"One of my complaints with the Call of Duty multiplayer is that they try to make it so every gun is on an equal playing field, and that bothers me because, in life, not every gun is on an equal playing field."
With the release of Halo 4 and Black Ops 2, we look at what makes a good FPS
The three guys discuss what they think makes a good first-person shooter.
Sohinki suggests "cool" weapons. Lasercorn listed Bulletstorm as an example and listed some of its crazier weapons.
Joven asked about games like Battlefield 3 and Call of Duty, which have more realistic weapons. Sohinki thought that it depends on "how they work" and not just the look, unlike Borderlands 2, which he said only had five weapons with different skins, a similar issue Joven had with Halo 4.
Sohinki mentioned how shooting mechanics vary from game to game.
Lasercorn said that he prefers good melee kills, which adds more realism. When Joven asked about realism in general, Lasercorn says that there is no middle ground: games should be realistic or not. Sohinki mentioned that non-generic animations could help with this.
Joven mentioned strategy.
Lasercorn mentioned vehicles, turrets, traps, etc.
Sohinki mentions something Lasercorn "harps on a lot": destructible environments. He also mentions different gameplay for guns, as no two gun types are the same. He listed Call of Duty as an example of what not to do and Counter-Strike as the opposite.
Ian and Anthony stated that if an FPS does not have shooting and is not in first-person, "you're doing something wrong".
Ian said that games should have a variety of guns, but Portal is an exception. He and Anthony debated whether Portal counts as an FPS.