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
d21lewis on 29 May 2012

About cover systems--it's realistic! We have to move tactically and we have to take cover. I don't know what to say. In a real firefight, try standing in the open, shooting, and not aiming down the sites. You will die and then we will laugh at you.

I know it's just video games and they don't have to be realistic but I can appreciate the little things that add to the experience. Also, the first game to use a cover system was Super Mario Bros. Those cannons would shoot a Bullet Bill and Mario had to take cover behind a "Chest high wall" (as Yahtzee calls them).



Around the Network
PullusPardus on 29 May 2012

Good read indeed, My problem is that Third person shooters have became more similar to First Person Shooters, there is barely any different aside from the camera, but these games have the potential to be different from FPS, but they never utilize it, which is why a lot of people prefer FPS, a great example of a great third person shooter done right is the very first Socom, it was in a word , the perfect example of a TPS.
but I DO miss the Third Person ACTION ADVENTURE games rather than shooters, those are the reason why I like Third person camera if its ADVENTURE, games like Tomb Raider.
I also dearly miss the 3D platformers , but thats another topic



d21lewis on 29 May 2012
Jay520 said:
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.


Thanks, grammer Nazi!  I didn't see you correcting Marcus Jackson when he typed something wrong!!



Jay520 on 29 May 2012
PullusPardus said:
Good read indeed, My problem is that Third person shooters have became more similar to First Person Shooters, there is barely any different aside from the camera, but these games have the potential to be different from FPS, but they never utilize it, which is why a lot of people prefer FPS, a great example of a great third person shooter done right is the very first Socom, it was in a word , the perfect example of a TPS.
but I DO miss the Third Person ACTION ADVENTURE games rather than shooters, those are the reason why I like Third person camera if its ADVENTURE, games like Tomb Raider.
I also dearly miss the 3D platformers , but thats another topic


Yeah, SOCOM is the best TPS ever! I'm glad someone here agrees. Today though, there aren't many good ones for the three reasons listed above imo. The ADS and the cover system, it just throws off the pacing and seamlessness of character movement.

PullusPardus on 29 May 2012
pezus said:
Kresnik said:

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.


Ratchet and Clank says helloooooooOOOOOOO.


Ratchet and Clank is NOT a shooter, except Tools Of Destruction 



Around the Network
PullusPardus on 29 May 2012
Jay520 said:
PullusPardus said:
Good read indeed, My problem is that Third person shooters have became more similar to First Person Shooters, there is barely any different aside from the camera, but these games have the potential to be different from FPS, but they never utilize it, which is why a lot of people prefer FPS, a great example of a great third person shooter done right is the very first Socom, it was in a word , the perfect example of a TPS.
but I DO miss the Third Person ACTION ADVENTURE games rather than shooters, those are the reason why I like Third person camera if its ADVENTURE, games like Tomb Raider.
I also dearly miss the 3D platformers , but thats another topic


Yeah, SOCOM is the best TPS ever! I'm glad someone here agrees. Today though, there aren't many good ones for the three reasons listed above imo. The ADS and the cover system, it just throws off the pacing and seamlessness of character movement.


which is why I really want a new Syphon Filter and was disappointed that Bend Studio went to make Uncharted instead of that, just to troll me. =[



Jay520 on 29 May 2012
d21lewis said:
Jay520 said:
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.


Thanks, grammer Nazi!  I didn't see you correcting Marcus Jackson when he typed something wrong!!



First of all, it's MarcusDJackson, if you don't say the D, then don't say it at all. 2nd of all, I'm pretty sure Marcus didn't care at all about his spelling. He was a lost cause. Dude had the craziest spelling. He was one of those people that spelt 'people' as 'ppl'. These people don't deserve to live (my opinion)

d21lewis on 29 May 2012
Jay520 said:
d21lewis said:
Jay520 said:
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.


Thanks, grammer Nazi!  I didn't see you correcting Marcus Jackson when he typed something wrong!!


First of all, it's MarcusDJackson, if you don't say the D, then don't say it at all. 2nd of all, I'm pretty sure Marcus didn't care at all about his spelling. He was a lost cause. Dude had the craziest spelling. He was one of those people that spelt 'people' as 'ppl'. These people don't deserve to live (my opinion)

I was rushing back to change my spelling from "grammer" to "grammar" before you quoted me.  My blood ran cold!  Luckily, you didn't catch that one.  I wanted to put the "D" in his name but I wasn't sure if there was a period after the D or not so I left it out.



Jay520 on 29 May 2012
pezus said:
Kresnik said:

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.


Ratchet and Clank says helloooooooOOOOOOO.



yeah that's what I was thinking. But I think he's talking about online games.

Kresnik on 29 May 2012
pezus said:
Kresnik said:

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.


Ratchet and Clank says helloooooooOOOOOOO.


Oh, don't get me wrong - I absolutely adore Ratchet and Clank, I love pretty much everything that Insomniac have made (even the medicore Resistance games)

But I consider it more of a platformer than a shooter.  I don't even know why, since there's a lot of shooting in it, but the main series entries contain a lot more than that.  A Crack in Time for example, with all the time-shifting and puzzle solving mechanics for Clank, definitely make it more than just 'a shooter'.

Whereas TF2, Timesplitters, Quake, I do consider to be 'just shooters', but they're the kind of games that got everything right in that regard, for me.  And I miss it :(



Read my Vita reviews here

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