PC shooters

[mirgro]

Slimebeast said:

mirgro said:

 

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.

Counter-Strike is shit. But whatever floats your boat.

I actually fully agree. But it's laughable you don't think modern games aren't shit because Counter-Strike is twice the game any modern shooter you can name. That should tell you just how bad modern shooters have gotten.

But I do admit, CS and the newer shittier counterparts, have their use. I can't play more than 1-3 games of UT or Quake because when it comes down to me and another guy and the last few frags for the win, astounding amounts of adrenaline shoot through my system. It's absolutely awesome and badass, but after those several games at the top of my game my hands start shaking and I have to stop. No other FPS I have played has ever come even close to the amount of adrenaline that I get through my system as those moments in UT and Quake.

I guess saying they are bad isn't the right word. They are just a huge bore compared to the shooters of yore. Then again, boring in entertainment terms could be classified as bad. Before you begin to argue about how this is an opinion or not. You can directly measure the amount of adrenaline in your system, and I'm willing to bet my left nut that UT/Quake have much higher adrenaline levels than any modern shooter.