Keep in mind these are series'
Also, if I leave one out, my apologies.

I'd imagine you're writing a poll right now, and if it doesn't have Timesplitters you've already failed.

you know i was going to put that in there but i didnt think enough people played that?

edit: but it was a great one.

This is a fail poll.

You have fraking Turok on there, but not Counter Strike, Halo or Call of Duty? The three most successful multiiplayer games ever?

lol, agreed. CS, America's Army, and 007 ftw.

I guess I consider CS to be part of HL, although TFC is too technically.... I always assumed CS was a lot like HL though, not so much with TFC... but then again i dont play CS.

edit: oh and Turok: Rage Wars was the shiz...

As for Halo, kinda forgot that one... Call of Duty and MOH both got left out. Also my bad...

CS is NOTHING like HL multiplayer.

Unreal Tournament.

Instead concerning yourself of having a poll, why not just ask the question. You forgot Return to Casle Wolfenstein and its ******* yet beautiful child, Enemy Territory.

For me, I think TFC and TF2 for me. Lighthearted enough to joke around while deep enough to satisify older players. There is something I depise about the popular "realistic" military shooters, it seems all the ELITE PARAMILITARY UNIT or EXPERIENCE WARDOG OF THE BATTLEFEILD settings seem to bring out the douchbags of the internet. The only time I liked Counter Strike Source was when it was relatively new and people were nice to each other trying things out. Now it's a sausage fest of a**holes.

But that's not about the gameplay.

I enjoyed Quake I with the painkeep mod.

Yeah I used to watch my friend play CS and laugh at him... so many people just talk crap to eachother and get mad... whats the point?

TF2 ftw, good times right there.

Halo feels too slow to me after playing TF2, and I've never considered popularity to mean quality.

Yeah, CS 1.6 at it's peak alone brought in 10,000,000 people a day. Ten, ****ing, million. Then source dropped and even MORE started playing CS.

I'd say the best FPS is not a series, but is an individual piece of a series. I loved q3, liked q4, but would rather play q3 than ut2k4 and ut2k4 than q4 so posting them in series is silly.

I don't think they make polls big enough for what you're asking.

1. TF2
2. CS:S
3. UT1
4. Turok 1

(I miss Turok 1 )

Protip: Turok 1 wasn't multiplayer, it was just that fun

Turok 1 had multiplayer?

TF2 and COD4 are my current favorites, but I'm a sucker for Singleplayer gaming over Multiplayer.

1. CS 1.6
2. Tribes 1/2
(large gap here)
3. UT
4. Quake
(large gap here)
5. Enemy Territory games (incl. Quake Wars)
6. CoD4

Does it really get any better than the original Tribes? Especially including all the modding and little applications you could use, and skins, and all that.

Original tribes was ****ing awesome.

I used to play that **** for days on end.

I'm curious, what about CS 1.6 was better than Source? I know a lot of old-school players always say this, so why?

Hard to single out one single title.

Lately, TF2 and COD4 would be the top of the list.

Other greats in no specific order

CS/CS:S
Quake 2/3
Tribes
Battlefield 1942/ Battlefield 2
The "Rare" console shooters (Goldeneye, Perfect Dark)
Jedi Knight.

Because they're Nancy boys that hate new things. There might be a few minor tweaks, but the same gameplay is intact.

Single Player:
1. Bioshock
2. Half Life 2
3. Call of Duty 4: Modern Warfare
4. Jedi Knight: Dark Forces 2
5. Blood 2
6. Call of Juarez

Multi Player:
1. Team Fortress 2
2. Day of Defeat: Source
3. Counter Strike: Source
4. Perfect Dark
5. Halo

I think it's telling that a majority of my favorite multi player games are made by the same company. I am not at all a Valve fanboy either, it is just clear that they make some excellent quality products.

[Also KOP_AoEJedi, you sound more and more like TE each day.]

In terms of fun-ness:

TF2 = Tribes 1 > Tribes 2 = TFC > JK1 > UT1 = Goldeneye

Don't have experience with the other games on the poll.

It's because 75% of my posts are out of boredom at work. I used to only post when I had something good to say... now I just babble on here and people respond... LIKE THIS THREAD!

Very few of the improvements in CS:S are beneficial. Three things that massively detract from the balance/gameplay are the new flashbang mechanics, the improved hitboxes and the recoil mechanic.

Flashbangs make you deaf as well as blind, the frame-view imprint in CS:S is MUCH harder to recover from than the whiteout screen in 1.6. It's also easier to evade flashbangs in 1.6, whereas in CS:S a well placed flash is a death sentence for the victim(s). For 200$, flashes are just way too good in Source.

Source has much more accurate hitboxes, and larger player models that are easier to hit. Technically it is an improvement, but it makes the aim/shoot mechanic much easier. It's easier to hit people, easier to hit a larger head-hitbox. Old-school players like 1.6's quirky hitboxes better because it simply requires more accuracy/skill to kill people. It also means that in 1.6 you will sometimes shoot people but not hit them due to lag/netcode/inconsistent hitboxes.

The recoil mechanic in Source is much more forgiving. It's very easy to spray with the rifles in Source at mid-range. Colt/ak both more kick in 1.6, and it takes some practice to shoot longer bursts at mid-range.

Source's best improvements come with the graphics, improved surround sound, and netcode. The addition of pushable barrels and garbage cluttering the maps looks cool, but is very annoying when it prevents you from moving freely.

Overall, Source is easier to play/learn/perfect than 1.6. Old-school players like 1.6 better because it requires more "skill". I've grown to really like both games, but I definitely think 1.6 is much better. I don't play CS nonstop like I used to, but most people generally want to play Source these days and I'm game for that. It's very easy to go from 1.6->Source, but if you've played Source and want to try 1.6 you'll find a viciously competitive playerbase and a generally noob-unfriendly environment. That and you need a CRT or a LCD @ 100hz ;p

That's how they're supposed to work...

Oh crap... here comes the CS vs CS:S debates.

So basically you liked the broken gameplay mechanics of CS. Riiiight.

Let's not forget on the subject of recoil, that CS's recoil is predictable while CS:S's is random.

I don't really understand how people consider CS:S easier. Bigger hitboxes benefit your enemy as much as they do you. Same with the flashbang fixes.

Yeah, that's exactly what it comes down to: "CSS is a better game, thus sucks. I want to have to fight the game in order to do well."

"Skilled" CS1.6 players are the players that have mastered the game engine, not the gameplay. This is called "degenerate strategy" and is so utterly telling of the CS idiotry that anyone who understands game design would stay 200 miles away from this game.

I personally didn't fully enjoy the game until I had a better PC, and a clan to play with. Playing with a clan means that you learn eachother's tactics, you work well together, and you can smack talk and joke around without anyone taking it seriously.

Team Fortress 2 is the one I enjoy the most, along with its predecessor TFC.

The point isn't about realism - it's which makes for a better game (which is subjective, of course).



Sorry for derailing your thread :(. I think it's a good discussion and it'd be great if a mod could split the thread.



I'll try to explain why I prefer the 1.6 mechanics. Let's say you have two players - an expert, and an average player. As a result of far more practice/gaming, the expert makes next to no mistakes when he plays. The average players makes numerous mistake - significantly more than the expert. In 1.6, the expert has a large advantage because the game engine is not forgiving of these mistakes. The smaller hitboxes cause the average player to miss more often, whereas if the game was CS:S, he may have made the shots due to having a larger target. However, when the expert plays CS:S, he makes almost the same amount of mistakes; while the expert is making the same amount of mistakes, the average player is making less. The playing field is more level.

1.6 allows a very large gap between the beginner and the expert player. It's absolutely personal opinion as to whether this is a good thing or not. Obviously I think it is. Most 1.6 fanatics agree. I feel that this doesn't really need to be debated - both opinions are respectable and have plenty of benefits. It's up to the person which type of game they like IMO.



Let's be reasonable here, I clearly said that I like both games.



This is true, but why are people "idiots"? I think you are being a jackass for calling people idiots because they like a certain type of game better. There can be different philosophies of game design, you know.



Agreed. In both games, you need to have a good PC to have fun playing the game at any above-average level. Both games are fantastic on the social level; you can meet a ton of interesting people and have great experiences playing as a team together. Thankfully, CS:S preserved this and the tactics aspect of CS extremely well.

If you read my posts closely, I'm trying to EXPLAIN why people like 1.6, not prove that it is a better game. Some people can't really explain why they like 1.6 better, and they come off as elitist *******s clinging to an older game.

where's Halo 2?

No, I'm not talking about you, I'm talking about why most people dislike CSS.

And the reason why purist CS1.6 players are idiots is because they're degenerate strategy players. They look for the best way to take advantage of a poorly designed game. They're basically cheaters. They're a game designer's biggest hurdle in social game design.

Interestingly, these same degenerate players are also staunch critics of the AWP. Amazing hypocrisy.

GOLDENEYE

fin

Unreal Tournament 2004

SAM I AM!!!!!!!





You're all going to hell.

Second Encounter was a blast, I didn't care much for Sam 2

Excluding mods, UT. Including, either JK or HL.

Goldeneye:007 (N64) [/SIZE]

The most common response I've heard is that it's "easier", which makes no ****ing sense, because if it's easier for everyone, it's the same difficulty, amirite?