Why is it that only certain FPS games are really good?(i.e. Bioshock, Condemned)

What is it about Bioshock and Condemned that make them much better than most FPS games? Is it the slower pace and more thought out gameplay? Or is it the atmosphere? Or is it all of those things?

Opinions?

Atmosphere and a decent story/background do wonders for an FPS.Tiefster

100% agreed.

To me, a good single-player FPS experience is all about level design and boss battles. I hate taking out mindless zombies (even the best AI is WEAKSAUCE compared to a human), but a crazy difficult enemy in a low-shelter environment is like a pants party with Jessica Alba.i_like_pizza

Winsauce :lol:

What is it about Bioshock and Condemned that make them much better than most FPS games? Is it the slower pace and more thought out gameplay? Or is it the atmosphere?

Opinions?

Baurus_1

those games have nothing on gears of war, or call of duty 4. it is fun to beat once then it is over. you can beat the story mode in gears and then play online and you can pop that in and be playing against a bunch of people anytime.

you obviously just like storylines and crap in your games and thats why you think those FPS are better than the rest.

[QUOTE="Tiefster"]Atmosphere and a decent story/background do wonders for an FPS.Solid_Snake1221

100% agreed.

Yup. Can't wait for Bloodshot. :D

[QUOTE="Baurus_1"]

What is it about Bioshock and Condemned that make them much better than most FPS games? Is it the slower pace and more thought out gameplay? Or is it the atmosphere?

Opinions?

svp0123

those games have nothing on gears of war, or call of duty 4. it is fun to beat once then it is over. you can beat the story mode in gears and then play online and you can pop that in and be playing against a bunch of people anytime.

you obviously just like storylines and crap in your games and thats why you think those FPS are better than the rest.

Sooooo close...Tell me, what is wrong with a story? After all, GOW and COD4 both have a story to them...

[QUOTE="svp0123"][QUOTE="Baurus_1"]

What is it about Bioshock and Condemned that make them much better than most FPS games? Is it the slower pace and more thought out gameplay? Or is it the atmosphere?

Opinions?

FLAMEINSANE

those games have nothing on gears of war, or call of duty 4. it is fun to beat once then it is over. you can beat the story mode in gears and then play online and you can pop that in and be playing against a bunch of people anytime.

you obviously just like storylines and crap in your games and thats why you think those FPS are better than the rest.

Sooooo close...Tell me, what is wrong with a story? After all, GOW and COD4 both have a story to them...

gears and call of duty stories arent nearly as deep and well writen with as many cut scenes at condemned. and bioshock has RPG elements you can choose your patch customize your abilities and weapons. and the game are based on those elements because there is no multiplayer. COD4, and Gears still have little nice campaigns but games last 5 hours because the main game lyes with the online multiplayer.

ok say im wrong.

but let me guess the TC doesnt have xbox live and doesnt get the hype from those multi player FPS. that is why he likes the none multiplayer FPS which obviously need way more content than those other games like gears, and halo which are mainly multiplayer games.

ok say im wrong.

but let me guess the TC doesnt have xbox live and doesnt get the hype from those multi player FPS. that is why he likes the none multiplayer FPS which obviously need way more content than those other games like gears, and halo which are mainly multiplayer games.

svp0123

Multiplayer is overrated.

[QUOTE="svp0123"]

ok say im wrong.

but let me guess the TC doesnt have xbox live and doesnt get the hype from those multi player FPS. that is why he likes the none multiplayer FPS which obviously need way more content than those other games like gears, and halo which are mainly multiplayer games.

mjarantilla

Multiplayer is overrated.

Like I said earlier, the best computer AI is still weaksauce compared to a human. Get a 20 kill-streak in BF2 without hacks and tell me it was easy to do. Then, get a 50-kill streak and tell me it was easy. Then, score 200 points in a 200 ticket round, and tell me it was easy.

I like my FPSs to be difficult. I like a challenge. There isn't a single-player experience out there that even challenges me in the FPS world, but in the online multiplayer realm, I meet my match every day.

I think gunplay is also important. Generally, if you have that, you can get away with other aspects that aren't as great. It's why F.E.A.R. is so damn good. The environments and story are pretty sub-par, but it's excellent from a pure gameplay standpoint because of the vicious (and IMO, still unparalleled) gunplay and great A.I.

F.E.A.R. does have a pretty foreboding atmosphere, though, but that's not a surprise considering it comes from the guys that did Condemned.

[QUOTE="mjarantilla"][QUOTE="svp0123"]

ok say im wrong.

but let me guess the TC doesnt have xbox live and doesnt get the hype from those multi player FPS. that is why he likes the none multiplayer FPS which obviously need way more content than those other games like gears, and halo which are mainly multiplayer games.

i_like_pizza

Multiplayer is overrated.

Like I said earlier, the best computer AI is still weaksauce compared to a human. Get a 20 kill-streak in BF2 without hacks and tell me it was easy to do. Then, get a 50-kill streak and tell me it was easy. Then, score 200 points in a 200 ticket round, and tell me it was easy.

I like my FPSs to be difficult. I like a challenge. There isn't a single-player experience out there that even challenges me in the FPS world, but in the online multiplayer realm, I meet my match every day.

How about, some of us don't need insane challenges and pointless kill achievements to enjoy games and take more pleasure out of a decent story.

[QUOTE="svp0123"]

ok say im wrong.

but let me guess the TC doesnt have xbox live and doesnt get the hype from those multi player FPS. that is why he likes the none multiplayer FPS which obviously need way more content than those other games like gears, and halo which are mainly multiplayer games.

mjarantilla

Multiplayer is overrated.

Agreed but sadly people are turning into wanting to complete games as fast as possible, ignoring the story and ignoring gameplay elements-or lack thereof.

[QUOTE="i_like_pizza"][QUOTE="mjarantilla"][QUOTE="svp0123"]

ok say im wrong.

but let me guess the TC doesnt have xbox live and doesnt get the hype from those multi player FPS. that is why he likes the none multiplayer FPS which obviously need way more content than those other games like gears, and halo which are mainly multiplayer games.

soulsofblayck

Multiplayer is overrated.

Like I said earlier, the best computer AI is still weaksauce compared to a human. Get a 20 kill-streak in BF2 without hacks and tell me it was easy to do. Then, get a 50-kill streak and tell me it was easy. Then, score 200 points in a 200 ticket round, and tell me it was easy.

I like my FPSs to be difficult. I like a challenge. There isn't a single-player experience out there that even challenges me in the FPS world, but in the online multiplayer realm, I meet my match every day.

How about, some of us don't need insane challenges and pointless kill achievements to enjoy games and take more pleasure out of a decent story.

How about "that's perfectly fine, but I was never the one who said someone else's preference was 'overrated'"? Does that work for you?

[QUOTE="mjarantilla"][QUOTE="svp0123"]

ok say im wrong.

but let me guess the TC doesnt have xbox live and doesnt get the hype from those multi player FPS. that is why he likes the none multiplayer FPS which obviously need way more content than those other games like gears, and halo which are mainly multiplayer games.

i_like_pizza

Multiplayer is overrated.

Like I said earlier, the best computer AI is still weaksauce compared to a human. Get a 20 kill-streak in BF2 without hacks and tell me it was easy to do. Then, get a 50-kill streak and tell me it was easy. Then, score 200 points in a 200 ticket round, and tell me it was easy.

I like my FPSs to be difficult. I like a challenge. There isn't a single-player experience out there that even challenges me in the FPS world, but in the online multiplayer realm, I meet my match every day.

[QUOTE="mjarantilla"][QUOTE="svp0123"]

ok say im wrong.

but let me guess the TC doesnt have xbox live and doesnt get the hype from those multi player FPS. that is why he likes the none multiplayer FPS which obviously need way more content than those other games like gears, and halo which are mainly multiplayer games.

i_like_pizza

Multiplayer is overrated.

Like I said earlier, the best computer AI is still weaksauce compared to a human. Get a 20 kill-streak in BF2 without hacks and tell me it was easy to do. Then, get a 50-kill streak and tell me it was easy. Then, score 200 points in a 200 ticket round, and tell me it was easy.

I like my FPSs to be difficult. I like a challenge. There isn't a single-player experience out there that even challenges me in the FPS world, but in the online multiplayer realm, I meet my match every day.

Well, single player shooters aren't about the challenge, they're about the scenario. At least, that's how it is for me. I play games to experience them, not to "win." As long as the AI isn't getting stuck in walls, I'm cool with it.

[QUOTE="svp0123"]

ok say im wrong.

but let me guess the TC doesnt have xbox live and doesnt get the hype from those multi player FPS. that is why he likes the none multiplayer FPS which obviously need way more content than those other games like gears, and halo which are mainly multiplayer games.

mjarantilla

Multiplayer is overrated.

Not necessarily. However, multiplayer often comes to the detriment of the single-player. I can't imagine how much better a lot of games would have been if they had concentrated solely on single-player and ignored the multiplayer, wihch often ends up lackluster and average at best anyways, and also hurts the single-player. There aren't that many really big multiplayer games, if you think about it. But all of the developers yearn for the next Halo, CoD, CS or WoW-type game. That level of popularity. And it's hurting the industry.

[QUOTE="i_like_pizza"][QUOTE="mjarantilla"][QUOTE="svp0123"]

ok say im wrong.

but let me guess the TC doesnt have xbox live and doesnt get the hype from those multi player FPS. that is why he likes the none multiplayer FPS which obviously need way more content than those other games like gears, and halo which are mainly multiplayer games.

SmokieX

Multiplayer is overrated.

Like I said earlier, the best computer AI is still weaksauce compared to a human. Get a 20 kill-streak in BF2 without hacks and tell me it was easy to do. Then, get a 50-kill streak and tell me it was easy. Then, score 200 points in a 200 ticket round, and tell me it was easy.

I like my FPSs to be difficult. I like a challenge. There isn't a single-player experience out there that even challenges me in the FPS world, but in the online multiplayer realm, I meet my match every day.

Oh, I need to start playing some BF2 again. Some noob named soggybox.biz used to get into it all the time. I think I chased him off shortly after he joined, because he stopped playing after I got him banned a couple of times.

[QUOTE="i_like_pizza"][QUOTE="mjarantilla"][QUOTE="svp0123"]

ok say im wrong.

but let me guess the TC doesnt have xbox live and doesnt get the hype from those multi player FPS. that is why he likes the none multiplayer FPS which obviously need way more content than those other games like gears, and halo which are mainly multiplayer games.

mjarantilla

Multiplayer is overrated.

Like I said earlier, the best computer AI is still weaksauce compared to a human. Get a 20 kill-streak in BF2 without hacks and tell me it was easy to do. Then, get a 50-kill streak and tell me it was easy. Then, score 200 points in a 200 ticket round, and tell me it was easy.

I like my FPSs to be difficult. I like a challenge. There isn't a single-player experience out there that even challenges me in the FPS world, but in the online multiplayer realm, I meet my match every day.

Well, single player shooters aren't about the challenge, they're about the scenario. At least, that's how it is for me. I play games to experience them, not to "win." As long as the AI isn't getting stuck in walls, I'm cool with it.

I understand, and I'm definitely cool with SP experiences as well. I love HL1 and HL2, FEAR was all right, SIN, NOLFASIHW2 (that's a fun one), etc. There are some really great SP experiences out there that are worth a try regardless of personal preference. I was just saying that MP definitely has its benefits as well.

[QUOTE="mjarantilla"][QUOTE="svp0123"]

ok say im wrong.

but let me guess the TC doesnt have xbox live and doesnt get the hype from those multi player FPS. that is why he likes the none multiplayer FPS which obviously need way more content than those other games like gears, and halo which are mainly multiplayer games.

i_like_pizza

Multiplayer is overrated.

Like I said earlier, the best computer AI is still weaksauce compared to a human. Get a 20 kill-streak in BF2 without hacks and tell me it was easy to do. Then, get a 50-kill streak and tell me it was easy. Then, score 200 points in a 200 ticket round, and tell me it was easy.

I like my FPSs to be difficult. I like a challenge. There isn't a single-player experience out there that even challenges me in the FPS world, but in the online multiplayer realm, I meet my match every day.

true that. AI is repetitive nonsense humans are smart you battling real brains! online multi player is what its about. ill take a good RPG over a good online shooter because they are more rare but the other FPS that dont bring really good online play like gears or duty are just weak. bioshock was pretty cool though.

What is it about Bioshock and Condemned that make them much better than most FPS games? Is it the slower pace and more thought out gameplay? Or is it the atmosphere? Or is it all of those things?

Opinions?

Baurus_1

Oh, I need to start playing some BF2 again. Some noob named soggybox.biz used to get into it all the time. I think I chased him off shortly after he joined, because he stopped playing after I got him banned a couple of times.

i_like_pizza

I understand, and I'm definitely cool with SP experiences as well. I love HL1 and HL2, FEAR was all right, SIN, NOLFASIHW2 (that's a fun one), etc. There are some really great SP experiences out there that are worth a try regardless of personal preference. I was just saying that MP definitely has its benefits as well.

i_like_pizza

Sure, but as someone said earlier, I don't think a game's single player should ever be compromised just to add in multiplayer. There are some games that are obviously tailored for it, like Gears of War, where the single-player is little more than a UE3 tech demo. But there are some games that would have simply been better if they had focused on the single-player. Like Halo, for example, which has a very story-centric single-player game that would have drastically benefited from being a main priority. An epic Halo trilogy of 45-60 total hours, instead of the anemic 20-30 hour trilogy we get now? I'd take that over multiplayer.

It's in gamers' best interests for the industry to release only maybe three or four really good MP/SP games and thirty good SP games, than to have three or four really good MP/SP games, fifteen decent MP/SP games, and fifteen good SP games, because in all likelihood, gamers will play all of their SP games, but will only play the top few multiplayer games. Of course, devs will never do this, because multiplayer is the "big selling point" of the "next gen." So, of course, everything has to have multiplayer.

[QUOTE="i_like_pizza"]

I understand, and I'm definitely cool with SP experiences as well. I love HL1 and HL2, FEAR was all right, SIN, NOLFASIHW2 (that's a fun one), etc. There are some really great SP experiences out there that are worth a try regardless of personal preference. I was just saying that MP definitely has its benefits as well.

mjarantilla

Sure, but as someone said earlier, I don't think a game's single player should ever be compromised just to add in multiplayer. There are some games that are obviously tailored for it, like Gears of War, where the single-player is little more than a UE3 tech demo. But there are some games that would have simply been better if they had focused on the single-player. Like Halo, for example, which has a very story-centric single-player game that would have drastically benefited from being a main priority. An epic Halo trilogy of 45-60 total hours, instead of the anemic 20-30 hour trilogy we get now? I'd take that over multiplayer.

It's in gamers' best interests for the industry to release only maybe three or four really good MP/SP games and thirty good SP games, than to have three or four really good MP/SP games, fifteen decent MP/SP games, and fifteen good SP games, because in all likelihood, gamers will play all of their SP games, but will only play the top few multiplayer games. Of course, devs will never do this, because multiplayer is the "big selling point" of the "next gen." So, of course, everything has to have multiplayer.

yeah you would take more hours of halo single player with a better story line etc etc but they choose multi player to focus on and thus causing the game to become one of the most successful franchises in gaming history.

hay, maybe multi player isn't as overrated as you think it is?

like i said you either don't have xbox live if you say condemned and bioshock are far ahead of the other FPS. i know from first hand i use to be one. i didnt care at all about xbox live and didn't get why games like halo and call of duty were so loved because i would rent them and think that is nothing special. but i later played them online and now i know why these games get the reviews they do.

[QUOTE="i_like_pizza"]

I understand, and I'm definitely cool with SP experiences as well. I love HL1 and HL2, FEAR was all right, SIN, NOLFASIHW2 (that's a fun one), etc. There are some really great SP experiences out there that are worth a try regardless of personal preference. I was just saying that MP definitely has its benefits as well.

mjarantilla

Sure, but as someone said earlier, I don't think a game's single player should ever be compromised just to add in multiplayer. There are some games that are obviously tailored for it, like Gears of War, where the single-player is little more than a UE3 tech demo. But there are some games that would have simply been better if they had focused on the single-player. Like Halo, for example, which has a very story-centric single-player game that would have drastically benefited from being a main priority. An epic Halo trilogy of 45-60 total hours, instead of the anemic 20-30 hour trilogy we get now? I'd take that over multiplayer.

It's in gamers' best interests for the industry to release only maybe three or four really good MP/SP games and thirty good SP games, than to have three or four really good MP/SP games, fifteen decent MP/SP games, and fifteen good SP games, because in all likelihood, gamers will play all of their SP games, but will only play the top few multiplayer games. Of course, devs will never do this, because multiplayer is the "big selling point" of the "next gen." So, of course, everything has to have multiplayer.

but i kind of agree with your second point. because there are so many devs concentrate so much on the MP of their games i would rather just have more SP games because the MP games dont stop coming.