What direction would people like the FPS market to go?

Sider said:
I really hope they nail PS2
Click to expand...

PS2 isn't a be-all and end-all FPS, never was. It won't give the CoD kiddies their fix, and is totally removed from UT / Quake gamestyles.

You can't really just jump into a PS game. There is no quick connect game. You can't individually win a map.

You pretty much have to be in an outfit to do well (a squad at the bare minimum). The best players are known for their leadership and squad play rather than kill streaks (there are a few I guess, but most are known as asshats too....). Think Trelawney, Thunderhawk, Braveheart, Twiggeh, Leff etc tec, all great leaders / teamplayers. Not sure that's what a lot of people who play FPSs want.

I can't wait tho, and also hope they nail it. Just not sure my PC can handle it :(
 
HeadlessChicken said:
PS2 isn't a be-all and end-all FPS, never was. It won't give the CoD kiddies their fix, and is totally removed from UT / Quake gamestyles.

You can't really just jump into a PS game. There is no quick connect game. You can't individually win a map.

You pretty much have to be in an outfit to do well (a squad at the bare minimum). The best players are known for their leadership and squad play rather than kill streaks (there are a few I guess, but most are known as asshats too....). Think Trelawney, Thunderhawk, Braveheart, Twiggeh, Leff etc tec, all great leaders / teamplayers. Not sure that's what a lot of people who play FPSs want.

I can't wait tho, and also hope they nail it. Just not sure my PC can handle it :(
Click to expand...

It's weird but I actually always thought PS when server pops were healthy was actually better for hopping into than a traditional server browser type game - there's always a fight or three happening somewhere and you can just go along to the one that's the type of fight you want (do I want to Zerg today or solo or spelunk etc.) without having to hop on a bunch of different servers to find one you like.

As for making a difference solo, you can tower drop / sabotage gens / run resecures / put backline hacks on solo.

It's true those things are better with a good outfit but they are achievable solo. Some of the guys you mentioned were also famous solo players.

One of the things that always grabbed me about PS was the ability of a single or small group of players to have a big effect on a global map.
 
Last edited:
FrenchTart said:
It has always amazed me how many people judge things like Quake as a purely reactions-based game and seem to think that there is more strategy to things like Battlefield simply because you move slower.

Map control, pickup control, learning to work out people's locations from the sounds they make, situational weapon choice...the list goes on.

It's a really common misconception but it still bugs me to this day.

I guess I shouldn't really expect most people to bother to learn about something before dismissing it out of hand, though...
Click to expand...

They are right/it's true if you've only ever played Quake 3 with 16 players in death match rather than small scale such as 4 people or even a duel where the game becomes a whole different beast.


[edit:] Also I found BF1942 required much more tactics (and was still tons of fun) to play at a competitive level (clan vs clan) than any of the later Battlefield series games have. Still not sure why, BF2 I suppose did a good job of trying to come close but still tactically Desert Combat mod was much better and harder.

Could that be the issue? that some FPS games have simply become too easy? (spray and pray? CoD4 compared to CoD1or2 is a good example of this)

Funny as it may sound, Doom 3 kinda nailed 4 player death match quite well.
Personally Unreal Tournament and Half-Life deathmatch were more fun and did still require skill.
 
Last edited:
Gazb said:
[edit:] Also I found BF1942 required much more tactics (and was still tons of fun) to play at a competitive level (clan vs clan) than any of the later Battlefield series games have. Still not sure why, BF2 I suppose did a good job of trying to come close but still tactically Desert Combat mod was much better and harder.
Click to expand...
Certainly the most strategic of the series, I agree. I used to play with some chaps from Legion Condor, later Dignitas, who were beyond ridiculously good at that game.

The scale of the maps and overall battle is the reason. You had land, sea and air all properly accounted for, even in 8v8 battles.
 
Yamahahahahaha said:
Certainly the most strategic of the series, I agree. I used to play with some chaps from Legion Condor, later Dignitas, who were beyond ridiculously good at that game.

The scale of the maps and overall battle is the reason. You had land, sea and air all properly accounted for, even in 8v8 battles.
Click to expand...


I think a few friends and I are going to try and have a night once a month were we just chill out, have a few drinks and play BF1942 like we used to. It was always such a laugh when we played it.

Jeeps, tnt jumps, planes. Just fun lol.
 
I would like a team based competitive FPS game, that is designed to balance team play, and individual skill. I hate the perks and crap, and hate a game which needs to be modified from stock just to be competitive. Decent network code is a must, and no game breaking glitches please.

Theres a few that fit the bill already, but I think we can do better and heres why:-

CS* is a decent game. Learning recoil by experience can be a bit frustrating, but I enjoy the game. Guns aren't really balanced, you go for the best rifle / awp unless you're thinking about money. Anything "modern" lacks the 1 hit kill element somewhat, unless it's a scope. Buy system adds to the game tactically probably as much as it detracts. Has some of the best designed maps around. Lacks "modern" advancements such as lean, and prone.

COD1 was decent. It had really good gun balance between SMG, AR, Rifle, and Sniper. Games easy to pick up as you can see the effect of your recoil. Bit too slow paced for my liking, but the real killer is left lean clip which basically breaks the game. Community is dead.

COD2 was a nice game. Much like COD1, it had nice weapon balance, though COD1 probably got it slightly better. The game is very random, and frustrating due to vert clip, jump shooting, and any gun doing a 1 hit kill via headshot. I prefer this over COD1 as it's a faster paced game. Hasn't got the best netcode. Community is dead.

COD4+ is bad at stock. Bullets don't go where you shoot. Promod made it playable, but it's not excellent. Sprint is largely regless, only really 2 guns used besides scope. Game is slightly 'too fast'. Community will always have problem coverting large user-base to play modded version, which is a completely different game really.

Obviously some older games fit the bill too, such as SOF and MOH, but they're long dead and didn't exactly age all that well. I personally play CS now, but I'd rather a new ww2 game came out more akin to COD1-2, but without their issues

Just my 2p. :)
 
PaulyD said:
Seems most people don't want perks/unlocks/constant upgrades like COD/BF series offer recently.

Drove me mad that you had to level up to get the better weapons to have a chance at doing well. Just doesn't appeal to me.

CSS is where this is perfected. Anyone can buy the same gun from the very first time you play. Whether you can kill anyone with it is up to you..
Click to expand...

BF3 isn't really like that though with people using vastly different weapons to each other, then adding different scopes and other attachments into the mix also. This is because the game never tells you how much damage a weapon does, or its accuracy. Due to that, you spend more time just picking something you like the feel of then using the weapon with the most damage (like in COD, BFBC2 and numerous other unlock fests).

Sure, some guns are better than others, but you can play just fine from level 1 with the tools you have and the core components of each class are very easy to unlock anyway after about 2 hours of play (total, not each). BF3 only rewards players who play very often with choice, giving numerous different types of weapons, ammo, scopes etc to fit the playstyle which suits that player and the situation the team is in.

Personally I think the model works very well and its the first online FPS in a very long time I've seriously put time and effort into playing. Both my housemates love it also and one of them hates online games even more than I do lol.
 
James J said:
BF3 isn't really like that though with people using vastly different weapons to each other, then adding different scopes and other attachments into the mix also. This is because the game never tells you how much damage a weapon does, or its accuracy. Due to that, you spend more time just picking something you like the feel of then using the weapon with the most damage (like in COD, BFBC2 and numerous other unlock fests).

Sure, some guns are better than others, but you can play just fine from level 1 with the tools you have and the core components of each class are very easy to unlock anyway after about 2 hours of play (total, not each). BF3 only rewards players who play very often with choice, giving numerous different types of weapons, ammo, scopes etc to fit the playstyle which suits that player and the situation the team is in.

Personally I think the model works very well and its the first online FPS in a very long time I've seriously put time and effort into playing. Both my housemates love it also and one of them hates online games even more than I do lol.
Click to expand...

Pretty much every class in BF3 only needs the first unlock (e.g. med kit for assault, SCAR-H for the Engineer as their first weapon is like a bb gun) and they will be able to compete and support as well as everyone else. The nerfing of the inv. scope helped remove the huge advantage it was as a weapon accessory unlock when fighting against those who didn't.

Anyhow back on topic, I'd like to see fps manage to pull off the atmosphere and fun that half-life and bf1942 had/have.

Maybe a new system shock game would be a great start.
 
If I was still interested in PVP, Quake 3 / Counterstrike. Pure and simple gameplay, clean looks, with proper map design and weapon balance. That's what every multiplayer game should start with as a basis anyway, instead of winging it and plastering on the cracks later on.

Otherwise, I like a good co-op game. Either Serious Sam-style mayhem, or something more like Left4Dead, small group, more story-driven, slower paced, more cooperative.
 
I want destructible terrain. BC1 actually had this, you could entrench tanks now I dont think its there any more

I also want polygon detail. Not fancy pictures, actual modelled terrain that is mapable down to a footstep at least.

Also an external factor for FPS is lower latency technology. When the world is 20ms or less it should kick things on a generation I think
 
-full gore e.g. arms, legs, head get blown off, arteries spew blood, explosions turn people into a pink mist, wounds keep bleeding
-completely destructable terrain, buildings, vehicles
-realistic physics e.g. muddy terrain slows down tanks
-realistic movement e.g. heavy armour very slow, no armour very fast
-more hand-to-hand combat, not just knives
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom