What kind of FPS would you like to see in the future?

[dead_man]

Call of Duty "has almost ruined a generation of shooter players"
This is the title of an interview many may know: http://www.pcgamer.com/call-of-duty-...a-2-interview/
Though, as I'm reading the forums, I see hints that Tripwire may be moving towards mainstream. At least I'm afraid of that.

I see a gap between the mainstream FPS and more realistic titles like Arma, Squad and the BF2roject Reality mod. The mainstream titles are nice to look at, but shallow to play and the realistic ones are more work than fun for hobby gamers and take a lot of time. I think that people playing mainstream would ask for something more challenging at some point but get discouraged by the realism in Arma/Project Reality(PR). And besides realism a single round of PR often lasts more than two hours. On the other hand, why not ask for something that is challenging and fun at the same time. That does not become work. It would be nice if one gets onto the server, finishes the actual round (as a warm up) and still gets to play at least one more full round within 90 minutes.

I never enjoyed jump and run. I came from turn based strategy to FPS because it's more intense and rewarding per minute. But from the very beginning I missed tactical depth. I think that with video games becoming more popular and accepted and digital natives growing up the need for FPS with more tactical depth will increase. Don't get me wrong: a game should be a game, not a simulation. But do grown-ups have to play like kids?

What do you think?

 

[Lemonater47]

Play the damn game first please lol.

 

[NorthDumpling]

Statement about "grown-ups have to play like kids?" is wrong, people play casual games because they enjoy it, by the same reason people play hardcore or realistic games, because they enjoy it. You dont want games to be what they are not supposed to be.
There is no need to escalate such thing as mainstream gaming, while right now you clearly talking like realistic games is the only type of acceptable games. RS2 is as good as is honestly.

 

[dead_man]

Play the damn game first please lol.

as soon as i'll get a key, beta or buyed, doesn't matter.

 

[dead_man]

Statement about "grown-ups have to play like kids?" is wrong, people play casual games because they enjoy it, by the same reason people play hardcore or realistic games, because they enjoy it. You dont want games to be what they are not supposed to be.
There is no need to escalate such thing as mainstream gaming, while right now you clearly talking like realistic games is the only type of acceptable games. RS2 is as good as is honestly.

I want to believe you. Just read some statements in the forums about RS being easier than RO2 and that easier than RO and got concerned. The RS2 videos were the first to appeal to me from this series. It is not only the game, it is also the setting, which is perfect for my liking: finally no more WW2, no more european battlefields, not so modern arms, and reviews praising it as a bit harder than the usual CoD/BF. I don't know if you ever played FH2 (a BF2 mod), which is too arcadish for my taste. Arma or Project Reality are too milsim for me. I wanted to see if there are more ppl looking for sth. in between.

 

[Jagdwyre]

The gap you're talking about is exactly what is filled by games like Red Orchestra or Insurgency. Games with a focus on realism/authenticity while being structured in a way that you can get a lot of out of from just an hour of play in the evening. In contrast I don't find you get as much out of Squad or Arma if you don't have much time to commit to them.

And I'll call out your implication, Rising Storm 2 is absolutely not a "call of duty" game and in fact has even more realistic gunplay than both Arma or Squad imo. At the risk of sounding like a fanboy I think it's frankly the best damn gunplay in the whole genre so far even if it isn't perfect.

 

[Cat_in_da_Hat]

120 FPS for me thanks.

 

[VashCZ]

The gap you're talking about is exactly what is filled by games like Red Orchestra or Insurgency. Games with a focus on realism/authenticity while being structured in a way that you can get a lot of out of from just an hour of play in the evening. In contrast I don't find you get as much out of Squad or Arma if you don't have much time to commit to them.

And I'll call out your implication, Rising Storm 2 is absolutely not a "call of duty" game and in fact has even more realistic gunplay than both Arma or Squad imo. At the risk of sounding like a fanboy I think it's frankly the best damn gunplay in the whole genre so far even if it isn't perfect.

You are fan boy that s for sure. Cause I know that RO2/RS are better in 30 men cooperation than RS2. While Insurgency can be very good at 5 men coop.
RS2 made me to play lone wolf - "Hey squad leader I spawned on you but now I run my own way 30 meters from you cause this way we get more kills and we do objective faster".
Still there is BF1 which gameplay physics are darkened by worse/simplier gun handle and some bad control of movement(contrary in some way better). But it is there! Yea the feel is arcadish/CSish. Look and move across the terrain and urban environment such a beauty and entertainment just to make explode something! But rather don t try to aim or shoot, then you can dislike it :-D.
The Siege - smallish, but some very good animations that are good for player movement, control and even understandable for enemy. Shooting and possibilities of body control is console ish as in BF but the fragments are there.
And look at Arma 3 at possibility of body control. Personally I love choppers too. From there I know that RS2 choppers are just moving spawns cause for proper embark fly and disabmark there is no time, doesn t worth.

Using opther words choppers are bull****. But we see no cars in RS2 why. There is mostly no jungle so cars can be there. No hysics for that you say? Well cause they used old engine heh?

And on top of that !SPAWNING WARS! (the biggest problem of even RO2/RS)


yea so my answer is... just like anybody s else... "want to fill the gap"... but we are in there now... just clunky yea


edit:
I read great part of this http://www.pcgamer.com/call-of-duty-...a-2-interview/ and qoting "has almost ruined a generation of shooter players" is probably most misleading thing you can qote :-/.
Right would be to say: Ruined a generation of shooter players.
Or you could just not said that cause it is not right.

 

[Jagdwyre]

You are fan boy that s for sure. Cause I know that RO2/RS are better in 30 men cooperation than RS2. While Insurgency can be very good at 5 men coop.
RS2 made me to play lone wolf - "Hey squad leader I spawned on you but now I run my own way 30 meters from you cause this way we get more kills and we do objective faster".
Still there is BF1 which gameplay physics are darkened by worse/simplier gun handle and some bad control of movement(contrary in some way better). But it is there! Yea the feel is arcadish/CSish. Look and move across the terrain and urban environment such a beauty and entertainment just to make explode something! But rather don t try to aim or shoot, then you can dislike it :-D.
The Siege - smallish, but some very good animations that are good for player movement, control and even understandable for enemy. Shooting and possibilities of body control is console ish as in BF but the fragments are there.
And look at Arma 3 at possibility of body control. Personally I love choppers too. From there I know that RS2 choppers are just moving spawns cause for proper embark fly and disabmark there is no time, doesn t worth.

Using opther words choppers are bull****. But we see no cars in RS2 why. There is mostly no jungle so cars can be there. No hysics for that you say? Well cause they used old engine heh?

And on top of that !SPAWNING WARS! (the biggest problem of even RO2/RS)


yea so my answer is... just like anybody s else... "want to fill the gap"... but we are in there now... just clunky yea


edit:
I read great part of this http://www.pcgamer.com/call-of-duty-...a-2-interview/ and qoting "has almost ruined a generation of shooter players" is probably most misleading thing you can qote :-/.
Right would be to say: Ruined a generation of shooter players.
Or you could just not said that cause it is not right.

You really seem to be rambling here. You claim I'm "for sure a fanboy" and then go on to talk about player cooperation in RO and Insurgency. I was specifically referring to RS2's gunplay, not how well or poorly it encourages teamwork or how good or bad animations are in the game. If you want to confirm that I'm a fanboy about RS2 you should at least stay on the topic I was actually referring to, not go off on a tangent about several things I never even mentioned about the game. Just because I claimed that the gunplay is the best in the genre doesn't mean I think everything about the game is the best in the genre.

 

[Lemonater47]

You also can't go expecting others to use team work if you don't use team work. I mean ain't that just a tad wee hypocritcal.

 

[dead_man]

^ knowing the maps and using team play and communication usually gives you an advantage over lone wolves.

There is one general problem though. When a game gets too fast, the information communicated becomes obsolete too fast, which renders communication almost useless. With situations changing rapidly, planing and coordinating attacks or defences becomes pointless. Due to these effects of faster game play, team play loses more and more advantages over lone wolfing. Easy gun handling, aiming and hitting, fast reloading animations, small maps, fast movement, no fatigue are things that speed up the game and render team play almost useless despite all the mechanics to encourage team play.

If the project managers think that making the game easier in order to appeal more players will increase their player base, they might err. Assumed the game would be as easy and fast as any CoD/BF game, why should one buy it when he gets more vehicles, content and better graphics with the Activision/EA titles? Let alone their higher marketing budget reaching more people. The normal CoD/BF-gamer wants to get entertained and puts less effort in making his gaming experience more fun by e. g. team play, modding, organizing tournaments and clans, training newcomers, testing and documenting game mechanics. From my POV the target audience of this series should be the more active players, who look for something that offers a larger freedom of shaping and organizing the game play, but at the same time do not want to cope with the time consuming tasks of games like Arma or Project Reality. This is what I want to communicate to the managers of the series using this poll. To tell them to wake up and remember the original goals of the series and what they should look for in the future.

Edit: wording

 

[Lemonater47]

I think to have a completely unbiased opinion on the matter. You have to play all the games. I mean I know its fun looking at these other games you don't play and feeling superior about not playing them. But to start generalising them without having played a game from those other series in many many years. That's just not on.

Call of duty: What call of duty became over the years was a slot machine. The map design just went to **** over the past few games. You're literally running around a maze of corridors with a load of 4 way intersections. Shooting people in the back most of the time. They designed the maps to make it easy to get around behind people. Why? To make it so even the worst player could accidentally find themselves in a position to get some kills. People tend to gravitate to a small selection of weapons and perks because they are objectively better than everything else. It's all designed so people can get to feel good about themselves. That's what call of duty became. Also they didn't really change the setting for the past 10 years.


Battlefield: Battlefield has always gone for the massive battles with lots of explosions. Battlefield 2 was really the game that was built with the slightest amount of team work in mind. Not that many people utilised it often. Don't kid yourself into thinking the earlier games were because they simply weren't. It's been 15 years none of you remember properly. All the battlefield games all follow the exact same formula. Unchanged the entire time. The most it ever strayed from the path was the bad company series. Which was good. Is battlefield easy? No. Don't believe me go play it. Then show me that 3-25 score you got. Battlefield is not an easy game. Never has been. Call of duty on the other hand your KD will always be around a solid 1. Battlefield is there to have awesome moments in gaming. Maximum amounts of fun. It achieves that. But you know. A well coordinated team in battlefield. Or at least well coordinated squads. Will be far more likely to win than a completely uncoordinated team. Even in battlefield.


Red orchestra: Red orchestra is around to give us an authentic and immersive experience. But its not a simulator. Tactical realism. Teamwork is needed in this series. Even more so in RS2. With the new way squads work, the more powerful commanders and the new tools at the teams disposal. The gunplay is amazing. Perfected again in RS2. It actually feels meaty and its the closest experience I've had to actually firing a real gun. In terms of how recoil and sway works mostly. Every death is something you remember. It does it's job of immersion well. While keeping the game extremely fun.


Squad: I don't play Arma and I haven't touched PR since squad came out due to time zones and such. But I do play squad. Squad also isn't a simulator. Or if it is its a very poor one. Squad is only about the team work. It's not immersive in the same way as RO2. The immersion in squad entirely depends on who the hell you play with. The gun control in that game is beyond terrible and ain't changing. They think recoil is massive amounts of vertical recoil and the fact that everyone in the army has arthritis. Apparently. CQB is terrible and you are completely blind out past 200m pixel hunting for any movement. Those sorts of mechanics in another game without voice chat and the game would be the worst thing ever. It doesn't even look good graphically. But the kind of gameplay you do get is not seen anywhere else. It's a game where you can join a server on the fly and then coordinate with 9 complete randoms on the internet successfully. Most of the time. And by successfully I mean you don't start insulting each other as soon you meet each other. Team work however doesn't even happen. Didn't always happen in PR when I did play that. In arma 2 back when I played that it was almost impossible to just find a random game where you could intergrate pretty much instantly. You had to be part of some clan and set something up and quite often it was a coop mission against AI or some ****. I bet its the same in Arma 3.







The Red orchestra series is the best compromise between it all. RS2 is sticking to that. It's for the best.

 

[VashCZ]

You really seem to be rambling here. You claim I'm "for sure a fanboy" and then go on to talk about player cooperation in RO and Insurgency. I was specifically referring to RS2's gunplay, not how well or poorly it encourages teamwork or how good or bad animations are in the game. If you want to confirm that I'm a fanboy about RS2 you should at least stay on the topic I was actually referring to, not go off on a tangent about several things I never even mentioned about the game. Just because I claimed that the gunplay is the best in the genre doesn't mean I think everything about the game is the best in the genre.

Sorry I meant gunplay = gameplay. Game with guns. But gunplay = handling with gun/accuracy tweak?

Lemonater47 , and what about Insurgency?
And Arma 3 is really different in CQB and player movements handling. In A2 with M4 300meters easy kill, in A3 with M4 300 meters hard to aim, very noticable difference. I have tousands of hours so... big improvement. But game is ruined for me cause of optimization. Engine is from time of first Operation Flashpoint :-D. http://www.metacritic.com/game/pc/op...old-war-crisis
A3 added no important tactical keys for warfare(P+AIvsPvsAI) but it is rather aimed to mainstream(which is good) and most ppl now play Battle Royale(don t know why it is not entertainy as Arma wasn t built for that(RO2 would perform better with slightly bigger maps))

btw: in Arma warfare when playing competitive there is need to listen to commander(strategical) and if you on TS(as you say) cooperation when capturing town is also good with like another 3 players(tactical)

edit: P.S. hey man, you also play Chivalry amongst those tactical aimed games! me too, and MoWAS.. I played 1, have no friends to play with second ... I kinda udnerstand you- feelings are similar, saying is different :-D

 

[dead_man]

[...]You have to play all the games. I mean I know its fun looking at these other games you don't play and feeling superior about not playing them. But to start generalising them without having played a game from those other series in many many years. That's just not on.[...]
The Red orchestra series is the best compromise between it all. RS2 is sticking to that. It's for the best.

Thank you for summarizing your impressions. I appreciate that, because I just don't have the time to play them all. There was a time, when I played a lot more, but since getting to work and founding a family, the time has become really limited and I have to judge, what is still worth playing for me. I already bought more games than I really play. Partly short on time partly not enjoying. I don't feel "superior about not playing them". I'm sorry if it seemed so. It's more because I tell myself why I should not waste my time with this or that, maybe as a kind of consolation or persuation. Please do not take any offence from that. I have to draw a line what is for me and what not. As about trying out: I still play Forgotten Hope 2, less Project Reality, played America's Army and BF1942 and tried CoD2, BF:Vietnam, BF3 and Arma2. I will play RS2 as soon as possible, because I got to your closing conclusion even before joining this forum. Though I want it to keep filling said gap.

Edit: punctuation