iisnotinformed on Xanga

Friday, 13 August 2010

Why FPS Games Suck

Anonymous

XBOX 360 "Examiner"

Why First Person Shooter Games Suck

AKA

My Parody of Alexander Hinkley's (from The Examiner) "Why Fighting Games Suck" (seen here: http://www.examiner.com/xbox-360-in-national/why-fighting-games-suck-3)

Lately the first person shooter genre has made a comeback with the release of Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 2 and Battlefield: Bad Company 2 and the upcoming release of Halo: Reach which is scheduled for early next year. The question is, why? Shooting games suck. I hate them and have no interest in them. And not just because I get taunted mercilessly by nasally-voiced little kids on XBOX Live headsets (and teabagged just as frequently) but for several legitimate reasons (NOT REALLY, BUT I NEED SOME WAY TO GET HITS ON THIS ARTICLE, OKAY? I REALLY DON'T CARE ABOUT THE GENRE, BUT A WEB-BASED NEWS SOURCE IS TOTALLY THE PLACE TO MAKE A MISINFORMED RANT ABOUT SOMETHING I DON'T CARE ABOUT 364 DAYS A YEAR). Shooting games had their heyday in the 90's when games like Doom and Goldeneye were released but since then there really has not been much improvement in the shooter genre as a whole. Unlike other video game genres that are constantly evolving and changing, the shooting game has pretty much remained the same. Racing games have more explosions and cars, fighting games evolved to allow more taunts in-game and ragequitting, sandbox games have become more like GTA, and even RPGs have changed from being pixellated, drawn-out bores to smoothly animated (but still drawn out and boring). The only thing that has really changed about shooters is the number of players in multiplayer, the amount of guns (which could rival a small army), and number of maps.

When the shooting genre did attempt to evolve by transitioning from an arena to a large, open area, it was a disaster. Shooting in a large area just wasn't the same (EVERYONE CAMPS WITH SNIPER RIFLES) and so shooters started to die out with fewer and fewer actual good ones being released. In recent times shooters have gone back to being rather confined with more guns and a ranking system (Prestige Mode: "Let's Level Up Again!...and again...and again) to give the impression of depth and now their popularity has one again sky-rocketed (IF IT GOES DOWN, JUST THROW OUT 2 NEW MAPS AND 3 OLD ONES AS DLC FOR $15 AND YOU'VE GOT A GOLD MINE). When a genre actually has to revert major advancements because it couldn't adapt the gameplay to the changes, it's a warning sign that something is wrong.

Shooting games are boring because you're doing the same thing, shooting people, stabbing people, raging over the mike, hurling racial slurs, over and over again. There aren't really any levels or storyline, it is just you, facing off against another faceless character who is either controlled by an angry, racist 11-year old or an angry, racist 20-something frat boy, and shooting it out. Sure this could be cool for awhile but how many times can you repeat the same actions and still have fun (APPARENTLY ENOUGH TO LEVEL UP TO 70 TEN TIMES.)? What other modes are there? Search and Destroy? Capture the Flag? How about coming up with a new mode where you can actually see your character hiding behind cover? Oh wait...that was actually such a dramatic evolution that it became a whole standalone game (Gears of War)!

Many people complain that the yearly release of Madden is just the same game with updated rosters being repackaged and sold for full price (STAT BOOSTS AS DLC LOL) but shooters are an even bigger offender of this. What really is the difference between Halo: Combat Evolved and Halo: Reach? Cooler graphics? Some new maps and weapons ("It's a whole new game! You get new weapons, a class system, jetpacks, and new maps. Graphics are more or less the same, lol)? Is that really all the franchise was capable of evolving in the nine year timespan?

Shooters don't really take any skill to play, either. A lot of people probably would disagree with this statement and admittedly, I am personally bad at shooters but only because I have no interest at all in playing them (NEVERTHELESS I'M FULLY QUALIFIED TO TELL EVERYONE JUST HOW THIS GENRE SUCKS) Being "good" at shooters isn't so much about actually having skill as it is having experience with the game and becoming familiar with the strengths and weaknesses of every gun (which can be a ridiculously lengthy process). Once you're competent with the wide array of guns, the only thing you need to do to become "good" is play the game enough to learn where to camp and where the best weapons/powerups spawn (NOOBTOOB + ONE MAN ARMY = PRO). Then, when your opponent is busy running towards the C Flag in Karachi you know you have to counter with a noob tube in that one spot in the sky immediately. This isn't skill at the actual game, it's just memorization of cloud formations, flag location, and weapons classes.

Sometimes people will spam the same move over and over to win a match and it actually works. One example I can recall from Modern Warfare 2 is when people spammed Model 1887s. I remember people abusing this loadout so much that it literally became the only one they employed in entire matches. If you saw Akimbo Moddel 1887s, chances are it would be a war of the Akimbo 1887s. I saw a "Top 5 Plays" video where a player got a huge killstreak with Akimbo 1887s with Sleight of Hand/Marathon Pro/Stopping Power Pro (#2, to be exact). Does spamming this loadout make him a good player?

Total pro, amirite?

Look at another example of a tried-and-true FPS pro:

THIS MAN IS A GOD AT FPS GAMES. I WISH I WERE HIM.

This isn't a phenomenon that was only used back in the day, either. Recently playing MW2 on Xbox LIVE, the very first match I played the guy would simply boost. Trying to get close enough to actually fight him proved to be quite a chore as he had at least 5 of his team members guarding him. If I did close the distance he wouldn't even fight back, he would get his buddies to own me and resume boosting. Sure I could counter this strategy by emulating it myself but why should I have to do that (I'm already 10th prestige, I've already done it enough)? Needless to say, it wasn't very fun. Not only is boosting a problem but it can be just as easy in many situations to boost your way to a nuke. Shooting your grenade launcher into one cloud formation the whole match to come out on top isn't gratifying and isn't fun (UNLESS I'M DOING IT).

How first person shooters can be played competitively at a professional level I'll never understand (NO ONE PAYS ME TO PLAY GAMES ;_;). In Fighting Games, not only do you need to have an expert level of precision execution and knowledge of the game, but you also have to be able to outsmart your opponents. You need to be able to predict their strategy and adapt to their tactics. In most cases you also need to re-evaluate the character matchup and play accordingly. Shooters aren't predictable at all because you never know how the other guy is going to fight. Will this guy camp? If so you just need to throw a Semtex in his spot to win (AND CAMP IT SO YOU CAN GET YOUR REVENGE WHEN HE COMES BACK INSTEAD OF CRYING ABOUT IT IN ANOTHER ARTICLE). Maybe will he spam One Man Army Grenade Launcher so you have to think about how you can get to his spawn and you'll win (INSTEAD OF COMPLAINING ABOUT CAMPERS IN AN "ARTICLE"). Shooters come down to who has more experience to know what to do at any given moment, not about skill at the game.

The one exception to this argument would be the Halo: Reach beta which took shooting games to a whole new level by taking jetpacks and letting you fly anywhere (BEING ABLE TO FLY = FPS GAME OF THE YEAR MATERIAL). Stages actually matter in Halo: Reach as well unlike in other shooters which are just there for scenery. Camping in Halo still happens but...never mind, it still does happen, regardless of the number of players in the match.

Most shooters are just the same game except with different characters and a different weapon spawn point, map layout, and projectile arc to memorize. It is high time this tired genre either evolve or retire altogether (NEVER MIND THE FACT THAT ALL GAMES FOLLOW SOME SPECIFIC FORMULA, BUT I CAN'T SEEM TO COMPREHEND THAT).

--------------------------------------------------------

All I'm trying to say, Alex, is that games have a spammy/repetitive quality to them, as well as a strategic and intricate side (should you care to learn more about them). But who am I kidding? You fail to realize this, and I'm pretty sure no one is going to be able to get their point across to you.