Whats worse? open world games of this gen or modern military FPS of last gen?

Last gen, I felt like only FPS were selling like gangbusters. I hated that with a passion. Everyone I knew that played games would talk about COD, battlefeild, etc. It felt like poison to the industry because developers would slap together a military fps and push it like crazy instead of investing in different unique games.

I dont feel like that about open world games this gen. Open world games are selling because they are actually good games. Some genres that didnt see open worlds before see them now because technology has made it easier to achieve.

Honestly, open world games aren't "taking over". Nowhere near how fps games did last gen.

I feel like there's a good amount of new open world games that are pretty good. Open world games have the opportunity to be different from one another in many respects, while last gen military FPS games didn't have the chance to differ that much. So I would definitely say that the older military FPS games are much, much worse.

I hate the:

• Throwaway singleplayer
• Multiplayer based around unlocks and XP and all that ****

Let's not forget how last gen we saw Call of Juarez The Cartel and Medal of Honor Warfighter, some of the worst examples of modern military shooters.

Open world games because most of them are so lifeless and boring. The only great ones this gen are GTA V and Witcher 3. I actually liked a lot of the military shooters last gen. CoD and Battlefield were great last gen. They started sucking this gen.

but apparently 2 of most overrated games of this gen too.

In your opinion. You're wrong of course, but I respect your opinion.

Open world. They take longer to beat.

I don't believe its a genre that is the worst thing.

If I had to play video games by your preferences I would give this hobby up. Doom, Metro, Stalker, Max Payne blah blah. Why even be involved if you dislike so much? That is what is worse to me.

LOL when it comes to MOH Warfighter I'll say one thing, my entire company in the Army preferred its gunplay and sound effects to almost any other military FPS. That's the sound and punch our weapons actually had.

Military games are far worse and have scored far worse.

I think the open world trend is refreshing. Military FPS last gen was too much.

Vast, empty worlds full of copy and pasted mediocrity.

In truth I would not call either "worse" Level design and pacing is far more importnat.

If I had to choose I would say that Last gen military shooters are worse, mostly based off of horrible level design, constant "stop and go" pacing, short length and often stuffed with more unneeded set pieces then a movie O.o (for an interactive media this is a huge sin).

Open world games have way more variation to begin with, genres and such. In FPS games they offer more tactical ways of handling a situation, and sadly while the level design is often fairly simple, it is far better then the corridor shooter nr#38 (corridor often being too generous, as curved line often fit better).

Open world games CAN be bad. If there is an open world with no reason to exist, it is an issue. And the grid type of respawning you often see, just irks me to no end "clear outpost, walk 10 steps, and the whole outpost is populated again"

But as a whole, Open world games have some really nice advantages, in choice, ability t o give a more natural pacing (just as long as it has pacing). Far better world building. And in say FPS, it gives a wider range of weapons its due.

In RPGs it simply feels more natural to have a huge world where you can travel to and from, with cities and such, the lack of interruption from loadingscreens, and barriers much more rare. You get more of the feeling of place and people.

3rd person action games, well these have had open world games since forever, they have always worked. But they suffer of the potential pitfalls too ironically. L.A. Noire is a prime example. Where you have a huge city, and nothing really to do in it, except walking and driving around, sure it is good for atmosphere, and can be good for a more natural pacing, but an empty open world generally ain't a good thing.

Now a very very bad thing in open world design, is the quest marker, effectively driving a large amount of players to steer through a game world, never once watching the world around them, or explore. if you have even SLIGHT OCD tendencies ,the quest marker can be absolutely horrible, robbing you of much of the enjoyment. A general area marker seems to work just fine. But the pinpoint one... oooh they bad..

Spot on this!

Nothing is more redundant than military games in general. Can you even imagine working on these? Your boss: "Ok team I have this great idea! Lets make a military gun game!" The entire dev team: Collective groan of sheer boredom. Military games are where game developers imaginations go to die.

And it ended up killing those two franchises since they tried too hard to be like Call Of Duty

no call of juarez didnot get killed. gunslinger release later which is last and best (or i can say only good) game in franchise.

I definitely am not a fan of military shooters, you've played one you've played them all I think.

Last gens Modern Military for sure. They where all the same 5 hour hallway shooters, with next to no story and no efforts put in.

Open world at least has potential. It can be so many different things. Medieval/Fantasy, Sci-Fi, Post Apocalypse, Modern day, and if done right, it can greatly add to the game.

I like the seamless integration of FPS and flying aircraft in Far Cry 4. The open world allows me almost total freedom to do what I want. Unlike most linear games, I don't like being led a path someone else made for me or being ordered around. Most linear military games (and most games in general) are that way.

Let me enjoy the game my way.

Neither. Sniper threads are the worst.

Eh, both had their moments, and both got samey and old at times. That said, even those samey military shooters still gave me at least 5 1/2 hours of shooting stuff. Bad open world games are straight up boring.

Nah, his threads are amusing.

Nothing wrong with open worlds in most cases

Too many nonos in military FPS games of past gen

Many open world games start of with a positive burst that ultimately dissipates becoming stale well before the final act.

Call Of Duty style shooters are generally barely interactive 4-5 hour movies with simplstic level design and interchangeable enemies centered around a joyless story under the impression it's a high-concept thriller.

Generally something, even if it's a nugget can be chipped from the majority of open world titles, where as with Call Of Duty style shooters it serves as a reminder of how far the genre has fallen.

I want FPS shooter games to go back to just being a game.

Doom and Wolfenstein fills that void. No need for things to be overly realistic. I want it to be dumb and fun.

I know but The Cartel had significantly hurt the overall franchises reception, everyone that liked the previous games drifted away and everyone that thought it was another generic modern military shooter didn't bother to look at the rest of the franchise.

Last gen's modern military shooters.

Open world games are popular indeed, but there's also a huge amount of diversity. Unlike in the past, we have hundreds of indies and even AAAs embracing most genres now.

the COD type games are the reason why last gen is worst gen of all time.

Gritty and bland modern military FPS of last gen. Nothing worse.

Isn't it insulting that linear shites like Call of Duty have quest arrows? The genre have fallen awfully.

We'll have to agree to disagree on that one.

Last gen, most FPS games were short (focusing on the MP for their longevity), being very linear and scripted, and this was a formula we saw over saturated. And while open world can get repetitive and formulaic in it's own way of side quest structure, I can at least appreciate it for giving the medium of games what it needs most; freedom to the player. Freedom that makes the medium an interactive engagement for the player, imposing less restrictions so they can explore and exercize more of their own prerogative.

It's not perfect as it does rely on grinding and some degree of copy/paste padding, but has much potential that developers are only starting to tap into. It's like how clumsy early 3D mechanics were when games were transitioning out of 2D. Call me an optimist but I'm expecting to see progress down the road, with more experience and experimentation, game makers will better be able to incorporate open world design that more effectively utilizes its strengths in a manner complementary to rest of the design as a whole - when it becomes so seamless in a "whole greater than the sum of its parts" execution, creating an engaging dynamic interactive experience.... what games should be.

I dont really think there is an over saturation of Open world stuff since most of them are great and hugely different. Completely different thing to the FPS craze.

I think open world is more of a progression, is there a reason for a shooter to be linear instead of open world? An RPG? Almost all genres really could do with an open world. It's always better to have choice. There are possibly pitfalls to open world games. There can be pacing issues, or too many "fetch" quests (or other repetitive actions). I've been playing MGS V and it's crazy that it probably takes 150 hours to do every mission in a 3rd person shooter. I consider this a very well done open world game, but realistically, like 90% of that is probably repetitive. But in general, I like that more games are trending open world. Although I have several others (besides MGS V) in my backlog that I know take like 50-100+ hours to "complete", and that makes me hesitate a bit before stating them. Sometimes I just want to blow through a 10 hour game.