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

[Vankraken]

None of the Above.

The real killer for me is guns that feel like they have no force, impact, or effect. That feeling when a gun has the weight of plastic, recoil of a BB gun, and just sounds washed out or just weak. In addition when it takes 30+ rounds from said weak gun to kill anything and the enemy doesn't really seem phased by the attacks until its health is gone and falls down.

The shining example of how this mechanic is done right is Killzone. That game has a ton of weight behind each shot, the weapons handled like they weren't made of air, the animations of throwing a grenade, reloading, melee, etc tossed the camera around a bit to show motion your characters body made (which results in your head not staying perfectly still as it tends to do in most FPS). The sounds where rich and heavy, and it just felt satisfying to shoot.

The game Haze was one game that kinda just didn't have the oomph behind its weapons and just had a lack of weight behind the gameplay. Resistance for me also felt lacking in that department.

 

[tippy2k2]

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.

Your response was "LOL, good one" to myself putting CoD4 as a realistic shooter. You offer absolutely no other words to explain it. Feel free to explain what you actually meant since the only way I can possibly see that statement working is you laughing at the idea that it is a realistic game.

Hell, whatever your intent, that has nothing to do with what this thread is about.

 

[tippy2k2]

None of the Above.

The real killer for me is guns that feel like they have no force, impact, or effect. That feeling when a gun has the weight of plastic, recoil of a BB gun, and just sounds washed out or just weak. In addition when it takes 30+ rounds from said weak gun to kill anything and the enemy doesn't really seem phased by the attacks until its health is gone and falls down.

While I enjoy the Halo games, this reasoning is why I don't like using covenant weapons. They sound like the noises a kid would make when making gun noises in their Aliens Versus Cowboys game that they just made up.

It's also why I would recommend people to get Turtle Beach's (Headphones) or surround sound. The booming explosion that they make is quite epic.

 

[ZZoMBiE13]

I enjoy a lot of the modern FPS. I'm not a big fan of the "modern warfare" scenarios, but they still have their merits. You can't take too many people literally in this or any other forum. Often when someone is complaining about "what is wrong with topic X,Y,or Z", all they're really saying is "I'm not a fan of this type of game, I prefer genre A, B, or C".

I'm a big fan of sci-fi trappings so I like Halo. People who prefer their games with a more realistic slant may prefer BF3 or CoD. And there is nothing wrong with either of those franchises. And I would argue that we have it much better today because there is a wider variety of options to suit almost any players tastes. The only argument I'd say has weight is maybe Activision's annual release schedule, but it would be easier to make that point if the games didn't sell about a billion copies each year.

Bottom line is that it is all subjective. The old "one mans trash is another mans treasure" routine. Half the things I see people get up in arms about are the very things that made me start enjoying the First Person Shooter style of play in the first place. Things like the weapon limits or the regeneration that some lament are things I find make the genre a much more enjoyable game than the more retro offerings from the 90s. Again, just personal taste though. That certainly doen't make my opinion more valid or less valid than anyone elses.

 

[Twilight_guy]

When the game doesn't work properly. If enemies don't die, guns don't fire, you die due to glitches, geometry problems happen, etc. Then I consider the game bad right off the bat. Other then that, its all design decisions and some of them I like and some I don't but I don't condemn any design decision, (besides, let's fuck the player right here and be dicks).

 

[chadachada123]

The biggest, for me, are the short lengths. For example, Halo Reach included some great things, but it seems like every new vehicle or weapon or concept that showed up was used for mere minutes and then was ditched forever. The entire game was like that. Don't even get me started on CoD or BF3 campaign, either. It's like, as soon as the story actually gets going, "boom, here's the cliffhanger, now you win, yay."

Additionally bad are severe hand-holding and/or linearity, and along with this the lack of destructibility in most games makes most games of this nature pretty boring.

 

[darkcalling]

Any game that touts "realism" as a selling point loses a lot of points for me.

Boring weapons make me lose interest.

Anything that looks like a Call of Duty or Battlefield clone is gonna have to work EXTRA hard to get my money.

Anything that prioritizes multiplayer over single player loses points.

I prefer Sci Fi fps like Prey, Borderlands, and Duke Nukem Forever.

Best gun ever was the Cerebral bore from Turok 2. We need more of that.

 

[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?

Feel free to explain what you actually meant since the only way I can possibly see that statement working is you laughing at the idea that it is a realistic game.

Wait, what?

Both of those comments mean totally different things, and make totally different interrpretations as to the meaning of my original comment.

Regardless, you still miss the point of what I was actually trying to say to you. I was trying to tell you not to rush into an argument raging and flaming for no reason. My first comment was there simply as a bit of light humour, and maybe if you cared enough I thought you might respond and we could talk about the game.

What I wasn't expecting was a massive negative response in which I would be yelled at for causing massive amounts of offense (for some unknown reason) and to get called an idiot several times in an increasingly patronising manner.

 

[tippy2k2]

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?

Feel free to explain what you actually meant since the only way I can possibly see that statement working is you laughing at the idea that it is a realistic game.

Wait, what?

Both of those comments mean totally different things, and make totally different interrpretations as to the meaning of my original comment.

Regardless, you still miss the point of what I was actually trying to say to you. I was trying to tell you not to rush into an argument raging and flaming for no reason. My first comment was there simply as a bit of light humour, and maybe if you cared enough I thought you might respond and we could talk about the game.

What I wasn't expecting was a massive negative response in which I would be yelled at for causing massive amounts of offense (for some unknown reason) and to get called an idiot several times in an increasingly patronising manner.

Evidently we are just having a break-down in communication. I called you out for just taking a cheap shot at a game that has had that same insult leveled at it by everyone on the internet instead of discussing the topic at hand.

While I'm sure the OP doesn't mind the free bumps that are being supplied, I still have no clue what you are complaining about. I asked you to clarify your position and you reply that I called you an idiot?

So whatev, if somewhere in there you think I'm calling you an idiot, then my bad.

 

[krytorii]

I admit to being a black ops player. Whenever I just feel like a bit of mindless shooting and cant be arsed with a longer playing session that my RPGs require.

I have to say there're a few things that put me off FPS's in the past. First of all is the guns. I refuse to use a FAMAS, and I severely dislike silencers, although the bonus for them is too good. If my gun does not make a big sound like the death spewing machine it is supposed to be, I will not like it.

Second is realism. I love games like timesplitters and TF2. Realism has it's place, but I play games for entertainment. As long as I am immersed, I couldnt care if I am having to deal with the harsh penalties of reality or having to deal with that bloody rocket jumping soldier who keeps getting me.

 

[Terminate421]

Weapons must feel fun to use if I am to play an FPS. Machine Gun A must feel different to Machhine Gun B, not just in handling, clip size, etc. Its effectiveness must be varied.

Also, "All-round" weapons don't hold up very well to me

I laugh at people who claim that Regenerative health or 2 weapon limit or *Insert popular shooter* here is what makes for a bad fps.

 

[Korolev]

It's the story for me. Don't get me wrong, the plot of most FPS games have always been pretty awful. But now they are played out and predictable. Too many have either no story, or one grounded in boring modern military conflicts.

As for linearity - that's here to stay. While you can make an open world experience, it's expensive. Linear experiences are far cheaper to make and far easier for studios to make. In and of itself, Linearity is fine. Most of our best games are linear experiences: Bastion? Linear. Sure, you're not going down a corridor, but there is ONE AND ONLY ONE path for you to follow and you WILL FOLLOW IT. That's a linear, directed experience. Yet Bastion was a great game. Half life 2: Linear and directed as all hell. They fool you with the Highway 17 and Opening City 17 level.... but you still have to move forward, there still isn't that much to explore. It's linear - they just do a great job in tricking you into thinking it's not.

Of course, crawling down very tight corridors doing nothing but fighting (like Medal of Honor or MW2) isn't all that fun. But that's bad linearity. Disguised and used properly, linearity is nothing to be afraid of. Not every game has to be open world. Not every game could be. Large sections of many Final Fantasy games are linear and directed. Final Fantasy X was extremely linear. Yet many still loved that game, while still hating Final Fantasy XIII. It was because FFX gave us heart and a good story and the semblance of freedom, while FFXIII had none. FFX's "corridors" had NPCs, many story cut-scenes, interesting dialogue and felt alive. FFXIII's corridors were shiny and bare and dead boring.

Linearity, when done right can be a good thing. When done poorly, it's the worst thing in the world.

As for the focus on realism, yes, FPS games have suffered from that. Realism has its place, but by focusing excessively on it, developers have shuttered themselves off from any imaginative setting or story elements.

I'm not too hassled by the short length of the campaigns of modern FPS games. To be perfectly honest, I don't think I'd like to play a CoD game that lasted 10 to 15 hours. It'd be exhausting.

 

[Jazoni89]

Scripted events

When you've go to be in a certain place at a certain time in order to progress in the game.

For example in like say Battlefield/COD you need to wait behind a door for your squadmates to open it, but with games like Half Life, most of the time (unless it's a story driven segment) you can run through it at your own pace, you can even try and speed run it if you so desired. Not with games such as Battlefield, and COD oh no, you can't go here until Mr Sargent tells you to. So i say Fuck you Mr Sargent, I wan't some damn freedom in my games, and not have to wait for your dodgy A.I pathfinding ass to get over here.

Also, I like to have guns with a lot of recoil, and a feeling of weightiness. It bothers me in Call of Duty that you can run with a sniper rifle. Battlefield games as a whole have been rather good with this though, and games such as Killing Floor really do feel like you are holding a real gun.

 

[Zanaxal]

I would say Regen and weapon limititation aswell as constant infinity enemy respawning in that most annoying of ways. The layout also, like most are in a dark tight corridoor with many enemies in a cluster= The silliest place to use a gun but thats the only thing you get.

 

[The Breadcrab]

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.

May I ask what crime the console-community has done to prevent them from playing FPS games?

That's your opinion and all, but I'm personally sick of this kind of attitude, and I feel that we are certainly not going to solve any issues that we have with games if we adopt the mentality that PC and consoles should be seperated. /end rant

 

[ElPatron]

Generic art and the Boring weapons are the worst by far.


There is no such thing as too much realism. Don't like realism? Don't buy ArmA or Op Flashpoint.

Is Modern Warfare still to realistic? You have Brink, Crysis, Half-Life, and Serious Sam.





Unbalance, crap networking code, uber weapons obtained by micro transactions, poor game engine, poor optimization, stupid tacticool junk/copying other modern shooters.

Yeah, pretty much what is wrong with Combat Arms.

May I ask what crime the console-community has done to prevent them from playing FPS games?

None.

it's just the fact that since console games have to be "streamlined" to be played in consoles, we get half-assed ports with lack of depth.

 

[The Breadcrab]

Interesting responses so far, guys. However, we're not done yet! MWAHAHA!

Soon I'm going to create a thread called "Create your own ideal FPS" where people can essentially sound off about what they feel a truly good FPS is by 'pitching' one, whether staring from scratch or using an existing FPS as a template and building on it. You can list things like game mechanics, setting, art style, release method (retail/download), modes of play, story, etc.

Get some ideas flowing if you're interested. I'll be putting it up soon.

 

[IamLEAM1983]

My personal offenders are a hackneyed plot and a tired relevance to the "Brown + Gray = GRITTY REALISM" school of aesthetics. I understand that some persons get more of a rise out of an experience that mimics the actual sensations of being in a protracted gunfight, but even that deserves something more than the same old palette of colors we've been seeing since the first Gears of War.

Bulletstorm had a shitty plot, yes, but it made up for it by keeping me interested in the environment and curious to see what I'd encounter next. On the other hand, neither Modern Warfare 3 or Battlefield 3 have anything to offer me that would be of interest.

 

[The Breadcrab]

Uh oh...

I'm having trouble getting the next thread up. Keeps giving me an error 404.

Oh well, I'll leave it to just this thread for now.

I might as well voice my opinion as well. I think the main problem is that FPS' are too short these days; this is probably due to the inclusion of multi-player in every game, which I feel is not the best decision. If somebody wants to play multi-player, they'll go to an existing juggernaut like Battlefield, CoD, Halo, TF2, etc that focus on the multi-player aspect. Maybe an FPS is trying to do too much by catering to both ends, thus getting terrific single-player with wank multi (Bioshock 2, The Darkness) and terrific multi but a flat campaign. (Battlefield 3, Homefront) That's just my opinion, of course.

I find regen health to be ok. In some cases, it keeps the flow moving nicely. However, health packs can justify exploration. 2 weapon limit is ok for some games but not for others. In a game like Resistance 3, where the weapons are a focus, a 2 weapon limit would kill creativity and experimentation. On the other hand, some games add strategic depth with the limit. It depends.

Same goes for realism. It really depends on the game. Though I do think an extreme push towards realism is fundamentally flawed. A game can never truly imitate real life, and it shouldn't. At some point, devs have to raise their hands and ask "it is a game, right?"

Pacing and variety are key to an FPS game, and changing things up is vital.

A good story can really do wonders to an FPS and hide some flaws, especially when it's implemented well and somewhat fresh.

 

[Mr.Petey]

To me, the recent splurge of military themed FPS games seems to centre around the bland boring concept of "if it moves, blast it to hell and then some" reducing it to just a whack-a-mole style game that's especially prevalent in the multi-player aspect.
I enjoyed the oil rig level of MW2 as it demanded you actually took aim at those holding hostage before blindly perforating the room. Hell it took me back to my Operation Thunderbolt/Wolf days but that's another story for another time.

I want my FPS to have some thought about how to get around an obstacle too (not always a puzzle either but genuine tactical thinking) and hell I didn't even mind the whole keycard system in earlier incarnations of FPS titles. Just being given a map and having to navigate your way around familiar locations has it's appeal because you get that sense of accomplishment of finding your own way on your own set of skills if you follow me.

Oh and I tire of the fun-but-short campaigns of Modern Warfare too. Something along the lines of Half life 2 or even Far Cry 2 (though that was more sandbox-esque missions too) had a decent length to it without being too repetitive