96 réponses à ce sujet

[KenKenpachi]

B3taMaxxx wrote...

KenKenpachi wrote...
 I like a good SP game far more.

 Any recent ones worth mentioning (on console)?  /actual question

Hmm technically RDR. Singularity is great, a really fantastic game, one of the few shooters I've enjoyed in a long time. REACH is so-so. I'ld say some of you quasi RPG-shooters are good, or mixed games like, Red Faction, SR-2, etc.  But the pure shooters like the CoD games just stink imo. Halo series largely depends on the game you have. Think thats why they don't have Halo 2 on live. It would blow away the 360 titles in a manner. And I'ld say the L4D games are good though not really pure shooters.

If you mean in general, yes, plenty. More so then the PC.

Modifié par KenKenpachi, 23 mai 2011 - 01:19 .

[rayvioletta]

personally I'm not a fan of first person shooters at all. I tried a few, games like Duke Nukem and Blood were fun for a little while due to the comedy but quickly became boring. never got into things like Doom or Quake
I've always preferred the point and click adventure games and RPGs really, and a few RTS games (the humour of War/Starcraft helps)

[lawp79]

As a rule I find FPS's very tedious and very boring, that said my favourite game of all time is Deus Ex which is a fps/rpg hybrid but I have found that to be a one off.

[Boiny Bunny]

I quite enjoy shooters as a single-player only experience. I'm just not a multiplayer person, and thus have no interest whatsoever in the terribad campaigns seen in CoD which are just appetisers for the multiplayer.

Some of the shooters that I am quite fond of:

Halo (all)
Half-Life (all)
Deus Ex (if you would call that a 'shooter')
DOOM 3
FEAR
Goldeneye 64 & Perfect Dark

[Senior Cinco]

I cant stand a FP view/shoot anything, with maybe the expt of Portal. It feels like I have blinders on. Besides, I suffer from an acute boot fetish, and thus compelled to see my characters feet.

[LyndseyCousland]

Me. I also hate the FP view because it always makes me feel like I'm a dwarf no matter how tall my character is supposed to be. Plus it disorientates me. I like to know when an enemy is behind me. I think being able to see them makes up for not being able to actually sense them.

[Senior Cinco]

An over-the-shld is tolerated...But that's about where I'll draw the line, and even those are few. They must be an RPG to hold my interest.

[fchopin]

Yes, i find FPS boring.

[ScepticMatt]

I like some objective based shooters like Battlefield 1942, or CTF modes.
I dislike deathmatch/ get-the-most-kills based modes.

[Barbarossa2010]

I've been playing FPSs since Wolfenstein and I played them daily/weekly for about a decade.  At this point, I see them as very tedious, adrenaline-pumped and linear (there are one or two exceptions to this) experiences.  The were good for the time as they were new and novel and they were 3D!!!!.  IMO today, they're little more than twitch-fests and hyperactive camera swingers (with great graphics I'll grant you).

Today, I too prefer a third person view, as they tend to offer the things I now look for in a gaming expereince.  I no longer like the lack of peripheral vision in the FPS and the game mechanics of just about all of them (again, there are one or two exceptions) require no team work or tactical prowess to defeat the opposition.  Cover-based TPSs afford 'some' sense of a peripheral view and 'some' sense of tactical reality in that no one, and I mean NO ONE, runs out in the open like an attention deficit jack rabbit, spraying bullets at enemy positions. 

I would love to see just one of these supposedly 'monster' 12 year old FPS players run out in the open, jumping and jiving, while being shot at with a real AA-12 shotgun or M-60 MG.  He'll soon learn that cover is his friend and he'll stay put (if he's smart) until he assesses what's before him, develops a quick plan and finds a few team mates to help him execute that plan.  I prefer at least some semblance of simulated or replicated 'realism' in tempo, view, and use of tactics (not to mention forcing a modicum of teamwork upon the player or you die a horrible death).  Today's FPSs are just a modern version of a cowboy showdown and who is quicker on the draw; not necessarily who has a fast draw AND is smarter AND works well as a member of a team.  In this case, most FPSs truly are little more than wild west sims with a thin veneer that they're 'modern warfare' combat brought to life.  

My little cousins (8, 10, 11 and 12 year olds) are huge COD fans, (yes, their parents are not paying attention to game ratings), and I'm seeing FPSs, as portrayed in the COD series (which imo too many developers and publishers are trying to replicate), as little more than elementary school playgrounds.  Based on the conversations and banter I've personally experienced in innumerable pre-game lobby parties, that view is really only reinforced ten-fold.

Enough rattling, what's my point?....I don't know...its in there somewhere.  I guess I just now prefer the third person view since it, and it's associated mechanics, seems to afford a modicum of realism in a medium where realism is suspended?

Modifié par Barbarossa2010, 25 mai 2011 - 08:06 .

[T764]

When i play shooters its because they are good time wasters.
I don't mind a Rainbow six style counter terrorist game or even a fictional war but i dislike fighting in actual real world conflicts.
The biggest issue for me is that often the single player is underwhelming, i don't play mp so many are wasted and of those with single player stories they are not normally worth full price.
Also sci-fi seems to be far more common in shooters and strategy.

[Guitar-Hero]

I could never get into them, i find them somewhat repetive, the only one i liked was Escape from Butcher Bay.

[Kabanya101]

I only like playing first person shooters online with others, but I do like one first person shooter, and that is the Halo series. They made a character that could be anybody, and a faceless person. One of the biggest and most important aspects of an RPG.

I don't find them boring, except the replay value is really low, except the original three in the Halo series. Well....., throw Halo 2 in the **** pile too, cause that really wasn't that great. Stick with the fist and third Halo games, and your good on first person shooters.

[Bryy_Miller]

I like FPS' when they do something different.

[Eldareus]

lawp79 wrote...

As a rule I find FPS's very tedious and very boring, that said my favourite game of all time is Deus Ex which is a fps/rpg hybrid but I have found that to be a one off.

Oh yeah Deus Ex is also one of my all time favorite games. The AI was dumb as dirt, but the game's atmosphere and storyline more than made up for the simplistic gameplay. I always get an itch to replay it every year. I hope Deus Ex 3 can recapture the magic that was Dues Ex. 

[JustAnotherZero]

Stalker is the only FPS worth mentioning in my book. Everything else is redundant.

[TwistedComplex]

ARMA 2

Stalker

Battlefield

Half-life

Eldar Scrolls

None of those are boring

[TwistedComplex]

JustAnotherZero wrote...

Stalker is the only FPS worth mentioning in my book. Everything else is redundant.

You haven't played many FPS

[bussinrounds]

TwistedComplex wrote...

ARMA 2

Stalker

Battlefield

Half-life

Eldar Scrolls

None of those are boring

I wouldn't call Elder Scrolls a fps.   But i do agree, there are some good ones, like the ones you mentioned.   I enjoyed the Brothers in Arms games on the ps2, the old Ghost Recon and Rainbow 6 games (the ones made by Red Storm Entertainment, not the later ones by UBI), System Shock 2 looks pretty cool too (havent played it yet)

[fightright2]

JohnEpler wrote...

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

I love BFBC2! My hub and I both squad up and I agree it's great with someone in the room. We can see each other's screens so when one of us dies we can get a head's up on where it came from.

Many times when I join a game with him, it sends me to the opposite team and he's not allowed to look at my screen.

Though many times I head him off in the game because I know his strategy. I usually am sneaking across enemy lines stealing the tank or getting my squad in the back and setting off the crate.

Yet, he still manages to knife me in the back since he's on a knife/tag spree. But it's okay cause I usually take out his tank with him in it with my c4!

[Arppis]

Markinator_123 wrote...

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.

I find the biggest reason for this to be the fact that everyone of them tries to be Call of Duty: taking away any freedom of movement, having to do everything EXCACTLY like the game instructs you to do, muting the main character, having those reflex sights on most guns... etc...

I've noticed that I feel riddicilously excited when I notice that I can actualy choose if I want to go around the enemy, engage them in fire fight or just stealth kill them! That's how stale the FPS genre has become. When you are offered something that used to be pretty normal in the games, you feel like the game is gift from the gods. This was excactly what I felt when playing Crysis or Far Cry games.

I want these games to have that choice of doing some more tactical decissions. Crysis games gave that choice for you in the form of the suit and wider level structure. It's bullcrap that you can't tell a great story in less linear game. Just takes a bit more effort.

[bussinrounds]

kotaku.com/5807528/rainbow-six-will-blow-your-******-mind 

  So they say that they are getting back to the tactical roots of the old school Rainbow games..
I highly doubt it.

First off it's UBI, who was responsible for taking the Rainbow and
Ghost Recon games away from that direction in the first place, and has
never made a good tactical shooter. (Red Storm Entertainment were the
devs responsible for the good R6 and GR games)

And the article says "there is a brand new cover system that takes
you out of the first-person perspective and into the third."

How is that brand new ? That's what Vegas had and it was bs.
It lets you see everything and survey the battlefield, while still
being protected (which is nonsense for a supposed realistic/tactical
game)



If they want a cover mode, they should do it Red Orchestra style. No going to a 3rd person view crap.

www.youtube.com/watch  Fast foward to 3:15

Modifié par bussinrounds, 03 juin 2011 - 05:21 .