Is the competitive PC FPS scene dying?

Warbie

Warbie

Warbie

Soldato
Joined
30 Sep 2003
Posts
6,189
I remember being spoilt for choice 15 or so years ago, but these days there seem to be very few fps focussed on or suitable for competitive play. Has the influence of the console hordes reduced us to playing ancient games for a competitive fix?
 
Counter-Strike Source and 1.6 is still going strong on the competitive scene.

Battlefield is trying to go down that route too, but I can't see it happening myself.
 
If your looking for a game to get into comps with then try tribes ascend. Normally a tourney with cash prizes running. Been quite new it shouldn't take you too long to reach the level needed to play competitively.
 
Most of the games are dead in the UK.

However, most games are still alive around Europe.

Call of Duty 4, 1.6 and CS:S are still going strong.
 
It's got an image problem. Recently, competitive gaming in general has been blighted with well-publicised displays of sexism and bigotry. Sponsors don't want to be involved in that sort of thing so it's not covered in any real depth any more.

Online shooters are still very popular, but people don't want to do that sort of thing anymore after the whole Bahktanians and Gianturco deal - those are just two examples out of many.

This post is assuming you're on about actual competitive gaming of course. Competitive shooters are obviously very popular, everyone seems to be forgetting the massive white elephant in the room here - Call of Duty.
 
The closest I've ever gotten to 'competitive' gaming is putting in 20p each with a few boys in my college class and whoever wins in 3 rounds of CS:1.6 wins the total sum.

Nice £1.80 there to be earned.
 
Yes, it's definitely dying. That's not to say that certain games aren't still doing fairly well (CSS, for example) but in general the scene is dwindling.

As already mentioned, games like Battlefield and others are trying to market themselves as competitive FPS but to me this is just another sign that the scene is dying - lots of low-skilled FPS games somehow being taken seriously by the average gamer.
 
KNiVES said:
It's got an image problem. Recently, competitive gaming in general has been blighted with well-publicised displays of sexism and bigotry. Sponsors don't want to be involved in that sort of thing so it's not covered in any real depth any more.

Online shooters are still very popular, but people don't want to do that sort of thing anymore after the whole Bahktanians and Gianturco deal - those are just two examples out of many.

This post is assuming you're on about actual competitive gaming of course. Competitive shooters are obviously very popular, everyone seems to be forgetting the massive white elephant in the room here - Call of Duty.
Click to expand...

I'm not saying that sexism and bigotry haven't helped but I don't really think those are what have killed the competitive scene - more the general dumbing down of games and the greater focus placed on mass-appeal.
 
First person shooters today are much more complex and nuanced than games like Counterstrike 1.6 and Quake 3 Arena. I don't agree with that dumbing down point. The lowest common denominators today such as Modern Warfare 3 are much more competitive and complicated than the aforementioned games - it's just the perception of the people that play these games that have dulled the prospect of competitive gaming.

Battlefield 3 isn't made for the competitive scene so it's a bit unfair to use that to make your point. That said, it's still considerably more ambitious and has far more depth than the games of old.

The dumbing down of games is a very common perception and a lot of the time the people saying so are right. I just don't think it makes sense to have a discussion about games such as Counterstrike & Quake and then say games have gotten progressively simpler over time. It's the complete opposite. Those two games are incredibly simple which is what got them the mass appeal in the first place compared to today's nuanced games with smaller audience. So in fact, you have it the complete other way around.
 
Epic have mentioned before that they would like to have another Unreal Tournament game on the UE4 engine but they want to have a new IP first. (bit like how Gears of War was the IP flag bearer for UE3)
 
Still many people attend LANS, online tournaments always attract teams too - I don't think so as much however the and standard of new FPS gamers coming in today is lower generally due to all powerups and other OP abilities. Generally as a rule i'm a COD4 gamer which still is competitive but now and again i'll venture onto Call of Duty : MW3 and play with some friends who convinced me to buy it but every game i've ever played it's like people are stuck on easy mode. I've not had one game which we've not been called cheaters / hackers because they are not used to seeing players who can actually aim and have reflexes and not rely on other ways to get frags :D
 
KNiVES said:
First person shooters today are much more complex and nuanced than games like Counterstrike 1.6 and Quake 3 Arena. I don't agree with that dumbing down point. The lowest common denominators today such as Modern Warfare 3 are much more competitive and complicated than the aforementioned games - it's just the perception of the people that play these games that have dulled the prospect of competitive gaming.

Battlefield 3 isn't made for the competitive scene so it's a bit unfair to use that to make your point. That said, it's still considerably more ambitious and has far more depth than the games of old.

The dumbing down of games is a very common perception and a lot of the time the people saying so are right. I just don't think it makes sense to have a discussion about games such as Counterstrike & Quake and then say games have gotten progressively simpler over time. It's the complete opposite. Those two games are incredibly simple which is what got them the mass appeal in the first place compared to today's nuanced games with smaller audience. So in fact, you have it the complete other way around.
Click to expand...

I really don't agree with you at all on that one. At face value (and this is a common mistake made by people that haven't played Quake to a high skill level (I'm not a CS player)) the games are simpler but that's because you're not aware of the various intricacies of movement and/or using the maps and game physics to your advantage. Not to mention the way that sound worked Quake for outsmarting your opponent, or item control.

Adding additional weapons and the ability to stick a flashlight on your gun or have a few unlocks does not increase the skill cap on a game - it merely gives people some more novelty value.
 
I'd say it's definitely dying and I'm a CS:S player. It may have declined down to a point where it might stay though... perhaps...
 
Yeah I think it's on it way out. Still got games up there like 1.6 CSS.. Now we will have to see if CS:GO can follow in their footsteps.
 
KNiVES said:
First person shooters today are much more complex and nuanced than games like Counterstrike 1.6 and Quake 3 Arena. I don't agree with that dumbing down point. The lowest common denominators today such as Modern Warfare 3 are much more competitive and complicated than the aforementioned games - it's just the perception of the people that play these games that have dulled the prospect of competitive gaming.

Battlefield 3 isn't made for the competitive scene so it's a bit unfair to use that to make your point. That said, it's still considerably more ambitious and has far more depth than the games of old.

The dumbing down of games is a very common perception and a lot of the time the people saying so are right. I just don't think it makes sense to have a discussion about games such as Counterstrike & Quake and then say games have gotten progressively simpler over time. It's the complete opposite. Those two games are incredibly simple which is what got them the mass appeal in the first place compared to today's nuanced games with smaller audience. So in fact, you have it the complete other way around.
Click to expand...

I'm not with you there, knives. More content doens't equal greater depth. It usually results in balancing issues, needless clutter and spammy random happenings. Great if you want to run around and watch stuff blow up in a variety of interesting ways, but too luck based for competitive play. At least in the way many of us want. Combine this with the general slowing down of pace and the god awful prevalence of ironsights lowering the skill ceiling to near head height and I can't agree that the current crop of games offer greater depth.

FrenchTart said:
I really don't agree with you at all on that one. At face value (and this is a common mistake made by people that haven't played Quake to a high skill level (I'm not a CS player)) the games are simpler but that's because you're not aware of the various intricacies of movement and/or using the maps and game physics to your advantage. Not to mention the way that sound worked Quake for outsmarting your opponent, or item control.

Adding additional weapons and the ability to stick a flashlight on your gun or have a few unlocks does not increase the skill cap on a game - it merely gives people some more novelty value.
Click to expand...

Agreed. For competitive play simpler is better.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom