By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close

Forums - Gaming Discussion - Why all the FPS hate?

JWS on 27 February 2011
Mummelmann said:
oniyide said:

^^^^ as a guy who was actully in the military and was deployed I can tell you there is nothing realistic about any of those games. If I got shot i wasnt going to crouch down for a few seconds and automatically be alright.


Yeah, I don't get where people have gotten the idea that modern FPS games are realistic. They're really not, they're poor simulations of reality, much like an action packed and somewhat silly Hollywood movie (at best). The only FPS I've played that comes somewhat close to reality is SWAT 4 but it still has a ways to go.

Call of Duty games are about as realistic as Mario Kart. Doesn't stop the older ones from being great fun though!

Somebody hit my chevy with a green shell last week. My car will be in the shop for about a week :(



Around the Network
Soulblazer on 27 February 2011
oldschoolfool said:
Soulblazer said:
crissindahouse said:
Soulblazer said:

 I am in the group that says fps rarely evovle in terms of gameplay, you say that rpgs are the same but thats not true at least not when it comes to how they play, they have different battle forms which makes them interesting. I have been playing fps for quite some time and most of them play the same, run shoot kill and repeat. Of course games like half life 2 and even vanquish prove that the genre can have new interesting ideas but there are few examples of that as most publishers go the easy way and copy call of duty instead of actually innovate in their games.


ok they have different battle forms but they won't get hundreds of new forms in the future so they don't evolve as well. you have round based battles, you have battles like in oblivion or 3rd person view battles like in da but what do you expect in the future?

its funny because if you change a shooter its not a shooter anymore so how should they change the gameplay? if you give the player more ways to play and more things to do they will call it rpg (like fallout 3)

the question is why is there so much hate because there isnt so much hate agains sport games or racing games and they cant change as well. they cant let you do other things in a football game then playing football and everyone knows that but in fps everyone is complainig about it that you just run and shoot. yeah its a shooter why should you do other things? and if you can do more than that no one calls it fps anymore. its just a big joke! put more in a shooter and you say rpg to it and dont put more in and you guys say fps dont evolve lol

Wrpg do not evolve that much but Jrpgs do evolve and only on my ds I have played plenty and each quite different than the next you just have to see The World Ends With You and youll see something truly special. You are right in the fact that its quite difficult to change how a shooter plays which is why the hate for the genre as it arguably the most popular genre but without real merits to gain that position as it cant evolve or chooses not to. It has become the easy way for many developers that in search for a form of gameplay they choose shooting because its always the same and it sells. The sports and racing games are not popular so they get a free pass but they have also become stagnant. I do not hate the genre itself, Halo was one heck of a good game and I am currently playing goldeneye on my wii but in the end its more of the same and I think developers can change that but they wont. I dont mean they have to change the shooting aspect of the game, but bringing other ideas to the table.

So because something is'nt popular it get's a free pass? Again,you can make the more of the same arguement in any genre. Level up,grind,fight enemies over and over,get better stuff,have character's talk to you over and over=RPG's in general. I think developers can change that but they won't. I don't mean they have to change the RPG aspect's of the game,but bringing other ideas to the table.

Yup if it isnt popular it gets a pass, it sucks but thats how it is. Sorry about the more of the same argument but lets face it applies to the shooting genre when it comes to raw gameplay and not conventions of the genre. I play call of duty modern warfare and black ops and it plays the exact same as medal of honor and many other shooters with little to no variation. Then I go play The world ends with you and chrono trigger and theres a massive difference when it comes to gameplay. Yes you can say its something true to the genre and it if it changes it isnt a shooter anymore so it leaves me thinking that the shooter genre is just like hack and slash games with the difference that one gets high scores and the other one doesnt. An this is the point of view of someone that likes playing games to perceive different experiences, in gameplay and story so for me in the first cathegory shooters fall flat.



Mummelmann on 27 February 2011
JWS said:
Mummelmann said:
oniyide said:

^^^^ as a guy who was actully in the military and was deployed I can tell you there is nothing realistic about any of those games. If I got shot i wasnt going to crouch down for a few seconds and automatically be alright.


Yeah, I don't get where people have gotten the idea that modern FPS games are realistic. They're really not, they're poor simulations of reality, much like an action packed and somewhat silly Hollywood movie (at best). The only FPS I've played that comes somewhat close to reality is SWAT 4 but it still has a ways to go.

Call of Duty games are about as realistic as Mario Kart. Doesn't stop the older ones from being great fun though!

Somebody hit my chevy with a green shell last week. My car will be in the shop for about a week :(


Was it Remi Gaillard?



Squilliam on 27 February 2011

It's because people don't like change. You get one genre which was typically predominantly played on the PC invading the console space and not only does it gather massive numbers of high budget releases every year compared to every other genre but the values of the genre invade other console centric genres as well, you can also say the same to a lesser extent for WRPGs in comparison to JRPGs. Think of how many games have been released as WRPGs and FPS games over the past few years and compare it to any *insert favourite genre here* other old console stalwart.



Tease.

yo_john117 on 27 February 2011
oniyide said:

^^^^ as a guy who was actully in the military and was deployed I can tell you there is nothing realistic about any of those games. If I got shot i wasnt going to crouch down for a few seconds and automatically be alright.

Yeah and you don't get to call in a nuke after getting 25 kills on the battlefield



Around the Network
EL_PATRAS on 27 February 2011

There are too many FPS's on the market taking away oportunities and market space for other kinds of games.  CoD's domination makes every one want to make FPS's to try to earn some money off the fad.  This creates sub par games and a market where delvelopers are only interested in making clones with the same cliches and some kind of gimmick.  Of course some shooters are excelent.  I love halo  and CoD (to some extent) but the market saturation is a bit of a pain in the ass.  Every second game has to be an fps, and I also hate the tough guy bro mentality 



                                                                           

Notorius.A.i.G on 27 February 2011

I don't hate them but I'm starting to dislike them. This is because of :

a ) Generic gameplay
b ) MP Focus ( Which leaves the game with a weak story )
c ) Coming out every two - three months

When the gen first started, I loved the FPS genre. I couldn't find anything to hate about it.



Who's the best Pac, Nas, and Big. Just leave it to that.

PLAYSTATION®3 is the future.....NOW.......B_E_L_I_E_V_E

Slaughterhouse Is The Sh*t  .... NOW ........ B_E_L_I_E_V_E

Scoobes on 27 February 2011

It's a kind of snobish view. As Squilliam said, the FPS genre has entered consoles, numerous games have been released in the genre and some of the staples of the genre are finding their way into other more established genres (e.g. regen health, 2 weapons etc.). People dislike the change, and look down on the genre because of it's popularity. 




Get your Portable ID!

oldschoolfool on 27 February 2011
Soulblazer said:
oldschoolfool said:
Soulblazer said:
crissindahouse said:
Soulblazer said:

 I am in the group that says fps rarely evovle in terms of gameplay, you say that rpgs are the same but thats not true at least not when it comes to how they play, they have different battle forms which makes them interesting. I have been playing fps for quite some time and most of them play the same, run shoot kill and repeat. Of course games like half life 2 and even vanquish prove that the genre can have new interesting ideas but there are few examples of that as most publishers go the easy way and copy call of duty instead of actually innovate in their games.


ok they have different battle forms but they won't get hundreds of new forms in the future so they don't evolve as well. you have round based battles, you have battles like in oblivion or 3rd person view battles like in da but what do you expect in the future?

its funny because if you change a shooter its not a shooter anymore so how should they change the gameplay? if you give the player more ways to play and more things to do they will call it rpg (like fallout 3)

the question is why is there so much hate because there isnt so much hate agains sport games or racing games and they cant change as well. they cant let you do other things in a football game then playing football and everyone knows that but in fps everyone is complainig about it that you just run and shoot. yeah its a shooter why should you do other things? and if you can do more than that no one calls it fps anymore. its just a big joke! put more in a shooter and you say rpg to it and dont put more in and you guys say fps dont evolve lol

Wrpg do not evolve that much but Jrpgs do evolve and only on my ds I have played plenty and each quite different than the next you just have to see The World Ends With You and youll see something truly special. You are right in the fact that its quite difficult to change how a shooter plays which is why the hate for the genre as it arguably the most popular genre but without real merits to gain that position as it cant evolve or chooses not to. It has become the easy way for many developers that in search for a form of gameplay they choose shooting because its always the same and it sells. The sports and racing games are not popular so they get a free pass but they have also become stagnant. I do not hate the genre itself, Halo was one heck of a good game and I am currently playing goldeneye on my wii but in the end its more of the same and I think developers can change that but they wont. I dont mean they have to change the shooting aspect of the game, but bringing other ideas to the table.

So because something is'nt popular it get's a free pass? Again,you can make the more of the same arguement in any genre. Level up,grind,fight enemies over and over,get better stuff,have character's talk to you over and over=RPG's in general. I think developers can change that but they won't. I don't mean they have to change the RPG aspect's of the game,but bringing other ideas to the table.

Yup if it isnt popular it gets a pass, it sucks but thats how it is. Sorry about the more of the same argument but lets face it applies to the shooting genre when it comes to raw gameplay and not conventions of the genre. I play call of duty modern warfare and black ops and it plays the exact same as medal of honor and many other shooters with little to no variation. Then I go play The world ends with you and chrono trigger and theres a massive difference when it comes to gameplay. Yes you can say its something true to the genre and it if it changes it isnt a shooter anymore so it leaves me thinking that the shooter genre is just like hack and slash games with the difference that one gets high scores and the other one doesnt. An this is the point of view of someone that likes playing games to perceive different experiences, in gameplay and story so for me in the first cathegory shooters fall flat.

So what about the RPG/FPS hybrid's such as fallout:NewVegas. Again,I don't mind RPG's,but I'd rather have a streamlined experience,then play a 100hr RPG and spend half of that time leveling up and talking to character's over and over. To me,that's boring,especially with the JRPG"S. How would innovate the FPS? Would would you do that was so great? Me personally I thank the FPS has evolved quite abit in terms of graphics,weapons,melee kills and vehicle segments and gadets in certain games. To me that's good enough as  there's no way there I can think of to drastically change the gameplay mechanics of a FPS,except to maybe do more hybrids like fallout:NewVegas,as that's one of the few RPG type games that I love. So yeah to me I don't think it's more of the same when I play FPS's. I personally felt like I got a different experience when I played call of duty vs Killzone3vs the battlefield bad company vs bioshock and so on. So at the end of the day,it's a matter of taste. 



oldschoolfool on 27 February 2011
EL_PATRAS said:

There are too many FPS's on the market taking away oportunities and market space for other kinds of games.  CoD's domination makes every one want to make FPS's to try to earn some money off the fad.  This creates sub par games and a market where delvelopers are only interested in making clones with the same cliches and some kind of gimmick.  Of course some shooters are excelent.  I love halo  and CoD (to some extent) but the market saturation is a bit of a pain in the ass.  Every second game has to be an fps, and I also hate the tough guy bro mentality 


FPS's have been around way before call of duty. It's all about sales,of course the developer's want to make money,there only giving the people what they want. At the end of the day,people vote with there wallet. Look at the over-saturation of the gutiar hero franchise,people stop buying it,they have no incentive to make anymore . Do you think the developer's want to take a risk,with how much it cost to make game's these days. Don't get me wrong,it's good to somtimes take risk,but most developer's play it safe. So in that aspect your right,I have to actually agree with you on that one.