I'm not talking about all per se. However, there is only one first person shooter that I've enjoyed and that is Unreal Tournament 2004 (that game is awesome). Nonetheless, there are just too many of them out there and I basically don't find them all that different from one another.
Who finds first person shooters boring for the most part?
Débuté par
Markinator_123
, mai 21 2011 04:05
Retour en haut
#2
Posté 21 mai 2011 - 06:42
John Epler
-
- BioWare Employees
-
- 3 390 messages
Oh, FPS games. There are so many options!
I strongly recommend trying STALKER. Well, I strongly recommend everyone tries STALKER, but that's because I think it does things with atmosphere that have yet to be replicated or even approached. That's an FPS, certainly, but put it next to a more mainstream FPS and the differences are superficial at best.
Crysis did an excellent job of allowing for emergent gameplay. You could run through the forests like the Predator, taking out enemy positions, stealthing and then running to a completely different position to do it all over again. You could move at super speed and take out groups of enemies before they could even react, or you could hit them with turtles thrown at near-relativistic speeds
And, as has been mentioned, the Arma games are closer to simulation than anything else. They favour slow, tactical play over 'run around, bunnyhop and try to shoot everyone'. It's entirely possible you just don't like FPS games, and that's fine! If everyone were alike it'd be a rather boring world. But there are enough options out there (each with vastly different approaches) where the only similarity is 'they're in the first person and you shoot things' that I don't think you can paint the genre with a single brush.
Oh, and then there was also Mirror's Edge, another favourite. Though I never actually fired a gun in that game. Getting the achievement for that made it far, far more frustrating than it should have been, but hey! At least I was able to parkour my way through everything
I strongly recommend trying STALKER. Well, I strongly recommend everyone tries STALKER, but that's because I think it does things with atmosphere that have yet to be replicated or even approached. That's an FPS, certainly, but put it next to a more mainstream FPS and the differences are superficial at best.
Crysis did an excellent job of allowing for emergent gameplay. You could run through the forests like the Predator, taking out enemy positions, stealthing and then running to a completely different position to do it all over again. You could move at super speed and take out groups of enemies before they could even react, or you could hit them with turtles thrown at near-relativistic speeds
And, as has been mentioned, the Arma games are closer to simulation than anything else. They favour slow, tactical play over 'run around, bunnyhop and try to shoot everyone'. It's entirely possible you just don't like FPS games, and that's fine! If everyone were alike it'd be a rather boring world. But there are enough options out there (each with vastly different approaches) where the only similarity is 'they're in the first person and you shoot things' that I don't think you can paint the genre with a single brush.
Oh, and then there was also Mirror's Edge, another favourite. Though I never actually fired a gun in that game. Getting the achievement for that made it far, far more frustrating than it should have been, but hey! At least I was able to parkour my way through everything
#3
Posté 21 mai 2011 - 07:06
John Epler
-
- BioWare Employees
-
- 3 390 messages
Oh, and I have a standing lunchtime Bad Company 2 game with one of the guys in my office. It's a lot more enjoyable to play with someone else, particularly if they're in the same room - your curses at the ineptitude of your hill-hugging teammates don't just vanish into the ether at that point 
