The 'modern' shooter.

[QuadFish]

Evening, Escapists!

So, I just watched a 'gameplay' trailer of Homefront that was supposedly taken entirely from a 32-player online match. What I got was a very cinematic, scripted action montage from multiple angles. Then I watched actually gameplay footage (admittedly of the single player campaign) and it was exactly what I expected. Here's a brief checklist of what I watched:

*Objective markers.
*Generic dynamic crosshair with the four lines.
*Aim-down-sights (the bane of my existence).
*Suspenseful but ultimately predictable action sequence with explosions and gunfire.
Generic looking assault rifles with generic-looking reflex sights.
*Russian guys wearing furrier uniforms (obviously very Russian). (EDIT: Apparently they're North Korean. Jesus, I might as well just give up now.)
*Marines wearing generic armour.

So my question is 2-part:
1) Why do developers insist on making games like this and hyping them with cinematic, action montage trailers?
2) Are there any decent shooters out there you particularly enjoyed that involve a genuinely unique co-operative experience rather than the standard "spawn in a random spot and shoot the first dude you see" game?

Note: you don't really need to answer 1). I just really needed to rant about that.

 

[MiracleOfSound]

1. Because some of us enjoy them.

2. Bad Company 2

 

[Zer_]

1. Because some of us enjoy them.

2. Bad Company 2

Second'd

I agree with Bad Company 2. Awesome game.

 

[JemothSkarii]

1. Because they seem to make the most profit; people seem to like 'realistic' games about war and such.
2. (This kinda doesn't count) Resident Evil 5 OR Army of Two

 

[Fawful]

*Aim-down-sights (the bane of my existence).

Huh? I've never understood why this is a problem. Why is iron-sight aiming so friggin' bad?

OT:
1: Because they sell, really boody well
2: I've never played it online but Battlefield 2 is supposed to be like that

 

[Zhukov]

1. Because they sell. That is the be all and end all of making games.

2. Left 4 Dead. It's pretty much the co-op shooter.

 

[QuadFish]

*Aim-down-sights (the bane of my existence).

Huh? I've never understood why this is a problem. Why is iron-sight aiming so friggin' bad?

OT:
1: Because they sell, really boody well
2: I've never played it online but Battlefield 2 is supposed to be like that

I've always seen aim-down-sights as a bad thing because it tends to make every weapon in existence perfectly accurate (so you can get killed across a map with, say, a P90). The bigger issue I see is that it puts another action between you and the actual firing and slows you down a little, as well as making the gameplay a bit repetitive: aim, right-click, left-click, right-click, rinse and repeat.

Money grabbing is fine, but I just looked at Homefront and it looked like it was trying so hard to be Call of Duty (right down to the crosshairs) that it just turned me off straight away.

Anyway, since I have already got L4D(...2) but haven't downloaded it yet, looks like it's that and Battlefield 2. Thanks for the suggestions!

 

[QuadFish]

Actually, since we're talking about RE5, I did mostly like it as a co-operative experience, but did anyone else get the feeling that the only things stopping you from obliterating the entire snail-pace horde were the slow controls and over-the-shoulder camera? Maybe that's just me.

Then again, I was playing on Xbox, rather than the usual PC setup. Might have just gotten to used to a mouse.

 

[Netrigan]

You can often say the same of other genres. Vindicita is getting pimped in ads here and it looks like a couple of dozen recent games.

Games cost a lot of money to make and investers like safe ideas, because they have a proven track record. Try pitching a FPS that's unlike any popular game of the last five years and you'll probably have trouble getting money. Pitch "Die Hard on a train" (or modern warfare shooter in today's lingo) and wallets probably open a lot easier.

 

[Daniel_Rosamilia]

1. Because MONEHZ!

2. Army of Two (and the 40th Day)
Both very-well executed games of the series with AMAZING co-op (when we rented it, after something like 6 years, my brother and I actually played co-op), interesting story and some of the GREATEST weapon customisation ever (shield on your golden AK anybody?)

 

[TheYellowCellPhone]

1. Don't fix what ain't broke.

2. Battlefield series

 

[PurpleSky]

AVA Online has coop missions, as well as a game mode called escort.

Russians hold the line against a EU team tank, they delay its advance by firing RPGs and destroying it.

The EU Team scouts the russians, use the machine gun on the tank to supress rpg users and repair the tank if needed.

 

[WanderingFool]

1. Because some of us enjoy them.

2. Bad Company 2

Second'd

third'd

Yeah... I'm just going to say "Agree", to this right here.

 

[Super Six One]

Bad Company 2 obv.

But Operation Flashpoint : Dragon Rising is quite a different online shooter, alot more tactical than "shoot the first dude you see"

 

[random_bars]

*Aim-down-sights (the bane of my existence).

Huh? I've never understood why this is a problem. Why is iron-sight aiming so friggin' bad?

Because it slows the combat down to an absolute crawl, and puts a massive division between movement and shooting, rather than attempting to seamlessy combine them. CoD and the swarm of games which try to emulate its 'ironsight' mechanic have very, very boring combat, because it's entirely down to whoever is better at aiming, and whoever has the advantage by having seen the other guy first. You can't dodge, or run, or jump into a building, while shooting at the same time - you have to choose one or the other.

And this means that you'll always be in one of two situations. Either you're shooting someone who hasn't seen you yet, meaning you will need to be able to aim at a moving target, but you're in no danger of getting shot back. Or it's you and someone else shooting each other, and since you have to ironsight to be able to aim, neither of you are moving, so you don't need to be skilled at aiming at all.

This, I think, is why CoD is so popular - because it's just so easy. Anyone who's never played it before can pick it up and get a load of kills online, because the dependence on ironsighting combined with the extremely low health for "r33lizm!!1" purposes means that it's just piss easy to get kills. It works in terms of making the game noob-friendly, which is probably why it's gained such popularity, but in terms of making the combat varied, deep, and fun, it just destroys any chance of that being possible.

 

[WanderingFool]

1. Because some of us enjoy them.

2. Bad Company 2

Second'd

third'd

Yeah... I'm just going to say "Agree", to this right here.

Oh dear, and I just posted in a thread that I wasn't sure if I was a conformist.

I suppose I am now that I agree with this.

Hail the opinion of the masses!

Dont worry, you're a non-conformist... just like everyone else

 

[Infinatex]

Meaningful co-op fun, go grab a copy of MAG. Not the most polished of games, but definitely one of the most engaging multilayer shooters I've played.

 

[KEM10]

*Aim-down-sights (the bane of my existence).

Huh? I've never understood why this is a problem. Why is iron-sight aiming so friggin' bad?

Because it slows the combat down to an absolute crawl, and puts a massive division between movement and shooting, rather than attempting to seamlessy combine them. CoD and the swarm of games which try to emulate its 'ironsight' mechanic have very, very boring combat, because it's entirely down to whoever is better at aiming, and whoever has the advantage by having seen the other guy first. You can't dodge, or run, or jump into a building, while shooting at the same time - you have to choose one or the other.

And this means that you'll always be in one of two situations. Either you're shooting someone who hasn't seen you yet, meaning you will need to be able to aim at a moving target, but you're in no danger of getting shot back. Or it's you and someone else shooting each other, and since you have to ironsight to be able to aim, neither of you are moving, so you don't need to be skilled at aiming at all.

This, I think, is why CoD is so popular - because it's just so easy. Anyone who's never played it before can pick it up and get a load of kills online, because the dependence on ironsighting combined with the extremely low health for "r33lizm!!1" purposes means that it's just piss easy to get kills. It works in terms of making the game noob-friendly, which is probably why it's gained such popularity, but in terms of making the combat varied, deep, and fun, it just destroys any chance of that being possible.

You can fire from the hip you know. It adds a mild dilemma (or at least should) of weighing which is more important: speed and maneuverability or increased accuracy. There is little to no reason to aim in close quarters with a SMG or shotgun, but if you are mid to far range it can make a difference.

And CoD is so popular because they have a great marketing department and release a new one every year with extra features. You missed last year's game? Don't worry, the new one will come out in a few months and everyone will be just as green at it as you are. Come, play with your friends.