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

Forums - Gaming Discussion - My problem with modern shooters.

 

Do you agree?

I disagree completely 18 41.86%
 
I agree with point 1 3 6.98%
 
I agree with point 2 6 13.95%
 
I agree with point 3 4 9.30%
 
I agree with points 1 & 2 0 0%
 
I agree with points 1 & 3 0 0%
 
I agree with points 2 & 3 2 4.65%
 
I agree with all of your points 10 23.26%
 
Total:43
Jay520 on 29 May 2012
bouzane said:

2. Somewhat disagree. When Syphon Filter: Dark Mirror introduced me to cover based shooting I loved it. It's a little overused but there are far more prevalent problems.
3. Disagree. You have to scope to accomplish anything while shooting a gun. Run and gun gameplay is fine for arcade shooters but I also like something a bit more realistic.



2. Haven't played that game in a way, it was probably good. I don't remember. But surely you miss crouching & being able to use cover without sticking to it?

3. I guess that's one of the times where I say realism can harm the fun.

Around the Network
Jay520 on 29 May 2012
badgenome said:
Jay520 said:

I would, but last time I got in a fight things didn't go so well.

Fixed.



okay, you win this time.

bouzane on 29 May 2012
Jay520 said:
bouzane said:

2. Somewhat disagree. When Syphon Filter: Dark Mirror introduced me to cover based shooting I loved it. It's a little overused but there are far more prevalent problems.
3. Disagree. You have to scope to accomplish anything while shooting a gun. Run and gun gameplay is fine for arcade shooters but I also like something a bit more realistic.


2. Haven't played that game in a way, it was probably good. I don't remember. But surely you miss crouching & being able to use cover without sticking to it?

3. I guess that's one of the times where I say realism can harm the fun.


2. The thing is, I enjoy cover based shooting in its current form and there are still shooters that don't utilize it anyway.

3. It certainly can, hence why I believe in a seperation between arcade and realistic shooters.



Jay520 on 29 May 2012

I added a new poll guys.



Mazty on 29 May 2012

You're forgetting to add that map design for MP, which is now compulsory for some reason (guess fat devs cant be bothered to develop AI) has shockingly shit map design.



Around the Network
d21lewis on 29 May 2012



Jay520 on 29 May 2012
pezus said:
Good read. I despise the cover system in ME2 and 3. It encourages bad and lazy level design. I like aiming down the sights, Call of Duty 2 was awesome with this!


What about the first point?

d21lewis on 29 May 2012

I don't really think there's a problem with aiming down the sites. I've got training this weak and we've been shooting guns every night. We aim down the sites! That's just the way things work. Yeah, you can sacrifice accuracy for speed by "shooting from the hip" but you'll get killed.

On the flipside, I was playing Halo Reach for the past few days (between sessions of Dragon's Dogma) and you don't have to aim down the sites unless you're using a sniper rifle. I actually like it a lot. It's not better or worse than Call of Duty. It's just a decent alternative.

Now to read more of the OP and attempt to not to post before I finish it! Wish me luck.



Kresnik on 29 May 2012

My main problem with modern shooters is:

- They're not fast enough.  Plodding around on CoD or Battlefield isn't a lot of fun for me, Timesplitters showed that console shooters could be fast.  Quake III was hella-fast, a good benchmark for PC.

-  They're too serious.  Again, Timesplitters.  My god, that game got the humour so spot on.  Team Fortress 2 nails it as well, but they seem to be just two in a sea of 'this is super serious' shooters'.

- The weapons aren't a lot of fun.  I think I have a 'type' of shooter that I like and it's really died out this generation.  Something like Quake 3 had the rail gun which was just silly amount of fun to play around with.  Rocket jumping with the rocket launcher.  Timesplitters had loads of cool stuff, my favourite was using dual flare guns.  Only game I've seen this generation even take a stab at enjoyable weapons is Resistance.

- Choice of colour palette.  This might be a silly one, but I find that a lot of modern shooters stick to a really boring colour scheme and it just annoys me a bit.  Resistance's over use of grey.   Modern Warfare 2 used a lot of yellow/brown.  Halo gets it right.  Bright coloured Spartans, beautiful environments.



Read my Vita reviews here

Famitsu Japan Digital Sales Archive
Vita Media Create physical sales database
Vita vs. COMG Japan Sales Comparison

Jay520 on 29 May 2012
d21lewis said:
I don't really think there's a problem with aiming down the sites. I've got training this weak and we've been shooting guns every night. We aim down the sites! That's just the way things work. Yeah, you can sacrifice accuracy for speed by "shooting from the hip" but you'll get killed.

On the flipside, I was playing Halo Reach for the past few days (between sessions of Dragon's Dogma) and you don't have to aim down the sites unless you're using a sniper rifle. I actually like it a lot. It's not better or worse than Call of Duty. It's just a decent alternative.

Now to read more of the OP and attempt to not to post before I finish it! Wish me luck.


Pro tip: It's 'sights' not 'sites'. And yeah, I understand it's more realistic. I dunno, I just don't really like it as a gameplay mechanic. It slows the pace too much. I prefer shooting like in Halo or Ratchet & Clank where you don't have to aim. Thanks for the input though.