185 réponses à ce sujet

[TheKillerAngel]

Some of the shooters I've played are:

-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 .

[JaegerBane]

To be honest, I'm sick of hearing shooters being stereotyped as 'mindless games for retards, unlike us superior RPG gamers with all of our stats' crap. It's snobbery, pure and simple.

[EtTuBrute]

I find it hard to admit that I enjoyed Modern Warfare 2 and Battlefield: Bad Company 2 as much as I enjoyed the Mass Effect games and Fallout 3.

[MTN Dew Fanatic]

JaegerBane wrote...

To be honest, I'm sick of hearing shooters being stereotyped as 'mindless games for retards, unlike us superior RPG gamers with all of our stats' crap. It's snobbery, pure and simple.

The only games like that I can think of are CoD 4 and CoD Modern Warfare 2 and that's because the people that always play are them are all like,"I r 1337z, look at me wit ma stopin powerz!". Call of Duty ruined everything.

Modifié par MTN Dew Fanatic, 26 juillet 2010 - 12:00 .

[TheShogunOfHarlem]

 While I do agree that categorizing shooters as "Mindless" is very elitist and juvenile. (I have a love of almost all game genres) Ideally, I would like to see more cross genre games. A part Real time strategy/FPS/TPS/Space Combat/RPG game would be my dream. 

The reality of video game development unfortunately for shooters seems to be moving in that direction. The bulk of shooters today are too short, too fast paced and are far from challenging in the sense that they require little or no strategy to beat. The COD series has changed very little from COD 2. (the first one I played) In fact it has gotten shorter and easier. The biggest issue I have with the COD series is it's scripted nature. I guess that saves them from programming AI but it makes the gameplay incredibly predictable and the only reason why I would ever go back to playing any of the COD games is the superficial joy I get from playing through certain parts of my favorite levels. COD 4 best levels in my opinion were the USMC missions. All the SAS missions were pointless because I find it silly to script Special Operation "stealth" missions. If the SAS missions played like a combination of Ghost Recon and MGS 4 then it would have worked. (MGS 4 is a great example of what I would like to see more of in Shooters: actual tactics) 

EtTuBrute wrote...

I find it hard to admit that I enjoyed Modern Warfare 2 and Battlefield: Bad Company 2 as much as I enjoyed the Mass Effect games and Fallout 3.

Really? I have all three games too and I haven't played either nearly as much as did ME1 or ME2 after beating them. Both were way too short campaign wise and way too scripted. To me BFBC 2 was a let down in comparison to it's predecessor. BFBC 2 fixed the shooter elements that frustrated me in 1 but it severely cut down the sandbox elements that set it aside from COD. It was way too linear for my tastes.

[MTN Dew Fanatic]

 


[quote]

[quote]
I find it hard to admit that I enjoyed Modern Warfare 2 and Battlefield: Bad Company 2 as much as I enjoyed the Mass Effect games and Fallout 3.[/quote]Really? I have all three games too and I haven't played either nearly as much as did ME1 or ME2 after beating them. Both were way too short campaign wise and way too scripted. To me BFBC 2 was a let down in comparison to it's predecessor. BFBC 2 fixed the shooter elements that frustrated me in 1 but it severely cut down the sandbox elements that set it aside from COD. It was way too linear for my tastes.[/quote]

[/quote]
BFBC 2 would have been so much greater if it didn't have perks from CoD, because it makes the game a lot less fun when everybody uses magnum ammo...

Modifié par MTN Dew Fanatic, 26 juillet 2010 - 12:19 .

[StefanBW]

The only bad thing about Modern Warfare 2 multiplayer is the people you are playing with.

[MassEffect762]

That's because of how ME2 turned out. They vent their frustrations on them because turning on Bioware is  considered blasphemy.

That's just the way I see it. I thought ME2 was pretty lame by bioware standards and not because it lacked explosions.

Time to go play some Hardcore Team Deathmatch.

Modifié par MassEffect762, 26 juillet 2010 - 12:09 .

[Jaron Oberyn]

I'm going to be straight up honest with you. UT3 is "mindless" and and "stupid".

Even though they have gametypes, it's pretty much just run around and gun people down.



-Polite

[Neuzhelin]

Maybe people havn't tried that many. I am very fond of Team Fortress 2, one of the most strategic games I played. Also, one of my favourite twists is in Quake 4 (single player).



Finally, Half-Life 1 is probably my all time favourite and I haven't found many games anywhere near it.

[NvVanity]

Half-Life 2 anyone? That's a good one. I'm also fond of Killzone 2 and Uncharted 2, not necessarily a straight up shooter but still a good example that shooting games can be intelligent.

[TheShogunOfHarlem]

MTN Dew Fanatic wrote...

JaegerBane wrote...

To be honest, I'm sick of hearing shooters being stereotyped as 'mindless games for retards, unlike us superior RPG gamers with all of our stats' crap. It's snobbery, pure and simple.

The only games like that I can think of are CoD 4 and CoD Modern Warfare 2 and that's because the people that always play are them are all like,"I r 1337z, look at me wit ma stopin powerz!". Call of Duty ruined everything.

To a degree they did. Part of the problem with the COD series is that that they spent more time on MP and assumed that using the same SP elements as past game would be enough. It wasn't for me. 

[Anezay]

Everyone knows that combat is superior when you let numbers do the fighting for you!

All in all, it's just a matter of taste. Mass Effect and ME2 are some of my favorite games, but neither is as good as anything in the Orange Box if you ask me.

[CroGamer002]

EtTuBrute wrote...

I find it hard to admit that I enjoyed Modern Warfare 2 and Battlefield: Bad Company 2 as much as I enjoyed the Mass Effect games and Fallout 3.

I find hard to see how can anyone enjoy Modern Warfare 2.

[TheShogunOfHarlem]

MTN Dew Fanatic wrote...


BFBC 2 would have been so much greater if it didn't have perks from CoD, because it makes the game a lot less fun when everybody uses magnum ammo...

I have no complaints from MP since I don't really play MP games since they are all generally moronic in the sense that most people tend to just "run and gun" and B!tch about "campers". I'm waiting for a MP experience that requires strategy and tactics. I'm certainly not going to hold my breath. 

Modifié par TheShogunOfHarlem, 26 juillet 2010 - 12:33 .

[Il Divo]

I do think that anyone who finds the FPS genre to be mindless really should be made to play the Half-Life series. I'm not saying the genre in general is brilliant, but the Half-Life series is critically acclaimed for a reason.

[MTN Dew Fanatic]

Mesina2 wrote...

EtTuBrute wrote...

I find it hard to admit that I enjoyed Modern Warfare 2 and Battlefield: Bad Company 2 as much as I enjoyed the Mass Effect games and Fallout 3.

I find hard to see how can anyone enjoy Modern Warfare 2.

[TekFanX]

Well, although loving shooters as they where four years ago, in the last two years, shooters have become quite a hate-theme for me.

It's not about being mindless in general, but becoming a mindless mainstream-product in most cases.
For me the most stupid stuff is the crap EA throws out like they run out of cans for their garbage.
BioWare mostly excluded.
I hope BioWare somehow manages to keep story-quality in terms of atmosphere.

I've become very annoyed of EA in terms of quality.
Basically, because they buy studios which made great games, get the copyrights for the games and throw out some mainstream-crap that has nothing to do with the games the ones in the "universe" used to be.
C&C4 is one of the biggest example: I've seen it, didn't like the mechanics and so on didn't play it. I can't judge if it's a good game, but it certainly isn't C&C.
But back to the shooters...

More or less, they are all CoD-Mods with barely any difference in game-mechanics.
Regen-Health is a standard in any shooter by now, but sometimes it doesn't even work with the mechanics.
Battlefield Bad Company 2 for example.
The medic just speeds things up and can rez, but since you can spawn at any squad-mate, most players play snipers or just switch to assault to spam rifle-grenades.
Or engineers to spam the missile-launcher.

Also this pityfull "point-counters" like they used to be in japanese beat-em-ups for making twelve year old kids scream in joy when they get a hit and all kinds of flashy numbers run over the screen.

So much for my oppinion of EA and the mainstream-design of shooters.

But one of the biggest reasons for many people here to criticize shooters, is the extreme overtuneing to being a shooter in ME2.
Although powers can be strong, differing by what difficulty you play, weapons are much easier to handle in ME2
than the powers, since they are somewhat spammable. Weapons have a shorter reload-time, barely anywhere you will run out of ammo in all weapons.
And up to veteran, Soldier is the easiest class in my oppinion in ME2.
Spamming headshots in bullet-time...pitifull.
In ME1 the weapon-mechanics where quite simple: Endless ammo, just watch the cooldown and modify your gun. Like many RPG's used to be, except for the part, that you had to aim.
The powers had a much larger role and for players who liked the RPG-Part of ME, that was great...now...third-person-shooter.

[TheShogunOfHarlem]

worm_burner wrote...

Some of my favorite games are shooters (Bad Company 2, Halo, Crysis) but I dont think games like ME need to try to be more like them. As someone stated on this forum earlier "I Iike Gears of War but not in my Mass Effect". Shooters are fun, but at times they are just run and gun shoot everyone with no strategy, even I will admit that. I think that is what a lot of the comparisons are being drawn from. Mass Effect should NOT try to have sequences like that. ME is an rpg first and a shooter second not the other way around. ME2 tried to change that by emphasizing the shooter elements over the rpg elements, even the devs stated this before the game was released.
The problem that I keep running into, while I love the shooting elements in the game, the game tends to feel like a claustrophobic corridor shooter. When I play/think rpg I dont think narrow corridors, but rather large open spaces. This is where ME1 did a better job. Even though some levels were linear and indoors they gave the feeling that there was more there than just a narrow corridor.

So you felt that way too?

I would have figured this would be a bigger complaint since ME2 felt a bit too confined in comparison to ME1.

[ran22147]

I had to stop playing Mw2 because I could think while playing. A sort of auto pilot if you will. At the time i was very depressed for any person to be so thinking while in that state kinda made me suicidal. This has nothing to do with the game being violent or anything like that this is because I was a teenager going though the "Every one hates me phase".

[MTN Dew Fanatic]

TekFanX wrote...

Well, although loving shooters as they where four years ago, in the last two years, shooters have become quite a hate-theme for me.

It's not about being mindless in general, but becoming a mindless mainstream-product in most cases.
For me the most stupid stuff is the crap EA throws out like they run out of cans for their garbage.
BioWare mostly excluded.
I hope BioWare somehow manages to keep story-quality in terms of atmosphere.

I've become very annoyed of EA in terms of quality.
Basically, because they buy studios which made great games, get the copyrights for the games and throw out some mainstream-crap that has nothing to do with the games the ones in the "universe" used to be.
C&C4 is one of the biggest example: I've seen it, didn't like the mechanics and so on didn't play it. I can't judge if it's a good game, but it certainly isn't C&C.
But back to the shooters...

More or less, they are all CoD-Mods with barely any difference in game-mechanics.
Regen-Health is a standard in any shooter by now, but sometimes it doesn't even work with the mechanics.
Battlefield Bad Company 2 for example.
The medic just speeds things up and can rez, but since you can spawn at any squad-mate, most players play snipers or just switch to assault to spam rifle-grenades.
Or engineers to spam the missile-launcher.

Also this pityfull "point-counters" like they used to be in japanese beat-em-ups for making twelve year old kids scream in joy when they get a hit and all kinds of flashy numbers run over the screen.

So much for my oppinion of EA and the mainstream-design of shooters.

But one of the biggest reasons for many people here to criticize shooters, is the extreme overtuneing to being a shooter in ME2.
Although powers can be strong, differing by what difficulty you play, weapons are much easier to handle in ME2
than the powers, since they are somewhat spammable. Weapons have a shorter reload-time, barely anywhere you will run out of ammo in all weapons.
And up to veteran, Soldier is the easiest class in my oppinion in ME2.
Spamming headshots in bullet-time...pitifull.
In ME1 the weapon-mechanics where quite simple: Endless ammo, just watch the cooldown and modify your gun. Like many RPG's used to be, except for the part, that you had to aim.
The powers had a much larger role and for players who liked the RPG-Part of ME, that was great...now...third-person-shooter.

I would like to say that regenerating health kinda started with Halo 2, but I agree with you.

[Sparda Stonerule]

I fail to see how the powers in the first game had any real importance. I know most people used the ability they had for their weapon, barrier, immunity, and sometimes shield boost. Other than the you need electronics and decryption to open things, and then you had to put points into Charm and Intimidate to get by certain dialog options.



I certainly used my abilities in Mass Effect 2 more than I did in Mass Effect. Because the weapons had endless ammo and I could modify my shotgun and pistol to never overheat I could spam shots in ME 1 way more than I can in ME 2.

[Squiddytreat]

I find it's really very "mindless" to classify an entire genre of games over how a couple of games from that genre play out for some people.
Call of Duty was really fun before Modern Warfare (personal opinion, anyways), and Battlefield was always great. I've been playing FPSes most of my life, starting out with good ol' Doom, Quake, and UT99, and even now still playing Crysis and UT3.
Nothing about them can really be classified as "mindless." The only thing that can make a game seem mindless is a boring player. When players start to vegetate and enter into a routine, the game seems boring.

The solution is simple: when you're playing a game, don't let any senses of "underwhelming boredom" overcome you, especially when someone else says it's boring! Formulate your own opinions, and if you can't even excite yourself a little during the average game, maybe it's time to pick up a new hobby for a bit.

In all honesty, any game  is typically only as boring as the person playing it.
And well, I'll definitely have to cede that it also depends on the game developers. Ubisoft, for example...hasn't been turning out many games that deserve the title of "fun game."
Others, like Bioware, Crytek, Blizzard, and others like them, aren't just in the business for the money.