What makes a great shooter? Should it have very smart, human like AI, a large list weapons, a unique way of killing enemies, an engaging story, silky smooth controls, or should be in third or first person, etc? Let's all just assume that these games have HD grade graphics.
For me, I like to fight advanced AI, who could memorize your tactics and even use the method that got you killed with your tactics and also adapt to the slightest change in that but not become unbeatable. Also, I need a good story other wise I won't get the feeling of the game or the will to go on if it's too hard.
What are your characteristics for a great shooter?

In my opinion, graphics aren't what make a good shooter, gameplay is. A good shooter in my opinion would be one without a boatload of bugs. Also good would be fairly advanced AI, but not to the point where you don't see videos of "Stupid AI" for the said game on YouTube, because those are hilarious. A nice assortment of weapons would be neat, too, along with the option of buying them from cash you got from missions and upgrading them to have scopes, larger clips, etc.
Also, I think highly of Multiplayer. I would love to see unlockable, customizable weapons like from Call of Duty or Battlefield 2142, but buying them with ingame cash you get at the end of matches. The same can be said for body armor, infrared goggles, extra ammunition pouches, etc., all of which reduce your sprinting time and speed because of their weight.
I wouldn't care what the era would be. Modern warfare, World War 2, Vietnam, Futuristic, alternate Cold War timeline, all would be welcome.
Another things that makes a good shooter: Achievements, achievements, achievements. I simply cannot play a game without feeling like I'm accomplishing something. Call of Duty 4 & World at War and great for their challenges, for some because like me, I like being able to say "I did this and got this achievement", others simply for the bonus experience.
Yet another issue I can think of would be maps. You can't have maps so small you feel like you're shooting at people across a room. No, you've gotta have the big, layered maps. I personally like urban maps, but jungle/desert ones are good, too. So, a nice variety of maps would fare well with the game's overall score.
Last of all would be tactics. I like a game where a single machine gun can mow down your entire squad, and where your squad members aren't just living shields. However, I don't like where it gets nuts near the end of the campaign, where a sniper can shoot you in the head and instantly kill you if you poke your head out from behind a rock for a second too long. So a game that needs strategic thinking, but not too much. Say, just enough where you can't go rambo and melee all your enemies to death.
And those are my thoughts.

A good shooter for me has to have a strong storyline and have solid gameplay. I suppose the reason why I didn't like Halo: CE much is probably due to the fact thaat the gameplay got repetitive.

Ping wrote:A good shooter for me has to have a strong storyline and have solid gameplay. I suppose the reason why I didn't like Halo: CE much is probably due to the fact thaat the gameplay got repetitive.

Agreed. I do like Halo, but the lack of environmnetal variety weakens it.

As for the individual attributes, there are many. It depends on the game. Bioshock has atmosphere. Half-Life has story. Team Fortress has fun, Modern Warfare has intensity, etc.

Color. Shades of brown are not exciting and make me want to throw games out of windows. Looking at you, almost every Unreal Engine game. Halo has a huge variety, what with the purple and blue enemies, and TF2 is similar in appearance to a Pixar movie.

Level Design. There really has to be more than one way to everything. Halo 1 was horrible in this sense, as there way just one big path to everything, or, alternatively, too many paths. Halo 3 and ODST improved on this a lot, and L4D also is a prime example of a myriad of alternative routes.

Weapons. Personally, I find WWII weapons boring, not a lot of variety, bad shooting range and ammo count. I prefer sci-fi weapons, like the DC-15, DC-17, Spartan Laser, and Plasma Rifle. Melee weapons are always fun as well.

Health. While realism is cool and all, taking one shot to the face from a spray weapon doesn't make for a very exciting game. I really dislike shields, but I can stand them. The stamina system from ODST and the BFII health bars provide enough life to actually do some fighting.


Favorite: Halo 3, Halo ODST, Battlefront (2), Team Fortress 2, Left 4 Dead
Least Favorite: Battlefield 1943, Call of Duty 3

Extensive control over your character ie: in aa3 you can look around obstacles without moving your entire body. I personally do not like the lifeless 2 axis way of moving with one axis for forward/back/strafing and the other axis for looking around.

Fusion wrote:Color. Shades of brown are not exciting and make me want to throw games out of windows. Looking at you, almost every Unreal Engine game. Halo has a huge variety, what with the purple and blue enemies, and TF2 is similar in appearance to a Pixar movie.

Level Design. There really has to be more than one way to everything. Halo 1 was horrible in this sense, as there way just one big path to everything, or, alternatively, too many paths. Halo 3 and ODST improved on this a lot, and L4D also is a prime example of a myriad of alternative routes.

Weapons. Personally, I find WWII weapons boring, not a lot of variety, bad shooting range and ammo count. I prefer sci-fi weapons, like the DC-15, DC-17, Spartan Laser, and Plasma Rifle. Melee weapons are always fun as well.

Health. While realism is cool and all, taking one shot to the face from a spray weapon doesn't make for a very exciting game. I really dislike shields, but I can stand them. The stamina system from ODST and the BFII health bars provide enough life to actually do some fighting.


Favorite: Halo 3, Halo ODST, Battlefront (2), Team Fortress 2, Left 4 Dead
Least Favorite: Battlefield 1943, Call of Duty 3

I gotta say, I'm pretty much opposite on your views. Realism is my favourite.

Replayability. If there's no online cooperative it'll be a long time before I want to play through the campaign again. If that's the case the multiplayer better have tons of weapons, maps, and options to choose from. That's why I still play SWBF2 and Halo 3, even though other shooters are amazing otherwise.

Teancum wrote:Replayability. If there's no online cooperative it'll be a long time before I want to play through the campaign again. If that's the case the multiplayer better have tons of weapons, maps, and options to choose from. That's why I still play SWBF2 and Halo 3, even though other shooters are amazing otherwise.

Agreed. I don't play multiplayer much at all, but I still play SWBF2 a lot in singleplayer because the gameplay is always different.

I was wondering the same thing the other day. (Actually I was wondering what's the difference between SWBF2, BF2, RC, Halo, Tribes: Vengeance) I would have to say the physics engine, customization, uniqueness, storyline, realism, map size, modability.

Edit: Sadly this has gotten longer that I had hoped it would be. I ended up reviewing five different games. I have a feeling that a Mod will kindly ask that I edit this, and I will fully comply if I am asked, but I hope that is educational to some people. Hey, you might even find you new second favorite game besides SWBF2! Just to be sure, I’ll hide my comments:

I completely agree with Fusion and Tean on their views. And then I also like Fully Destructible Environments. Hehe... Do I need a reason for that?

You know... I kind of like it when I can shoot somebody... and they die.

GangsterJawa wrote:You know... I kind of like it when I can shoot somebody... and they die.

I just laughed so hard at that.

Tean has a good point about replayability, too.

Guns make a good shooter... and multiplayer.

Guns make a good shooter... and multiplayer.

But there is nothing better than to stumble upon a camping sniper in bf2 or bf2142 and walk away with their dogtags.

ecko_66 wrote:

Guns make a good shooter... and multiplayer.

But there is nothing better than to stumble upon a camping sniper in bf2 or bf2142 and walk away with their dogtags.

Sure there is. To walk away with not only their dogtags, but pieces of the now-ruined building they were in, which you blew up.

Honestly, I'd have to say there are a few qualities I find extremely important in a shooter.

Realism - I don't mean often-one-shot-kills, Call of Duty-style, I just mean the game has to have a physics engine, gameplay and graphics that are believable enough that I can suspend my disbelief. I ask for nothing more.

Story - Gotta have a good story. A perfect example of story's value came when I played Halo 2's campaign - during one of the Arbiter's levels, I forgot what I was trying to accomplish. The level, from then on, felt like empty, tacked-on combat to fill in the space between me and the next level.

Options - Whether it's customizing your armor in Halo 3, choosing your weapons in most games, or simply being given the choice of which side to attack from (ODST and Battlefront II are very good about this), the player must be given options.

Fun (Most Important) - Today, I went to a friend's house and played eight-man Halo 3. In one Rocket Race match, we were all invincible and split into teams of two, then tasked with using a Mongoose to transport our team's VIP to a series of objectives. We were all invincible. The result was a five-Spartan brawl, resulting from several flipped vehicles, in which we attempted to propel ourselves - by shooting rockets into the ground - towards each other so we could get behind our foes and score the invincibility-trumping assassination. THAT is why I play Halo.

All things considered, my favorite games by far are the Halo trilogy (though some of the games have flaws in terms of level variety and story - 1 and 2 respectively - they more than make up for that with heaping amounts of fun), as well as Bungie's love letter to fans, ODST. I have, in recent times, come to strongly dislike games such as JK II and Battlefront II, simply because compared to Halo, I find them severely lacking in the department of "fun".

IronJaw wrote:I was wondering the same thing the other day. (Actually I was wondering what's the difference between SWBF2, BF2, RC, Halo, Tribes: Vengeance) I would have to say the physics engine, customization, uniqueness, storyline, realism, map size, modability.

Edit: Sadly this has gotten longer that I had hoped it would be. I ended up reviewing five different games. I have a feeling that a Mod will kindly ask that I edit this, and I will fully comply if I am asked, but I hope that is educational to some people. Hey, you might even find you new second favorite game besides SWBF2! Just to be sure, I’ll hide my comments:

Hidden/Spoiler:

SWBF2 :

Physics Engine:

The physics engine, to me, seams to be lacking. The Jet Trooper I would rather work exactly like the Tribes: Vengeance jet packs. That would be unbelievably.

Sadly there isn't a lot of customization in the game it's self, other then the 5-7 switchable units. (Which I must say, is a lot more than I can say for other games.)

Customization:

It's really not that unique if you add all of the games that use Conquest Mode, but just as fun every time.

Storyline:

The storyline is OK, but nothing near as dramatic as Halo, or even RC.

Realism:

As for realism... it's Sci-Fi, what can ya' do? I don't really think that the Jet trooper animation is very realistic, or the AI very "smart", etc. The space battles do seem leas like a simulator and more like an arcade type thing, which some might find as OK.

Map Size:

Map size does vary, and the shipped maps are very wide-open, but still funnel the battle nicely.

Modability:

This would have to be the second easiest games I have ever tried to mod. (As this forum so easily proves)

BF2:

Physics Engine:

The physics engine seems to be quite nice, though you didn't really get to bend it that much since there was really just a lot of walking and riding. Jumping was a no-no when trying to shoot accurately. You usually crouch, and shoot, where in other games you jumped and shoot, tying to keep from being hit.

Customization:

Again you have the five or so set classes, but at least you have more than four primary and secondary weapons that on SWBFII. you had grappling hooks, night vision, zip line shooting crossbows, knives, binoculars, etc. (Expansion pack) Not only that but you could unlock newer weapons if you played online. (Which I hated, because for the first year I owned the games I didn't have internet access, so no multilayer, and then after that the Punkbuster kept kicking me for losing some kind of keys.... even after I updated Punkbuster, I still had 100+ ping on the fastest servers) Not to mention my favorite part: Medics. The ability to revive fallen friendlies was the coolest thing. yeah, it made respond time slower, but it was still cool. It also promoted squad tactics. Something that previously was rather hard to get done on FPS before this.

Uniqueness:

I seen a lot of games like BF2 around, mostly Call of Duty 4. I really liked the medic roles, and the commander calling artillery strikes (And that fact that if you listen closely, you can hear the artillery firing before the shells start to fall, giving you time to get under cover) vehicle drops, and chain of command. These are some things that I actually haven’t seen a lot of in other games. I thoroughly enjoyed them though.

Storyline:

Sadly there was no real single player. That was my favorite part of BF1942 that hey ditched in BF2. As I said I didn't have internet for the first year that I owned the game, so really felt this. I was also very frustrated that they had several maps that where Multyplayer only, and that I couldn't even start a mulyplayer match to just walk around on the map. This was also a very annoying because I got the DVD edition with all three expantion packs, two of wich where explicitly Multyplayer. All in all a bad combination of almost no single player, and all multyplayer.

Realism:

I found the game to be very realistic, from the details, to the water, to the vehicles, to the vehicle controls, (Choppers where fun to crash ) to the shades (Sorry Fuison, I find more realistic/ almost no realism [Tron 2] funnest ) to the fire fights, to the building battles, to the squad teamwork.

Map Size:

Map size was very large, which is a must if your aiming for vehicular warfare, which BF2 did contain a lot of vehicles. For single player the maps were just about right from control point to control point, but where slightly smaller for aircraft that I would have liked.

Modability:

I haven't really looked into modding the game, but I do know of Project Reality which I have played, and heard about from a friend, that seems a major Modding project that is fun to play, and has be revised many, many times.

Republic Commando:

Physics Engine:

The physics in this game was OK, but it did seem to lack a good y-axis even more than BF2. Where as you practically didn't jump around in BF2, mostly because that made you inaccurate, at least there where may cranes, buildings, mountains, and hills to make up for that. In RC, it's really just a lot of hall way to hall way fighting. Even in multyplayer it's just a lot of catwalks and hallways. But don't get me wrong, I still do a lot of jumping in Multyplayer. (I get a regular 40-70 ping compared to the 100+ for BF2)

Customization:

You didn't really get that broad a choice in single player when it came to weapons, which was Ok, because they where exactly the weapons you needed. In multyplayer I's a bit better, but still everyone is either trying to get the same weapon, or you keep getting killed by the same weapon.

Uniqueness:

RC is a very unique game. The story line was a millimeter to shallow (Right when the story really picks up is the very cut scene after the last level ) but even with that the levels where very lengthy and strung together closely. The squad commandos where revolutionary. In SWBF2 I don't even use squad commands even if I remember I could, but in RC I couldn't help but tell all three to take a sniping position and watch the giant bugs go by-by. I end up telling my squad a commando in just about every room I enter. I also found the Vibro-Blade very fun. I have never played with a game that used something like that. Yeah you had knives in BF2 and Energy Blade in Tribes: Vengeance, but both where really out of place with the long ranges you usually played at.

Storyline:

Story line was just cool. though it was lacking in depth. The where only three "missions" that where broken into small sections. I would call then "levels" but they where really to long for that. But I wouldn't call them "campaigns" which is what they are officially called, because "campaign" really comes off to me as several missions strung together, where are there are really only three really long missions. When the plot really started getting going was when [SPOILER]:[hide]Sev got killed/ abducted. That was when I wanted to brave the entire Wookie tower to go save my squad mate. But then the game ends and they leave him there to die. After getting a message for Yoda they for got entirely about there friend.......... It was depressing.

Realism:

As for realism it seamed quite nice. the atmosphere for each level was just spectacular, the creaking of the abandoned ship as you find out it's not quite so abandoned. Your visor wiping the ran/ bug guts off of it's self. The flying Trandosians if you shoot there breathing tanks. It was all great. Though I would have to say that it did get repetitive using the same weapons over and over again, but that's when you go Rambo with the Vibro Blade.

Map Size:

Multyplayer maps are a little to small for my taste, some are so small that you can throw a grenade from one side to the other. But this was countered by the layout of the maps, they where literaly a-maze-ing. On some maps it acually takes me around two twenty minute games before I can move from one end of the map to the other effectively. This is fine when you want to restrict the battle, but veep it from a Grenad-War, but it is still really annoying to be killed right after you spawn. I would have to say the Single player maps where sorta' restricting, but that was Ok, because you got to shoot more things.

Modability:

Moddability is ok, it's map making is a lot more complicated than SWBF2, but I don't think it's imposable. I would definitely rather it be a little more like ZeroEditor, but I do like the way you have to make the walls. As I said the game is mainly hallway to hallway fighting, so you won't be seeing any wide open fields like in SWBF2. The skining aspect of it is definitely more detailed, but you can reskin the Singleplayer units.


Halo:

I don't play much Halo ( I don't own the game, but have mainly played Halo 1) but I'll see what I can say (mostly about Halo 1).

The physics seemed real, yet unreal. The jump was laughable, being several time higher than most would have guessed, but then again in Multiplayer you ended up jumping around a lot. The plasma grenades where fun to throw and watch blow up, and the warthog was fun to drive around. But a lot of it was just you walking around killing everyone in a certain area and moving on.

Halo is a lot like RC in this respect. You have your default weapons, and the enemies weapons, and usually kept your own ore picked up the first alien on you saw. In Multiplayer you usually fought over weapons, and where killed mostly by special weapons. not really anything more. Though in halo 3 you could customize your armor, which was very, very cool.

Since I'm getting tired of Typing I'm going to cut this part short.

Uniqueness:

Just about every one has played Halo. It is very unique, gameplay wise, graphic wise, and story wise.

Storyline:

Probably the reason the game series has been such a big hit so far. The story is very engaging, and exciting.

Realism:

It's a Sci-Fi game, so what more could you ask? I actually don't see a lot of realism in the game considering most of the first game was off world (Earth). Again the jump is very unrealistic, but largely ignored because of game play fun, which is just fine with me.

Map size:

The multiplayer maps seemed pretty large, letting the Wart Hogs roam free, but letting those on foot to get places quickly. most of the time the maps are very simple, which was ok, it just meant the enemy could only come at you two ways.

Modability:

Well I haven’t even check to see if there was a modding community, so I wouldn’t really know.

Tribes: Vengeance

Physics Engine:

This game has the best physics that's I've seen in any game I've played. Well, I guess it does. Most games don't really rely on it's physics Engine as much as Tribes: Vengeance does. The games is all about the jet pack and the compilation of natural ramps and grappling hooks to gain major speed, while trying to shoot opponents, going just as fast, out of the sky with single shot weapons. Sound like fun? You bet!

Customization:

This would have to be by fare the most customizable game I've played. Not only do you get to pick from three armor types every time you spawn, but each has a special weapon that only that armor type can equip. You may only get three weapons, but the variety to choose from is very broad. Not to mention 4-5 special packs that grant various passive and active effects, from repair packs, to speed packs , to energy packs, to name a few. You can also download any number of skins for your armor type, and can scroll through them all to pick one. No need to replace the original.

Uniqueness:

See Physics Engine"

Storyline:

A weak story line, that's relatively confusing, and long. Not much your missing, the really diamond is multiplayer. I have a felling that if the storyline was as engaging as Halo's then Tribes would have been one of the most popular games out there for PC.

Realism:

I don't think Tribes takes place on Earth so obviously it's different, but you can still make a connection. The terrain is slightly exaggerated to make the Jump Jets and Anti-Gravity Skis work better, but still look "real". The buildings do have a futuristic look to them, but aren't exactly Star Wars grade walls, which gives it a nice flavor. Most of the forts will be made of concrete. Though the art is unique isn't isn't over the top, but keeps the game from being "real" but not surreal. Halo I found was like that, where everything was so surreal you started getting sucked in and dreamy. This doesn't really happen with Tribes: Vengeance, and I really like it.

Map Size:

The maps are nice and big, but again because of the Jump Jets, and Skis, are just the right size. You do have some air units that are more like hover units, so you aren't really bothered with lower map roofs that games with fighter jets would have to worry about. The bases are just big enough to be useful, but not dominating the maps. Some even has mini base that you can spawn in. Some maps are souly vertical with a small horizontal size. Pretty much flying and fighting arounda giant sky scraper.

Modability:

I haven't personaly looked ito this but my best friend is. you can change the just about any trail in the game to something different, from changing the blue disk and trail of the Spinfuser to a rocket type projectile to giving the Skis a trail of fire. Of course there's the reskining of the armor and weapons. There is also a map builder that comes with the full game. (Also allowing you to open and change the shipped maps)

Whats the first easiest to mod?

SWBF II

In my opinion:
- Graphics (this is the least important)
- Online Co-op for the campaign
- It has a campaign
- Squad Commands (love this in RC)
- Multiple Weapons
- Varying difficulty
- Low-ish requirements (for PC)