Battlefield or Call of duty. Which in your opinion is better.

My go-to war game is Arma 3 by a mile, but beyond that, Battlefield. It's still a little bit more strategic and team-based than CoD's outrageous run-and-gun for individual glory. Plus, I like the more realistic bullet trajectories, larger maps, and vehicles, even if they are still insane.

 

Rainbow Six, none of this Siege or Vegas nonsense either, Rogue Spear & 3 all the way. About as grounded as you're going to get.

Also SWAT 3 which is equally GOAT tier.

 

Vegas took some decidedly Tom Clancy-ish liberties with reality, but before a certain patch at least the guns behaved properly. And I loved playing tactical fashion show! :lol:

 

There's a notable distinction between 'modern' FPS games and 'classic ones'.
It has mostly to do with the type of First-Person shooter we are talking about;


Arena Shooters primarily feature shooting and moving independently and at the same time, doing more to manage picking up enough health, armor, new weapons & ammo as you go along and trying to maintain 'fluidity' between frags (points scored, generally, by killing other 'gladiators').
Military-style FPS games primarily feature shooting and moving almost separately and a lot of duck-and-cover strategy (especially while reloading), doing more to manage the ammo & health you spawn in with, and trying to maintain 'fluidity' between changing weapons or a change in current objectives (or changing vehicles! ).


There seems to be an increasing divide between these two ends of the spectrum in First-person shooters; Quake 3 versus Call of Duty, Unreal Tournament versus Battlefield, Xonotic versus Medal of Honor and even Half-Life 2 DeathMatch versus Counter-Strike: Source.
I played about an hour and a half of Halo 4 DeathMatch on an Xbox 360, and that felt, to me, to fall somewhere in between the two in terms of gameplay (as well as overall atmosphere and visual styles)... as well as reminding me how long it's been since I've tried to play a First-Person Shooter on a gamepad controller (I used to, albiet with some difficulty, play Quake III Arena Online on a gamepad controller against other keyboard & mouse users).


There was a time when I would have eagerly jumped into a thread like this and just been like n'ahhh they all suck!
Because I had only played the 'Arena Shooter' side of things before and had fallen to the mentality that those games are 'better' than the newer ones.


There is truth to the trend that newer and more 'modern' FPS'es are 'dumbing down' upon the old classics, with less skill-involved game mechanics that favor increased complexity over greater simplicity, the result of which is a lower skill ceiling and a trade-off between the difficulty being in how many things you can remember to do at once and the difficulty being in how many ways you can stay one step ahead of your competitors mentally in a row.
I'm reminded of my frustration with attempting to enter into the 'full-force' scene in Jedi Knight 2 & 3, where I was constantly frustrated by my seeming inability to press as many buttons at once (for the different force powers) as the opponents seemed to be able to do... and looking back, I would have rather had a "third-person shooter that mixes laser swords with ranged weapons" with a more simplisitc set of "force powers"... in favor of the skill being in how you use the moves rather than in being able to use so many at once & keeping well-timed track of which ones to use to counter which others.

 

:eusa_clap That was a very astute observation that helped me sort of pin down what was different about the new games compared to old ones. It's part of why I was so much better at Halo 3 than any of the newer ones. I found it was the most balanced one in play-style. Halo had found its groove, ironed out the kinks of 1 and 2, but had not yet seen the feature creep that included armor abilities, ordnance drops, and for the love of god, req cards.

It tried to maintain its feel as a sporty shooter. But as you said, the two kinds of difficulty really caused a clash. Now you not only have to be a good marksman and tactician, but you have to play so fast that even the tiniest slip means you're done. With a margin of error that slim, you're about equally likely to win or lose in any encounter, skill hardly withstanding. The only real thing separating a novice from a mid-level player is whether they know why a situation went how it did.

Once again, thank you. I now understand why the newest FPS games leave a bad taste in my mouth.

 

Titanfall.

 

I was just about to say that the only military style FPS I ever truly enjoyed was Titanfall, despite the lack of content it had. I'm really starting to think you're my soulmate when it comes to games.

 

Did you hear? The sequel is supposed to release on Fall this year (or April 2017 at the latest). Apparently this time it will also come with a single-player campaign. Or something.

 

I did, yeah. I just hope the single player doesn't distract too much from the multi-player. That's literally the one game I've ever said that about.

 

Call of duty hasn't been good since black ops 2 and battlefield just sucks.

 

Screw this stuff, Doom and Wolfenstein all the way (the originals, that is)