What do you look for in a Multiplayer FPS game?

[BuroKun]

Just curious what people here look for in a multiplayer FPS game. What details do you look for. What makes you like or dislike the game? or just list some you like. Anything would satisfy my curiosity.


Thanks,
Burokun

[Shadownami92]

Personally I am turned off by FPS games now because of the over abundance of them. It's all the same you point you shoot, most are doing the same boring game modes and the graphics are usually the same.

I'll say the same for multiplayer RPGs which is a territory of the MMORPGs which also seem to be the same thing over and over.

Unless there is some amazing twist to the game and some new game modes, along with a new graphic style I'll probably just skim over it at a Gamestop.

[Lamont]

Lately L4D has kinda filled that void of a typical FPS because it's team-based. Also Team Fortress has been fun off and on. CoD4 was fun because you got to grind to get more stuff. But I am filled to the brim with FPS games right now and they are all pretty much the same and aren't really offering much in the way of innovation or keeping my attention. They need to change the graphical style. No more ubber space marines in a post apocalyptic world, no more shooting Nazi's in the face no matter how much they deserve it and no more guy against the odds. There's more potential out there, just needs to be tapped.

So yeah, as for FPS, I am spent.

[Buzzy]

Emergent gameplay is the greatest thing in any game.

Back in college, me and my buddies spent all of our free time playing Quake3. We would play grueling marathon CTF matches... average expected lifespan would be like 10 seconds....most of us ended with many 100s or 1000s of frags...brutal battles of attrition. And after finishing a 2hour match, we would all meet in the hall of our dorm and talk about the match like sports analysts for almost an hour. There was so much strategy, tactics, heroics, glory... so many memorable moments.... none of which was actually programmed into the game. And yet, it all emerged from the game's simple framework. Now THAT is gratifying gameplay.

As a counter-example - I generally dislike RTS games for this reason. The majority of the strategy and tactics are pre-determined by the developers. Weapons are explicitly designated to work or not work in certain situations, with no wiggle room and no 'happy accidents.'

[Rayph]

Buzzy hit the nail on the head for why I enjoy fps games so much. Acrossed the board the formula is similar but the flavor certainly varies.

My personal all time fave was starsiege tribes. Absolutely amazing multiplayer experience top to bottom and years ahead of its time (even had a pretty cool backstory if you went looking for it). This game had large 64 player battles, large open terrain, jet packs, armor classes, offense and defense strategies, turrets, vehicles, command station, endless mods/maps. The amount of strategy and depth to this game got to a point of being mind boggling fun.

Shooters in general are just a fun formula when it comes to online, the concept is simple so its really all about the execution.

[Mincher]

Remember when fps games used to be crazy fast and unrealistic? That was when it was fun.

Now fps games are slow, too much realism. Granted this ups the wow factor, but you quickly realise your trudging around another brown/green colour palette for hours.

Valve are retaining some of the original arcade 'hectic' with TF2 and Left4Dead.

[BuroKun]

Wow, lots of really good input here. I have to agree with Shadownami92 that there could be much more going on then the classic modes that are there. and like most of you said, there needs to be a new style. Something that makes it stand out. Going off what Buzzy said, the game should have the ability to make all these different moments of awesomeness and not just the same situations every time.

Thanks for the input so far guys. Anyone else want to share there thoughts?

[SHockaday]

I agree with Mincher... I've played FPS for as long as I've had a computer, and when I comes to Multiplayer, I've still had few experiences that have rivaled the old Duke Nukem 3d, Shadow Warrior, and Blood death-matches my friends and I used to have.

Maybe I was all the odd items and weapons (holo-duke, shrink ray, trip bombs, and of course, SW's nuclear missile, just to name a few), or maybe it was speed of play, but there was just something extra satisfying about multiplayer in the 2.5D Build engine games. On the other hand, it could just be nostalgia from growing up with those games. :P

[Lamont]

Back in college, me and my buddies spent all of our free time playing Quake3. We would play grueling marathon CTF matches... average expected lifespan would be like 10 seconds....most of us ended with many 100s or 1000s of frags...brutal battles of attrition. And after finishing a 2hour match, we would all meet in the hall of our dorm and talk about the match like sports analysts for almost an hour. There was so much strategy, tactics, heroics, glory... so many memorable moments.... none of which was actually programmed into the game. And yet, it all emerged from the game's simple framework. Now THAT is gratifying gameplay.This can be applied to ANY competitive FPS game. Very few FPS games can stand on their own w/out multiplayer. We would play UT2k4 at work from like 3pm to 6pm every other day, it was fun when the people you are playing are sitting right behind you because smack talk is part of the game. And since then, the only way I'd get back into these games is at a LAN.

[LowRez]

battle field was my faveorite, until they added choppers when I hated it, then jet planes, all once mastered were nails and unbalanced in my opinion...

basically I want a teamwork based capture the flag, with more balance for vehicles and classes so your not totally vunerable as infantry etc... :P

[Lamont]

Operation Flashpoint... and I can't wait for the sequel.

[SHockaday]

I would agree about the LAN setting... just about any game could be fun, played like that. Although, it used to be pretty awesome playing Duke 3D or Shadow Warrior one on one over a direct phone connection.

[mr_ace]

nudity
and i'm still waiting...

seriously tho, one of the major things for me is the quality of the guns. whether they look nice, well designed, well modelled, good angle on the gun, satisfaction to fire, reloading animations. seriously, that stuff turns me on, and i really cant play a game with bad ones. remember operation snowblind on ps2? was supposed to be quite good, but i cudnt play it cus the guns were horrible.

[LowRez]

Operation Flashpoint... and I can't wait for the sequel.

I have a couple of friends working on that at codemasters. they seem to be in crunch a fair bit at minute so must be nearing the end :) I loved the first one too,

[BuroKun]

What about when it comes to competitive/hardcore or just a casual FPS. Which one would you more likely play/pay for?

[rv_el]

non-afterthought Co-op gameplay i.e L4D, H&D, Op. Flashpoint.

[devoid]

Personally cant stand FPS's anymore- got tired of playing the same game over and over in different packaging, and i feel as if I've outgrown the genre. I'm now one of those old people who gets motion sickness while playing :P
Unfortunately most of the technical advances for game art are in FPS's so I keep buying them to play the first level and look around. Last FPS i actually enjoyed playing was Portal though I'd call it a puzzle game.

[Liam]

well mix css and battle field 2 and mish and mash some next gen graphics and you get a win! sorry for such a lazy response im incrediblely tired lolol

[blankslatejoe]

multiplayer fps's are kind of a love/hate thing for me.

I remember having a blast with Quake 1 multiplayer on the PC (1996?), but mostly because it was BRAND new and no one knew what they were doing. Grappling hooks, CTF, Team deathmatch, gravity mods, rocket arenas...all these things are mods popping up for the first time. And up until a few weeks ago I hadn't felt like anything new and fresh had hit competitive multiplayer since.

TF2 came close, but even that is just an extension on another mod that first popped up a decade ago.

But then Left4Dead came out... there's something insanely fun about a good Co-Op, and I was always a bit sad that virtually no games had Co-Op. But Left4Dead is fresh, new, levels the playing field a bit (because even the BEST people can't survive on their own) and really makes you feel like you survived something by the end of a campaign.

Kudos to Valve!

[cookepuss]

multiplayer fps's are kind of a love/hate thing for me.
Me too. I usually gravitate toward single player experiences like Half-Life 2, Deus Ex, and so forth. The puzzle solving mixed with the shooting is a big attraction for me.

In terms of multiplayer, the variety of weapons and map sizes are important. That's why I've always loved Quake3 and COD4. I don't care if the game offers lots of little modes. For me, it's free-for-all deathmatch all the way. I like being able to log on after a long day and just blast the sh** out of anything that moves.

About the only thing I miss from modern shooters are the endless hordes of enemies. Because of poly limitations, you don't quite get the same swarm effect that you would in a game like Doom2 or Serious Sam. Modern shooters offer lots of enemies, but never the sense that there are TOO many. That's made them too easy, imo.

[InVisibleVertex]

like cookepuss good deathmatch is very important to me.

I like maps that have lots of variety. I don't like being in a section of a map that looks similar to another part of the map. I like to know exactly where i am.

[BuroKun]

I have noticed from reading this that there is not one word about Halo 3. Why is that? I know its a big title in the FPS line. So do many of you like/play it? I personally think its one of the better FPS games out there, along with COD4, TF2, and some other greats.

[Shadownami92]

I have noticed from reading this that there is not one word about Halo 3. Why is that? I know its a big title in the FPS line. So do many of you like/play it? I personally think its one of the better FPS games out there, along with COD4, TF2, and some other greats.

I think the game itself was too rushed. In comparison to the first 2 it's almost identical other than a few new weapons and vehicles. Although the vehicles were cool there just wasn't enough to make it seem fresh enough to keep playing. Even the story seemed slow when it's the same point A to point B while shooting everything in site for a cutscene set up.

[Gavin]

I'm not a huge FPS guy, I have been playing Gears 2 a lot lately online (though, that's 3rd person...) but only rarely pick up an fps.

When it comes to gaming, I'm an introvert. I don't want to deal with anyone else online and usually only play with people that I know personally. Even then, I don't strap on the headset and talk...it's all pretty lame to me.

I played a bit of Halo 3 with my wife, completing the story and a little bit online. It's a fine, jump around and shoot things kind of game (I'm not sure what all the fuss is about as, to me, it's just mediocre) but the community ruins it, in my opinion. In NO other game have I been playing online and just had people make random, literally "random", noises into their mics. It's childish and annoying.

Because I don't really see the thrill of pwning n00bs online, I think I'm more drawn to class based fps shooters. I logged in A LOT of time with BF2 and played a bit of TF2...in cases like that I usually played as something that was more "support" than Rambo. Like a medic or engineer.

So, I guess for me, I'm not big into the idea of just hoping on into a simple deathmatch game. Like cookepuss, I'd want to relax by playing the game but (I guess UNLIKE cookepuss :P ) I find it even more frustrating if it's supposed to be simple and I'm getting my ass handed to me. I find that with roles / classes I can just focus on being good at that one task rather than jumping around frantically killing shit...which makes the game much more enjoyable to me..

[JacqueChoi]

I generally like to play whatever my friends are all playing (Currently still TF2).

I think class based games like TF2, and BF2 tend to get me to play more consistently (Depending what mood I'm in, or how steady my mouse-hand is at that time).

Not a big fan anymore of Team Deathmatch, or Capture the flag/information (My CS/Unreal addictions kinda killed those). I generally like Control Point types of maps, and push the cart.

I prefer some kind of co-op strategy involvement, rather than something purely skill based.

[Ged]

I still havent seen a good mmofps, huxley looked promising...what happened to that game?

my favorite straight out fps multiplayer was quake 3 arena. Havent really gotten into multiplayer stuff much since then.

Ive got UT3 and although the graphics are incredible and the weapons and vehicles excellent I find the new game modes annoying. Why call a mode "war" if it primarily involves bringing a glowing ball to a strategic point? when I heard about "war" mode I expected huge waves of NPCs with vehicles and a small band of real players doing co op to hold them off or something like that...something epic, with many many players/npcs on screen. so I was a bit dissapointed with UT3.

In my opinion multiplayer FPS just needs to evolve a bit, thats why I was intrigued by huxley.

also I think multiplayer FPS games could get a little more RPG and include persistent player stats/awards more.

[JacqueChoi]

I still havent seen a good mmofps, huxley looked promising...what happened to that game?

my favorite straight out fps multiplayer was quake 3 arena. Havent really gotten into multiplayer stuff much since then.

Ive got UT3 and although the graphics are incredible and the weapons and vehicles excellent I find the new game modes annoying. Why call a mode "war" if it primarily involves bringing a glowing ball to a strategic point? when I heard about "war" mode I expected huge waves of NPCs with vehicles and a small band of real players doing co op to hold them off or something like that...something epic, with many many players/npcs on screen. so I was a bit dissapointed with UT3.

In my opinion multiplayer FPS just needs to evolve a bit, thats why I was intrigued by huxley.

also I think multiplayer FPS games could get a little more RPG and include persistent player stats/awards more.

Huxley is gonna be out Q2 of this year. And yeh, it definately looks promising (I played it breifly at the final E3, and it played pretty well).

I think World War 2 Online was an absoluetely BEAST of a concept, but I could only log in twice in the first month of my subscription (lag was godawful, and the game played at around 5fps).

You chose Axis or Allies, and gained control of the Rhine Land. Destroying their supply line, flanking their tanks, or just fighting on the front.

Each game took around a week to complete. Then reset.

:( shame it went down like it did.

[DreameR]

FPS titles? yuck! no thanks.

millions of em anyway

[OneEyedJack]

Like some have said, speed is the factor that makes me stick.
I like FPS games that move fast, but in a slow environment.
Take cod4.. you take cover you camp you.. move around (duh)
I went against all of that and just took my weapon and sprinted through the whole map, right into enemy quarters spinning the camera so fast you could barely keep up. The adrenaline pumped like crazy because you almost always had 5 to 1, after those 5 there'd be more coming. So speed and adrenaline.

Games like deathmatch I dislike because there is no objective.. just run and kill. I like it when I have to do something.

Unreal tournament may be fun but only for a short while. It's too random. Point and click basically.
Same for quake.. it's too random, sure you can have strategies and stuff but the lifespan is about 10seconds while I prefer to be alive for the whole round, being too fast for you~ :P
Halo.. eh, didnt like it. The best part was when you got to drive the buggy over the falling platforms.. the rest was just meh.

[Ged]

Like some have said, speed is the factor that makes me stick.
Games like deathmatch I dislike because there is no objective.. just run and kill. I like it when I have to do something.


I dont like speed in FPS games, for me if they are too fast eg UT3 it is frustrating to play. COD was just about right in pace and Half life 2 as well.

As for Deathmatch, there is an objective for example: "to frag as many players as possible within the time limit". So you do in fact have something to do, you just dont like it, which is fair enough. You could say the same about sports, eg running a race...you just run theres no objective other than to run. The activity is its own reward.

[Rio]

I think it could be possible that Halo 3 is as good as it is because it doesn't have a very serious appearence about it compared to most things. Many FPSes are very similar and halo seperates itself with its own range of guns and game modes. I don't actually own the game, but I play it with my mate a lot. Also completing campaign on legendry in co-op was pretty fun, I wish there were more games out there like it.

Halo 3 seems to be all about trickery, actually.

Recently playing Farcry 2, Crysis has let me down in terms of multiplayer FPSes. In honesty I wasn't keen on Crysis single player either and never got into it, however the multiplayer on Farcry 2 seems to have just been put in to justify the cost of the game compared to amount of gameplay hours.

[BuroKun]

Some surprising responses here. What about Style? What kind of art style/overall feeling would you like to see in a FPS game? Something Clean like Portal or Mirrors Edge? Give me a good idea of what you would want and why. Just because it would look cool? Maybe its easier on the eyes?


Thanks for the posts guys. Its really helping me with my project.
-Burokun

[Shadownami92]

Some surprising responses here. What about Style? What kind of art style/overall feeling would you like to see in a FPS game? Something Clean like Portal or Mirrors Edge? Give me a good idea of what you would want and why. Just because it would look cool? Maybe its easier on the eyes?


Thanks for the posts guys. Its really helping me with my project.
-Burokun

I like variety, if I just played a grey and brown realistic game, I like a change of scenery like Mirror's Edge or Team Fortress 2. Then when I play that for a bit I might like to play something else a little different until Im away from the other styles long enough to want to go back to play them. I work the same way with game genres and gameplay styles as well.

[Rio]

I think a good art/style of a game would be to never stick to an art/style! Take Counter Strike: Source for example; quite a lot of maps made by many different people = lots of different map styles. It's a shame that some of the really unique and good looking maps hardly get played on there though.

[BuroKun]

@Rio - I understand what you are saying but I think games should have a consistency to them.

I still would like to hear what styles would be nice to see. I mainly want to hear this from the Artists that want to make the games.