Quantcast
I think I'm done with shooters. How about you?

Forums - Gaming Discussion - I think I'm done with shooters. How about you?

Tagged games:

Will you keep buying shooters for the next couple years?

Hell yeah! My favorite genre! 14 17.07%
 
Maybe a couple, but not many at full price. 32 39.02%
 
Used or nothing, I'm getting burned out. 13 15.85%
 
Screw shooters. I'm not ... 23 28.05%
 
Total:82

I never really was a fan of the realistic Military shooters but I do love the rest of them.



Around the Network
Chrizum said:
chocoloco said:
KeptoKnight said:
"Frankly, the removal of bots and four player splitscreen from most shooters has dampened the funnest part of the genre for me, which is playing socially with real friends in one room talking trash and getting trashed. Sorry, but online just doesn't make up for that. "

That is the most factual comment this generation.....

Split screen coop or playing a coop game with two consoles and TVs in the same room is better or about the same. People wouldn't complain so much if they tried it. Not to mention that you can play with real life friends online. I really don't understand why people don't get that.

You don't understand the difference between 1) friends coming over for a drink and ending up playing local multiplayer all night and 2) meeting up online and playing together without actually being together?

What did I not mention coop, plus if you have two consoles and two tvs you can play online in the same room. I have done it a plenty. Also people often switch off playing and watching while still socializing. So of course I understand the difference, now there are more options they just need to be tried.



I've got GoldenEye 007 for this generation as far as "traditional/multiplayer" FPS' go, and that's enough for me. Sure I'll play some Halo once and a while when friends are over, but other than that... really only 1-2 FPS games are all I need a generation.

Now... this doesn't include Bioshock and the upcoming "prequel" Infinite, which I cannot wait for. With their focus on Single Player and untraditional FPS elements... I'm all for it.



Don't you think it is close minded of you to completely ignore an entire genre?



"Everything we hear is an opinion, not a fact. Everything we see is a perspective, not the truth." -My good friend Mark Aurelius

homer said:
Don't you think it is close minded of you to completely ignore an entire genre?


in most cases I'd agree, but Naz is a rather prolific reviewer on the site, he plays a lot of games and gets a really well informed opinion of many genres, systems, and games.  He's not being closeminded, he's making a rational and conscious decision based on MANY hours of play.  



I got it all, baby! 

PS4, Switch, WiiU, XBO, PC
Vita, 3DS, Android

Top 3 this generation: 
Bloodborne, The Legend of Zelda: Breath of the Wild, Dark Souls III

Around the Network
chocoloco said:
Chrizum said:
chocoloco said:
KeptoKnight said:
"Frankly, the removal of bots and four player splitscreen from most shooters has dampened the funnest part of the genre for me, which is playing socially with real friends in one room talking trash and getting trashed. Sorry, but online just doesn't make up for that. "

That is the most factual comment this generation.....

Split screen coop or playing a coop game with two consoles and TVs in the same room is better or about the same. People wouldn't complain so much if they tried it. Not to mention that you can play with real life friends online. I really don't understand why people don't get that.

You don't understand the difference between 1) friends coming over for a drink and ending up playing local multiplayer all night and 2) meeting up online and playing together without actually being together?

What did I not mention coop, plus if you have two consoles and two tvs you can play online in the same room. I have done it a plenty. Also people often switch off playing and watching while still socializing. So of course I understand the difference, now there are more options they just need to be tried.

Most people don't have 2 TVs and many people have friends that don't have their own gaming console to bring over.



Chrizum said:
chocoloco said:
Chrizum said:
chocoloco said:
KeptoKnight said:
"Frankly, the removal of bots and four player splitscreen from most shooters has dampened the funnest part of the genre for me, which is playing socially with real friends in one room talking trash and getting trashed. Sorry, but online just doesn't make up for that. "

That is the most factual comment this generation.....

Split screen coop or playing a coop game with two consoles and TVs in the same room is better or about the same. People wouldn't complain so much if they tried it. Not to mention that you can play with real life friends online. I really don't understand why people don't get that.

You don't understand the difference between 1) friends coming over for a drink and ending up playing local multiplayer all night and 2) meeting up online and playing together without actually being together?

What did I not mention coop, plus if you have two consoles and two tvs you can play online in the same room. I have done it a plenty. Also people often switch off playing and watching while still socializing. So of course I understand the difference, now there are more options they just need to be tried.

Most people don't have 2 TVs and many people have friends that don't have their own gaming console to bring over.

Well it is not perfect, but I have had up to eight TVs an only two consoles in a room playing Halo 2 not too long ago. I have not tried it on Halo 3 or Reach, but it would be surprising if it was not there. You are right of course that most games lack split screen, but that is a far cry from saying that shooters are no longer social when the reality is the are more social due to more options in how to play.



homer said:
Don't you think it is close minded of you to completely ignore an entire genre?


I'm not completely ignoring it, clearly, just moving away from being so active with it. It's not an off-the-cuff decision. I clearly justify my reasoning in the OP (specifically the lack of the local multiplayer features which made me such a fan in the first place). 

I'm a very social man. I like to get together with some friends a couple weekends a month, drink, and play games all night. We laugh, we insult each other good naturedly, and we have a TON of fun. With shooters constantly moving further and further from that experience and focusing more and more on online which, frankly, bores me, the genre is losing its biggest draw for me.

What this means is, I may buy that type of shooter still, but they are no longer anywhere near a $60 purchase for me. Does that make sense? It's simply not logical for me to plop down that kind of cash on a game that's going to last me 4 hours of moderately enjoyable campaign play and then another 10 of online which frankly is starting to blend together between games. I'm just crashing out of it. 



chocoloco said:

Well it is not perfect, but I have had up to eight TVs an only two consoles in a room playing Halo 2 not too long ago. I have not tried it on Halo 3 or Reach, but it would be surprising if it was not there. You are right of course that most games lack split screen, but that is a far cry from saying that shooters are no longer social when the reality is the are more social due to more options in how to play.


That's not more options, that's different options, and it's certainly not more social. Playing online with a headset does not make you social. The internet is not a substitute for real human interaction. Hell, we do a large amount of communication non-verbally as humans, with body language and facial expressions. You cannot substitute that with online play. I won't even CONSIDER buying a racing game without split screen, because that's literally the only way I'll play it at all. 



I'll probably get MW3, and the new Ghost Recon. Can't think of any other FPS games I'll pay full or near-full price for.