What direction would people like the FPS market to go?

Associate
Joined
4 Jan 2012
Posts
4
Location
United Kindom
This is a topic I find most interesting, ever since I sat down and played a short while on Crysis 2 multiplayer and realised that i payed about £30-40 for a single player which I didn't care much about and for a multiplayer that is only mildly amusing for short bursts of time. I personally feel that FPS's should split up single player and multiplayer games for example having a modern warfare game which was an online fps that cost less and didn't come with a pointless single player. Maybe they could have made another game as well that had a thoroughly indepth single player and no half assed and broken multiplayer which had nothing special or interesting about it. The fact is that the FPS gameplay is solid and doesn't need much work its all about the situations you put the player in which makes FPS's interesting. What are your thoughts on this?
 
Slower pace. More realism. a MUCH heavier emphasis on teamwork. Mod support. Arma basically. Infact with ArmA3 I doubt ill ever look at another FPS game unless they make an ArmA4
 
Bring back mohaa type ones, with a good single player story, set in ww2 and not focus too heavy on perks or what not, you get a few weapons you cant change too much like in the old mohaa type games and you do what you can with what your given.
 
a perk such as maybe an air strike. Should be gained through the capture of a piece of terrain with that equipment. Not just for X amount of kills. Like Skeeter said. do what you can with what you are given.
 
More realism, where tactics and team work is the way to succeed.

I liked quake but it was more about twitch "skills". I don't like games where it's all about how fast your can move your mouse and click on it or keyboard.

Brain power > finger twitching power.
 
Fps games need more freedom in gameplay, almost every modern fps game is too linear. I want to be able to take what route i want and play it how i want. Oh and more unique personal customization!
 
Last edited:
to be honest i agree with all of you, there isn't much difference between fps's these days and its not just because they are all fps's, its that all the situations you are put in are the same and that it is now every gamer for himself rather that to work towards a specific goal with your team. not saying that lone wolfing is bad its just that too many people are juggernaughts when it comes to it. rush in this and rush in that, die here die there, get ****ed off because you keep dying and cant figure out why! it just makes you think that the game has nothing to offer reason wise. you end up thinking why am i doing this? when it should be who cares why im doing it this is fun! just saddening.
 
More realism, where tactics and team work is the way to succeed.

I liked quake but it was more about twitch "skills". I don't like games where it's all about how fast your can move your mouse and click on it or keyboard.

Brain power > finger twitching power.

The thing about Quake though is that it also takes the most amount of brain power too out of the all the fps'. 1v1s do at least.
 
I like BF3, if they can make it a bit more realistic.

For example, supporter are only allow to drop 2 - 3 ammos until they respawn. This will stop the nade and rpg spamming from the other classes.
 
in terms of multiplayer games more structured like cs where you have one set spawn point and no persistent stats/unlocks etc but only based on your performance in each game
 
More realism. Where stingers work, a single javelin round takes out a tank, shotguns and pistols are 30 yard weapons, not 200 yard weapons ala bf3.
 
I would like to see a return to the older styles, i.e CoD2. The simpler an MP game is the more fun it is imo. Perks need to go, as do the 100s of guns that you can use. I still probably play CoD4 promod more than any other game. The only issue I can see with this game atm is the people who play it, and that is easily fixed with cg_teamchatsonly 1 :D
 
Back
Top Bottom