What's the state of FPS multiplayer gaming on PC, has it moved on at all?

It's been several years since I last purchased a computer, it was an Alienware (I know, not always the best choice, but I got a good deal), it was high end at the time, OC'd Core 2 Duo (this was when they were first released), 7900gtx, etc. I bought it solely so I could enjoy CS:S, DOD:S, HL2 and WoW (which I've now quit, thank god) in high detail. I found both CSS and DODS exceptional as multiplayer FPS games, the good graphics were just a bonus, but the gameplay stood out above anything else I've played since.

I'm now looking at upgrading my whole PC again, but am really questioning whether the latest FPS releases are really good enough to warrant me spending £1000 ($1500) on a new high spec PC.

I know there's a lot of good single player FPS that I need to catch up on over the last couple of years, Bioshock, Crysis, Mass Effect, FEAR, etc. But are there any multiplayer FPS games that truely stand up to CS and the like? I know there's COD, but I feel like the latest incarnations have been purely focused around a console, I played CODMW2 at a friend's, it was good, but not great. Is Battlefield BC2 good for multiplayer? Does it have the same quality of play that CS had, allowing plenty of play without getting bored, and still being a very skill based game? Are hackers a big issue in multiplayer games these days?

As much as I like single player, online FPS is what I'm really into, are there any games that've been released in the last couple of years, of are due to be released in the future, which make spending a large amount of money on an up to date computer worthwhile?

Also, is there any upcoming big jumps in technology that would make it wise for me to hold out for a while before buying a new PC? I saw Nvidia have some 3D hardware or something, is this the new up and coming thing, or is it still a bit into the future before it becomes the mainstream norm?

A lot of questions there, I know, I've got a lot to catch up on! Would appreciate any help you can give to a returning PC gamer!

FPS multiplayer is as strong as ever IMO. TF2, CSS, BC2, BF2, COD4, and L4D2 all have excellent multiplayer scenes. Borderlands is great too if you have friends to play with. Some upcoming games to watch are MoH, COD7, Rage, Brink, and of course, BF3.

It's the single-player stuff that I'd be wary of, to be honest. Besides the STALKER series, a lot of them have simply been graphical showcases with short and boring gameplay.

Thanks all.

When Battlefield was first released, I really liked the idea of it. I then played the demo and started to get rather frustrated with it. I felt that the visuals were rather poor, considering how much hardware they required. And as you say, I found the imbalance between vehicles and infantry really annoying, vehicles probably weren't the be all - end all problem of the game, but it felt like you could be terrible, and still do well with a vehicle.

Just a quick thing on hardware, am not really up to date on what can run what atm.

Would:

- Power Supply: Corsair Extreme 600W
- CPU: Intel Core i5 760 OC'd @ 4.00GHz
- Motherboard: Asus P7P55D-E Intel P55 (Socket 1156) DDR3 Motherboard
- Cooler: Titan Fenrir CPU Cooler
- RAM: Corsair XMS3 4GB (2x2GB) DDR3 PC3-12800C9 1600MHz Dual Channel Kit

-Sapphire ATI Radeon Hd5850 1024mb GDDR5

Be able to run everything smoothly at high settings? Is there anything in that set-up that bottle-necks the rest, or have a better alternative availible?

Well, I'm not up to date on hardware, so just grabbed a set-up off a website my bro buys his PCs off, since it had an acceptable price. I'm guessing by your response that it should handle things fine.

But are there any multiplayer FPS games that truely stand up to CS and the like?

humanbob1

Try to persuade me about how Counter Strike is better -population aside- than games as Quake Wars or Bad Company 2. Try, please.

No, it's the same junk. What could they do to make it better. You shoot at other players with firearms.

[QUOTE="humanbob1"]

But are there any multiplayer FPS games that truely stand up to CS and the like?

Ondoval

Try to persuade me about how Counter Strike is better -population aside- than games as Quake Wars or Bad Company 2. Try, please.

[QUOTE="humanbob1"]

But are there any multiplayer FPS games that truely stand up to CS and the like?

Ondoval

Try to persuade me about how Counter Strike is better -population aside- than games as Quake Wars or Bad Company 2. Try, please.

Well lets see major international competitions recongize CS 1.6 (And also source to some extent) as the big dog of team games in FPS. You don't see ESWC, MLG, or anyone else picking up Bad Company 2. There is still the ESEA service for it (1.6 was ESEA's premier game when it launched and still is) which thousands of people are paying $7 a month just for a matchmaking network to PUG, SCRIM, or play in the ESEA league(s). There is STILL extensive support by 3rd party developers for CS. The skill ceiling is far higher then any of these new generation shooters which make weapon recoil a moot point. Any key components that a team FPS game would need to be successful are in place and working as they have been for 11 years in CS. People don't run around with Carl Gustav's in CS and blow up an entire team for their 5K ACE ROUND. No noob tubes. No rail gun. Did I mention very team oriented and strategy heavy? HLTV Supprt. Accessible to anyone with a < or = 11 year old pc. The list could go on but I don't see any reason to debate something that should be pretty well known.

[QUOTE="Ondoval"]

[QUOTE="humanbob1"]

But are there any multiplayer FPS games that truely stand up to CS and the like?

4th3ist

Try to persuade me about how Counter Strike is better -population aside- than games as Quake Wars or Bad Company 2. Try, please.

Well lets see major international competitions recongize CS 1.6 (And also source to some extent) as the big dog of team games in FPS. You don't see ESWC, MLG, or anyone else picking up Bad Company 2. There is still the ESEA service for it (1.6 was ESEA's premier game when it launched and still is) which thousands of people are paying $7 a month just for a matchmaking network to PUG, SCRIM, or play in the ESEA league(s). There is STILL extensive support by 3rd party developers for CS. The skill ceiling is far higher then any of these new generation shooters which make weapon recoil a moot point. Any key components that a team FPS game would need to be successful are in place and working as they have been for 11 years in CS. People don't run around with Carl Gustav's in CS and blow up an entire team for their 5K ACE ROUND. No noob tubes. No rail gun. Did I mention very team oriented and strategy heavy? HLTV Supprt. Accessible to anyone with a < or = 11 year old pc. The list could go on but I don't see any reason to debate something that should be pretty well known.

^ I'm not trying to say that QW or BC 2 are the peak of the fps. My point is that the CS games lacks in deep compared to these ones. Look at QW:

-You can deploy a radar, but the radar cab be destroyed, nullified with EMP grenades or hacked; you can deploy proximity mines, but these can be easily destroyed; you can deploy artillery, but your enemy can deploy anti-artillery defenses; you can drive an airship to take advantage against infantry, but infantry can deploy anti air turrets; you can rocket AA turrets, but these turrets can be escorted by anti-infantry deployables; you can plant demolition charges, but they can be stoped... Notice that I didn't digging even the most basic features and differences between the 5 different classes or the ones between the Strogg and GDF forces.

I'm not saying that Quake Wars or BC 2 are better than Counter Strike, but are ten times more deep, more complex and sophisticated. The point in this thread seems to be "shooters are almost equal as 10 years ago", and I think that this a blatant fallacy. Some ones, despite the random success in terms of population and sales, are WAY more complex and deep than Quake, Unreal Tournament and Counter Strike.

^ I'm not trying to say that QW or BC 2 are the peak of the fps. My point is that the CS games lacks in deep compared to these ones. Look at QW:

-You can deploy a radar, but the radar cab be destroyed, nullified with EMP grenades or hacked; you can deploy proximity mines, but these can be easily destroyed; you can deploy artillery, but your enemy can deploy anti-artillery defenses; you can drive an airship to take advantage against infantry, but infantry can deploy anti air turrets; you can rocket AA turrets, but these turrets can be escorted by anti-infantry deployables; you can plant demolition charges, but they can be stoped... Notice that I didn't digging even the most basic features and differences between the 5 different classes or the ones between the Strogg and GDF forces.

I'm not saying that Quake Wars or BC 2 are better than Counter Strike, but are ten times more deep, more complex and sophisticated. The point in this thread seems to be "shooters are almost equal as 10 years ago", and I think that this a blatant fallacy. Some ones, despite the random success in terms of population and sales, are WAY more complex and deep than Quake, Unreal Tournament and Counter Strike.

Ondoval