PC shooters

[vlad321]

mirgro said:

Slimebeast said:

mirgro said:

Hephaestos said:
the worst part in all this is that PC shooters are harmed by consoles... we now have DLC, matchmaking and other shitty advantages of the consoles...hell MS even tried to make it pay to play a few years back...

I have a nice list of things that are horrible mechanics for shooters that stem solely from the inadequate shooter control schemes of consoles, also their mostly skill-less audience:

-DLC

-Regenerating health

-Matchmaking

-Limited guns being able to be carried

-Following from the previous, shitty gun concepts and not much variation

-Slow ass games, way slow, I grow a 5 o'clock shadow any time I try to turn 180 degress in Halo 3, GoW, CoD, etc.

-Repetative gameplay, seriously look at how varied HL2 is then look at Gears of War

-Decline of skill based games, and an astounding rise of luck based games. At least back in 2000 CS players knew heir places behind Quake/UT players, now people are actually arguing with me how Halo 3, CoD4, MW2, etc. take more skill than Quake and UT.

-Leveling systems in multiplayer. I realize BF2 did i first and I hated it for it, but now it's just getting rediculous.

-Zero modding tools and SDKs. Epic releases the entire UE engine for everyone who buys the game. You know the one that is used in lke 20% of all current games? Yeah that one. You get  literally the whole thing and you can make amazing games without a hitch as long as youdon't charge for it.

-Shitty models. Look at the variety of models HL, TF, Quake, UT, etc. had, and now look at the variety of models, which conosist of Marine 1, and at best Soldier 1. Then you can add little bells and whistles to "customize" them which make no fucking difference in the middle of the action.

 

I feel that's a nice list, I am sure I have more greviances but I just can't come up with them. I will end this with a very nice thing that I do like about console shooters:

-Local multiplayer, it's fucking awesome, and while it's nowhere near as awesome and badass as a LAN party, it's very fast and it doesn't have to be premedited. A shooter on a console is absolutely worthless without local multiplayer.

It's not all bad that PC shooters have been dumbed down though. The side effect is they became more realistic.

I always hated Quake and UT for being too fast, so unrealistic when everyone runs faster than Ben Johnson. And it looks ridiculous with all the bunnyjumping. With full combat armor and gear that soldiers carry in Bad Company 2 you can't turn around 180 degrees in a fraction of a second like you do in games like Quake.

And it's unrealistic to be able to carry over half a dozen guns.

Bad Company 2 does not feel dumbed down. It feels perfect.

That is absolutely false. Look at Counter-Strike or Battlefield 1942. They are much better than the modern FPS games, and are more realistic than Bad Company 2 as well.

Also, your realstic games take almost no skill and a whole lot of luck. UT and Quake showed actual skill in the FPS genre. Just because you couldn't handle doesn't mean it's bad. Basically, UT/Quake are the Formula 1 of FPS games, Counter-Strike/BF1942 and so on would be NASCAR, and Halo/CoD/etc. are just your street races using Nissan Altimas.

 

Perfect analogy right there if I ever saw one. Though calling the console shooters Nissan Altimas is giving them waaay too much credit. They are more like old Volvos minus the durability.

Also slime beast, I can turn around in BC2 instantly, I dunno what you are playing but I have never had a problem with turning around and shooting people instantly. Maybe if you are using a controller, but not with a mouse. Modern shooters are just extremely dumbed down versions of shooters 5 years ago. I understand why they did it though, they will sell more by making games that all the noobs are able to play.

Edit: I also don't know what you are smoking, but when I shoot someone in the chest with and anti-tank sniper, they tend to die instantly. Not run behind some rocks, wait 20 secs and heal to full.