The 'modern' shooter.

[Ironic Pirate]

1: Why do people make these games, you wonder? Well, people like them, and when people like something, they tend to fucking buy it. And are you really asking why they make a really fancy looking, souped up trailer? When movies have trailers, do they put all the best moments in, or do they assemble a montage of characters just staring at each other, without anything interesting happening? Why would games be different?

2: Anything outside the genre of "semi-realistic modern FPS". You don't like the genre, that's fine. Now stop complaining about each new game in said genre.

I don't like JRPGS, but I've caught on to that, and don't complain about how much I dislike each new one. I just don't like the genre, so I ignore it.

And tons of games look similar in videos, but play very differently. Until you've played Homefront, I'd advise you to restrain judgement. I mean, objective markers, cross hairs, ADS, and gunfights? Those are part of the genre, it's like complaining about the presence of acoustic guitars in a country song. And then you complain about "generic looking" guns and uniforms. This isn't a sci-fi game, you're aware of that, right? They're going to use real guns in it. Ditto for uniforms. Also, last I checked, the game was about North Korea invading, not Russia. I'm beginning to think you're making things up to have something to complain about. Like complaining about gunfire and explosions in a fucking shooter.

 

[itsnotyouitsme]

They get scared if a new idea pops into their mind. Plus they know how to make them and everyone tends to stick with what they know for better or worse.

 

[Deshin]

1. Because over the last few years games have crossed from being a nerdy thing to being a mainstream thing. 'Modern shooters' are appealing to the largest demographic of these new gamers, people who say they "play video games" when in fact only have played roughly under a dozen games in their lives. I don't want to call out the cliche stereotype, but the hooting Halo-fratboy demographic love them some CoD/Halo and publishers want to cash in on this as much as they possibly can. Ever been browsing random gamertags of the people you just played with and found 90% of their video game history to be CoD/Halo or other McShooters? Yeah those people are the target audience.

2. TimeSplitters Future Perfect

 

[AmrasCalmacil]

1. They're fun, there're plenty of engines for them to run on, they're a low risk, high profit venture for the company that makes them.

2. Get 1 - 3 mates with you and play Operation Flashpoint Dragon Rising, I'll admit, you're put somewhere and you shoot the guys in a different uniform to you, and the game has bugs and the AI is amazingly dumb, but you'll have fun playing as a team, the co-op really makes the game shine a little. Or if you and you mates have PCs made in the last few years, download Synergy from Steam, all you need is HL2 and it's free. You can even go through Ravenholm and pretend you're playing Left 4 Dead.

I would say BC2, but what's the point when everyone else has?

 

[subject_87]

1. Because they're very profitable.

2. I'd recommend TF2; the best part is its absolute refusal to take itself seriously, and it's essentially any other gray shooter as remade by Pixar and Norman Rockwell.

 

[phoenix352]

i for one love both modern style iron sights shooter and the old quake fast paced games.
they are both good on their own merits and with bulletstorm giving that old style of shooter a good shock might just bring it back from the grave.

 

[Phlakes]

*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).
*Marines wearing generic armour.

Well, about these things-

-Objective markers are there because the people who play shooters are probably prone to get lost.
-Using sights are realistic and it makes sense. In almost any real situation shooting a gun, you're supposed to use the sights. Complaining about this is like complaining about having realistic magazine capacities.
-I didn't see this, but it's an FPS, what can they have besides explosions and gunfire?
-Some games use real guns instead of designing original ones. As far as ?I know, Homefront takes place in the very near future. We've been using M4s in the army for thirteen years, so it makes since that we would still have present-day weapons in a few years.
-All this comes down to is that people need to be able to tell the difference between the two factions.
-It's probably based on real body armor.

Now, I don't mean to say that these things aren't bad, but they're all justifiable.

 

[th3xile]

snip

I'm not one of those people who say a game needs to be 100% realistic but there are certain things that just SHOULD be there, and in a game like this certain facets of realism are necessary to fit the feel of it. Really, all of the things that you ranted about are things that SHOULD be in a modern realistic shooter. It's obviously catering to that audience (which I am a part of) and you obviously aren't part of the deomgraphic that it's trying to appeal to. If you don't like it, don't buy it. Besides, every online shooter boils down to one big game of hide and seek anyway.
OT: 1: Because it sells. I myself enjoy a cinematic experience in my game.
2: MOH. It's more objective and tactics based. The online will get even better once all the CoD players leave.

 

[Ordinaryundone]

Evening, Escapists!
*Russian guys wearing furrier uniforms (obviously very Russian).

Not that your point is invalid, but the enemies in Homefront are North Koreans. The "obviously very Russian" part made me giggle a little.

But on topic, people like "realistic" FPS games because its a familiar setting while still being fun. Battlefield and Call of Duty are anything but realistic, but their settings are entrenched in the real world. Any many gamers (especially males) have at least a passing interest in the military or military technology, which these games play up pretty heavily. Its the same reason Tom Clancy books are so popular.

The action is predictable because, frankly, you've played too many games and watched too many movies. After all while, if you are familiar with the settings and cliches its not hard to predict what comes next. That shouldn't spoil your enjoyment though. And it seems that companies have caught on to this; Black Ops features a pretty mind-screwy conspiracy plot. Maybe not wholly original but its a step away from the "historical documentary" style of the older games. Battlefield: Bad Company 1 and 2 made up their own wars, but deconstructed the typical war storyline by having generally disinterested group of main characters and throwing in near-James Bond levels of villainy and superweapons in what is otherwise a realistic setting.

I don't really get your hate of iron sites, if anything is just deepens gameplay and keeps weapons balanced. You think no scoping and quick scoping in COD are bad? At least no scoping misses 3/4ths of the time, and quickscoping requires some effort. Halo's lack of recoil on snipers means a good sniper never needs to take the time to aim, he can just headshot you out of hand. Is this more fun? Possibly. Is it balanced? Hell no. And in most games, not aiming down the site is rarely too much of a disadvantage, provided you do it at the right range and have an appropriate weapon.

Generic looking assault rifles? Its a realistic warfare game! Of course they are going to use real-life guns, or at least expys of them. It'd make no sense for them to be running around New York, trying to build up this sense of tension and that feeling of "this could really happen", then have everyone pull laser rifles out of their pockets. Rips you right out of the setting.

 

[Au Naturel.]

LOST PLANET 2

My second favorite shooter aside from the Timesplitters franchise. I'm playing it right now (waiting for a game), and I always enjoy it. Working with your team isn't necessary but it really helps out. Having a team full of different vehicles, foot players and VS is too much fun.

 

[QuadFish]

Evening, Escapists!
*Russian guys wearing furrier uniforms (obviously very Russian).

Not that your point is invalid, but the enemies in Homefront are North Koreans. The "obviously very Russian" part made me giggle a little.

Well shit a brick, I'm feeling right silly at the moment. Can I use the excuse that I've played/seen too many shooters involving Russians?

 

[QuadFish]

1. Because they're very profitable.

2. I'd recommend TF2; the best part is its absolute refusal to take itself seriously, and it's essentially any other gray shooter as remade by Pixar and Norman Rockwell.

I'm WAY ahead of you in that department. 360 hours and counting. In fact, the craziness of that game is probably the reason I look at realistic shooters with such suspicion.

2: Anything outside the genre of "semi-realistic modern FPS". You don't like the genre, that's fine. Now stop complaining about each new game in said genre.

See, the point of a rant is that I'm meant to yell incessantly about trivial things and you're meant to pretend to agree while slowly backing away and calling the insane asylum. Instead, you're shooting down my arguments like some sort of.... point-shooting thing....

Well, now that I've admitted I've played 360 hours of TF2, I might as well admit that it's probably the reason I'm suspicious of ADS. Without any sort of ADS (except for the Sniper, but that's a whole other kettle of fish) it seems to focus the game more on fast reactions and what your next move will be rather than instinctively hitting MOUSE2 whenever you see a dude.

I guess the main reason I dislike it is because you don't seem to get an interesting mix of kills with sights and kills without. You are pretty much required to use the sights on just about every occasion since the hipfire will miss all but point-blank, but that could just be my fault for playing on PC.

Come to think of it, why didn't more of you say TF2? It would be the perfect option had I not already played it.

 

[Ironic Pirate]

1. Because they're very profitable.

2. I'd recommend TF2; the best part is its absolute refusal to take itself seriously, and it's essentially any other gray shooter as remade by Pixar and Norman Rockwell.

I'm WAY ahead of you in that department. 360 hours and counting. In fact, the craziness of that game is probably the reason I look at realistic shooters with such suspicion.

2: Anything outside the genre of "semi-realistic modern FPS". You don't like the genre, that's fine. Now stop complaining about each new game in said genre.

See, the point of a rant is that I'm meant to yell incessantly about trivial things and you're meant to pretend to agree while slowly backing away and calling the insane asylum. Instead, you're shooting down my arguments like some sort of.... point-shooting thing....

Well, now that I've admitted I've played 360 hours of TF2, I might as well admit that it's probably the reason I'm suspicious of ADS. Without any sort of ADS (except for the Sniper, but that's a whole other kettle of fish) it seems to focus the game more on fast reactions and what your next move will be rather than instinctively hitting MOUSE2 whenever you see a dude.

I guess the main reason I dislike it is because you don't seem to get an interesting mix of kills with sights and kills without. You are pretty much required to use the sights on just about every occasion since the hipfire will miss all but point-blank, but that could just be my fault for playing on PC.

Come to think of it, why didn't more of you say TF2? It would be the perfect option had I not already played it.

I see what you're saying, and in games like MW2 (where ADS is poorly done, I might add), it is a concern. ADS, when done right, does exactly what you want, provide a mix of kills.

Take Battlefield Bad Company 2. Hipfire in that game is exceedingly accurate. Any close range engagement can (and should) be solved with nary an iron sight in, well, sight. If you're willing to waste a whole mag, even some mid-range shootouts can be engaged in that manner.

The reason the devs can do this is that there is (unlike MW2) some actual long range combat. They had to make hip fire worthless, because the maps are so tight no one would ever ADS. Bad Company, being set mostly outside (and buildings being destructible, inside can become outside pretty quickly) doesn't have this problem. I'd say my kills are 60/40 ADS/Hipfire, and that's because I snipe every few matches.

So maybe you'd like BFBC2?

Anyway, my problem with the lack of ADS is similar to the lack of a jump or sprint button. As soon as you realize you don't have it, it bothers you every few seconds. I feel naked without some kind of ADS (or sprint or jump button, you get the idea) function to fall back on. Even if the game doesn't require it, it feels off. Maybe it's just me, though.

 

[Chibz]

1. Why? Because "modern" shooters take almost no creative thought and the retarded masses will hoover it up. It's safe, profitable, despite being incredibly unhealthy for the genre.

 

[Cj Vanek]

1 People like games like that
2 In Medal of Honor people actually try for objectives instead of turning every game mode into team deathmatch.Borderlands is the best co-op shooter though.

 

[QuadFish]

1 People like games like that
2 In Medal of Honor people actually try for objectives instead of turning every game mode into team deathmatch.Borderlands is the best co-op shooter though.

Borderlands is alright for co-op, but the massive difficulty differences that just a few levels make makes it near impossible to find a game that's challenging but still possible while finding 3 other people of the same level as you in the same plot mission (before some level 69-er comes along at ruins the game for you) is actually impossible if you don't co-ordinate with your friends to do a playthrough together like I did.