Plumpbiscuit
Member
Sorry, not pictures in this thread. 
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)
(2)
(3)
(4)
(5)
(6)
(7)
(8)
(9)
(10)
(11)
(12)
(13)
(14)
(15)
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)
---
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.
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)
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:
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)
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.
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)
'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 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)
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)
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)
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)
"Best infantry combat in the series"... somebody hasn't played Battlefield 2...
(9)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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 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.
