262 replies to this topic

[DeathofSelf]

Windies, on 28 May 2013 - 07:01 AM, said:

1.) Doom
2.) Quake
3.) Hexen
4.) Wolfenstein
5.) Rise of the Triads
6.) Shadow Warrior
7.) Half-Life
8.) Unreal Tournament
9.) Max Payne
10.) No One Lives Forever
11.) Medal of Honor Allied Assault
12.) Red Orchestra
13.) Far Cry
14.) Crysis
15.) Counter-Strike
16.) Operation Flashpoint
17.) Borderlands
18.) Battlefield 1942
19.) Deus Ex
20.) Alan Wake
21.) Killing Floor
22.) Dead Island
23.) Call of Duty
24.) Blood
25.) Tribes
26.) AvP
27.) Rainbow Six series
28.) Perfect Dark, if you want to include console shooters. Not sure about the article and whether it's PC only or not.
29.) F.E.A.R.
30.) System Shock
31.) Halo
32.) Duke Nukem
33.) Mechwarrior series

There's 33 Shooters and their collective iterations that I can think of as being the best shooters of all time. All of them brought something unique to the genre in some form or another, and were considered to be the best of their respective times. If you wanted to separate them into each game of a series, you're looking at 100 titles easily. MW:O doesn't hold a candle to any of them.

Whether you love MW:O or you hate MW:O, there is nothing exceptionally novel or great about MW:O as to have it beat out any of those 33 games for a spot on the greatest shooters of all time. Take from it what you will, but to those saying that there aren't that many great shooters and MW:O deserves a spot in the top 25, I don't think so.

Yes! Hexen and Rise of the Triad! So awesome, you forgot Heretic though!... Oh my childhood

[Shumabot]

Lugh, on 28 May 2013 - 03:19 AM, said:

How they manage it with such crash issues abounding I'll never know...

By using currency in exchange for a service. It's not a conspiracy, that is how videogame journalism, especially in print media, is run. PC gamer is basically a sales catalog these days, they've have to monetize every inch of every page to keep from going under.

[Gallowglas]

Given that I'm playing this far longer than some of those games listed, yes, I think it's deserved. Despite all the angst expressed in the forums, I still see a lot of the biggest complainers in game as well, so they must be doing something right, even if they're not doing everything you want them to do right now. Obviously nothing is ever perfect and there are things to still add, correct, tighten up, etc. but I think the direction of things, even if it's occasionally slow, is a good one.

[Windies]

Belorion, on 28 May 2013 - 07:08 AM, said:

I don't play any other FPS, and have only tried a few so from my perspective this is the best one.

Bias much?

Gallowglas, on 28 May 2013 - 07:58 AM, said:

Given that I'm playing this far longer than some of those games listed, yes, I think it's deserved. Despite all the angst expressed in the forums, I still see a lot of the biggest complainers in game as well, so they must be doing something right, even if they're not doing everything you want them to do right now. Obviously nothing is ever perfect and there are things to still add, correct, tighten up, etc. but I think the direction of things, even if it's occasionally slow, is a good one.

What does this game add to the series that is missing from the others? What is so novel and unique about this game as to make it "better" than others of the same series and also other games of the same genre?

The question isn't whether you like it, or if you play the **** out of it. The question or the judgement is whether this game is unique and brings forth idea's and concepts that are unique and therefor make it one of the best shooters.
There are plenty of games that I like, that even though I like them there is nothing that makes them greater than most other games.

[Gallowglas]

Windies, on 28 May 2013 - 09:22 AM, said:

What does this game add to the series that is missing from the others? What is so novel and unique about this game as to make it "better" than others of the same series and also other games of the same genre?

The question isn't whether you like it, or if you play the **** out of it. The question or the judgement is whether this game is unique and brings forth idea's and concepts that are unique and therefor make it one of the best shooters.
There are plenty of games that I like, that even though I like them there is nothing that makes them greater than most other games.

That's your own criteria of what qualities a "best shooter" must implement to be included. Sometimes a game doesn't have to innovate, so much as bring a unique blend of great feature sets in order to be great. Conversely, just because something is unique and innovative doesn't necessarily mean it's fun or memorable.

That said, I would argue that many of the shooters you might care to name are less unique than MWO if that's your criteria. How many shooters assign modular damage to the hit locations? How many allow for different, customized weapon builds and/or loadouts? Actually, I could go on and on about things which differentiate MWO. Yes, perhaps some or all existed in previous iterations of the series. You could say the same about a lot of game properties. How different, really, was HalfLife 2 from HalfLife in terms of features? With MWO, there are enough nuanced differences and updated graphics to make it stand out in my mind.

For myself, I wouldn't rate it highly because it's somehow unique. I'd rate it highly because I consider it to be fun, to have a great deal of replay appeal, and because it lets me drive big, stompy, shooty robots that I played TT with back in high school.

Is it perfect? No. Does it sometimes frustrate me? Yes. Do I think it's always balanced? No. However, there have been some other great games that have similar flaws out there. WoW and Mass Effect come immediately to mind. Both were great games with huge flaws.

Regardless, I'm guessing some here are not looking for an objective analysis of why someone might rate MWO as great. You've already made up your minds. And that's fine. We all have opinions.

Edited by Gallowglas, 28 May 2013 - 09:56 AM.

[Shumabot]

Quote

That's your own criteria of what qualities a "best shooter" must implement to be included. Sometimes a game doesn't have to innovate, so much as bring a unique blend of great feature sets in order to be great. Conversely, just because something is unique and innovative doesn't necessarily mean it's fun or memorable.

Those same criteria can cause a game to be a disorganized mess too.

Quote

I'd rate it highly because I consider it to be fun, to have a great deal of replay appeal, and because it lets me drive big, stompy, shooty robots that I played TT with back in high school.

I strongly suspect it wouldn't have the first two for you if it didn't have the last. The level of experiential novelty based replayability in this game is rock bottom. Until they do something to encourage meaningful build diversity and accelerate their map release schedule this games round to round variety (and thus replay appeal) is objectively poor. Without the BT license this game would be dead and you wouldn't be playing it.

Quote

Is it perfect? No. Does it sometimes frustrate me? Yes. Do I think it's always balanced? No. However, there have been some other great games that have similar flaws out there. WoW and Mass Effect come immediately to mind. Both were great games with huge flaws.

I'd like to hear how WoW and ME have "similar" flaws. They aren't flawless, to be sure, but what is wrong with those games is vastly different and incomparable to what is wrong with this game.

Quote

Regardless, I'm guessing some here are not looking for an objective analysis of why someone might rate MWO as great. You've already made up your minds. And that's fine. We all have opinions.

So far I've been just about the only one giving an "objective" analysis of this game. The idea that all opinions are ok because they're opinions is nonsense, opinions can be objectively wrong. We have a measles outbreak right now in this country because "opinions" are keeping kids from getting vaccines. Opinions can be terrible things worth fighting.

Edited by Shumabot, 28 May 2013 - 10:06 AM.

[Sephlock]

I'm a little curious: To those of you who think MW:O deserves a spot on the top 25 OF ALL TIME list: When were you born?

Seriously, I'm curious. It may just be a rose colored glasses thing, but I find it hard to believe that a game that is (aggressively said to be) still in beta is apparently better than the vast majority of other shooters EVER MADE.

[PropagandaWar]

Greyfyl, on 24 May 2013 - 08:50 AM, said:

And how much time do you really think the people at PC Gamer have spent playing MWO? MWO has some wonderful aspects that can be impressive in the short term, but it quickly loses it's luster once you have hung around for any fair amount of time.

What's a fair amount of time? I have played this game relentlesly for a year now every and almost every single day even if its just a couple drops. That is way more time than I have put into any video game for years.

[Greyfyl]

I find this whole thread freaking hilarious. It's as if many of you have no clue how businesses operate in today's society. Get out in the real world for a couple of years and then tell me this whole thing isn't a bit......fishy?

[Gallowglas]

Shumabot, on 28 May 2013 - 10:05 AM, said:

Those same criteria can cause a game to be a disorganized mess too.

I'm not saying they can't. Thus, my use of the word "sometimes".

Shumabot, on 28 May 2013 - 10:05 AM, said:

I strongly suspect it wouldn't have the first two for you if it didn't have the last. The level of experiential novelty based replayability in this game is rock bottom. Until they do something to encourage meaningful build diversity and accelerate their map release schedule this games round to round variety (and thus replay appeal) is objectively poor. Without the BT license this game would be dead and you wouldn't be playing it.

Your suspicion is incorrect. I wouldn't still be eagerly playing a game nearly a year later based solely on nostalgia. If nostalgia is all it took to hook me on a game, I'd still be playing Everquest.

Shumabot, on 28 May 2013 - 10:05 AM, said:

I'd like to hear how WoW and ME have "similar" flaws. They aren't flawless, to be sure, but what is wrong with those games is vastly different and incomparable to what is wrong with this game.

I wasn't trying to offer a direct point-by-point comparison of their respective flaws. Rather, that all three have significant flaws.

Shumabot, on 28 May 2013 - 10:05 AM, said:

So far I've been just about the only one giving an "objective" analysis of this game. The idea that all opinions are ok because they're opinions is nonsense, opinions can be objectively wrong. We have a measles outbreak right now in this country because "opinions" are keeping kids from getting vaccines. Opinions can be terrible things worth fighting.

Oh geez. You really have such an overhyped value of your own opinion that you truthfully view yours as the only objective analysis? I can tell you, what I have seen of your opinion is every bit as opinionated and biased as anyone else's. Don't kid yourself.

[Shumabot]

Greyfyl, on 28 May 2013 - 10:12 AM, said:

I find this whole thread freaking hilarious. It's as if many of you have no clue how businesses operate in today's society. Get out in the real world for a couple of years and then tell me this whole thing isn't a bit......fishy?

You can lead a horse to water and describe the specific process and reasons for paid article appearances but you can't force it to understand the lack of journalistic integrity in videogame media.

[Greyfyl]

PropagandaWar, on 28 May 2013 - 10:10 AM, said:

What's a fair amount of time? I have played this game relentlesly for a year now every and almost every single day even if its just a couple drops. That is way more time than I have put into any video game for years.

And for every person like you that plays relentlessly...how many have given up and turned to other games? I played MW3 and MW4 for years....I gave up on MWO after about 3 months, forced myself to play for about 2 more months even though it wasn't really fun, and now play maybe 4 matches per week just to see what they have screwed up now.

[Gallowglas]

Sephlock, on 28 May 2013 - 10:09 AM, said:

I'm a little curious: To those of you who think MW:O deserves a spot on the top 25 OF ALL TIME list: When were you born?

Seriously, I'm curious. It may just be a rose colored glasses thing, but I find it hard to believe that a game that is (aggressively said to be) still in beta is apparently better than the vast majority of other shooters EVER MADE.

1970. I've been playing computer games pretty much from the point that there WERE video games. I remember when games like pong were on arcade floors. I've also played every single commercially available MW title that's out there.

Edited by Gallowglas, 28 May 2013 - 10:17 AM.

[Shumabot]

Quote

Oh geez. You really have such an overhyped value of your own opinion that you truthfully view yours as the only objective analysis? I can tell you, what I have seen of your opinion is every bit as opinionated and biased as anyone else's. Don't kid yourself.

Until you can explain WHY you like the game in the same detail that I can explain its flaws (chew into its gameplay systems and UX/UI decisions, and maybe its social systems) your opinion will not be equal or less "opinionated" than mine. I say WHY I don't like it and go to lengths to explain the areas that need improvement, you just say it's "fun". I understand that it's easier to criticize concisely than it is to praise, humans are wired that way, but I so rarely see any of you actually explain what systems cause you pleasure or encourage your repeated play. It's like discussing art critique with gas station operators half the time, the languages aren't even the same.

Edited by Shumabot, 28 May 2013 - 10:18 AM.

[PropagandaWar]

Sephlock, on 28 May 2013 - 10:09 AM, said:

I'm a little curious: To those of you who think MW:O deserves a spot on the top 25 OF ALL TIME list: When were you born?

Seriously, I'm curious. It may just be a rose colored glasses thing, but I find it hard to believe that a game that is (aggressively said to be) still in beta is apparently better than the vast majority of other shooters EVER MADE.

Born in 1975. I believe I have played just about every shooter out there. I would say that the first few Battlefields, COD and MW were my favorite shooters. PS was ok but not on the top. What I like about MWO besides the big stopmy robots is that it really does require a team. I peronally think respawns would ruin the game. You have one chance to succeed one.

Some say it takes skill to twitch. Hell yeah 10 years ago my reflexes were off the charts and it took muscle memory more than "Skill" on top of that ability to have 10-20 respawans to get it right in the game (Exception some hard core modes). This game requires a different type of skill set. Reading maps, identifying, criticle locations, movement of enemy and team, situational awareness, dealing with multiple weapons systems at varying ranges, friendly fire, weather, etc., etc. While most FPS's have a lot of these in their I do not feel they have all of them least of all the need for Team Work.

[Shumabot]

PropagandaWar, on 28 May 2013 - 10:22 AM, said:

Born in 1975. I believe I have played just about every shooter out there. I would say that the first few Battlefields, COD and MW were my favorite shooters. PS was ok but not on the top. What I like about MWO besides the big stopmy robots is that it really does require a team. I peronally think respawns would ruin the game. You have one chance to succeed one.

Some say it takes skill to twitch. Hell yeah 10 years ago my reflexes were off the charts and it took muscle memory more than "Skill" on top of that ability to have 10-20 respawans to get it right in the game (Exception some hard core modes). This game requires a different type of skill set. Reading maps, identifying, criticle locations, movement of enemy and team, situational awareness, dealing with multiple weapons systems at varying ranges, friendly fire, weather, etc., etc. While most FPS's have a lot of these in their I do not feel they have all of them least of all the need for Team Work.

It certainly is important to know how to edge up to that ridge and only display 8% of your stalker. Knowing when, and when not, to hold down space bar and click at someone once during the 2 seconds you are revealed is also vital. Timing those JJ snipers with the rest of your team to maximize damage to anyone foolish enough to ever leave their own cover is vital!

Varying ranges, oh that propaganda war! He's a funny guy!

[Sephlock]

Aha, I see. Its not youthful ignorance, its senility .

[Gallowglas]

Shumabot, on 28 May 2013 - 10:17 AM, said:

Until you can explain WHY you like the game in the same detail that I can explain its flaws (chew into its gameplay systems and UX/UI decisions, and maybe its social systems) your opinion will not be equal or less "opinionated" than mine. I say WHY I don't like it and go to lengths to explain the areas that need improvement, you just say it's "fun". I understand that it's easier to criticize concisely than it is to praise, humans are wired that way, but I so rarely see any of you actually explain what systems cause you pleasure or encourage your repeated play. It's like discussing art critique with gas station operators half the time, the languages aren't even the same.

Fine, I may be feeding a troll, but I'll bite.

1) I enjoy the tactical nuances of having an ever-expanding array of mechs, loadouts, and battlefield conditions. The fact that roster of mechs and battlefields isn't limited to a static set but, rather, should grow to include a staggering number of permutations is very appealing to me.

2) I appreciate the quality re-envisionment of what in many cases were terrible, terrible mech designs. MWO's mechs are almost universally more appealing than their predecessors. They've made some pretty lame mechs look cool.

3) Online gameplay and promise of factions is something that we've not seen fully realized in the commercial MW franchise before. Yes, it's incomplete. However, even in its current state, it has more potential than most previous properties. If CW is half of what it is suggested to be, it will be a huge step forward from what has previously been offered.

4) The customization options, both in terms of mech loadout, but also in terms of camo, color, etc. is fantastic and only getting better.

5) Mech variants actually feel distinct and additional chassis quirks going forward will only improve on this, adding more variety to gameplay.

6) Graphically, the game is very nice-looking. I can only imagine it will get better with DX11. I especially appreciate maps like Canyon with the dust devils swirling around.

7) I like how many of the weapons have been implemented. Granted, not all, but there's something vicerally satisfying about the wub-wub of a LPL or the clang of an AC/10 reloading.

8) Overall balance of most of the weapons is pretty good, despite what many might believe. In essence, there's more variety of viable weapon combinations than I have seen in many shooters.

9) This is true of the MW franchise games in general, but I truly enjoy the modular damage involved in mech combat, the varying response speed based on chassis, and multiple, robust weapon loadouts. It's not a simple matter of looking at an Atlas and saying: OMG, it's an Atlas, RUN! It's a matter of looking at what weapon array they brought to the game and adjusting my tactics accordingly.

10) Yes, okay, the HUD has been pretty bugged until recently. However, there's a lot more information to be garnered from it than in many other shooter games out there. It goes a long way toward feeling like I'm at the controls of a big robot. Obviously, I'd like to see more, like meaningful info on the control panels, but it's pretty robust as is.

And I could probably go on about other things. No, all my feedback isn't positive. There's some stuff I don't like. At times things have been in pretty bad shape. I could say the same of a lot of games I've played, particularly when I was in WoW during closed beta.

Edited by Gallowglas, 28 May 2013 - 11:33 AM.

[Shumabot]

Quote

1) I enjoy the tactical nuances of having an ever-expanding array of mechs, loadouts, and battlefield conditions. The fact that roster of mechs and battlefields isn't limited to a static set but, rather, should grow to include a staggering number of permutations is very appealing to me.

You appreciate something that may, but does not yet exist? I get liking the idea of growth, but that's flimsy.

Quote

2) I appreciate the quality re-envisionment of what in many cases were terrible, terrible mech designs. MWO's mechs are almost universally more appealing than their predecessors. They've made some pretty lame mechs look cool.

Totally agree, these are some of the best designs in the genres history.

Quote

3) Online gameplay and promise of factions is something that we've not seen fully realized in the commercial MW franchise before. Yes, it's incomplete. However, even in its current state, it has more potential than most previous properties. If CW is half of what it is suggested to be, it will be a huge step forward from what has previously been offered.

How is a system that is totally unimplemented more complete than what came before?

Quote

4) The customization options, both in terms of mech loadout, but also in terms of camo, color, etc. is fantastic and only getting better.

I'm going to wait for decals or better non camo paint schemes before I laud them for this. This has been a staple of multiplayer gaming forever and this game still has less than HALO or (insert random racing game).

Quote

5) Mech variants actually feel distinct and additional chassis quirks going forward will only improve on this, adding more variety to gameplay.

Barely, and you see like a twelfth of the games variants in actual use. This is something the game is failing at, most mechs feel the same because their gameplay is based on their weapon loadouts and the weapon loadouts in this game are homogenized and boring to a fault.

Quote

6) Graphically, the game is very nice-looking. I can only imagine it will get better with DX11. I especially appreciate maps like Canyon with the dust devils swirling around.

Objectively this game looks like trash. Crysis 3 performs better on most hardware and looks twice as good with vastly sharper textures and intelligent use of the cry engine. Other modern games like Metro or the battlefield series put this thing to shame. MWO looks like it came out in 2010 and it wasn't great looking for 2010. It has no soft body physics, virtually no particles, no SSAO, incompetent use of bloom, and the environment work is atrociously bad. Whenever people say this game is "good looking" they are't speaking objectively and looking at the games actual competition.

Quote

7) I like how many of the weapons have been implemented. Granted, not all, but there's something vicerally satisfying about the wub-wub of a LPL or the clag if an AC/10 reloading.

Interesting that you chose two weapons that are virtually useless in game... I'd argue those two weapons are horribly implemented. Same with the flamer, entire streak system, UAC system, and LRMs.

Quote

8) Overall balance of most of the weapons is pretty good, despite what many might believe. In essence, there's more variety of viable weapon combinations than I have seen in many shooters.

Are you ******* joking? Half the games weapons are functionally worthless and we just went through several months of anything without boated PPCs getting disintegrated.

Quote

9) This is true of the MW franchise games in general, but I truly enjoy the modular damage involved in mech combat, the varying response speed based on chassis, and multiple, robust weapon loadouts. It's not a simple matter of looking at an Atlas and saying: OMG, it's an Atlas, RUN! It's a matter of looking at what weapon array they brought to the game and adjusting my tactics accordingly.

I also enjoy that in theory. This game doesn't have that. 3 highlander 3 stalker 2 raven vs mirror does not have that.

Quote

10) Yes, okay, the HUD has been pretty bugged until recently. However, there's a lot more information to be garnered from it than in many other shooter games out there. It goes a long way toward feeling like I'm at the controls of a big robot. Obviously, I'd like to see more, like meaningful info on the control panels, but it's pretty robust as is.

The hud doesn't even give a numeric readout of damage taken. It doesn't show heat sinks without me holding down control. It doesn't show where shots are coming from, its minimap is from 1995, and their color choices change like every 3 weeks. How is it better than ANY competitors game?

I don't want to just get into textwalls constantly, though it may seem like it. This needed to be said though. A third of what you like is things that the game COULD be, another third is things the game isn't (weapon balanced, lol), and the last third are intangibles like appreciating art design or thinking the hud is great. In the end most critiques of this kind end up similar to this and without talking about individual points its impossible to understand where people are coming from. It won't come as much surprise that we differ on a lot of what you posted here. I share your hopes about what the game COULD be, but not at all what this game currently is.

Edited by Shumabot, 28 May 2013 - 11:00 AM.

[Felicitatem Parco]

So.. about that PC Gamer news!

I am glad that they praised the Modular destruction mechanism in the BT/MW games as a strong driving force, because it certainly was to me. One thing that ticks me off more than anything else about Armored Core and most FPS games is that you can [and will] die from getting your pinky finger shot-off while suffering no other bodily harm, whatsoever.

Got hit in the left knee a few times? Let's break the camel's back with a fatal fingertip shot.

Edited by Prosperity Park, 28 May 2013 - 11:17 AM.