The FPS Thread

[Oregano]

With two major console FPSes out this month, Fear 2 and Killzone 2, it seems like a good time to discuss FPSes.

Now the FPS genre has had a long life on the PC, the original home of FPSes, and it wasn't until Goldeneye on the N64 came that FPSes were taken seriously on Consoles. Every since Halo on the Xbox however there's been an influx of Console FPSes and it is now considered one of the dominant genres.

So Playgrounders what do you expect from a quality FPS, what are your favourites and some of your least favourites. Where can the genre go in the future?

[Closet_Skeleton]

I bought FEAR 2 on its release date and finished it the next day. It annoyed me that it seemed too much like Doom 3. You go around finding stuff and put them on your PDA. Except Doom 3 had videos and audio diaries as well as text. It was annoying how the phone messages that revealed the background in the original FEAR weren't repeatable, but at least they gave the background characters's voices and characters rather than just text. Also, FEAR has non disapearing corpses while FEAR 2 and Doom 3 have vanishing corpses. Coincidence? I can understand that there are memory issues that make vanishing corpses, but if they're trading the emersion of non-disapearing corpses so they can use the memory for better graphics then they've forgotten the reason why they need good graphics.

When it was released, Doom 3 got pretty bad reviews as was seen as "stuck in the past", while Half-Life 2 was concidered to be the future of FPS. Now several years on from Half-Life 2 and everything seems to be ripping off Doom 3.

Also, they took away the ability to lean. For no reason. I hate it when sequels take away neat things from the original for no reason. I didn't mind them taking away dual pistol wielding, since the differant protagonist didn't need to have the same abilities, but you don't need to be the super soldier offspring of an angry ghost to be able to lean.

Incidently, I liked both Half-Life 2 and Doom 3, though I only played the former when the Orange Box came out.

[BizzaroStormy]

Personally I didn't care much for Doom 3 and while Half Life 2 was good, something about it just made me dislike it. Possibly the fact that until valve gets off their lazy asses, it wont freaking END.

As for fear 2, i had intended to rent it today but they were out, forcing me to choose the first one instead. I gotta say its pretty good although the whole horror aspect doesnt really seem to fit as well as it did in other games.

One of these other games would definately be dead space. It was kind of refreshing having a horror game that focused more upon the actual horror aspect rather than trying to come up with new gameplay elements. (although the zero-g system worked quite well) That and the way the character curb stomped things was just awesome, like his boot suddenly gained 500 pounds.

However with fear, I did like the SloMo system they used although I wish it was a bit quicker in switching between slomo and normal. A better hit detection system would have been nice to since the screen was always so red it was difficult to tell where the fire was coming from.

[Maxymiuk]

First off, don't get me wrong - I like a frantic, adrenaline-fueled shootout as much as the next guy, but the current generation of shooters takes it a few steps too far.

What I want from a game, first and foremost, is a well-developed arc. And by that I mean, more than 5-8 hours of gameplay. I mean, honestly, I'm far from being a speed demon - in fact, I tend towards borderline-OCD completionism coupled with cautious, ammo-conserving gunplay - but that's how long it takes me to beat your average modern FPS on the first playthrough. For me that's one, maybe two sittings. And once I put the mouse/keyboard/gamepad away, I always feel strangely... unsatisfied.

Ok, yes, I get it, next-gen graphics is what sells games, and that's what takes up the bulk of disk space these days. But for crying out loud, we're using DVD's! The very first Unreal had (at the time) cutting-edge graphics, HUGE maps, a 30-hour campaign and it came on a humble CD! Half-Life was 20-25 hours of gameplay, great graphics for its time, and also took a single CD. Operation: Flashpoint... ye gods, Operation: Flashpoint... What happened since then?!

Right, physics engines happened. Destructible environments happened. Fluid mechanics happened. More space taken up by cool gimmicks, but the result is, we end up with linear, painfully short games (as a counterpoint, we have FarCry and Crysis, but they come with their own set of problems), and the focus shifting towards the multiplayer experience, since this way players provide their own content.

Now, I'm ok with multiplayer shooters. I logged plenty of hours with Unreal Tournament, Quake: Arena and the Battlefield series. But mind you: these games were developed and marketed as multiplayer games, with gameplay specifically geared towards riddling anonymous internet people with bullets. However, in my opinion, if a game tries to do both single and multiplayer, both modes end up suffering for it (notable exception: Starsiege: Tribes 2, where the single player campaign was essentially a really long, and really well done tutorial on all the things you'd need to know before going multi), since the "one man army" approach of singleplayer and the "fair and level playing field" approach of multiplayer are notoriously hard to reconcile.

And, of course, even in singleplayer there are exeptions to the rule. I finished Call of Duty 2 in about 10 hours, for example, but the game put on a large enough spectacle and demanded so much from me, that once I fired the last bullet in defense of that damned hill, I felt immensely satisfied (and relieved) to see the credits roll. The Halo series (whatever else you may say about them) had short, but solid story arcs. Painkiller was pure, unadulterated, wicked fun.

To conclude, what do I think about the future of FPS games? Singleplayer campaigns are going to get even shorter, with more and more focus put on multiplayer. But, after due consideration, I'm not really going to let that bother me. If a good FPS comes down the pipe, I'll certainly buy it, but in the meantime I'll continue to do what I've been doing since shooters got too short for me - I'll play RPG's and RTS'es.

[Victor Thorian]

We are still playing Quake 3 and Unreal Tournament 2004 in our LAN sessions, while we have access to all the new games of the fps genre ( yes including the consoles ) we haven't found them to be good, simple fun like the old ones.

I am not knowledgeable enough to explain the exact reasons for this, and just posting here to show the decision of several ( around 11, to be honest ) hardcore gamers.

As for single player purposes, I do think all of these last-gen shooters are more or less the same. You play Quake 4 and Crysis, you play them all. Which is a shame, but it's a problem of game production industry that almost every new game looks unfinished when it's out. And full of same mechanics from other games, painted in different colors and served as new.

Bleh.

[Oregano]

I largely agre Maxymiuk, I prefer longer games to prettier ones. I do enjoy good looking games but I don't look at graphics and automatically think it's fantastic.

Personally I think the best FPS of the last two generations was Republic Commando on the Xbox, it was tactical, action packed and it had a good story and characters and it's possibly the best Star Wars game out there and not a lightsaber in sight(well you do see one or two but that's about it).

Halo's a good series, it has a good story and personally I think the AI is really good because it's rare that you'll see the computer resort to the same tactics again and again. It also has replayability, every level happens different due to random stuff, sometimes it's AI glitches but it changes the experience. And I think the length is alright but it could be a bit longer, the levels are certainly long enough for my taste.

I too hate the emphasis on multiplayer in FPSes nowadays, all the developers have to do is make a few maps with weapons here and there and with good graphics and that's going to get 7/10 just for that. Then they slap on a campaign mode and use a lot of the resources from their multiplayer maps. What about stories people?

Halo 1 was fluid though and Red Faction 2 had destructible environments whilst Darkwatch(a little known FPS for the PS2) had a physics engine but they didn't compromise with them. It's laziness in my opinion.

EDIT: I still play the original UT from time to time, mostly against bots though. It's fun and I think whilst the story is very weak(seems something of an Epic games staple nowadays sadly) it's still actually got a lot of background information.

[warty goblin]

I'm of two minds about the modern shooter, one is despairing, the other is really quite optimistic.

The despairing mind sees games like Call of Duty (in any and all iterations), F.E.A.R., and other totally linear games and, well, despairs. Sure there's something amusing about said titles, in a 'dude that blowed up real good' kinda way, but they are, at least to me, fundamentally boring. Mostly this is because I don't find scripted events to actually gain my interest, because they essentially lock me out from having anything like a genuine experience. Sure completing the objectives and such like can be fun- but only if I want to do exactly what the game tells me to do. I can't go over there to see what happens, ever. There's no room for innovation, for trying a different approach. I am in essence irrelevant to the game, just a piece of button pushing meat to be given a pre-fabricated experience the same as all the other button pushers.

Sure I suppose it allows the game to keep the 'thrills' coming on without a break, but you know what? I find punctuated equilibrium to be more intense than knowing that I'll be dodging grenades every twenty seconds.

The optimistic part of my mind is powered by games like Enemy Territory: Quake Wars, Crysis, Far Cry 2 and S.T.A.L.K.E.R.: Shadow of Chernobyl. Sure the first two titles on the list are totally linear in overall structure, but they give me immense freedom in fighting the way I want to. If sniping is what I'm in the mood for, I can do that. If whoring out the rocket launcher is my cup of tea, that works too. The maps and tactics available are varied enough to not only make these different approaches viable, but actually feel different. With the sniper rifle I'm threatened by different things than the shotgun, and the combat area is big enough to really bring that home. Far Cry 2 and S.T.A.L.K.E.R. are reasonably linear as well, but give me even more freedom as to how I engage the enemy, and use rather punishing health systems and unreliable firearms to really connect me to the experience.

Of particular note on this list is Far Cry 2, which manages to both give me a ton of freedom and still deliver the thrills. What Far Cry 2 realizes is that I don't have to have people shooting at me every second of the game for it to be engaging, all there needs to be is the possibility of people shooting at me. It keeps me paying attention, and actually requires a degree of tactical thought not found in more tightly controlled FPS games. See in FC2 I often don't know where the attack will come from, which requires me to think ahead- what if they come from there? Is taking that Jeep worth the risk of running into another jeep with a mounted grenade launcher?

Part and parcel with this is the physics engine, and the simple bloody size of the map. The first, particularly the fire propagation, adds a whole new dimension to gameplay- as in "is it worth taking out that hut with my recoiless rifle, even though the backblast will set the grass behind me on fire?" The second breeds both planning and paranoia. Gotta keep checking the map to make sure I don't drive into a guard post and get massacred, gotta scavenge some ammo for my grenade launcher, want to avoid that intersection because that post usually has both a rocket dude and a sniper...Really more games should require this kind of thinking. The fact that certain review outlets scored World at War, a game so stuck in the dark ages I half expected the enemies to be wearing chainmail, higher than FC2 is ridiculous.

[Oregano]

I actually enjoyed FEAR, it was flawed but I thought it did try to be different than just a Sci-fi shooter and it did have moments where you're just walking and you'll see something materialise and dematerialise in front of you and it does make you jump, I also liked that I didn't have unlimited ammo. I had a generous amoutn but it's largely a case of shoot to kill. No wildfire. Where I think FEAR succeeds though is blending FPS and Survival Horror, it does neither genre particularily well but as a mix of the two is enjoyable.

I enjoy playing through CoD occasionally(I prefer Co-op games generally which is why I actually like World at War) but when some random guy kills one your buddies you're not annoyed that he killed your buddy you're annoyed that you shoot him as he was approaching and it had no effect.

Ahh I forgot to mention the main reason I like Halo(and also partially Darkwatch as it does take a lot of Halo mechanics) the Vehicles, they're so fun and versatile and allow for some crazy moments and it's never like "the tank level" because you're free to get out and do what you want and I really appreciate that.

[Myatar_Panwar]

I also like Vehicles in my FPS, as long as they have little to no offensive powers. Tanks offer little fun in my opinion. I would much rather see lots of jeeps and mobile structures rather than tanks.

[Triaxx]

I like vehicles with offensive power, particularly ones that I can drive, while a co-op buddy handles the shooting. It's one of the reasons I enjoy Halo. Of course, since it's an FPS at heart, it's naturally not suited to always being in a vehicle.

[Oslecamo]

Don't care about the new shiny stuff, Goldeneye is still the best FPS in gameplay terms, with awesome story mode to add.

Driving a tank trough St.Petseburg crushing soldiers, cars and civilians alike while shooting the weapon of my choice? Hell yeah! I'm not saying that every level should have a super weapon, but giving now and then the option of doing really cool stuff to the player was what I loved in the games.

Plus, shooting rockets and grenades in middle air if you were lucky/skilled enough.

And no stupid medic packs scatered all around the map. If you take a bullet, it's gonna be stuck there untill you finish the mission Mr.Bond.

[Oregano]

I never got to Goldeneye is full, never got to go on the campaign but I played multiplayer at a friend's house it was really fun and it was probably the first time I'd played a multiplayer FPS(I'd played some Star Wars FPSes before).

That's what I love about the Vehicles selection on Halo, it has variety and both offensive and nonoffensive vehicles. My favourite's the Mongoose which has no native offensive power at all but it's fast, light and fun to drive.

[Fri]

My only gripe with FPS is that I have really limited/negligible internet connection and no game playing friend. I can't play online!

And even if I have good connection, I don't really like shooting anonymous people across the net. Same with MMORPG, I just can't do PVP.

If you gonna focus on multiplayer with short single player campaign, at least give people like me a way to play things like deathmatch alone. That's why my favourite FPS until now is still Star Wars Battlefront 2.

By the way, any recommendation on good single player FPS where I can play deathmatch or something ALONE after I finished the campaign? I only play Star Wars Battlefront 2 now. I used to play quake 3, but that was years ago.

[Mando Knight]

If you gonna focus on multiplayer with short single player campaign, at least give people like me a way to play things like deathmatch alone. That's why my favourite FPS until now is still Star Wars Battlefront 2.

By the way, any recommendation on good single player FPS where I can play deathmatch or something ALONE after I finished the campaign? I only play Star Wars Battlefront 2 now. I used to play quake 3, but that was years ago.

...Hm... there's Battlefield 1942 and 'Nam... haven't played 2 or 2142, so I don't know if those have a single-player-and-bots-vs.-bots mode...

My current list of FPSs is limited to Battlefront 2, Republic Commando, and the Adventure/Shooter Metroid Prime 3. I've also got access to the beta of Battlefield Heroes (http://www.battlefield-heroes.com/), but that's an over-the-shoulder style shooter... and in closed beta, so I can't tell you more. :smalltongue:

[Oregano]

By the way, any recommendation on good single player FPS where I can play deathmatch or something ALONE after I finished the campaign? I only play Star Wars Battlefront 2 now. I used to play quake 3, but that was years ago.

I don't actually know if it's an FPS because it looks more like Gears of Tournament than Unreal Tournament but UT3 may have bots, the original does.

Apparently Killzone 2 has bots, you'll have to wait for a while though(although loads of people seem to have got it early).

[Premier]

Frankly, I'm rather pessimistic about the whole genre. The last truly revolutionary FPS that did something completely new and original was... Thief, in 1998. Everything since is just an evolutionary development along the lines of "same but with more Gigahertz and more powerful AI", "same but with shinier graphics", "same with a gimmicky thing tacked on", or plain "same".

[Crispy Dave]

I've also got access to the beta of Battlefield Heroes (http://www.battlefield-heroes.com/), but that's an over-the-shoulder style shooter... and in closed beta, so I can't tell you more. :smalltongue:

Your welcome:smallwink:

Anyway I really enjoy shooters. I am a multiplayer guy myself and love me some Call of Duty 4, Team Fortress 2 and Gears of War 2. I like those 3 because they each play differently. Call of duty is a realistic tactical stealth based OH crap!! I hear someone game. Team Fortress 2 is old school with new graphics. Gears is...well...ummmm... Gears style gameplay.

[chiasaur11]

Frankly, I'm rather pessimistic about the whole genre. The last truly revolutionary FPS that did something completely new and original was... Thief, in 1998. Everything since is just an evolutionary development along the lines of "same but with more Gigahertz and more powerful AI", "same but with shinier graphics", "same with a gimmicky thing tacked on", or plain "same".

Deus Ex would have words with thee.

So would Portal, if you count it as a FPS.

[Artanis]

Me, I'm like Maxymiuk: I want a good singleplayer, preferably with a great story as part of that quality. Halo, the Half-Life series, and the System Shock series are excellent examples of this. I don't care about multiplayer unless it's really good, with TF2 and, again, Halo being good examples.

As for graphics, the only requirement I have for graphics is "doesn't interfere with gameplay". If I can barely so much as run the game with the recommended specs due to the graphics being so resource-intensive, that's a Very Bad Thing. Likewise if I can't tell a ladder from a door from a slaverying doom-monster, that's a Very Bad Thing. But anything beyond that is just gravy: the graphics of System Shock or DOOM are just as acceptable to me as the graphics of TF2. Any gimmicky thing thrown in had damned well better add to gameplay (Half-Life 2's physics, especially in Ravenholm being a good example of such a thing done correctly).

Incidentally, I hold every genre to these standards.


Frankly, I'm rather pessimistic about the whole genre. The last truly revolutionary FPS that did something completely new and original was... Thief, in 1998. Everything since is just an evolutionary development along the lines of "same but with more Gigahertz and more powerful AI", "same but with shinier graphics", "same with a gimmicky thing tacked on", or plain "same".
I thought that Halo was the first to do the only-carry-two-weapons thing. I'm probably wrong though :smallconfused:

[Maxymiuk]

I thought that Halo was the first to do the only-carry-two-weapons thing. I'm probably wrong though :smallconfused:

Only four months earlier, but still... (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Flashpoint)

EDIT: And I wouldn't bet large sums of money on it being the first either.
EDIT2: Oh yeah, now I remember. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Delta_Force_(video_game))

[Joran]

Deus Ex would have words with thee.

So would Portal, if you count it as a FPS.

I would count Portal as well as Mirror's Edge, but they fit more into "platformer" I guess. They are absolutely creative ideas.

Personally, for me, at least the future is in co-op. I don't like to play competitively, but there's something special in being able to sit down and play with my brother or my friend and beat a game. This is why I won't be getting Killzone 2, but will be getting Resident Evil 5. This is also why Left4Dead is a heck of a lot of fun.

[Closet_Skeleton]

I thought that Halo was the first to do the only-carry-two-weapons thing. I'm probably wrong though :smallconfused:

If you're thinking "Halo" and "done first" then you're probably wrong :smallwink:

Okay, I admit to only bashing Halo because it annoys people and I never bothered beating the first level.

[Oregano]

I would count Portal as well as Mirror's Edge, but they fit more into "platformer" I guess. They are absolutely creative ideas.

Personally, for me, at least the future is in co-op. I don't like to play competitively, but there's something special in being able to sit down and play with my brother or my friend and beat a game. This is why I won't be getting Killzone 2, but will be getting Resident Evil 5. This is also why Left4Dead is a heck of a lot of fun.

See I've heard a lot of emphasis on co-op in the last year or so and I don't get why, not because Co-op is a bad thing I personally prefer playing on games with my bro or a friend but games have had co-op for a long while and this gen I think I've actually seen less co-op or more online only co-op(which is annoying).

[Drascin]

I'm not much of a FPS fan for the most part, but some particular examples have managed to hold my attention.

Perfect Dark in particular was a real jewel, and made me appreciate a genre I had never even considered (I had so many great times with that game. The sheer amount of options and selectable types of Bot AI - from "turtle" to "likes explosives more than it's healthy" to "distance player" to "gimmicky" to "shotgun WAAAAAGH!", to mention just a few - kept me and my friends designing weird challenges for each other for years). I also loved the weapon selection. Who doesn't love a perfectly functional laptop that turns into a machinegun?

[Crispy Dave]

Who doesn't love a perfectly functional laptop that turns into a machinegun?

I think Falcon NW makes one of those. They make everything in computers.

[Joran]

See I've heard a lot of emphasis on co-op in the last year or so and I don't get why, not because Co-op is a bad thing I personally prefer playing on games with my bro or a friend but games have had co-op for a long while and this gen I think I've actually seen less co-op or more online only co-op(which is annoying).

True, co-op has been around for a long time: Gauntlet, Contra, Metal Slug, etc. It just seems to be a new thing for console FPSes and 3PSes in particular; the systems can support the graphics and the TVs are large enough to do it well.

Oh and also, Left4Dead is one of the first completely designed from the bottom up co-op games. L4D punishes you harshly if you separate from your group and do not play as a team. Well, unless the copter is coming down, then it's every man for himself.

[Premier]

Deus Ex would have words with thee.

So would Portal, if you count it as a FPS.

I love Deus Ex, it's one of my favourite games, but it wasn't a revolutionary change. It took many of the gameplay elements of System Shock 2 and combined them with the concept of "storytelling FPS/RPG" that has been present since... I guess Ultima Underworld, which came out in the same year as Wolfenstein 3D; so it was squarely an evolutionary development, even if an excellent one. Hardly surprising, since DE, SS2 and UUW were all developed by Looking Class Studios or ex-LGS people.

Portal is what I consider a gimmick game. Very fun and original, but let's see if it has any staying power, if it will inspire other games in one way or another.

[Oregano]

Hmm I don't want to play Valve games and it's terrible because they're said to be high quality but as good as they look all I ever hear is everyone saying "Fantastic, revolutionary, BEST FPS EVER!!! etc." but the worst is when I hear people say their games are underappreciated, obviously not if they're critically acclaimed and there's like 5 people who don't like them. It just puts me off, same way I used to want a PS3(because the PS1 & 2 were class with excellent games) but the fanboys put me off(I already had a 360 before I happened upon the major presence of fanboys).

Co-op seems to be the new gimmick, as Cover system has been(hopefully some future games don't use cover systems) and Space Marines were(I mean we still see a lot but the numbers have dwindled as developers try to avoid the trap).

[chiasaur11]

Hmm I don't want to play Valve games and it's terrible because they're said to be high quality but as good as they look all I ever hear is everyone saying "Fantastic, revolutionary, BEST FPS EVER!!! etc." but the worst is when I hear people say their games are underappreciated, obviously not if they're critically acclaimed and there's like 5 people who don't like them. It just puts me off, same way I used to want a PS3(because the PS1 & 2 were class with excellent games) but the fanboys put me off(I already had a 360 before I happened upon the major presence of fanboys).

Co-op seems to be the new gimmick, as Cover system has been(hopefully some future games don't use cover systems) and Space Marines were(I mean we still see a lot but the numbers have dwindled as developers try to avoid the trap).

Well, there are free demos. I figure you should give them a try, and if you like, buy. No sense in letting hype prevent you from getting some good fun.

Plus, you can kill people with radiators.

[Phase]

Hmm I don't want to play Valve games and it's terrible because they're said to be high quality but as good as they look all I ever hear is everyone saying "Fantastic, revolutionary, BEST FPS EVER!!! etc." but the worst is when I hear people say their games are underappreciated, obviously not if they're critically acclaimed and there's like 5 people who don't like them. It just puts me off, same way I used to want a PS3(because the PS1 & 2 were class with excellent games) but the fanboys put me off(I already had a 360 before I happened upon the major presence of fanboys).

Let's just say there's a reason people are Valve fans. Valve go for quality over quantity, making sure their games and ideas are good before working on them, rather than making game after game and probability dictating a good one. I don't know who said Valve is underappreciated, but whoever they are, they're likely thinking about the SIZE of the fanbase RELATIVE to other companies. Valve releases a game a year, I think. They're always worth it. Try Half-Life, you'll see.

[Oregano]

I've actually played Half-life(PS2 version with the co-op expansion thingy). I thought it was really good but not everything it was cracked up to be. We(me and my bro) are also thinking about getting Left 4 Dead which looks really fun, but to play it two pplayer we'd need to get the 360 version.

See I also see a lot of Valve fans on stuff which makes me wonder just how small their fanbase really is, I personally think they have a big secret following because they put subliminal messages in their games a long the lines "Valve are great!". It's just so crazy it might be true.

Left 4 Dead's also gave them a significant boost recently.

[Om]

I've actually played Half-life(PS2 version with the co-op expansion thingy). I thought it was really good but not everything it was cracked up to beThat's because you've never played Half-Life... you've played the inferior PS2 port

[toasty]

I never played Half-life 1 but I played Counter Strike. I like counter strike a lot. :D

In terms of FPSes, I've never really been much of a multiplayer guy. If I need multiplayer then I'll play Counter Strike, maybe CoD4 (yes, I'm a PC guy).

In terms of Single Player FPSes I've yet to see something better than Half-Life 2. Halo was meh, honestly. I played some of Halo 2 and did Halo 3 on Co-op but I wasn't impressed. CoD 2 was good and I enjoyed it, but honestly, STOP IT WITH THE WW2 SHOOTER GAMES! I really like CoD4, and have not touched 3 or 5.

And no, I haven't played Doom 3 nor am I interested in Horror shooters. I played Dead Space because I figured I needed to at least try the game and I didn't like it that much. I don't like being scared.

Half-Life 2 was just amazing. I loved the story line, the Gravity Gun was good. Combat was well crafted and the vehicles are awesome.

[Oregano]

That's because you've never played Half-Life... you've played the inferior PS2 port

What's the difference except less precision?:smallconfused:

[Fri]

Hm, I only played a little bit of Half Life and I think for me it's just an okay game. Half Life 2 on the other hand...

[Phase]

What's the difference except less precision?:smallconfused:

It's just... not good...

Trust me, you've played Half-Life, now play Half-Life 2...

On a COMPUTER.

[Oregano]

It's just... not good...

Trust me, you've played Half-Life, now play Half-Life 2...

On a COMPUTER.

What's not good about it though? And we got it more for the co-op part but we played it on Single player as well.

I was thinking of getting the orange box on the 360, mainly because I haven't got a computer powerful enough to do proper gaming on. Oblivion had lots of lag and it Overlord was unplayable(well it wasn't but it was ridiculous).

[Joran]

What's not good about it though? And we got it more for the co-op part but we played it on Single player as well.

I was thinking of getting the orange box on the 360, mainly because I haven't got a computer powerful enough to do proper gaming on. Oblivion had lots of lag and it Overlord was unplayable(well it wasn't but it was ridiculous).

Orange Box on the 360 is not as good as on the PC.

Valve constantly releases new content, new patches for free on the PC. It takes at least a couple months to a year lag time for those to come onto the Xbox 360. The multiplayer isn't as robust; for instance, there's a hard cap of 16 on Team Fortress 2; I've been in matches with over 20 people on the computer. Also, I have the feeling that the console multiplayer gamers are more fickle than PC gamers; they'll change to the next hot game and you'll have trouble finding players. The Source engine mods (for instance, Black Mesa) are only available on the PC. Generally, Valve games must be played on the PC.


Co-op seems to be the new gimmick, as Cover system has been(hopefully some future games don't use cover systems) and Space Marines were(I mean we still see a lot but the numbers have dwindled as developers try to avoid the trap).

I do enjoy a cover system; I think it makes me feel more tactical. Co-op has always been around, it's just migrated to the FPS. I think we'll see more of it, actually, but the partner AI really needs a lot more work =P

[Oregano]

Yer, same reasons I got Oblivion for the PC then. I'm not much of an online gamer though so Team Fortress 2 isn't for me.

Cover systems takes away to the tactics for me, because it's the computer holding my hand and it's basically "press here to avoid getting shot" button, I can stand behind a wall without it being automatically thank you.

[Joran]

Cover systems takes away to the tactics for me, because it's the computer holding my hand and it's basically "press here to avoid getting shot" button, I can stand behind a wall without it being automatically thank you.


Well, not always. If someone flanks you, all the cover in the world won't help you. I do see why it's a gimmick, you can usually do everything you need with just a duck button.

My major gripe is with regenerating health. I lose a lot of the tension, if I know, I just have to hide in a corner until my health/shield regens and I'm back to full-strength. There's no feeling quite like in L4D when my screen is completely in grayscale, my heart is beating in my ears, and I know that one more zombie hit and I'm dead... and then finding a health pack ;)

[warty goblin]

Well, not always. If someone flanks you, all the cover in the world won't help you. I do see why it's a gimmick, you can usually do everything you need with just a duck button.

My major gripe is with regenerating health. I lose a lot of the tension, if I know, I just have to hide in a corner until my health/shield regens and I'm back to full-strength. There's no feeling quite like in L4D when my screen is completely in grayscale, my heart is beating in my ears, and I know that one more zombie hit and I'm dead... and then finding a health pack ;)

Cover systems are fine for 3rd person shooters, ala Gears of War, where let's face it, it would be impossible to use that camera angle and actually fire around stuff without one. For straight FPSs however, a cover system is a dumbed down version of lean keys, which I much prefer.

Regenerating health wise, I'm not generally a fan. On the other hand it does make minor screw-ups less fatal than a straight "you have 100 HP to start with try not to waste them" system, and hence favors actually playing the game and not whoring out the quicksave/quickload keys. Thus I am now a fan of a Halo/Republic Commando system, where some of your health regenerates, and some does not. S.T.A.L.K.E.R. also has something similar in that you can instantly heal yourself, but it takes either bandages or first aid kits, both of which have weight and so reduce the number of guns/bullets you can schleck around with. There's little like getting into a gunfight knowing that you have 3 bandages left, and once you run out, bleeding to death is a very real possibility.

Far Cry 2 merges both of these systems in a rather elegant way. Your health bar comes in five blocks, each of which will refill. Once emptied however they stay empty until you use a syringe to heal, which fills the first three bars if they are emptied. The fifth bar doesn't refill however, and actually slowly empties. When you are that low on health, you need to perform a really quite brutal and somewhat longer healing animation, which stabilizes you back to two full health bars. Most of the healing animations are actually based on what sort of injury knocked you down into the last health bar as well*, so if you were vigorously machine gunned you might need to pry a bullet out, explosions require the removal of shrapnel or relocating fingers/feet, and occasionally you need to extinguish your burning body. It's a really much better way to communicate 'you got the crap beaten out of you' than a flashing red screen.

*It's not perfect though. I've had to remove bits of shrapnel from my abdomen after falling off a cliff.

[Oregano]

I actually preferred Halo 1 to Halo 2 and 3's health system, you had a health bar and a shield bar, your shield regenerated, your health didn't. And you could see how close you were to death(as well as those in the same vehicle as you).

I wouldn't like Halo to have a cover system because when you play Chief you have that feeling that you are a super soldier, you can jump really high, flip over tanks and survive really, really big drops. If it's a tactical FPS(Such as Rainbow Six) that's alright but like Warty I'd prefer a lean function.

[Joran]

I do like the healing that takes some time; picking up random health packs on the ground also ruins tension for me. Having to decide when to heal is a nice tactical point. The Farcry 2 system sounds good and I think I'll try it at some point.

[warty goblin]

I do like the healing that takes some time; picking up random health packs on the ground also ruins tension for me. Having to decide when to heal is a nice tactical point. The Farcry 2 system sounds good and I think I'll try it at some point.

Really do give it a shot, it's the best FPS I've played since Crysis or thereabouts. I'd suggest turning the difficulty up to the first setting past 'normal' or whatever the hell they call it if you want the game to be decently challenging. I'm playing through on normal, am somewhere north of 40 hours in, and have died to enemy gunfire like three or five times. Partly this is because the vast majority of the time the game lets me play to my strengths* and not do stupid crap that results in cheap kills. Hence the lack of dying really doesn't bother me very much, but your mileage may vary.



*Specifically break-open grenade launcher, sniper rifle and light machine gun when I really just want to obliterate all life from several acres of the map. When I'm feeling more subtle I prefer the flamethrower.

[chiasaur11]

Really do give it a shot, it's the best FPS I've played since Crysis or thereabouts. I'd suggest turning the difficulty up to the first setting past 'normal' or whatever the hell they call it if you want the game to be decently challenging. I'm playing through on normal, am somewhere north of 40 hours in, and have died to enemy gunfire like three or five times. Partly this is because the vast majority of the time the game lets me play to my strengths* and not do stupid crap that results in cheap kills. Hence the lack of dying really doesn't bother me very much, but your mileage may vary.



*Specifically break-open grenade launcher, sniper rifle and light machine gun when I really just want to obliterate all life from several acres of the map. When I'm feeling more subtle I prefer the flamethrower.

Flamethrower?
Subtle?

Either the flamethrower is seriously off, or that game sounds awesome.

[Comet]

I've been playing FarCry2 too lately and it is fun. The lack of a coherrent plot or any motivation aside from money kinda distracts from the fun at first but if you can get over that the game is really neat.
They basically dump you in africa, say "here are the controlls, here's a hostile warzone, here's a bunch of funny quests for you to do. Go to town, theres a boss fight at the end." And that's it. Very gamistic, which isn't really a bad thing since this is, well, a game.

Greatest FPS games? Perfect Dark, fo sure. It was just perfection when it first came out.

Half-Life is also legendary naturally, but in all honesty I really don't feel like replaying any of those games. Maybe someday I will. They just feel more like a one-way thrill ride. Which, again, isn't nescessarily bad but still..

Portal- epic. 'Nuff said.

Mirrors edge is something I wish they will continue to polish. A really fun concept that I would love to see more of. I'm not sure whether it counts as a FPS, though.

Thief is awesome.

System Shock and Deus Ex are both top notch in terms of gameplay and story. Well worth the praise.

Halo was a good and entertaining story which I, again, don't really feel like going back to. One-time shot.

And in the category of "the best games that no-one played", Chronicles of Riddick: Escape from Butcher Bay. This one just hit me by surprise and boy did it hit me hard. Brilliant atmosphere and lots of cool stealth gameplay. Now with the sequel coming up I'm really excited and so should everyone else be. They're even going to incule the original CoR:EfBB with the sequel so everyone can just hop right in. Colour me impressed.

[MCerberus]

I have a PC I play games on, my friends all have 360's, so I play on both systems. The Orange Box is definitely better on the PC. Other than the updates, "That x is a spy" voice commands and the like are invaluable. Also, I looooooooooooove payload maps and the silly customs on the mine-dog server. That said, it's still a solid purchase on the 360 (rumors say don't get it for the ps3). TF2 in any system encourages a lot of fun and sillyness. Stuff like medics healing medics healing medics healing medics with bonesaws. One of my favorite tricks is having two friendly spies accuse the passerbys on the other team of being spies. Thinking the spies are just being annoying, they leave only to get backstabbed.

If you're looking for something different, try Red Orchestra. I've been playing since it was a mod (biased). It's old, but it's still got an active mapping community and a lot of international players. The game is also famous for having less of... well... the more infamous types of players you'd meet on the internet. Warning: learning curve is a cliff.

[chiasaur11]

Oh, if anyone's into old Doom era games, Bungie has the Marathon series on their site for free. Fun enough and it fits on a five buck flash drive.

Also: the mod "Minerva: Metastasis" for Half-Life 2 is one of my favorite FPSs ever. Great maps, Valve's solid AI, intriguing plot...

[Phase]

The mod scene is really one of the best parts of PC gaming. Black Mesa in the house!

[Oregano]

The mod scene is really one of the best parts of PC gaming. Black Mesa in the house!

Mods are really good(love the mods for Oblivion) and it is one of the only advantages PC gaming has left but what says more is that the games are great without the need for mods. Something which I think Oblivion failed at though, because it gets boring without the mods.

Apparently some mods work on the PS3 though.:smallconfused:

[Lord of the Helms]

In terms of FPSes, I've never really been much of a multiplayer guy. If I need multiplayer then I'll play Counter Strike, maybe CoD4 (yes, I'm a PC guy).

Y'know, I feel there's something fundamentally wrong with having to say you're "a PC guy" in a thread about FPS-games. If you're not playing them on the PC, U're doin it wrong! :smalltongue:

Anyway, longtime player myself. First games were Shadow Warrior (fun for its time) and Duke Nukem 3D (AWESOME back when). Half-Life is what really got me obsessed, I played it shortly after it was out and really went to town with a lot of the mods involved - both multiplayer, from simple deathmatch mutators to full-blown mods like Counter-Strike (I have the dubious honor of being perhaps the worst CS-player out of all the poeple who've been onto the mod since Beta 3), Team Fortress Classic, Sven Coop and all the many others, and single player mods as well (The Westerner, Poke 646 and Azure Sheep being the most memorable). Deus Ex was flat-out the best FPS-ish game ever made and hasn't been matched since ever. I was big on the original UT, though for some reason none of the successors really felt right to me. Since then I've been through all kinds of things that followed. Medal of Honor was nice, because WWII hadn't been done to undeath and back quite yet back then. Unreal II was a nice example of a classic shooter in newer garb. Halo had some moments every now and then, but was mostly boring overrepetitive poop. Doom 3 was nice while it lasted, but F.E.A.R. did the whole scary shooter thing much better, probably because there's something far more terrifying about a creeping girl comig out of nowhere and killing people left and right than about a couple of demons jumping my face when I have already blasted a hundred of their kind back to hell and know my trusty Plasma gun will make short work of them. That, and F.E.A.R.'s opponents made for much more interesting combat. Cooler, too - I once made a point of playing through on highest difficulty and killing any human mooks I could by throwing flying kicks into their faces. Far Cry was a pretty nice take too, with its wide open levels and oh-so-pretty graphics. Max Payne, while not First Person, was still a great shooter, and I'm regularly going back to the second game for some flying shoot-outs. And then there's always gonna be Serious Sam, which is just beautifully retro in its "Kill all 200.000 monsters in sight" gameplay. Half-Life 2 - started rather dully as I felt how the linear standard shooters had gone somewhat out of date, but the game really picks up more and more dynamic and interesting combat later on. Portal - well, it's really more a puzzle/adventure game, but it is too awesome for words.


Haven't played too much of it lately, though. Dunno why, maybe because my PC is a bit old and behind the times, maybe because I've not really seen a lot of fresh stuff on the market.

[toasty]

Y'know, I feel there's something fundamentally wrong with having to say you're "a PC guy" in a thread about FPS-games. If you're not playing them on the PC, U're doin it wrong! :smalltongue:

Perhaps, but it seems everyone in the US only seems to care about consoles...

[warty goblin]

Flamethrower?
Subtle?

Either the flamethrower is seriously off, or that game sounds awesome.

Depends how you use it. Running into a compound and lighting people on fire isn't exactly subtle. Lighting the grassland upwind of that compound on fire, then sitting back and picking off people fleeing the bonfire with a sniper rifle is somewhat more subtle.

The way I view Far Cry 2 is pretty much a series of "Make your Own Setpiece Battles" motived by a desire to get money for better guns. This means if you storm every single enemy checkpoint the way you would in say CoD4, the game will get boring because you are running around the same areas shooting the same people with an assault rifle.

This of course means its time to get creative. For example yesterday I was attacking an ammo checkpoint that was overlooked by an observation tower manned by a dude with a Carl G recoiless rifle. So I pulled out my Uzi, charged up the tower, mowed him down, then stole his rocket launcher and blew up the ammo stockpile. The explosion touched off the ammo, which sent bullets flying everwhere, and ignited the dry grassland. The ensuing conflagration spread to the gas tanks, which blew up, spreading the fire still further, and roasting the last of the guys manning the checkpoint. I literally took out an entire garrison with about 15 SMG bullets and one rocket from a launcher that wasn't even mine to begin with.

[Oregano]

I like playing FPSs on consoles thank you very much.:smallyuk:

I only have to spend money on one copy for up to four of us(on some games like Halo) to have some fun on game so bleh to your PC elitism.:smallannoyed:

EDIT: And how is Half-life on the PC better than PS2? The PS2 was an improved version with better character models and everything and it supported mouse and keyboard and it had a co-op sidestory so I think that makes it superior. Soo :smalltongue: to yous.

EDIT 2: heh, sorry about the angry post I just don't like being told that I'm "doing it wrong" because I choose to play a certain type of game on a certain machine.:smallsigh:

[Athaniar]

While FPSes usually aren't my kind of games, I have to say Goldeneye is one of the best games ever. And Perfect Dark isn't too shabby, either, though it lacks the mindless mowing of enemies Goldeneye possesses (cheat-enabled dual rocket launchers with infinite ammo and invincibility, now that's something).

[MCerberus]

I like playing FPSs on consoles thank you very much.:smallyuk:

I only have to spend money on one copy for up to four of us(on some games like Halo) to have some fun on game so bleh to your PC elitism.:smallannoyed:

EDIT: And how is Half-life on the PC better than PS2? The PS2 was an improved version with better character models and everything and it supported mouse and keyboard and it had a co-op sidestory so I think that makes it superior. Soo :smalltongue: to yous.

EDIT 2: heh, sorry about the angry post I just don't like being told that I'm "doing it wrong" because I choose to play a certain type of game on a certain machine.:smallsigh:

I think what the PC advocaters are saying is that most FPS games are "native" for the PC. They were made for the PC, the controls were hammered down for the PC, and this leads to ports being screwed up.

Some ports are good (Orange Box) some ports screwed things up like controls or there are new glitches (HL1, or so I hear), and some ports you just have to wonder "WTF?" (looking at you, Operation Flashpoint). Inverted, PC from console ports suffer the same thing. The controls for Halo were wonky, it was sub-optimized for PCs, and had plenty of "exclusive contents" that were garbage.

An extreme version of port syndrome are most RTS games. Without a mouse many end up being horrendous to control.

And that is why people tell you to play Valve games on the PC.

[Oregano]

That was only part of it this is the part I was referring to mostly:


Y'know, I feel there's something fundamentally wrong with having to say you're "a PC guy" in a thread about FPS-games. If you're not playing them on the PC, U're doin it wrong! :smalltongue:


And the port of Half-life wasn't glitchy for me.:smallconfused:

[Triaxx]

Ghost Recon: Advanced Warfighter is one of the few Tactical games to get it all right. I've only played the first I'll admit, but it had everything I needed. Leaning, Grenade Launchers, Sniper Rifles, Cover, and some awesome sliding.

I'd very much like to play Far Cry 2 now. Just another one to add to the list.

[Oregano]

Ghost Recon: Advanced Warfighter is one of the few Tactical games to get it all right. I've only played the first I'll admit, but it had everything I needed. Leaning, Grenade Launchers, Sniper Rifles, Cover, and some awesome sliding.

I'd very much like to play Far Cry 2 now. Just another one to add to the list.

Yer GRAW's really good, much prefer it to rainbow six but I've noticed the Tom Clancy games are getting easier as time goes on.:smallconfused:

Which reminds me I can't wait for Halo: Recon ODST, it's apparently designed like Ghost Recon and mixed with Halo. Should be good. I can just imagine how hard it'll be to fight Brutes and/or Hunters.

[littlebottom]

yeah, half-life 2 was good, but i liked doom 3 just a little bit more, although thats just personal preference, they were both good.

another game which i dont even know how big a fan base its got, but it seems pretty small is "red-faction" i loved the first one, the second ones story wasnt as good but was still fun to play, and the third one is coming out on PS3 later this year, but has anybody else actually played red-faction?

[Oregano]

I've played the first one but not much but the second one was really good(story not so much) but the gameplay was awesome and the weapons.

[Triaxx]

The problem with Hunters was always that you were fighting alone, aside from Co-op. So there was no one to distract/take advantage of the distraction. With a team, you'd be able to catch it's attention, and then have it turn to you while someone else caught it in the back. Of course artillery is never fun to deal with in those kinds of situations. GRAW turrets anyone? *shudder*

[Artanis]

Are you talking about Halo 2+3 Hunters? Because the Hunters in Halo 1 were kinda easy, even easier than the top two or three Elites.

[Oregano]

Are you talking about Halo 2+3 Hunters? Because the Hunters in Halo 1 were kinda easy, even easier than the top two or three Elites.

Well keep in mind in ODST you're a standard marine, not the chief so even a Halo 1 Hunter would be a challenge.

[Artanis]

Ohh, ODST. I didn't realize there was a non-MC game :smallredface:

[Oregano]

Ohh, ODST. I didn't realize there was a non-MC game :smallredface:

Well it's not out yet, should be coming out this year. Squad-based tactical where your those super-cool marines in the black suits.(Orbital Drop Shocktroopers)

[Jahkaivah]

Mods are really good(love the mods for Oblivion) and it is one of the only advantages PC gaming has left

Along with free game downloads (excluding piracy), the bulk of indie games available, Mouse and Keyboard Control, far more different genres available and the entire history of gaming available to play on a single system.

Just thought I would add those :smallwink:

[Lord of the Helms]

That was only part of it this is the part I was referring to mostly:

And the port of Half-life wasn't glitchy for me.:smallconfused:

Relax, I thought the smiley, combined with faux internet speek, made it clear I'm not terribly serious about it :smallwink:. Just pointing out that it's silly to say you're "a PC guy" when FPSes have always been native to the PC, and among the dominant genres for a long, long, looooooooooong time. Unless you're a Halo player, it should kinda go without saying unless noted otherwise.

By the way, I must apologize for forgetting to mention some of the more memorable shooters I've played, most notably the brilliant two No One Lives Forever games with their wonderfully quirky flair and fair, lightly-done combat/sneaking alternatives, and Call of Juarez, which was an awesome rendition of equal parts Thief and Max Payne in the Wild West. There was some more fun stuff I remember quite fondly (Voyager Elite Force, Republic Commando etc), and Prey was a nice recent example of playing around with some cool physics experiments in the gravity and portals department.

[Mr._Blinky]

If we're including third-person shooters into the mix, I'd have to say that the Mercenaries games are some of the most fun I've ever had with a shooter. Note, they are not great games per se, and there are in fact an enormous number of flaws in both titles (terrible AI, wonky physics, etc). But in some ways, the flaws are what make the games so much fun (i.e. the time I used those wonky physics and a C4 charge to launch an exploding car into an Apache helicopter:smallbiggrin:).

Also, being able to call down airstrikes on command never gets old.

[warty goblin]

If we're including third-person shooters into the mix, I'd have to say that the Mercenaries games are some of the most fun I've ever had with a shooter. Note, they are not great games per se, and there are in fact an enormous number of flaws in both titles (terrible AI, wonky physics, etc). But in some ways, the flaws are what make the games so much fun (i.e. the time I used those wonky physics and a C4 charge to launch an exploding car into an Apache helicopter:smallbiggrin:).

Also, being able to call down airstrikes on command never gets old.

Never played Mercs 1, played the second game though. I wanted to like it, I really did. But I didn't. Physics being wonky doesn't bother me, but stepping out of a helicopter and falling through the map, that does. Or crashing a motorcycle into a rock- by which I mean I end up inside the rock, unable to move. Calling in airstrikes was fun, pretty much in spite of the interface which felt like it was a placeholder designed by an intern their first day on the job, if only because dropping five hundred pound bombs on buildings never gets old. Assuming I could manage to hit the damn building that is, because being a cutting edge and financially well off mercenary, I call in my fire support with smoke grenades. Allow me to say I really don't care how one really calls in an airstrike, I want either the GPS or laser targeters, because they work.

Also there was something about the mouselook that never felt right for me, rather like I was dragging my reticule around through mud mixed with WD-40, sometimes it wouldn't move at all, and sometimes I'd find myself aiming twenty degrees to the left of what I was shooting for. All in all it felt like a good idea that Pandemic simply lacked the talent to pull off. Makes me wish Crytek had made it...

Which reminds me, is it just me or is Crysis pretty much the best FPS of the last three years?

[Phase]

Which reminds me, is it just me or is Crysis pretty much the best FPS of the last three years?

*coughPortalcough*

[LurkerInPlayground]

I actually preferred Halo 1 to Halo 2 and 3's health system, you had a health bar and a shield bar, your shield regenerated, your health didn't. And you could see how close you were to death(as well as those in the same vehicle as you).

I wouldn't like Halo to have a cover system because when you play Chief you have that feeling that you are a super soldier, you can jump really high, flip over tanks and survive really, really big drops. If it's a tactical FPS(Such as Rainbow Six) that's alright but like Warty I'd prefer a lean function.
Health meters actually make it important that you know when to stealth and actually rewards successful ambushes. It also maximizes the importance of cover and makes people buy every inch of ground with health. It also means that a truly bad vehicle spill is a matter of life-and-death, so it even adds value to vehicle play.

Whoever maximizes this resource the most efficiently truly demonstrates skill. The later Halo's felt too schizophrenic, where you can beat the tar out of an opponent, but unless you absolutely won, you get no cookie. Attrition has no place in the later games -- this gets doubly painful when defense and offense gets to be a weird quantum probability.

Tangentially, when falling actually hurts you, it becomes more significant as terrain. Taking out fall damage limits your map design choices and it's one of many mistakes of the later Halo games. (Likewise, taking out pistols weren't actually a game balance problem like so many people seem to believe.)

There's absolutely nothing wrong with health packs, since they also become manageable resources that you fight over.

This is largely my problem with newer console shooters. They lack depth.

[chiasaur11]

*coughPortalcough*

*coughEpisodeTwocough*
*coughsurenotasgoodasPortalcough*
*coughstillrealgoodcough*

Man, had something in my throat. Also, although I don't have any real experience playing it, from what I've heard Crysis's second half was a real let down. Not enough to ruin a game, but a shame if true, and a problem that Portal and Episode two didn't suffer from so much.

[SlyGuyMcFly]

*coughPortalcough*

Calling Portal a First Person Shooter is stretching things a little, I´d say. I´m not, mind, saying that it was anything other than twelve hundred kinds of awesome in a ten buck package. But I´d call is a first person puzzle game, or something.

[Mr._Blinky]

Never played Mercs 1, played the second game though. I wanted to like it, I really did. But I didn't. Physics being wonky doesn't bother me, but stepping out of a helicopter and falling through the map, that does. Or crashing a motorcycle into a rock- by which I mean I end up inside the rock, unable to move. Calling in airstrikes was fun, pretty much in spite of the interface which felt like it was a placeholder designed by an intern their first day on the job, if only because dropping five hundred pound bombs on buildings never gets old. Assuming I could manage to hit the damn building that is, because being a cutting edge and financially well off mercenary, I call in my fire support with smoke grenades. Allow me to say I really don't care how one really calls in an airstrike, I want either the GPS or laser targeters, because they work.

Also there was something about the mouselook that never felt right for me, rather like I was dragging my reticule around through mud mixed with WD-40, sometimes it wouldn't move at all, and sometimes I'd find myself aiming twenty degrees to the left of what I was shooting for. All in all it felt like a good idea that Pandemic simply lacked the talent to pull off. Makes me wish Crytek had made it...

Which reminds me, is it just me or is Crysis pretty much the best FPS of the last three years?

I'll admit, the second title isn't as good as the first, at least from what I've played so far. They did fix a large number of the problems and add in some good stuff, but somewhere along the way they lost a lot of what made the first game so damn fun. Seriously, if you have the cash, pick up the first title, it's endless hours of entertainment.

Also, in the second game targeting with a helicopter is a total pain in the ass. It's like someone greased the stick, so that when I try and make a minor adjustment it swings me half-way around.

[Phase]

Calling Portal a First Person Shooter is stretching things a little, I´d say. I´m not, mind, saying that it was anything other than twelve hundred kinds of awesome in a ten buck package. But I´d call is a first person puzzle game, or something.

It's a game from First Person wherein you shoot Portals. first Person Shooter

[Triaxx]

Another favored advantage to the Halo 1 health was that if you take a fully charged plasma shot in 2 or 3, you're waiting for your respawn. In 1 you've still got a moment to get undercover.

[Oregano]

I liked Mercenaries one and I haven't tried number two but I've heard some good things and some bad things.

My brother got Rainbow Six: Vegas 2 yesterday, it's a lot better than the first one and although I liked the older Rainbow Sixs they often frustrated me because of their "realistic" nature. Vegas isn't as bad but still feels more tactical than most shooters.

[Joran]

Which reminds me, is it just me or is Crysis pretty much the best FPS of the last three years?

I can't tell, I only recently got a computer hardcore enough to run it. Crysis seems a bit emblematic of a problem with computer gaming; a developer can make one of the best games ever but if it can't run on anyone's computer, then it won't find an audience =P

[warty goblin]

I can't tell, I only recently got a computer hardcore enough to run it. Crysis seems a bit emblematic of a problem with computer gaming; a developer can make one of the best games ever but if it can't run on anyone's computer, then it won't find an audience =P

Hmm, my computer is hardly extreme, but runs it just fine on quasi-medium settings (medium shaders and physics, everything else low) in what I consider reasonable resulotion (1024x768). Sure it looks good (well, sorta...), but that's not what makes it brilliant, that comes from the simply insane number of distinct tactical options it give the player. Take the tank level for example- you can play the entire level without using the tank, although its a pain in the ass to do it*. That and its one of the few games that lets me engage at realistic distances most of the time, but 100 yard kills aren't at all unusual, particularly at the higher difficulties. Makes me nice and paranoid.

Narritively Far Cry 2 is a much stronger game, but something about the gunplay never quite felt as varied as Crysis. Partially this is because once you get the MGL you are essentially the bastard love child of death and war come to earth to exact bloody vengence, and partially because Crysis' AI was generally a bit better, or at least came off that way. I mean when the KPA did something stupid, it was usually after I'd jumped over a building, beat a guy to death with my nanosuited hands, then sprint away so fast I bowled over three guys on my way outta Dodge. I'd probably be freaking out.


* I once spent a good two weeks replaying that single level, and I swear I picked up something new every time, some new angle of attack, a new place I could nab a vehicle (including one of those oh so sexy APCs with the TOW missiles and explosive firing small caliber cannon), and so on. Also a perfect example of how to do scripting, it adds to the sense of the battle going on, but not set in stone and didn't require me to do stupid stuff.

[Jahkaivah]

It's a game from First Person wherein you shoot Portals. first Person Shooter

Perhaps, its flaky and certainly up to perspective.

On thing is for sure however,Team Fortess 2 and Left 4 Dead are also great better-than-Crysis (not to say Crysis is a bad game) games which can be agreed to be well within the realms of the FPS genre.

(those realms appearing to involve killing targets with the intention to kill you, preferably with bullets)

[warty goblin]

Perhaps, its flaky and certainly up to perspective.

On thing is for sure however,Team Fortess 2 and Left 4 Dead are also great better-than-Crysis (not to say Crysis is a bad game) games which can be agreed to be well within the realms of the FPS genre.

(those realms appearing to involve killing targets with the intention to kill you, preferably with bullets)

I wouldn't go that far. I played the demos of both Crysis and Left 4 Dead. I own the first one, and not the second. TF2 is good, but multiplayer only, and I don't do multiplayer. Not to say L4D is bad, it's just so...narrow. Move, shoot, take the same route every time. In the better parts of Crysis, I can almost always try something completely and utterly different, go after objectives in different orders, take different routes, use different suite powers, different weapons.

[Jahkaivah]

I wouldn't go that far. I played the demos of both Crysis and Left 4 Dead. I own the first one, and not the second. TF2 is good, but multiplayer only, and I don't do multiplayer. Not to say L4D is bad, it's just so...narrow. Move, shoot, take the same route every time. In the better parts of Crysis, I can almost always try something completely and utterly different, go after objectives in different orders, take different routes, use different suite powers, different weapons.

To be fair, Crysis and Left 4 Dead are almost complete opposites in design philosophy.

The former hands you a massive advantage over your enemy and gives you the freedom to decide how you wish to use it to defeat them essentially working best with an easy difficulty setting.

While the latter hands a massive advantage to the enemy and forces you to fight by the skin of your teeth, and works best on a hard difficulty setting.

By that extent it is difficult to decide a superior game among them.

But as far as conquering repetition goes, they have different approaches to solving it, Crysis, as you said, has multiple routes with which you can take, while Left 4 Dead uses an AI director to solve it, but in all honesty I would prefer an AI director, partially because its a more original approach, but also because adds a additional layer of uncertainty to its design, uncertainty being the root of all fun in games.

[warty goblin]

To be fair, Crysis and Left 4 Dead are almost complete opposites in design philosophy.

The former hands you a massive advantage over your enemy and gives you the freedom to decide how you wish to use it to defeat them essentially working best with an easy difficulty setting.

While the latter hands a massive advantage to the enemy and forces you to fight by the skin of your teeth, and works best on a hard difficulty setting.

By that extent it is difficult to decide a superior game among them.

But as far as conquering repetition goes, they have different approaches to solving it, Crysis, as you said, has multiple routes with which you can take, while Left 4 Dead uses an AI director to solve it, but in all honesty I would prefer an AI director, partially because its a more original approach, but also because adds a additional layer of uncertainty to its design, uncertainty being the root of all fun in games.

Hmm, I disagree with the first part of your statement, namely that Crysis is best enjoyed in Easy mode. Personally I find Delta to be where it's at, since it really forces one to use the suit in interesting and new ways. Plus it can lead to some insane firefights when you screw up. From what I played of L4D, the harder difficulties didn't force you to do anything different, just better, which I find less interesting. It's the same game with a lower margin of error. Delta Crysis simply cannot be played the way that Easy Crysis can be.

Don't get me wrong, L4D is a very good game, and one whose demo I enjoyed quite a lot, but when it came time to pick up the one game I could afford until summer that wasn't Dawn of War 2, I went with Far Cry 2 because it seemed to be much more open and invite a vastly greater degree of tactical freedom. In an FPS tactical freedom is pretty much what'll keep me coming back, not story, not set pieces, the puzzle of how to use the weapons on hand to make those enemies up there dead with minimal risk to my own hide.

[Oregano]

For pure fun on an FPS having Halo 3 on easy mode but with all the skulls on is hi-larious, especially when six grenades are at your feet and you just keep going. All the grenades make it funny as well.

[chiasaur11]

All I know about difficulty in Crysis is that Delta is called in some files "Bauer Mode".

And, as Tom Francis pointed out, who could live in anything other than shame knowing they weren't playing Bauer Mode?

[LurkerInPlayground]

The thing about L4D is that nobody ever plays on any mode but normal for versus. Any team that's half-decent would slaughter the team currently playing survivors right out the gate. It's not much fun for either team.

Co-op is fine on harder difficulties, but it just forces you take fewer liberties and risks and do a lot more rushing.

[Triaxx]

All I know about difficulty in Crysis is that Delta is called in some files "Bauer Mode".

And, as Tom Francis pointed out, who could live in anything other than shame knowing they weren't playing Bauer Mode?

*raises hand*

[Fri]

So... guys. I know that quality trumps quantity and all that, but... Any recommendation for an FPS with long single player gameplay? And it might not simply 'long single player campaign,' but potential replays and single player deathmatch against bots or something like that.

[toasty]

So... guys. I know that quality trumps quantity and all that, but... Any recommendation for an FPS with long single player gameplay? And it might not simply 'long single player campaign,' but potential replays and single player deathmatch against bots or something like that.

Half Life 2 is my favorite Single Player FPS.

[Triaxx]

Ghost Recon had a punishingly long Single Player mode. Or perhaps it was just me that felt that.

I'm still waiting for an FPS with levels designed like those from Supreme Commander. Ones that can't be finished in just a few minutes but can run for hours at a time.

[Phase]

Half Life 2 is my favorite Single Player FPS.

As it should be. As it should be...

[warty goblin]

So... guys. I know that quality trumps quantity and all that, but... Any recommendation for an FPS with long single player gameplay? And it might not simply 'long single player campaign,' but potential replays and single player deathmatch against bots or something like that.

If you like single player against bots, I really can't recommend Enemy Territory: Quake Wars (on PC) highly enough. Sure that's all there is, but I've been playing that game off and on for somewhat over a year now, and I'm still trying and doing new things*, and I've spent a good 99.9% of my time with the game in singleplayer. The bots are pretty good as a rule, they react well to most normal things a player does, although not so well to some of the weirder crap I've pulled (like strapping explosives to vehicles, then driving them into enemy anti-personel turrets for example), and can be customized in both tactical and weapons skills which is a godsend. On the harder settings they are also rather disgustingly good shots. All in all actually the game is ridiculously customizible, from the interface, to the reticule, and you can find a map/side/class for pretty much any mood you might find yourself in. It's pretty much replaced Star Wars Battlefront II as my go-to game when I require fifteen minutes of truly intense mayhem and face shooting, in no small part because the AI can actually find its ass with both hands and a map.


*Many of them related to aircraft. I've become reasonably preficient at straffing ground targets with the human attack helicopter, engaging other aircraft continues to evade me, as does simply flying the Strogg tormentor.

Far Cry 2 is also worth investigating, my first playthrough took something like 40 hours, during which time I fired the better part of 26 thousand rounds of ammunition and traveled about 425 kilometers, most of it on foot. It's almost certainly replayable, the overall structure I believe remains the same from game to game, but the details change. I don't think there's bots for the multiplayer though.

[chiasaur11]

Well, if you don't mind old school stuff too much, and the arena bit isn't a prerequisite, I'd recommend the Marathon series. Lots of hidden nooks, reasonably long and cleverly plotted campaigns, and one of the classic insane AIs.

Plus, you really can't argue with the price. Free (http://source.bungie.org/get/) at the link here. I've been enjoying it over the past couple of weeks, at least.

[Closet_Skeleton]

So... guys. I know that quality trumps quantity and all that, but... Any recommendation for an FPS with long single player gameplay? And it might not simply 'long single player campaign,' but potential replays and single player deathmatch against bots or something like that.

Look for something old. Campaigns just get shorter and shorter as time goes on.

[chiasaur11]

Look for something old. Campaigns just get shorter and shorter as time goes on.

And more of them are cheap and or free. Unless (like System Shock) they're impossible to get legally.

Which is unfortunate.

[Triaxx]

Then again, those can be had on say eBay.

[Oregano]

My Bro got Left 4 Dead yesterday, great fun. Would be much easier to play on the PC though but then we wouldn't be able to go on Co-op.

[sheepofoblivion]

Sorry if I'm butting in, or if any of what I say has been said already, but here goes my rant (yes, rant is the appropriate word, unless you were looking for something more like, epic poem):

In my opinion, The Battlefield Series is one of the best to ever grace us with it's presence. Although it certainly cannot be attributed with the title "First Major FPS" (which may have to go to counterstrike, I'm not really sure at all) I feel that it far outdoes CoD, Halo (in some respects. Don't post rage driven rants against this, I have my reasons, which I will explain later), Counter Strike, Day of Defeat, or any other FPS.
Although it does seem to have it's own sub-genre, which is different than Halo, Crysis, or other games, it is in my opinion at the top of it. Halo (this is to appease the halo fans out there, and my friend Joe (his real name, I swear)) and other games have a plot. Half Life 2, Crysis, I could go on. The major flaw some people find in Battlefield and games like it (ie counterstrike, Team fortress 2, CoD, etc...) is it's lack of plot. Many will have a single player mode (1942, Cod 3) but it is really a mere fraction of the gameplay in comparison to the online hordes who make up more internet traffic than the country of italy playing counter strike.
The sub genre I was speaking of it this, a game with no real plot where you shoot things. It doesn't sound terribly sophisticated, fun or good when you talk about it, but it's the truth, that's what it is (I think...). Games like battlefield have different types and aspects of servers which non-fps gamers might find foreign. Stat Padding, although not really that uncommon is one thing which I could mention to a casual gamer and get an uninformed response thing (they wouldn't know what the hell I was talking about). There are multiple kinds of servers I could go on about (knife and sniper rifle only, air maps only, etc...) but it would take too long.
Despite the fact that many would find such a game sort of lame/dull, there are clearly people who don't feel the same, as battlefield and CoD can be considered some of the most successful games ever. I prefer these to plot driven games, as (somewhat counter-intuitively) they don't get old as fast! With a plot driven game, it can give you up to fifty hours of gameplay, a significant feat, but after that, you're done. You can play the exceptionally fun missions over again, beat your friends to bits in co-op, or just try to finish it on halo's legendary mode with the Grunt Birthday Party Silver Skull. Surprisingly, I found Battlefield 2 on my overly neat OCD desktop time and time again (virtual desktop and real one). I have logged countless hours playing JUST wake island 2007, crawled through the ranks, and earned new guns. This could be considered drudgery by some, yet I find it much more entertaining in comparison to plot driven games. (But Halo 2 is still soooooooo epic)
Now. About battlefield itself... battlefield 2 is undoubtably their best game so far, far surpassing 2142, bad company, and 1942 (with vietnam creeping up there). This defined the subgenre further, proving that Counter Strike, cluttered with teabaggers and AWP n00bs wasn't the only worthwhile game out there in the genre. With it's creation, CoD quickly followed with their best, CoD 4 (and 5 shortly thereafter). (Don't mention battlefront if you want to live in my presence.) With that, it fell out of popularity, raised some eyebrows with the frostbite engine of Bad Company, but fell behind Call of Duty's flammable nazi zombies.
The major flaw that I find with Battlefield 2 (and bad company) which I think many gamers can attest to is it's simple lack of graphics. It cannot hope to match Crysis, as hundreds of servers are run at once, but it is still outdated graphics wise. One can also argue the gameplay flaw of the seemingly invincible tanks (which are a pain) and the four star generals who fly about in J-10's (jets) however, I think it is simply that it is a little old that it fell out of the public's eye a bit. Bad Company was fun, with the destructable backgrounds, but still couldn't match 2, as it tried to have more of a plot (Not battlefield).
Long story short (except.... not), if one were to recreate Battlefield 2 with new graphics, with a few kinks worked out, I feel it would overtake CoD and take it's place as best FPS on the market (in it's sub genre which I spoke of). (Sort of like how remaking morrowind to be more like oblivion's graphics, but keeping morrowind's content would make bethesada softworks god.)
Sorry for the long rant



In other unrelated news, Bethesada softworks, makers of oblivion, fallout, the elder scrolls are making an FPS!!!!! WOOOT!

[Oregano]

Wow nice rant, I don't think you said anything unreasonable so I don't think you have to be scared.:smallwink:

Cool, a Bethesda FPS though? I think it'll be like Bioshock, FPS with a lot of RPG elements.

EDIT: I think the DS needs some quality FPSs. I've heard Metroid Prime Hunters but I haven't got enough money to buy it right now.:smallfrown:

A Halo game on the DS would be brilliant.

[sheepofoblivion]

http://www.bethsoft.com/eng/games/games_roguewarrior.html

Not terribly creative name or plot, but it's bethesda!!!!

[Lord of the Helms]

So... guys. I know that quality trumps quantity and all that, but... Any recommendation for an FPS with long single player gameplay? And it might not simply 'long single player campaign,' but potential replays and single player deathmatch against bots or something like that.

Half-Life 2 plus Episodes is fairly long by FPS standards. Deus Ex is probably even longer, and much more replayable, but not quite so shooty. Neither has bots by default, though. I also remember that Call of Juarez was decent in the length department, but again no bot combat.

[Willis888]

. . . it certainly cannot be attributed with the title "First Major FPS" (which may have to go to counterstrike, I'm not really sure at all) . . .

In other unrelated news, Bethesada softworks, makers of oblivion, fallout, the elder scrolls are making an FPS!!!!! WOOOT!


DOOM was released 6 years before CS and was the first to bring the FPS Deathmatch to a broad audience.


If Morrowind, Oblivion, and Fallout 3 are an accurate measure of Bethesda's new title, that would kick many butts.

[MalikT]

So... guys. I know that quality trumps quantity and all that, but... Any recommendation for an FPS with long single player gameplay? And it might not simply 'long single player campaign,' but potential replays and single player deathmatch against bots or something like that.

From the newer games I can recommend S.T.A.L.K.E.R.: Shadow of Chernobyl, just don't forget to patch up. I heard that Bioshock is good, but I didn't played it yet.
If you like oldies there is broader selection: Deus Ex, Operation Flashpoint, Max Payne, System Shock, Half Life, Alien vs Predator, Hitman, there is more but I can't remember now.
If you want long, frantic, without a second to rest FPS I would recommend one from Serious Sam serial.

On other topic, does anyone know will the next Duke Nukem game ever come out, it's in development more then ten years.

[toasty]

On other topic, does anyone know will the next Duke Nukem game ever come out, it's in development more then ten years.

Correction: Its been in development hell for more than tens years.

My guess is possibly never. That or maybe my children will play it and I'll tell them how I played Duke Nukem 1 and 2 as a young child and loved blasting all those nasty baddies.... even if I couldn't get past the 3rd level in #2 (I won most of Duke Nukem 1 IIRC).

[MalikT]

It was supposed to come out in 2001, but then 9/11 happened and because big part of Duke Nukem takes place in NY and his specific gameplay (blowing up buildings) it was delayed. Now it's 2009 and still no word about Duke.

[theshjuan*]

dukes supposed to come out this fall on DS and PSP

[sheepofoblivion]

on ds? I'm not entirely sure that duke, such an anticipated game (or it was at least... Perhaps not anymore) would be on the DS and PSP exclusively...

[Om]

It was supposed to come out in 2001, but then 9/11 happened and because big part of Duke Nukem takes place in NY and his specific gameplay (blowing up buildings) it was delayed. Now it's 2009 and still no word about Duke.Well that's one of the more creative excuses I've heard for Duke's absence. The game was originally scheduled for release in 97/98 and has gone through at least three or four engine changes. Sept 11 has little to do with this particular fiasco. In fact the screenshots and trailer that I saw in 2001 seemed to locate the action in Las Vegas

Edit: Of course no mention of the Duke would be complete without the Duke Nukem Forever List (http://duke.a-13.net/). In fact development has now taken so long that this list itself is now outdated!