also just not being fun.

 

[Pb Zeppelin]

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

 

[Evil Top Hat]

Focus on realism: Call of Duty 4: Modern Warfare

lol, good one

 

[tippy2k2]

Focus on realism: Call of Duty 4: Modern Warfare

lol, good one

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

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

 

[MarlonBlazed]

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

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

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

 

[Evil Top Hat]

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

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

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

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

 

[StriderShinryu]

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

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

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

 

[Mark Hardigan]

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

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

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

 

[Mark Hardigan]

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

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