Online FPS Overrated?

Stingerbar

Stupidly Naked wrote: »

The vast majority of players who play those games play them simply because that's what their friends do. They don't associate the good times with the game, but in reality the times were good because of their friends reactions or the conversations during.
My friends who game are extremely competitive, we all prefer Halo3 simply because its far more competitive than CoD. We enjoy a hard game that takes skill and the good times are associated with winning.
So, people are different and a lot of the hype of games ("OMGZORS BLACK OPS IS THE BEST GAME EVAR") is in reality untrue simply because a large part of your enjoyment of a game comes down to the people you game with.
Also, its extremely infuriating that the only FPS that people play are either; Halo, CoD, Battlefield or Killzone.
we need more games like Shadowrun.
Also, Borderlands was a great game for me and its all campaign. You should check it out, you might like it.

The choice on PC is a little better, plus there are a lot of amazing mods that have sucked me in over the years.

To get away from the screaming kiddies, there are some great realism mods, tons for battlefield 2 and half-life - a more mature crowd, so real tactics and teamplay

Duggy747

FPS have become neutered thanks to online gaming. Single player is more of a tutorial for multiplayer than as a standalone game. Half Life 2 and it's episodes are probably the last good single-player FPS I can think of.

I don't play COD or any of those games as they're just too mental and full of idiots (As well as cheating bastards). I do play Left 4 Dead 1 most nights on one server and that's just brilliant fun (being an Admin and abusing my powers is also fun :pac:). I've always prefered co-op games to free-for-alls, used to play the 1st Rainbow Six online all the time.

CMpunked

Does anyone play the new MOH online?

I think i lasted 5 days before i traded it in. It had a great original multiplayer concept, one that if it was given a bit more work could be great when they bring out MOH 2.

Magill

Sisko wrote: »

Woah don't go postal at the guy!

Well , from his post he seems annoyed that the console FPS games that once concentrated on single player now have only a short 5 hours of single player gameplay and instead the focus is more on the online multilayer.

So I imagine he enjoys the FPSs but feels the multiplayer focus is ruining it for him? So not playing them at all is not exactly what he's looking for.

There seems to be alot of people with this opinion of late and while I've no interest in the games the op mentions , I am a multiplayer fan so for example when theres talk of multiplayer DLC for mass effect 2 I get disapointed when the forums are filled with people yelling "noooooooooooooooooooooooo anything but multiplayer!!!!"

I think what it comes down to is having friends that play games too rather then playing online with randomers.

For example , I love L4D but I couldnt go near that game unless my mates were playing too. So many bad experiences with random online total idiots.

Thing is, cod/battlefield and halo(Since 2) have always been about multiplayer, so its not like those games have changed from having great single player to having limited single player. Games like half life dont come around very often, but you still have great single player games like bioshock/fallout and killzone.

It is definitely who you play with that makes or breaks an online game, i think that is one of the biggest advantages of the PC, clan run servers often have a great community feel to them. On the consoles unless your playing with a few mates, its easy to get bored.

I guess hes right in that games like cod and battlefield sell far more copies than what they're worth, sort of like EA sports games imo , they arent great games... they're just not challenged enough to make the developers put the extra effort into them

mcgovern

If you want to play a single player FPS, get Bioshock or a game of its ilk.
If you to play a multiplayer FPS, get CoD or BF:BC2 etc.
It's a case of knowing what the game's focus is before purchasing.

PogMoThoin

CMpunked wrote: »

I know it isnt a fps, but i always thought GTA-IV had the perfect mix of everything.
There was a great extensive story and the MP had real serious co-op gaming, completing objectives, but then you could have mad craic like running around blowing lads up in cars with RPG's with no reprecussions.

Great fun.

Are You serious? The story was shíte (worst in the series) and the missions were repeats of missions We had all done before in the earlier games. Mp was a mess with all the grievers with Rpg's, no objective, no cooperation

CMpunked

PogMoThoin wrote: »

Are You serious? The story was shíte (worst in the series) and the missions were repeats of missions We had all done before in the earlier games. Mp was a mess with all the grievers with Rpg's, no objective, no cooperation

What about the bomb the base, cops and robbers MP missions etc?
And all the gta games follow the same suit storywise to be fair. But yeah I stand by what I said. When it comes to the best mix of story, sandbox playing, MP and then general devilment, gta 4 had it all.

Looking fonward to no.5.

Duggy747

GTA: San Andreas Multiplayer wipes the floor with GTA IV, absolutely awesome stuff.

I think the feeling that FPS have become more online-focused than singleplayer is rather annoying to a lot. It's been like this for the past few years but single-player is beginning to make somewhat of a comeback.

Retr0gamer

Saints Row 2 was far better than GTA4. Sure the story was rubbish and the graphics pretty poor but at least it didn't forget what made the old GTA games good, fun and mayhem, two things that GTA 4 was sorely missing.

Sisko

gimli2112 wrote: »

It's all down to rewarding you for taking certain actions. The whole leveling up, earning money, points, unlocking stuff etc. This is what makes it addictive. Things flashing up on screen and a big fanfare hook you in subconsciously. There's a programme on BBC about it later.

I'm totally addicted to COD but to actually explain it to a non-believer is very difficult.

I utterly hate this crap sooooooo much, it all hit the fan in 2005 and its been down hill ever since. For me its all about killing the other guy, single handedly turning the tide of a battle in BF2 and having coordinated team play. Going against the odds, killing 5 guys in a row, taking the flag and winning the game for my team, so on and so forth. All this other crap is incredibly artificial , almost seems like its there to make bad players feel like they're doing something worthwhile instead of being cannon fodder.

I know I'm in the minority here due to the sheer popularity off all that crap. Still, it literally disgusts me. The other day I added a custom soundtrack to Gran Turismo 5 and I got an achievement for it. It sickened me.

Feels like a constant insult to gamers intelligence imo. Next I'll be getting an achievement for turning on my console or finding where the start button is on my controller. YAY...........

(not ranting at you, just in general )

Magill wrote: »

Thing is, cod/battlefield and halo(Since 2) have always been about multiplayer, so its not like those games have changed from having great single player to having limited single player. Games like half life dont come around very often, but you still have great single player games like bioshock/fallout and killzone.

It is definitely who you play with that makes or breaks an online game, i think that is one of the biggest advantages of the PC, clan run servers often have a great community feel to them. On the consoles unless your playing with a few mates, its easy to get bored.

I guess hes right in that games like cod and battlefield sell far more copies than what they're worth, sort of like EA sports games imo , they arent great games... they're just not challenged enough to make the developers put the extra effort into them

I pretty much agree with you although playing the devils advocate, taking pc gaming out and just talking about console military shooters specifically. I'm pretty sure COD and MOH all started as solid world war 2 single player shooters and gradually concentrated more and more on their multiplayer, which from what I can see is just glorified team deathmatch. So maybe the OP is missing some of the older days for his console shooters.

But for me, I have no interest in any of those games cause imo they don't even touch average PC shooters from 10 years + ago. This is mainly cause you can't really get indepth or over complicated on a console at the moment and can't go much beyond glorified team deathmatch. BF1943 for example is seriously dumbed down compared to any PC BF but if they didnt dumb it down it'd be a disaster on the consoles.

But the op appears to be coming from a pure console gaming perspective in with that in mind, I wouldn't necessarily say all these shooters are overrated , they do what they're meant to do. People buy them for the multiplayer, people who enjoy multiplayer and as someone else said and I agree, some multiplayer games last much longer in terms of hours, then most single player games.

(X-fire has me as playing BF2 for 1000 hours )

Retr0gamer

Sisko wrote: »

Next I'll be getting an achievement for turning on my console or finding where the start button is on my controller. YAY...........

There's an achievement in the Simpsons game for doing just that.

Sisko

oh my ****ing god



/kills self

richymcdermott

wish there was more modding done on ps3 . unreal tournament 3 i think the only one who support it besides modnation and lbp, like to play more fps games with endless maps

CMpunked

Duggy747 wrote: »

GTA: San Andreas Multiplayer wipes the floor with GTA IV, absolutely awesome stuff.

Really? Must check it out, cheers!

marco_polo

Even Crytek, whos games have always had a lengthy single player campaign such as Far Cry and Crysis (leaving aside views as to the actual quality of those campaigns) seem to be putting an worryingly large amount of emphasis on the multiplayer aspect of Crysis 2 recently. I would not be completely surprised, for Crysis 2 to end up with a 10 hour or less singleplayer campaign, although i am hopeful I it will be of a decent length (and with a good story obviously).

Still the prospect games such as Deus Ex:HR, Rage (and hopefully Crysis 2) leave me with reasonably grounds for optimism for single player FPS in 2011, hears hopeing at least some of them get it right.

Retr0gamer

Well Crysis 2 single player is being handled by the Crytech team while the multiplayer is being handled by another EA team so it might work out ok. I played the multiplayer and it is basically very very similar to call of duty except the maps are more vertically orientated since you can jump and grab ledges.

marco_polo

Retr0gamer wrote: »

Well Crysis 2 single player is being handled by the Crytech team while te multiplayer is being handled by another EA team so it hmight work out ok. I played the multiplayer and it is basically very very similar to call of duty except the makes are more vertically orientated since you can jump and grab ledges.

I seem to recall a certain Medal of Honour having the same two studio split, and churned out a whopping 4 hour campaign.

But that does make me feel a little bit more optimistic all the same.

Magill

Sisko wrote: »

I utterly hate this crap sooooooo much, it all hit the fan in 2005 and its been down hill ever since. For me its all about killing the other guy, single handedly turning the tide of a battle in BF2 and having coordinated team play. Going against the odds, killing 5 guys in a row, taking the flag and winning the game for my team, so on and so forth. All this other crap is incredibly artificial , almost seems like its there to make bad players feel like they're doing something worthwhile instead of being cannon fodder.

I know I'm in the minority here due to the sheer popularity off all that crap. Still, it literally disgusts me. The other day I added a custom soundtrack to Gran Turismo 5 and I got an achievement for it. It sickened me.

Feels like a constant insult to gamers intelligence imo. Next I'll be getting an achievement for turning on my console or finding where the start button is on my controller. YAY...........

(not ranting at you, just in general )



I pretty much agree with you although playing the devils advocate, taking pc gaming out and just talking about console military shooters specifically. I'm pretty sure COD and MOH all started as solid world war 2 single player shooters and gradually concentrated more and more on their multiplayer, which from what I can see is just glorified team deathmatch. So maybe the OP is missing some of the older days for his console shooters.

But for me, I have no interest in any of those games cause imo they don't even touch average PC shooters from 10 years + ago. This is mainly cause you can't really get indepth or over complicated on a console at the moment and can't go much beyond glorified team deathmatch. BF1943 for example is seriously dumbed down compared to any PC BF but if they didnt dumb it down it'd be a disaster on the consoles.

But the op appears to be coming from a pure console gaming perspective in with that in mind, I wouldn't necessarily say all these shooters are overrated , they do what they're meant to do. People buy them for the multiplayer, people who enjoy multiplayer and as someone else said and I agree, some multiplayer games last much longer in terms of hours, then most single player games.

(X-fire has me as playing BF2 for 1000 hours )

CoD + MOH only made it big because of how good they were online on the PC, consoles at the time just hadnt got the online features to support it. The single player on both games was no better than it is on the current games.. MOH sp is actually quite fun tho.

Shooters haven't been dumbed down to suit consoles, the best online shooter on the PC is cs, at least imo it is. And its very simplistic, theres nothing about cs that would be impossible to recreate on a console. The cod series, dedicated servers aside, are pretty much teh same and BC2... i cant really say because i've not played it much on either console or pc. BF1943 was a PSN and XBOX live game, it was nothing more than a very quick port so dont read into it much.

I dont see how they are glorified death matches, if they are i dont see how its any different on the PC (I really dont want to get into a PC vs Console thing with you again btw). Is SnD a glorified deathmatch mode ? What about CTF ? Demolition ? What the new wager modes ? If thats the case... what exactly are you suggesting isnt a deathmatch ?

As for achievements.... meh, i dont even pay attention to them, but sure hasnt every game got them now (WoW/Steam games/PS3+xbox). Apparently some of them are quite hard to get or at least take alot of time (I know some of the warcraft ones are HARD !)... nothing wrong with adding a bit more to a games lifespan for people that like that sort of thing.

TwoShedsJackson

Don't see how anyone could not love being called a n1gger jew fag by some 12 year old in Texas whilst playing Counterstrike :rolleyes:

Magill

TwoShedsJackson wrote: »

Don't see how anyone could not love being called a n1gger jew fag by some 12 year old in Texas whilst playing Counterstrike :rolleyes:

haha yeah exactly

Jazzy

TwoShedsJackson wrote: »

Don't see how anyone could not love being called a n1gger jew fag by some 12 year old in Texas whilst playing Counterstrike :rolleyes:

you play on american servers? thats probably the first problem..

Lab_Mouse

TwoShedsJackson wrote: »

Don't see how anyone could not love being called a n1gger jew fag by some 12 year old in Texas whilst playing Counterstrike :rolleyes:

That can be funny in a way.I pulled a fool up on it and he then asked so your not an arian then?He shut up when I asked did he mean aryan and was english his first language.Dumbass:D

PogMoThoin

TwoShedsJackson wrote: »

Don't see how anyone could not love being called a n1gger jew fag by some 12 year old in Texas whilst playing Counterstrike :rolleyes:

You play with random people
I play with friends, none of this shít

Sisko

Magill wrote: »

CoD + MOH only made it big because of how good they were online on the PC, consoles at the time just hadnt got the online features to support it. The single player on both games was no better than it is on the current games.. MOH sp is actually quite fun tho.

Well I wouldn't say only but I didn't play them much myself. I do remember them being considered a big deal due to their single player campaign. I remember the saving private ryan style omaha beach level being a big deal at the time and so on.

Amusingly I didn't get much into those games though cause of my love for multiplayer , and it was BF1942 and its mods that grabbed me.

I talk about team deathmatch as still most games multiplayer is just two teams against each other, small map , 1st team to get the most kills wins....:rolleyes: I found this stale even back then. CS was different in that you bought weapons at the start, was far more tactical and when you died, you died. No respawn. Battlefield brought conquest mode , large maps and vehicles teamplay needed and so on. Then there was enemy territory and the likes. I couldn't really go back to team deathmatch. Battlefield was my main multiplayer FPS love. And this was long before consoles got proper online play.

Magill wrote: »

Shooters haven't been dumbed down to suit consoles, the best online shooter on the PC is cs, at least imo it is. And its very simplistic, theres nothing about cs that would be impossible to recreate on a console.

LOL CS would be terrible on a console. Look at the difference between how TF2 plays on PC versus the consoles. Theres a reason its one of the best online FPS on PC atm, and highly forgettable on the consoles. Any true CS fan would be disgusted with a console version. The amount of time it would take to do a mere 180 turn would be sickening.

Magill wrote: »

The cod series, dedicated servers aside, are pretty much teh same and BC2... i cant really say because i've not played it much on either console or pc. BF1943 was a PSN and XBOX live game, it was nothing more than a very quick port so dont read into it much.

Yeah the cod series are the same, those games are primarily console games now. BC2? Bad company itself is the dumbed down, console version of battlefield. They're nothing on the proper BF games, 1943 had to be dumbed down. Can you imagine trying to coordinate a team of players , relying on pure engineers to repair vehicles, medics to heal and heavy weapons to give you ammo on a console? Can you imagine if team killing was turned on? NO REGENITIVE HEALTH? It'd be a disaster if they tried to keep it the same gameplay as 1942 or BF2. You need to be able to fully communicate with everyone on the server. You need clan run servers with server admins so on and so forth.

It'd be a terrible game if they kept it the same, it HAD to be dumbed down to be fun. I enjoyed 1943 , as I still love conquest. But its just a shadow of a proper BF game, good for a quick laugh. I'm not gonna being getting into high end clan battles on that game.

But many people are not interested in the larger scale more indepth mp fps. They want their quick fix, kill the other guys with their mates fps, no messing about and thats what you get on the tin with CODs and the MOHs. They're not overrated they are what they are (bringing it back to the op) Think the issues is the theme and setting of these shooters is making 'em all seem like clones of each other with a new one out almost every year, turning it into FIFA.

Retr0gamer

We had counterstrike on the consoles already with an Xbox port. The fact you can't remember it tells you enough about it.

Sisko

*shudders

richymcdermott

this is what i think of this thread :P

BostonB

richymcdermott wrote: »

...

this is what i think of this thread :P

LOL

deathrider

TwoShedsJackson wrote: »

Don't see how anyone could not love being called a n1gger jew fag by some 12 year old in Texas whilst playing Counterstrike :rolleyes:

This goes across most of online gaming (console at least) in general. I was playing Black Ops the other night with a few of my mates, and we were hanging in the pre-game lobby. We weren't in a party, but we were still chatting. I mentioned that I had feck all folks on my friends list, and some random american guy says in a snotty tone
"Yo, is that because you're black?"
"Yes" I said in my unmistakably thick Irish accent "That must be it"

landsleaving

It's such an odd situation to hear someone spouting racist abuse while they play a game mainly based on shooting Nazis.

Maybe the games are set in Modern War lately to suit that audience wanting to shoot non-'aryans' instead of people who share their ideology.

Or maybe I'm overthinking it.