-Sauerbraten (It's an open source shooter available on Windows/Mac OS X, and I use a Mac. It's a lot like Quake)
-Unreal Tournament 3
-CS and CS:S
-The original Call of Duty
-Battlefield 1942 and Road to Rome
-Delta Force: Land Warrior
-Return to Castle Wolfenstein
+many others that I probably don't remember to name for one reason or another. Right now I'm trying Crysis.
When I see people on this forum talk about "shooters," they tyically mention the CoD series, which is understandable, since it is a big one and many people play it. People also accuse shooters as being "mindless," which I also understand, since many shooters minimize story elements.
Much of the quality of a game is measured by how well it can entertain the player. Different games achieve this through various means - shooters offer fast-paced (or slower, tactical) combat, RTS (which is overall my favorite game genre) offers a mix of combat and planning, while RPG's immerse the user in the characters and story, and offer some action.
I would like to contest the notion that shooters are inherently mindless, and thus, stupid. Different shooters exist and are meant to be played differently. The skill-sets required to succeed shooters are just different - from other games, and even among shooters. Because these skill sets are different, players derive enjoyment from different aspects of the game.
You cannot play CS the same way you would play Sauerbraten Or UT3. "Arena" shooters like the latter two focus on high-speed combat and fast reflexes. To be good at these, skill is essential. People who play these types of shooters competitively are some of the most skilled FPS players I have ever encountered. I once joined a Sauerbraten server that was mostly PSL players on it, and if you appeared on their screen and were not fast, chances are you would be dead in literally less than 1 second if the mode was instagib.
As a whole, shooters like these reward players for their "skill" and are fun because of the competition and fast-paced combat. I think it is improper to judge a shooter using the criteria of an RPG or other game because the skills required to succeed in these games - and consequently, the things that make these games fun - are inherently different.
CS is a bit similar insofar as fast reflexes matter, but core elements of the game make it sufficiently different from a game like Quake or Unreal Tournament 3. To me, CS (and I would group the Call of Duty, Battlefield, and similar series here) are the "middle ground" shooters - while not being wholly tactical, they eschews the blatantly unrealistic aspects of Quake-type shooters (e.g. rocket jumping, quad damage, standard moving speed is like sprinting) in favor of more realistic physics.
UT3 and Sauerbraten are mostly multiplayer games - Sauerbraten barely has a single player mode to speak of (you can play arena maps against hordes of bots), and UT3's is laughable. I don't hold it against them, since their primary purpose is to let you enjoy competing against other people.
If you want my personal take, there is a continuum of realism "shooters," and the shooters at the far ends of this continuum require the most skill - but in different ways. Operation Flashpoint or ArmA II represent ultra-realistic shooters, and require a lot of patience and sense. The Unreal games require a lot of speed and fast reflexes. The "middle ground" shooters like CS, CoD, etc, still require reflexes and speed, but not nearly as much as an Unreal game.
Modifié par TheKillerAngel, 25 juillet 2010 - 10:07 .
Retour en haut
