Support NeoGAF

[test_account]

(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,

Patches doesnt mean that something was necessarily wrong (in the sense of being unplayable or not enjoyable), but that things could be done better. If Blizzard had released maybe 10 patches (not counting content update), i'm sure that the game would still be just as popular. Blizzard doesnt mean that a game need to be patched over 100 times to be playable, they mean that theres a lot that they could do to make the game even better than it is. This shows that they're taking the game very seriously and try to tweak and change things to make it even better. This isnt anything negative. Its the same with movie and music production as well, a lot of tweaks and changes can be done to make things even better.

I havnt played Overwatch, but i've been playing Uncharted 4 multiplayer since day one. The game have seen over 20 patches (or close to 90 if you count the server side updates), but i've enjoyed the game since day one.

 

[Duxxy3]

No Bioshock, no golden age.

 

[DeathbyCheerios]

Patches doesnt mean that something was necessarily wrong (in the sense of being unplayable or not enjoyable), but that things could be done better. If Blizzard had released maybe 10 patches (not counting content update), i'm sure that the game would still be just as popular. Blizzard doesnt mean that a game need to be patched over 100 times to be playable, they mean that theres a lot that they could do to make the game even better than it is. This shows that they're taking the game very seriously and try to tweak and change things to make it even better. This isnt anything negative. Its the same with movie and music production as well, a lot of tweaks and changes can be done to make things even better.

I havnt played Overwatch, but i've been playing Uncharted 4 multiplayer since day one. The game have seen over 20 patches (or close to 90 if you count the server side updates), but i've enjoyed the game since day one.

Its also not like games aren't more patched now than before cause it is much easier to do so.

There is a lot of older shooters that had stupid issues but because there were no updates or patches, people just dealt with it.

Now we don't have to.

 

[MontlyCure]

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.

Confused by this one. Why would they bother mentioning games from '03/'04?

 

[eot]

I'm not gonna accept anything as a golden age when most of these games don't have level editors. Community maps >>> default maps.

 

[Imp the Dimp]

Little sad to see the article omit Wolfenstein: TNO because it got the single best FPS campaign you'll ever play, but I guess I might be a tad too old.

Golden Age for me.

 

[Haly]

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.

Skimmed the rest after here. It's evident you're stuck in a 90s/00s mindset if this is how you truly feel about "patches". Just another "back in my day games were good and now they're not".

 

[Chavelo]

Time to go back to your bed, grandpa. The type of game market you're looking for happened 20 years ago. Shit changes and this is a pretty awesome time ONLY IF you're caught up with time itself.

Spoiler

No Half-Life means we will never get another Golden Era, tho

 

[test_account]

Its also not like games aren't more patched now than before cause it is much easier to do so.

There is a lot of older shooters that had stupid issues but because there were no updates or patches, people just dealt with it.

Now we don't have to.

Yeah, thats also true.

 

[Chewie B]

The FPS genre has pretty much stagnated.

64 player servers has been the standard for way too long. Back in the late 90s-early 00s, it wasn't uncommon to see 128 player servers in games like Tribes or Joint Ops. No one has really "figured out" yet how to balance maps around a large amount of players aka no one has really bothered to try to do so.

And this might seem a little messed up to say, but for as violent as shooters have become, there has yet to be a damage model like the old Soldier of Fortune games where you could literally blow someone's leg or arm off and see pieces of bone flying across the screen. Wolfenstein has come close, but even that game is watered down in the gore department (either that or I have really rose/blood tinted glasses for the brutality of older FPSers)

 

[Futaleufu]

The FPS genre has pretty much stagnated.

64 player servers has been the standard for way too long. Back in the late 90s-early 00s, it wasn't uncommon to see 128 player servers in games like Tribes or Joint Ops. No one has really "figured out" yet how to balance maps around a large amount of players aka no one has really bothered to try to do so.

And this might seem a little messed up to say, but for as violent as shooters have become, there has yet to be a damage model like the old Soldier of Fortune games where you could literally blow someone's leg or arm off and see pieces of bone flying across the screen. Wolfenstein has come close, but even that game is watered down in the gore department (either that or I have really rose/blood tinted glasses for the brutality of older FPSers)

I agree.

I thought 15 years ago that the whole point of militaristic FPS was that one day we would have a truly massive MP experience with hundreds of combatants per side, but that never happened because consoles and "PC gaming is dead"

 

[Shao Kahn Brewing a Stew]

I'd say we are at the peak of FPS being as exhausted of ideas as possible. If by "Golden Age" they mean "FPS games are perfected", then they're right. There's nothing else you can do to FPS games to make it more unique or interesting than what's been done before, and we have seen it all

Every game is going to be a derivative of existing games. I guess that makes this the golden age.

 

[Psychoward]

2016 had Superhot, DOOM, Titanfall 2, Overwatch and BF1. As far as I'm concerned we are in an FPS golden age right now yeah

 

[DaciaJC]

I agree.

I thought 15 years ago that the whole point of militaristic FPS was that one day we would have a truly massive MP experience with hundreds of combatants per side, but that never happened because consoles and "PC gaming is dead"

There is Planetside 2.

 

[Head.spawn]

This game needs a PC port badly.

 

[Haly]

There is Planetside 2.

And it does well enough for itself but it's not super popular or anything, because it turns out being a single guy in a faction of 300 players is less exciting than your imagination makes it out to be. Almost nothing you do matters, it all comes down to how well your side organizes as a multi-pronged team.