• Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.

Criticising PC Gamer's "We're in an FPS golden age" article

Sorry, not pictures in this thread. :p

Evan Lahti, staff for PC Gamer, wrote a recent article entitled 'We're in an FPS golden age' with the sub headline of 'Overwatch, PUBG, CS:GO, Quake Champions, Killing Floor 2... the volume and variety of great first-person shooters has never been greater.' This leaves one desired as they are all multiplayer-only/focused titles, with the opening paragraph mentioning 'Don't look now, but right now might be the best time ever for multiplayer FPSes.', which is already misleading from the article's title alone.

Now, as for the content itself, this is where I and others in the comments of the article have a huge problem with. Evan challenged its readers to put forward counter-arguments as said here 'I'm accepting counter-arguments in the comments.'. With that, I'm gonna breakdown each game he listed and put my opinion forward as to what I think of them. Of course, I'm in a huge disagreement, so it's almost confirmed that I'm going to criticise each of his choices.

Let's start shall we?

(1)
An Arma mod on steroids is the most popular FPS on Steam. PlayerUnknown's Battlegrounds is a story generator that balances intense firefights with goofing around. It's a 100-person free-for-all on a massive map that also respects your time. This week PUBG is running its first major tournament at Gamescom, with a $350,000 prize pool.
Already we're off to a shaky start since Arma, its mods and PUBG aren't exclusively FPS since they can also be played in third person. Anyway, it's the next part that I want to discuss mainly:
Even with PUBG alongside it, Arma 3—an intricate and often demanding sim—averages about 22,000 concurrent players daily. That's five times the playerbase it had at launch in 2013.
True, Arma 3 is a demanding sim, but it isn't a [multiplayer] FPS game. It can be played offline and in third person, but I get that he's comparing PUBG to this game, even though they aren't related. I'm not totally sure what Evan was trying to say with Arma 3 and PUBG, but it doesn't really support this article quite yet. Besides, what about Arma 2 and its expansions? Why are they not talked about? Or even DayZ?

(2)
Blizzard's first FPS is colorful, competitive, and inclusive. But maybe most noteworthy is the tenacity and transparency with which Blizzard has iterated on Overwatch over time: it's been patched more than 120 times since launch, with seven seasonal events so far.
The first [multiplayer] FPS of the article and it starts with the most popular one around right now, Overwatch. He mentions the game has been patched over 120 times as if that shows how much Blizzard wants to support the game, but to me, it tells me how much was wrong with the game initially. Here's the thing, patches for the most part, aren't good. Patches are generally made to fix or remove parts of the game that are causing problems, errors and issues preventing or unhelping the game to run as intended. Think about all the download time and inconsistency with the game design that each patch brings, is that really something that goes to show we are in a golden age? Do games now need to be patched over 100 times for it to be made playable? According to Blizzard, yes. Anyway, besides this point, Blizzard being transparent with its fans doesn't mean the game itself is better as a result. There're companies out there who aren't so transparent and pump out great games, albeit some overpriced or delayed, but to say transparency is a proving point for a golden age is quite naive; that seems more like a free pass to put shit in your game but as long as we tell you we're going to do it, it's okay. And yea, Overwatch is competitive, colourful and inclusive, which is healthy for FPS games and there's little argument I can make outside here other than not liking the character designs and their abilities, but you can make this argument for any game really.
Investment money is pouring into Blizzard's Overwatch League, which will hopefully lay the groundwork for stable team rosters and great tournaments.
Tournaments have been around for over a decade so what's the point here? Bigger budget and more exposure perhaps, but there have been incredibly popular tournaments of passed times involving classics like Quake, DOOM and UT. Also, notice how he uses the word 'hopefully', implying that this is a personal want as opposed to this yet actually being beneficial for us all.

(3)
Valve's support for CS:GO has been inconsistent, but the shooter has nevertheless cemented itself as an insanely deep competitive game. You could spend months working on your grenade technique alone. With its massive tournaments and a little help from online gambling, CS:GO has paved the way for all other FPS' esports scenes.
'and a little help from online gambling' he ends with, does he not realise the words he is typing? Online gambling in games, particularly CS:GO, has been excruciatingly criticised and involved in shady online businesses and YouTubers/streamers, and for a bad thing. Players shouldn't have to rely on gambling to become good, or fulfil their wants, in order to maximise enjoyment from said game. Gambling is not only illegal for under 18, and in some countries, but it's a unhealthy and financially insecure decision to make. Anyway, that aside, CS:GO has certainly not paved the way for other FPS' to come, unless you're talking about loot boxes, which he in his own words will later say they do not effect gameplay. Hell, he even says Valve's support has been inconsistent, well I guess the game could use another 120 patches to finally "fix" it, huh?

(4)
Quake is back. Even with a free-to-play business model, rentable characters, and 'ultimate' abilities attached to each champion, Quake Champions bunnyhops and talks like a pure Quake game.
Quake is back and it's been under the scalpel ever since, with the "heroes" being criticised and the classic formula not returning has put fans like me off. He says the game adopts a ftp model but on Steam the game has an up-front cost, and with rentable characters as he puts it, that's even more money you're gonna shell out for the "definitive" experience. Is this what makes a golden age for FPS now? A paywall for the game, then a paywall for characters and skins? The game is currently out in Early Access, so it's not even out in its 1.0 release as with other games Evan lists, so can this even count? What if this business model entirely changes a year from now, or the game shuts down?

(5)
One of the biggest game publishers in the world made a multiplayer-only, PC-first, tactical FPS and has supported it well for two years. Rainbow Six Siege has 2.3M daily players on all platforms.
Except it's multiplayer-only. Previous Rainbow Six games, like Raven and all the ones before it, were all well-received and also played competitively and casually - even to this day. Siege has taken the design of CS:GO to make it its own with loot boxes and overpriced microtransactions including, but not limited to, skins. If we add up the cost of the game and all its DLC the total sum is around £220. If we sum up all the Rainbow Six games from times before they all add up to less than £220. Is this what a golden age is, Evan? £220 sale price for a single, online-only, multiplayer-only game? Where's the single player campaign, where's the tactical, hardcore shooting mechanics and battle map? Siege also has millions of players yes, across all platforms, but how many of those people are playing it because it's multiplayer with customisation? If the game didn't have customisation such as skins the player base would dwindle, what does that say about the core gameplay?

(6)
One decade after Halo 2, Destiny 2 is coming to PC.
The game isn't even out yet and it's already being praised for... some reason... I really don't know what to say about this one, but imo Destiny isn't a very good game and this sequel seems to be more of the same with little advancements. Is it right to include games that aren't even out yet as part of the reason why we're having a golden age?

(7)
Tripwire and Antimatter Games are quietly making some of the best FPSes on this list. Killing Floor 2, which just ran a great summer event, deserves some sort of blood-soaked Emmy for its gore system and gun animations. Rising Storm 2: Vietnam represents one of the best midpoints between authenticity and accessibility, continuing the series' ambitious focus on asymmetry.
Despite that I like both KF2 and RS2:V, it seems a bit weird to cherry pick KF2's recent summer event, which PC Gamer have been monstrously covering as part of their affiliate programme with Tripwire - and it just happens to be the game with a single player, offline mode. So, ignoring this bias PC Gamer has with Tripwire, RS2:V is another multiplayer-only title that does indeed focus on authenticity and accessibility, but so too does the classic game from 2003 "Vietcong" and a year after "Men of Valor". But I guess they won't be mentioned by Evan for comparison because they aren't popular multiplayer-only titles that are full to the brim of microtransactions.

(8)
Battlefield 1, with easily the best infantry combat in the series, chugs along with paid expansions.
"Best infantry combat in the series"... somebody hasn't played Battlefield 2...

(9)
March's Day of Infamy is a worthy successor to Day of Defeat, with great co-op to boot.
Eh, I can't make much argument here. They're fun games, albeit multiplayer-only, and I'm not completely familiar with them as much as I am with other games. Then again, these sort of beer-in-hand games are to be expected and I wouldn't say they push the agenda for a golden age, exactly.

(10)
Unreal Tournament is being remade as a unique collaboration between modders and Epic.
Yet another game that's not even out yet in 1.0 is picked. Besides, does UT need to have a collab between the developers and modders for it to be a golden age now? UT has always, always been about deep modding right from the roots. In fact, modders and the developers have always had a relationship though not a direct co-developing experience like now. However, it is to say that without the amazing mods of previous Unreal games, the series wouldn't be anywhere near as popular as it is now and Epic would never give as much support to the game either. I mean, they seemed to drop UT3 pretty quickly after the backlash the game received for not surpassing UT2K4. Besides this, UT2K4 is known as one of the best FPS games of all time and it's one of my favourites for sure, so how can Evan be so blunt as to say this new and upcoming UT will be able to surpass it?

(11)
Expect a major update to Team Fortress 2 when it turns 10 on October 10.
I'm not wrong to think TF2 isn't as popular anymore as it use to be, right? And I mean in terms of its gameplay and active playerbase, not the stigma and memes that have come with it. I'm pretty sure alot of the players moved on and are now playing games like CS:GO, RS: Siege and such. In fact, I would even go as far to say TF2 is a reason why we're not in a FPS golden age, most if not all of TF2's features have been done in other games now and I doubt this update will put the game back in the spotlight as it once was.

(12)
Call of Duty: WWII is getting a beta on PC.
Okay, Evan, so a game getting a beta means it makes for a golden age now does it? Well, you better start counting up from 1993 then.

(13)
20 years after GoldenEye came out on Nintendo 64, the best version of it exists on PC and is maintained by a team of passionate fans. It's free.
But GoldenEye is a 20 year old game, how does this support this current golden age? Sure, the Source revival has made it more accessible for players, but people have been modding games for over a decade now to make them more accessible. What is special about this case? That it's Goldeneye? A 20 year old game?

(14)
LawBreakers is rather good.
It's another Overwatch clone trying to cash in on the fun and hype, adopting similar business models and such, Does the game sprawl a nice, long, single player campaign? No... okay. Does the game have great mod support? No... okay. Is it trying to innovate the FPS genre or cash in on what's popular right now? Anyway despite this, even if LawBreakers is a good game, it owes its success to other games that it copied from. Can that really qualify for a golden age?

(15)
Most of these games are funded by cosmetic microtransactions that don't affect gameplay, rather than expansions or map packs that would fragment the player base.
Ah yes, perhaps the most controversial part of this article, the defence for microtransactions in a paid-for game. Here's the thing, Evan, cosmetics DO matter. No, they don't effect gameplay, but neither do maps. That's right, maps don't effect gameplay, maps are purely aesthetic as are character skins. Any exclusive level design features that maps have are because of the supporting game mechanics, and not because of the map itself. Maps are the layout of the battles and look different from each other, design intricately so that they offer variety and help support the game mechanics already there. However, selecting between different maps doesn't actually alter or change the gameplay in a way that gives specific players advantages. Everybody is playing that map so everybody has a fair shot. He also mentions how maps fragment the player base, conveniently ignoring the pay-to-win microtransactions that give player more powerful equipment - does that not also fragment the player base, Evan? Moreover, a common counter-argument that you have no doubt seen and most likely even used yourself to defend these disgusting, overpriced, draconian microtransactions is that it helps fund the developer and/or are only aesthetic. Well, to that I say this:

Cosmetics DO matter, as I just mentioned before tracking off about maps, is that cosmetics do matter. Think about it, weapon skins, character skins and map design. Three INCREDIBLY popular things in these multiplayer-only games Evan has listed. They are the driving force for sales and community economy, and guess what they all have in common? They are cosmetics. If these games didn't have cosmetics, they would dwindle in sales and in active player base. No, cosmetics don't effect gameplay, but they effect player psychology and satisfaction with inclusion and psychological projection. People play these multiplayer-only games to show their shit off to other players, hell, remember the poster feature from TF2? You could spray a custom image onto a wall for others to see, that's a cosmetic feature, and that was a well-received feature. So what am I trying to say with my point here? People say it's okay to pay microtransactions because cosmetics don't matter or don't effect gameplay, and while they don't effect gameplay, they do matter and people do give a shit. They are just as important as gameplay alterations, in a general sense.

Finally, the second counter-argument is that people say they want to support the developer with money. A rather noble reasons that I can't argue against, HOWEVER, why not support the game financially by buying the game for somebody else? Or just for the hell of it? Why spend money in the game itself when you could buy it for a friend who may end up loving it? Dump that $30 into a new copy of the game and gift it, if your friend ends up loving it, they may do the same. If not? Well, you've financially supported the game, so what have you lost?

Evan closes it with saying maps fragment the player base, despite maps being cosmetic only, so this doesn't make sense to me. But for people who will undoubtedly get triggered by me saying that, I would say that cosmetics equally fragment the player base. You see your friend wearing cool outfits, you see your friend with a nice gun skin, you want that but you either can't afford it or can't unlock it quite yet. What are those people suppose to do now, Evan?

(16)
The 144hz monitors you should play these games on are getting cheaper.
The final argument for a FPS golden age is choosing a 144hz monitor... and I can't agree any less. 144hz is fantastic and to me, almost essential for fast-paced shooting. The more people who own one the better.

---

So there's my giant rant against this article. There are so many classics like DOOM, Quake, Serious Sam, Unreal (Tournament), Half Life, SWAT, Ghost Recon, Rainbow Six, Battlefield and so much more. These games are not multiplayer-only. They have single player, they have mod support, they don't nickle and dime you for microtransactions, they are still actively played to this day, they have great communities and fan support.

This is not a golden age of FPS, imo.
 

Nokterian

Member
144hz G-Sync Monitor is a must, i can't go back towards old habits this is bread and butter for gaming in general. G-Sync is a godsend and for the games?

CoD on PC will be dead, sure it will have players at launch but it will windle down towards less than 1000 players at most. Support for CoD on PC has been not so good since MW2, only Treyarch still shows support but it's pretty much dead on that end.

Quake Champions i bought the package, 30 euro's is not bad since getting all champions from now on. To me it is still Quake and runs beautiful and it is fun.

Lawbreakers has less than 300 players right now, not looking good.
 

SomTervo

Member
Seems pretty on point op, the strangest thing being that he doesn't mention singleplayer FPS games at all, and arguably we're moving towards a golden age in that realm too.

That said:

1. LawBreakers is apparently genuinely good and not an overwatch clone at all

2.
The final argument for a FPS golden age is choosing a 144hz monitor... and I can't agree any less. 144hz is fantastic and to me, almost essential for fast-paced shooting. The more people who own one the better.

So... You're agreeing with him?
 
It almost feels pointless to divide TPS and FPS at this point. We are definitely in a golden age of shooters, that is undeniable.
 
Your rant sounds like you didn't agree with the premise and tried to discredit every point in the article. It's pretty evident by the way you're reaching with things like calling LawBreakers an Overwatch clone.

Well, at least you tried.
 

Ertai

Member
Tournaments have been around for over a decade so what's the point here? Bigger budget and more exposure perhaps, but there have been incredibly popular tournaments of passed times involving classics like Quake, DOOM and UT. Also, notice how he uses the word 'hopefully', implying that this is a personal want as opposed to this yet actually being beneficial for us all.

Overwatch League is way more than just your average tournament. Yes, tournaments have been around since forever but of Blizzard succeeds with Overwatch League it couls be a really great innovation. Granted, the thing still has to launch so we'll have to see how it turns out but it's very ambitious.
 

Minordeth

Neo Member
I'm not understanding this criticism of Overwatch and patches.

It's a competitive game. All competitive games should have ongoing balancing?
 
Golden age yeah it really isn't. No argument there. We had a golden age of FPS, 2 even and on consoles. There are many good ones and lots of options however as for TF2 lol that game died the moment it was made free2play and every one who owned and played it in a very competitive scene back then knows the truth. I was a mod admin and ran a server as well part of a clan as they were called and after f2p we had to shut down and ever since it is all hats, trolls and casuals.

Also no interest in the other shooters. The new Unreal as much for it being a collaboration majority of us left as the devs and select few decided to change the gameplay and all of the sudden no matter the votes or opinions there was no input allowed the game is never gonna get anywhere or be popular even amongst those of us who were fans.

Quake I got alpha and beta invites but I never played it anyway so no opinion there.

Lawbreakers is indeed dead, friend of mine is quite upset about that. Turned it down because i honestly felt sick just watching some of the gameplay. But shame for the people who enjoy it.

PUBG is a phenomena. Personally not interested because of all the BS that takes place in a game like that but I can't dismiss the fact people love it and have a good time, just not for me. All I see is a twitch fad.

Rainbow six siege isn't as good as last one I played, Vegas. But maybe some would disagree. Older ones in that franchise were also really good and whatever happened to ghost recon?


Loot boxes etc are cancer on gaming and it will eventually cost us all a great price as consumers and for the gaming industry. Longer this is allowed to go on the worse it will be.

Payday 2 for instance was killed by the devs actions on microtransactions and pay2win in the end.

Edited: from what I gather from your OP the article reads like a PR piece and probably is. Especially when they mention games not out or even beta.
 
Half-Life_2_Episode_Two_title.jpg
256px-Crysis_Cover.jpg
256px-BioShock_cover.jpg
250px-Call_of_Duty_4_Modern_Warfare.jpg
250px-Halo_3_final_boxshot.JPG
Unreal_Tournament_3.jpg
250px-Tf2_standalonebox.jpg
256px-Shadow_of_Chernobyl_cover.jpg
Metroid_Prime_3_Packaging.jpg
Enemy_Territory_Quake_Wars_Game_Cover.jpg
MoH_Airborne_cover_PC_DVD.jpg
Darkness_cover.jpg


That's just 2007. I'd say the golden age was 1999-2007, kind of went to shit after that.

This year is nice, but the only especially good singleplayer campaigns recently have been Doom 2016 and Titanfall 2. Some decent variety in multiplayer games, I guess, but the only one I've stuck with is Battlefield 1.
 
lmao OP, you are being so nitpicky, and are so damn wrong

1. rainbow six: siege
2. cs:go
3. pubg
4. overwatch
5. doom
6. wolfenstein
7. bf1
8. titanfall 2
9. cod
10. left4dead
11. payday 2


all these games are baller as fuck and fun in their own way
 
That said:

1. LawBreakers is apparently genuinely good and not an overwatch clone at all
Even if it is a good game and not a clone, which it clearly looks like it is, I don't think 1 or 2 good games qualify for a golden age.

2.

So... You're agreeing with him?

Yeah on this occasion, a 144hz monitor is objectively better than 60 or 75 or 90. The only counter-argument one could make is its price and maybe not having enough room for a new monitor, but that's really down to the individual and not the product itself.
 
I'm not wrong to think TF2 isn't as popular anymore as it use to be, right? And I mean in terms of its gameplay and active playerbase, not the stigma and memes that have come with it. I'm pretty sure alot of the players moved on and are now playing games like CS:GO, RS: Siege and such. In fact, I would even go as far to say TF2 is a reason why we're not in a FPS golden age, most if not all of TF2's features have been done in other games now and I doubt this update will put the game back in the spotlight as it once was.

TF2 is currently much more popular than it was before it went free to play. The last thirty days it "only" had an average of 52,000 players, whereas I remember before it went f2p that peak players would be around 20k on weekends.

It does say a lot about the current "golden age" that they have to point to a ten year old game to bolster their case. And that a ten year old game still has a higher playerbase than many of the games they list.
 

vio

Member

That's just 2007. I'd say the golden age was 1999-2007, kind of went to shit after that.


This year is nice, but the only especially good singleplayer campaigns recently have been Doom 2016 and Titanfall 2. Some decent variety in multiplayer games, I guess, but the only one I've stuck with is Battlefield 1.

100% truth.
 

jem0208

Member
I didn't really agree with much you were saying for most of the OP. However, most of the points were still fair enough, if a bit nitpicky...

That was up until point 15 though where you went all the way off the rails.

Evan closes it with saying maps fragment the player base, despite maps being cosmetic only, so this doesn't make sense to me. But for people who will undoubtedly get triggered by me saying that, I would say that cosmetics equally fragment the player base. You see your friend wearing cool outfits, you see your friend with a nice gun skin, you want that but you either can't afford it or can't unlock it quite yet. What are those people suppose to do now, Evan?

The fuck is this?

Maps are cosmetic only? That makes so little sense that I'm almost inclined to believe this entire op is a troll.

Map design is intrinsic to how a game plays. The same game can play very differently on two different maps. An otherwise fantastic game can be terrible if played on a bad map. A boring game can be elevated substantially by an excellent map. Map design controls the flow and pace of shooters. It is flat out ridiculous to claim they are cosmetic only.

How many multiplayer shooters do you actually play OP?

As for the idea that cosmetic skins fragment the player base, that is almost as dumb as the previous point and seems intentionally obtuse. If your friend owns a map pack and you don't there are times when you literally cannot play together. That's what fragmenting the player base means. Not making someone envious of a skin...
 
It looks like your problem is someone praising those games while you hate the microtransactions, multiplayer only and little mod support of those titles.

Most people don't care and those wouldn't necessarily be better games without whose things.

While I don't think we are in a golden age, I think this is one of the best times to be a shooter multiplayer fan.

Most people who plays FPS don't play the campaign FFY.
 

patapuf

Member
We are in a golden age of MP FPS. We never had so many good and varied FPS's with healthy populations and these population will likely still be around for years.

We even have 3 popular MP shooters (CS, Overwatch and PUBG) without any of the unlock nonsense COD4 introduced. And many of the smaller competitors like lawbreakers or quake have stopped doing this as well.

Cosmetic microtransaction are a way better funding model than yearly releases with map packs. That was the worst time for MP FPS's and it showed. Almost no game from that era is still played. It's way more expensive to play, and the maps have poor populations. No thanks.


Also, your argument that maps are skins is nonsense. Maps are gameplay. I don't even understand how you could suggest otherwise. Everything you do in a game is affected by the map and the terrain. Have you ever played an FPS, or pretty much any competitive game seriously? Also, you can play with everyone having a different skin, you can't play with someone that has a different map you don't own.

Also patches are a good thing for every competitive game. A game not getting patches is usually a sign it's dead.
 

Rathorial

Member
Not a golden age, but maybe a silver.

Definitely a huge improvement in the genre now vs. last gen's embarrassing reliance on shallow set-piece events, horizontal level design, unbalanced progression systems, generic modern military weaponry and boring color palette.

Also, Lawbreakers isn't an Overwatch clone...only game that actually fits that bill is Paladins.
 

Fantastapotamus

Wrong about commas, wrong about everything
I disagree both with the article and the OP.
This isn't a golden age for FPS but the OP is extremely nitpickey. Calling LawBreakers an OW clone, criticizing OW for being...supported?
Those are weak arguments.

With that being said, the article in question also isn't very good.
 

Kareha

Member
Me and my friends are still playing the likes of Quake 2 & 3 and original UT after all these years. To us there still isn't anything as fast and precise as Q3 or UT, both have enough differences to warrant playing both. We've tried all the new stuff and apart from PUBG (which isn't a FPS) we always drift back to those classics.
 

Xyber

Member
"Best infantry combat in the series"... somebody hasn't played Battlefield 2...

While BF1 might not be as deep when it comes to gameplay systems as BF2, the shooting and movement is way better and that is most definitely the part he talks about.

The shooting in BF2 does not feel very good by today's standard.
 

RooMHM

Member
The golden age for everything fps included is 1998-2001. HL, Q3, UT will probably and sadly never be surpassed. Given the way games evolve towards assisted competition...
 

BashNasty

Member
I'm on mobile, so trying to cut down your quote to just the relevent part about Overwatch and its patches would take far too long (seriously, I wish it was eaiser to highlight and select things on iPhone. You can sort of do it but it's so, so fucking finicky, anyway...), but you couldn't be more wrong. You say it's taken over 100 patches to make Overwatch playable? Well... no, Overwatch was more polished and playable than 95 percent of games out there day one, but nothing, no matter how good, is ever perfect. Blizzard knows this, so they don't use patches to fix a broken game, they use patches to make amazing games even more amazing. New maps, characters, tweaks, quality of life improvements, balance changes, etc. Patches absolutely are a good thing.
 
I think we're in a silver age of shooters right now (2004-2007 will always be the golden years to me). There's a lot of diversity in offline and online shooters with movement, playstyles, and general gamefeel. Someone posted a list of 2007 FPS games arguing that it's the GOAT year, and that is a good list, but 2016 is damn close. Titanfall 2, Call of Duty: Infinite Warfare (It's got a good campaign, OK?), Battlefield 1, Overwatch, Superhot, Killing Floor, Devil Daggers, Shadow Warrior 2, DOOM, Paladins, and the first wave of VR shooters were all pretty solid, with a lot of variety and diversity. I also think your arguments are very semantics-heavy (just because there's a third person option doesn't mean it isn't an FPS) and yet ignorant (calling Lawbreakers an Overwatch clone, not knowing how easy it is to earn the Rainbow Six Siege DLC for free). Granted, the PC Gamer article botched its pitch, but that doesn't mean you're right either.
 
Here's the thing, patches for the most part, aren't good. Patches are generally made to fix or remove parts of the game that are causing problems, errors and issues preventing or unhelping the game to run as intended
Lol no, patches for the most part include new content and balance tweaks
 

Screaming Meat

Unconfirmed Member
The article has perhaps over-hyped with the clickbait title, which probably explains the OPs reaction, but we've had a slew of good, popular FPSs over the last few years.
 

Bedlam

Member
What kind of nitpicky shit is this? Just enjoy the games, OP.

This is defintely a great time for shooters and games in general (minus the ripoff monetization models with microtransactions, lootboxes etc).
 

shaneo632

Member
I was a huge FPS nut from the late 90s through to a few years ago, but I'm really burned out on the genre at the mo. Been playing a lot more indie games and RPGs lately.
 

Won

Member
That seems like a bit of an overreaction.

I will say though, with the way some things are framed in the article, things only look bright, because we were in a very very dark age.
 

Protome

Member
The article is bad but most of your nitpicks are as bad if not worse. In particular your insane stance on updates and your weird notion that a game having any single player seems to make it less eligible for a discussion about multiplayer FPSes.
 

fresquito

Member
Patches are a bad thing, I stopped reading there. I'm sorry, but if you don't understand competitive gaming you should refrain from judging it.
 

gogosox82

Member
Your being kind of nitpicky no? Why are you upset that OW is being patched? Its like your mad that they are actually supporting the game through patches, updates, and community events. And Lawbreakers isn't an overwatch clone and plays nothing like OW.
 

RollerMeister

Neo Member
You think patches are primarily a bad thing OP? ooooooh boy....

Edit: Titanfall 2 NOT being mentioned in the article should be a crime!
 

HelloMeow

Member
I don't like the fps games that are popular right now. They're either not my kind of game or they have some big issues. There is a lack of good, solid fps games.
 
I agree with the article.
The last time I had so much fun playing FPS's was with Quake 3/Unreal Tournament.
It's all about the variety current games are offering.

You want fast-paced old school action? You have Quake Champions (where hero abilities really aren't getting in the way of the fast-paced action) and Lawbreakers, which will hopefully gain some player base when it's going free-to-play in a couple of months.

You want tactical gameplay? Play the juggernaut that is CS:Go or play R6.

You want something brighter, more accessible? Go play Overwatch. It's the most fun I had playing an online game ever.

You want craziness? Play PUBG.

A couple of years ago it felt like we only had Call of Dutry like games, created for consoles first and then ported to PC without thinking too much about the platform.

Also, I couldn't be happier with the switch to lootboxes. All the content that actually counts (maps, characters) is basically free now so that player bases aren't split. I really like that.

The only thing missing right now is a modern coop-shooter. But Destiny 2 is just around the corner.

And about those patches? With a game as complex as Overwatch with so many heroes, it's almost impossible to have a perfect balance, especially right out of the gate. It's good that developers keep fine-tuning their games after release.
 
If you want to bend the genre a bit, throw in Deus Ex MD, Dishonored 2 and Prey. I definitely don't consider this to be a golden age of FPS games, but there's a lot of variety right now. The industry has thankfully moved on from "brown and bloom" millitary shooters that dominated the market after the success of Call of Duty 4 in 2007.
 
Top Bottom