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

Forums - Gaming Discussion - What's the worst FPS that you've played?

brendude13 on 23 June 2012
Marks said:

I guessed on same engine (they look the same so it must be), and DICE was in charge of the online of MoH. When we're talking shooters nobody cares about single player, it's all about the online. 

The reviewers seemed to care.



Around the Network
Barozi on 23 June 2012
Marks said:
brendude13 said:
Marks said:
Haze and Duke Nukem Forever were both pretty fucking terrible but I only played the demos, not the full games.

Operation Flashpoint was one of the worst. I rented it because my buddy bought it, and it was HORRID, the online was so laggy that it was virtually unplayable, and the single player just straight sucked.

And if anyone says Medal of Honor (but thinks Battlefield is good) I'll just lol because it's the exact same game (same engine, same developers).

Possibly wrong and wrong.


I guessed on same engine (they look the same so it must be), and DICE was in charge of the online of MoH. When we're talking shooters nobody cares about single player, it's all about the online. 

Most of the work is done in the campaign. Games like COD would be far cheaper than $60m if they were multiplayer-only. You are generalizing very much.



foodfather on 25 June 2012

FEAR 3



curl-6 on 25 June 2012
Millenium said:

Duke Nukem Forever, Killzone, Killzone 2, Modern Warfare 2.


This, plus Red Steel 1.



Marks on 25 June 2012
Barozi said:
Marks said:
brendude13 said:
Marks said:
Haze and Duke Nukem Forever were both pretty fucking terrible but I only played the demos, not the full games.

Operation Flashpoint was one of the worst. I rented it because my buddy bought it, and it was HORRID, the online was so laggy that it was virtually unplayable, and the single player just straight sucked.

And if anyone says Medal of Honor (but thinks Battlefield is good) I'll just lol because it's the exact same game (same engine, same developers).

Possibly wrong and wrong.


I guessed on same engine (they look the same so it must be), and DICE was in charge of the online of MoH. When we're talking shooters nobody cares about single player, it's all about the online. 

Most of the work is done in the campaign. Games like COD would be far cheaper than $60m if they were multiplayer-only. You are generalizing very much.


Single player you play once and it's 5-6 hours, online you play every day and for me on CoD4 totalled over 30 days. Online is WAY more important. 



Around the Network
Significant_leap on 25 June 2012

Hunting challenge and Killzone 3



Barozi on 25 June 2012
Marks said:
Barozi said:
Marks said:


I guessed on same engine (they look the same so it must be), and DICE was in charge of the online of MoH. When we're talking shooters nobody cares about single player, it's all about the online. 

Most of the work is done in the campaign. Games like COD would be far cheaper than $60m if they were multiplayer-only. You are generalizing very much.


Single player you play once and it's 5-6 hours, online you play every day and for me on CoD4 totalled over 30 days. Online is WAY more important. 

and that's the point. No one can master every FPS. Of course if you're a casual COD player you only play one shooter a year and that's going to need a long lasting mode.
While Halo is a multiplayer heavy game, the campaign is a VERY important for it. Same for Gears, Uncharted, Half-Life, Killzone and others.

There might be exceptions though, like Battlefield and Counter-Strike



Slimebeast on 25 June 2012
Barozi said:
Marks said:
Barozi said:
Marks said:


I guessed on same engine (they look the same so it must be), and DICE was in charge of the online of MoH. When we're talking shooters nobody cares about single player, it's all about the online. 

Most of the work is done in the campaign. Games like COD would be far cheaper than $60m if they were multiplayer-only. You are generalizing very much.


Single player you play once and it's 5-6 hours, online you play every day and for me on CoD4 totalled over 30 days. Online is WAY more important. 

and that's the point. No one can master every FPS. Of course if you're a casual COD player you only play one shooter a year and that's going to need a long lasting mode.
While Halo is a multiplayer heavy game, the campaign is a VERY important for it. Same for Gears, Uncharted, Half-Life, Killzone and others.

There might be exceptions though, like Battlefield and Counter-Strike

Might be? BF is definitely a game where the main resources are spent on the multiplayer while the SP in the last two games were just slapped on for very cheap (Bad Company 1 had some devotion to the SP).

COD should be almost the same nowadays. If there's any logic to it, far more than half of their resources are put into making a killer multiplayer.



theRepublic on 26 June 2012
Marks said:

I guessed on same engine (they look the same so it must be), and DICE was in charge of the online of MoH. When we're talking shooters nobody cares about single player, it's all about the online. 

I care!

I guess I am a nobody.  



Switch Code: SW-7377-9189-3397 -- Nintendo Network ID: theRepublic -- Steam ID: theRepublic

Now Playing
Switch - Super Mario Maker 2 (2019)
Switch - The Legend of Zelda: Link's Awakening (2019)
Switch - Bastion (2011/2018)
3DS - Star Fox 64 3D (2011)
3DS - Phoenix Wright: Ace Attorney (Trilogy) (2005/2014)
Wii U - Darksiders: Warmastered Edition (2010/2017)
Mobile - The Simpson's Tapped Out and Yugioh Duel Links
PC - Deep Rock Galactic (2020)

Marks on 28 June 2012
theRepublic said:
Marks said:

I guessed on same engine (they look the same so it must be), and DICE was in charge of the online of MoH. When we're talking shooters nobody cares about single player, it's all about the online. 

I care!

I guess I am a nobody.  


You're somebody to me.