Why do generic FPS games have scores anyware near a 9 ???

Because they're good at what they're doing.

Because they're good at what they're doing.

Baranga

Here's how I see things:

A great FPS doesn't need RPG/RTS elements in it to be better for the same reason a shark doesn't need legs to hunt better. They are just perfect that way, they don't need to evolve drastically to be better.

All the games you mentioned focus on the fundamentals of what makes good FPS, and they make sure to always bring those basics to the next generation with top-notch production values and minor tweaks to the formula.

Call of Duty, Medal of Honor and Crysis 2 were fun SP Campaigns imo.....FelipeInside

I loved Black Ops and Medal Of Honor's campaign, I have yet to finish Crysis 2 and Homefront's campaign though.

They may be generic but what they're doing it's being done well so... why complain?

[QUOTE="Baranga"]

Because they're good at what they're doing.

wigan_gamer

A 9 doesn't necessarily mean classic. It just means that it does what it does incredibly well.

[QUOTE="wigan_gamer"][QUOTE="Baranga"]

Because they're good at what they're doing.

Phoenix534

A 9 doesn't necessarily mean classic. It just means that it does what it does incredibly well.

Firstly, most reviews are full of ****.

Secondly, these games tend to be on the popular side.

Firstly, most reviews are full of ****.

Secondly, these games tend to be on the popular side.

Barbariser

All the games you mentioned focus on the fundamentals of what makes good FPS, and they make sure to always bring those basics to the next generation with top-notch production values and minor tweaks to the formula.

Majd_Abdulqadir

This. And as soon as game developers start messin' with the formula, you don't get a shooter that's tighter than a squirrel's butt. You get a "Terducken" like Bioshock.

[QUOTE="Phoenix534"]

[QUOTE="wigan_gamer"] Then they are above average, not near classic.wigan_gamer

A 9 doesn't necessarily mean classic. It just means that it does what it does incredibly well.

Because most reviewers know that scores don't mean anything and just enter a number. The only people who care about scores are overly sensitive fanboys. The review is all that matters.

[QUOTE="wigan_gamer"][QUOTE="Phoenix534"]

A 9 doesn't necessarily mean classic. It just means that it does what it does incredibly well.

Phoenix534

Because most reviewers know that scores don't mean anything and just enter a number. The only people who care about scores are overly sensitive fanboys. The review is all that matters.

[QUOTE="Phoenix534"]

[QUOTE="wigan_gamer"] a 7.5-8.5 should mean incredibly well. Anything above 9 should be reserved for only the most innovative games, or ones that stand out in the genre above the rest. Games are rated so badly compared to say music or films, in which rating systems work better.wigan_gamer

Because most reviewers know that scores don't mean anything and just enter a number. The only people who care about scores are overly sensitive fanboys. The review is all that matters.

I think we shouldn't try to impose an objective rating scale for subjective experiences. If I enjoy the **** out of a game then I'm going to give it a high mark and I won't give a damn about people informing me that I'm wrong.

[QUOTE="Baranga"]

Because they're good at what they're doing.

wigan_gamer

likely because they nail the fundamentals?

theres a saying among cooks: "the quality of the chef is determined by the quality of their most simple dish". I feel this applies to many other things as well; its really easy to come up with neat ideas, or to make a really big and complex game, but to perfect the basics is incredibly difficult and ultimately much more important.

I'd sooner eat a perfectly cooked grilled chicken with a good simple sauce than some supercomplex chicken dish that overcooks the chicken, and I'd sooner play a simple and vanilla shooter than nails the basics than some innovative half-assed game riddled with bugs.

Example: lets look at Brink. Great ideas, cool setting, and a pretty straightforward premise. But the fundamentals are missing; its buggy, the controls are screwy, there are not enough levels, and it just doesnt feel good to play. They had the right components, but they screwed up the basics.

[QUOTE="wigan_gamer"][QUOTE="Baranga"]

Because they're good at what they're doing.

guynamedbilly

If I only played FPS / RPG games I would not be reviewing a simulator for example as I have no comparison or baseline to recommend it to people.

What is the difference between Call of Duty Black ops and Homefront or Medal of honor or even Crisis 2 .. .Has anybody noticed the lack of originality or innovation for fps lately ? The market is flooded with sequels that are always the same why hasn't this tendency received punishment in review scores ??? DragutinTodos

I don't know? Why did Fallout 3 receive a 100/100 on some sites? I think the common thread here is that all of these are blockbuster titles by huge companies, not that they actually deserved the score.

On the other hand, I'd say all the FPS games you mentioned probably accomplish the hell out of what they claim to do, as opposed to an RPG that says "innovative, dynamic combat system" and when you play it, the combat contains two swing types and a block.

If that is the case it is a great game, but you must then compare it to previous releases in the genre and justify why you would play it over similar games. For example torchlight takes clear inspiration (to the point of being a ripoff) from diablo yet it is actually lacking a huge feature, multi player. Even so it scores only 0.5 less which I think is criminal. For instance it is cheap + runs well on a range of machines being a positive, even though D2 is both cheaper and easier to run, not to mention the poor graphics should be a negative considering the time difference in release. I could go into it more but this is why the system is flawed, it takes away praise where it is justified and gives it out too freely where it isn't and falsely hypes up games that you could have played years ago (or at least something very similar)wigan_gamer

Well that's easy to do for Diablo clones and impossible for most other genres. What game would you compare Supreme Commander to, Total Annihilation? Or what about RUSE?

[QUOTE="DragutinTodos"]What is the difference between Call of Duty Black ops and Homefront or Medal of honor or even Crisis 2 .. .Has anybody noticed the lack of originality or innovation for fps lately ? The market is flooded with sequels that are always the same why hasn't this tendency received punishment in review scores ??? snared04

I don't know? Why did Fallout 3 receive a 100/100 on some sites? I think the common thread here is that all of these are blockbuster titles by huge companies, not that they actually deserved the score.

On the other hand, I'd say all the FPS games you mentioned probably accomplish the hell out of what they claim to do, as opposed to an RPG that says "innovative, dynamic combat system" and when you play it, the combat contains two swing types and a block.

...and MMO Devs who say their new MMO is a REVOLUTION in the MMO scene and will change MMOs forever...

If I could get a dollar for every time they said that I would be Donald Trump Rich...

[QUOTE="snared04"]

[QUOTE="DragutinTodos"]What is the difference between Call of Duty Black ops and Homefront or Medal of honor or even Crisis 2 .. .Has anybody noticed the lack of originality or innovation for fps lately ? The market is flooded with sequels that are always the same why hasn't this tendency received punishment in review scores ??? FelipeInside

I don't know? Why did Fallout 3 receive a 100/100 on some sites? I think the common thread here is that all of these are blockbuster titles by huge companies, not that they actually deserved the score.

On the other hand, I'd say all the FPS games you mentioned probably accomplish the hell out of what they claim to do, as opposed to an RPG that says "innovative, dynamic combat system" and when you play it, the combat contains two swing types and a block.

...and MMO Devs who say their new MMO is a REVOLUTION in the MMO scene and will change MMOs forever...

If I could get a dollar for every time they said that I would be Donald Trump Rich...

[QUOTE="DragutinTodos"]What is the difference between Call of Duty Black ops and Homefront or Medal of honor or even Crisis 2 .. .Has anybody noticed the lack of originality or innovation for fps lately ? The market is flooded with sequels that are always the same why hasn't this tendency received punishment in review scores ??? snared04

I don't know? Why did Fallout 3 receive a 100/100 on some sites? I think the common thread here is that all of these are blockbuster titles by huge companies, not that they actually deserved the score.

On the other hand, I'd say all the FPS games you mentioned probably accomplish the hell out of what they claim to do, as opposed to an RPG that says "innovative, dynamic combat system" and when you play it, the combat contains two swing types and a block.

Because they started gaming this gen.

Some shooters that got a 9 here are like a 7 to me, I even reviewed one.

Cause they are good games, without any major game killing flaws. There is nothing generic about them. All play alot differently.i5750at4Ghz

Regenerating health with blood red screen? Check. Leveling up gimmick in multiplayer (and occasionally single player)? Check. Ai that comes at you in hordes as opposed to decent ai? Check. All weapons shoot perfectly straight by simply right clicking to ads? Check. The list goes on and on.

It makes 0 sense to reward the next Call of Duty for doing nothing but what could have been a dlc every year.

[QUOTE="Majd_Abdulqadir"]

All the games you mentioned focus on the fundamentals of what makes good FPS, and they make sure to always bring those basics to the next generation with top-notch production values and minor tweaks to the formula.

Ricardo41

This. And as soon as game developers start messin' with the formula, you don't get a shooter that's tighter than a squirrel's butt. You get a "Terducken" like Bioshock.

lolwut. I'd rather play Bioshock over Blops or MoH or any other throwaway fps any day of the week.

Generic shooting, weak story/plot, no sense of atmosphere or life, carrot-on-a-stick multiplayer progression and lack of real depth are the norm nowadays. High production values and a cinematic like experience are great and all, but i'd rather just watch Heat, The Matrix, Hard Boiled, or Saving Private Ryan and save $50-60 for a game that at least tries to do something a little different, or will have some replay value.

[QUOTE="Majd_Abdulqadir"]

All the games you mentioned focus on the fundamentals of what makes good FPS, and they make sure to always bring those basics to the next generation with top-notch production values and minor tweaks to the formula.

Ricardo41

This. And as soon as game developers start messin' with the formula, you don't get a shooter that's tighter than a squirrel's butt. You get a "Terducken" like Bioshock.

Lol, Bioshock is the best FPS game since Half Life 2, Far Cry, Doom 3 era. I wish there were more games like that and not Medal of Honor 2010 or Homefront crap.

Seems to be a lot of mixed views on what's a great FPS game. And this probably explains why most developers stick to the same formula that has garnered them a lot of success in sales. If an fps game sells 5+ million, why would they turn it into something radically different? But we've seen it many times, games that sell well doesn't mean it's great. At least, for some of us that is.Elann2008

[QUOTE="Elann2008"]Seems to be a lot of mixed views on what's a great FPS game. And this probably explains why most developers stick to the same formula that has garnered them a lot of success in sales. If an fps game sells 5+ million, why would they turn it into something radically different? But we've seen it many times, games that sell well doesn't mean it's great. At least, for some of us that is.masterdrat

[QUOTE="Ricardo41"]

[QUOTE="Majd_Abdulqadir"]

All the games you mentioned focus on the fundamentals of what makes good FPS, and they make sure to always bring those basics to the next generation with top-notch production values and minor tweaks to the formula.

PTMags

This. And as soon as game developers start messin' with the formula, you don't get a shooter that's tighter than a squirrel's butt. You get a "Terducken" like Bioshock.

lolwut. I'd rather play Bioshock over Blops or MoH or any other throwaway fps any day of the week.

Generic shooting, weak story/plot, no sense of atmosphere or life, carrot-on-a-stick multiplayer progression and lack of real depth are the norm nowadays. High production values and a cinematic like experience are great and all, but i'd rather just watch Heat, The Matrix, Hard Boiled, or Saving Private Ryan and save $50-60 for a game that at least tries to do something a little different, or will have some replay value.

As would I, which is why I own Bioshock and not any of the modern CoD or MoH games. However Bioshock isn't really MP friendly is it? And that's what this gen of gamers is looking for, by and large. So when a company makes a solid FPS with emphasis on MP, it gets a high score, period.

[QUOTE="PTMags"]

[QUOTE="Ricardo41"]

This. And as soon as game developers start messin' with the formula, you don't get a shooter that's tighter than a squirrel's butt. You get a "Terducken" like Bioshock.

snared04

lolwut. I'd rather play Bioshock over Blops or MoH or any other throwaway fps any day of the week.

Generic shooting, weak story/plot, no sense of atmosphere or life, carrot-on-a-stick multiplayer progression and lack of real depth are the norm nowadays. High production values and a cinematic like experience are great and all, but i'd rather just watch Heat, The Matrix, Hard Boiled, or Saving Private Ryan and save $50-60 for a game that at least tries to do something a little different, or will have some replay value.

As would I, which is why I own Bioshock and not any of the modern CoD or MoH games. However Bioshock isn't really MP friendly is it? And that's what this gen of gamers is looking for, by and large. So when a company makes a solid FPS with emphasis on MP, it gets a high score, period.

Yeah but MoH, Crysis 2, Homefront and almost all other generic fps games have empty servers since day one. Those games aren't popular online! The exception is CoD of course which is the only "generic fps series" I approve.

[QUOTE="snared04"]

[QUOTE="PTMags"]

lolwut. I'd rather play Bioshock over Blops or MoH or any other throwaway fps any day of the week.

Generic shooting, weak story/plot, no sense of atmosphere or life, carrot-on-a-stick multiplayer progression and lack of real depth are the norm nowadays. High production values and a cinematic like experience are great and all, but i'd rather just watch Heat, The Matrix, Hard Boiled, or Saving Private Ryan and save $50-60 for a game that at least tries to do something a little different, or will have some replay value.

jernas

As would I, which is why I own Bioshock and not any of the modern CoD or MoH games. However Bioshock isn't really MP friendly is it? And that's what this gen of gamers is looking for, by and large. So when a company makes a solid FPS with emphasis on MP, it gets a high score, period.

Yeah but MoH, Crysis 2, Homefront and almost all other generic fps games have empty servers since day one. Those games aren't popular online! The exception is CoD of course which is the only "generic fps series" I approve.

That's not true. I can get into an MoH match whenever I want. There are still plenty of servers. I don't know about Crysis 2 and Homefront, but I'm sure they're doing fine. Homefront's MP is pretty fun.