Newb Looking for a shooter

[Ja'chyra]

Afternoon all

I've decided to give a shooter a try on the pc and was wondering if anyone could make any recommendations. I don't want anything too hard and single player is more important as I doubt I will ever play MP. Not too keen on groups so a single character would be best, and downloading from Steam would be ideal.

So, any recommendations to cut my teeth on?

[Monk]

Call of Duty 4: Modern Warfare.

A definite high point in the franchise and of the shooter genre with a strong campaign. It challenges you to sneak, snipe, and of course just run and gun. There are moments in the single-player narrative that still give me chills when i play through it.

It's also pretty forgiving on the lower settings.

[frogbeastegg]

Bioshock. It's one of the few in the genre I like.

Bioshock has a very good story if you track down the audio logs, especially by the standards of the genre. Rapture has oodles of atmosphere; it's a setting which stands out and has a personality of its own. Its inhabitants are insane and fantastic, their stories tragic. There's some outstanding set pieces in the game, moments that you will fight through and remember for long afterwards. The water effects are simply stunning. There are some gentle choices to make throughout the game. Gentle because none of them will dramatically affect your game experience, so you can't accidentally make the game very hard with a single choice, for example. You get an assortment of standard weapons to play with, and a selection of plasmids which enable to you conjure up fire, lightning etc. Tonics and passive plasmids allow you to tailor your character to your playstyle, whether that's gungho, sneaky, plasmid mad or a mix of all three.

Oh and to quote Monk in the "What are you playing?" topic, "there's a power that shoots bees from your hands. Bees. From your hands."

[Ja'chyra]

Lol, I had a feeling you two might be first in.

Thanks for the suggestions, I have COD5 on the 360 but not that into consoles and I was thinking about Bioshock as well and it's only £13.99.

[Whacker]

Meh, I'll throw in some slightly dissenting opinions, just for flavor's sake and because I can. I personally did not like Bioshock at all. I found it shallow and not remotely close to the game it was pitched as the spiritual successor to (System Shock 2), and the PC port seemed to be a typical afterthought for the console version. COD4 wasn't bad, but it was also an extremely oversimplified shooter on rails. I did like the storyline though, and there is a non-first-person mission that I absolutely loved and was my favorite part of the game, but I wont spoil it.

Personally, I'd recommend Crysis. It is what it is, it's a beautiful, straightforward, fun shooter on rails. Storyline is dumb as can be, the gameplay is terrific, controls are crisp and it's clearly built FOR a PC and WASD/mouse, the atmospheric audio is immersive, the spoken dialogue is funny (horrible accents), and the visuals are stunning.

[Hooahguy]

if you are looking for a long campaign that plays fast, id recommend Rainbow 6 Vegas.
if you are looking for a shooter that makes you feel as if you are actually in special forces (like rapelling down the side of a building, infiltrating a building, fast-roping into an area), R6V is for you. the AI is exellent, both enemy and team mates. the enemy tries to flank you as much as possible, and are pretty good shots. also, with the rebounding health meter, you dont have to play as carefully as you used to do, but still, one shot can easily take you down, so you gotta be careful.
the cover system in the game makes other games look bad, for the system for covering is so great, i feel like ehenver i pass by a low wall or go to a corner in real life, i want to duck down and look around the corner for terrorists.

the story, while the standard run of the mill terrorist-got-a-big-bomb-and-wants-to-kill-people, you dont think of that when you play it. the action is very intense. and its light on the specs.
the game looks amazing, but needs anti-aliasing. also, its an old game, from 2006, so dont expect crysis-like graphics. but i will say, theres something about fighting in a casino that is just AWESOME.
COD4's campaign is good, but short. its main strength is its MP. thats why i say R6V.
and its really cheap. i got it for $10.

[johnhughthom]

I believe Steam has a Bioshock demo, why don't you try that.
Reminds me, I should try it myself. I picked it up when Steam was selling it for £2.99 or something silly and haven't gotten round to playing it. I also have the Orange Box to try as well.

[Zenicetus]

I'd recommend Bioshock too. It's not what a lot of us oldtimers were wanting as a deeper System Shock sequel, but it's a great environment to run around in and shoot stuff. Very atmospheric. It's also fairly easy as shooters go, so it's a good intro if you haven't done many of these.

Deadspace is pretty good as a horror sci-fi theme shooter. You play solo, with minimal puzzles or other distractions... just keep moving forward and kill stuff. The weapon concepts are a little unusual though... maybe not good for a beginner, but come back to it later if you're interested.

The Call of Duty games are popular shooters. I'm not a big fan because the missions are so heavily scripted and linear, but lots of people like them.

Then there are the combination RPG/shooters like Fallout 3 and Mass Effect, both good games but maybe more conversation and character development distractions than you're looking for. Mass Effect does have one nice thing lacking in the other sci-fi shooters here; a minimal shoot-from-cover system.

[Louis VI the Fat]

No One Lives Forever I and II.

The two greatest games ever made. Yes, they are not recent, but they rely on style and gameplay. Perfect single player.

I recommend them, because I myself am totally not into shooters. I find them tedious, and often of uninteresting subject matter.
Except for these two. Humour, style, wit, 1960's atmosphere.

http://www.gamespot.com/pc/action/no...ihw/index.html

[Crazed Rabbit]

I liked the original FEAR, and FEAR 2 got good reviews. And if you haven't played Half Life 2, I'd recommend that.

CR

[frogbeastegg]

No One Lives Forever I and II.

Fantastic games.

[Fragony]

No One Lives Forever I and II.

First is my favorite shooter ever, second didn't do it for me.

and of course, you look like you need a monkey.

If you want a genuinely hilarious game get NOLF, I still like the graphics they are sharp and clean. You WILL laugh out loud, and the gameplay is amazing. It has all the flair of a B-movie from the sixties, lovingly mocks it, and kicks butt as a game.

[CountArach]

Everyone should play Half Life 2 at some point in their life. You can pick it up cheap as part of the Orange Box deal if you can find it. That comes with the Episode packs, Counter Strike Source (If you change your mind and want some online play) and Portal.

[Monk]

Everyone should play Half Life 2 at some point in their life. You can pick it up cheap as part of the Orange Box deal if you can find it. That comes with the Episode packs, Counter Strike Source (If you change your mind and want some online play) and Portal.

The orange box also comes with Team Fortress 2.

[Jolt]

Half Life 2: Ep. 2 is uber awesome.

[frogbeastegg]

Everyone should play Half Life 2 at some point in their life. You can pick it up cheap as part of the Orange Box deal if you can find it. That comes with the Episode packs, Counter Strike Source (If you change your mind and want some online play) and Portal.

If you all promise to to lynch me I shall let you into a secret: the Half Life series is one of the most over-rated I've had the misfortune to play. Hated 1 and hated 2, and have never understood what all the fuss was about. The whole feel of the gameplay and world was artificial, stilted, plasticy. They have (slippery) jumping puzzles in them; that's a cardinal sin for a FPS! That much vaunted HL2 physics system is realistic in a universe with half gravity and objects made out of rubber surrounded by invisible force fields. I weep inside each time I see someone praise the plots and characters for this series; they don't even manage to be good in the cheesy, dumb way most throwaway games are.

Portal is the only decent SP thing to come out of that series. Glados, the gun turrets, cake, portaling through the ceiling at 70mph ... it's worth playing. Still over rated though. It's merely very good, not world shattering.

[The Spartan (Returns)]

Team Fortress 2 is a PERFECT game for you.

[FactionHeir]

Meh, you can just get like Counter-Strike and play with bots single player

I still play it online (started again after a 3 year break)

[Boohugh]

Don't know if it's too late but do NOT get Bioshock on PC, it has absolutely hideous anti-piracy software and has some serious issues on some PC's. I bought it a few months ago and had a torrid time getting it to run and even then there were sound problems. It is a good game but get it on a console where you won't have these problems.

I remember playing NOLF 1 and 2 and they are great games so I'd suggest them (you can probably get them in a boxset or something now too).

[TinCow]

If you all promise to to lynch me I shall let you into a secret: the Half Life series is one of the most over-rated I've had the misfortune to play. Hated 1 and hated 2, and have never understood what all the fuss was about. The whole feel of the gameplay and world was artificial, stilted, plasticy. They have (slippery) jumping puzzles in them; that's a cardinal sin for a FPS! That much vaunted HL2 physics system is realistic in a universe with half gravity and objects made out of rubber surrounded by invisible force fields. I weep inside each time I see someone praise the plots and characters for this series; they don't even manage to be good in the cheesy, dumb way most throwaway games are.

Portal is the only decent SP thing to come out of that series. Glados, the gun turrets, cake, portaling through the ceiling at 70mph ... it's worth playing. Still over rated though. It's merely very good, not world shattering.

I must say I'm staggered by your comments. Did you play HL1 when it was released, or several years later?

HL1 was a revolution in FPS design when it was released. The mystery-nature of the storyline, with bits and pieces uncovered through overheard bits of conversation and numerous short-lived encounters with hapless scientists and Barneys, the stupendous scripted events which made the world seem like it was reacting to you, the game was damn scary in parts. The seamless environments were unique as well, with only brief pauses for loading the next section to keep the immersion factor going. The epic journey just to get back up to the surface, only to find it swarming with the military when you arrive, forcing you back down into the depths to survive. Not to mention the G-man. It also has possibly one of the best game intros I've ever seen: no cutscenes, everything was done in-game.

All in all, I do have to disagree with you heavily. I mark HL1 as one of the landmarks in FPS evolution. I put it up there with Wolf 3D, Quake 1, Thief, Descent, and Farcry.

[frogbeastegg]

I must say I'm staggered by your comments. Did you play HL1 when it was released, or several years later?

I played it when I got sick of being told how badly I was missing out by everything PC gaming related. Don't recall exactly how long after release that was; the game wasn't old, by any means.

I don't play many FPS. It's not a genre I enjoy, and the ones I do play tend to be the story heavy types and/or ambitious in ways other than pretty graphics and shooting things with bigger guns. Games which 9 times out of ten sold badly. Half Life was pushed at me over and over again, everywhere I looked. Relentlessly. It had the best story, the best levels, the best weapons, the best atmosphere, the best bestest best ever! Each time I looked at the game I saw nothing special. But hey - there's got to be something about it, or there wouldn't be so much gushing about it, would there? So I got it, played it, and waited for the amazing to hit. And waited. And waited. And eventually quit out of tedium, uninstalled, and wondered why the game had earned so much adoration.

Then Half Life 2 came out. Same thing again, except I didn't buy it until the Orange Box. I brought that for Portal, and gave HL2 a go since there was no reason not to. I quit in some section with a fiddly, dull swamp bike thing because I couldn't take the mediocre any longer.

The mystery-nature of the storyline, with bits and pieces uncovered through overheard bits of conversation

Thief: The Dark Project. Released within weeks of Half Life and did the same thing - but far better. It also had a decent, unusual plot, not a rehash of the bog standard, tired "Oh noes! Aliens!". I certainly played that before HL1; I got Thief on release week thanks to the strength of the demo.

and numerous short-lived encounters with hapless scientists and Barneys

Numerous predictable encounters where you knew the character would die in seconds or otherwise remain out of reach. Characters I didn't care about, and who offered no interesting dialogue in their 5 second life span. I have hazy memories of a bunch of "Gordon, push that button! Oh No, I've been eaten!" and that's all. Clearly nothing made an impression on me.

I can't remember whether it was Jedi Knight or it's expansion pack, Mysteries of the Sith, which had NPC conversations you could overhear if you didn't run around scaring the civilians. Either way that predated HL by around a year.

the stupendous scripted events which made the world seem like it was reacting to you,

See, I heard that a lot at the time. I've heard it a lot since. The telling thing is that I do not recall a single one of those setpieces. Yet I remember many things about games far older.

the game was damn scary in parts

Very few games scare me, at all. I could count them on one hand, after many years of gaming.

The seamless environments were unique as well, with only brief pauses for loading the next section to keep the immersion factor going.

Seamless apart from when they were loading, and in my experience they loaded a lot. The individual sections were small. Jedi Knight: Dark Forces II offered larger, more complex levels with less loading 1997! Thief had similarly incredible levels. It's hard to be impressed with small and boring maps which tile together to create the impression of a single building when you know you could have large, interesting maps which tile together to create a more engaging building with less loading.

The epic journey just to get back up to the surface, only to find it swarming with the military when you arrive, forcing you back down into the depths to survive.

It just didn't have anything to appeal to me. When you find the level design, combat and plot to be dull then having to turn around and head back isn't good news.

Not to mention the G-man.

A character I primarily remember as something people obsessed over and took copious screenshots of which filled the comments pages in magazines. In gameplay? Barely remember him at all.

It also has possibly one of the best game intros I've ever seen: no cutscenes, everything was done in-game.

Brace yourself: I found that famous intro to be quite boring. Yup, that word again. Granted this was the first intro I'd had to walk through. Pity that it was one I'd have hit the esc key midway through if I'd been given a choice. I'd have preferred a good intro which I watched or a boring one I could skip, to a boring one which I couldn't skip and had to keep pushing buttons for.

All in all, I do have to disagree with you heavily. I mark HL1 as one of the landmarks in FPS evolution. I put it up there with Wolf 3D, Quake 1, Thief, Descent, and Farcry.

And I have to disagree with you. Sorry. HL just didn't touch me at all - it offered nothing which I could like, and presented a weaker, cheaper versions of things I'd seen elsewhere. Where it did offer something new I preferred the old way, or wished that they had used it in a better fashion.

Hehe, from the amount of Thief related answers here maybe I should turn the question back, and ask when you played it? At the time few people played it. It was only years later that Thief started to get much notice.

[TinCow]

Hehe, from the amount of Thief related answers here maybe I should turn the question back, and ask when you played it? At the time few people played it. It was only years later that Thief started to get much notice.

Played it on release and loved it, though I don't consider it in the same category as most other shooters. It was the prototype (and still one of the best versions) of what we now call stealth shooters, which is really a separate thing. One should not compare Thief with Painkiller and such, the games have different purposes and should be judged based on what they are, not what they are not. For instance, if we judged Thief based on combat, it would be near the bottom of the list. (You will also note I did list Thief in my short list of revolutionary FPS games.)

I think our opinions differ so much on this that there's probably not any middle-ground to be found, but I'll try and explain my own views a bit more. I think of HL1 like I think of Citizen Kane: it is not the best ever made, but it is the first true representation of what we now know as FPS gaming (or modern narrative film in the case of CK). Sure, other games did bits and pieces of the various things that HL1 did before Hl1, but HL1 combined them all with other innovations on top. Other games have certainly topped it since then, but they all use the formula that HL1 first pioneered. It is, like Citizen Kane, the first true representation of the modern form of the art.

Prior to HL1, FPS games were essentially solitary levels with weapons and power-ups designed to cater to reflexes and little else. HL1 combined excellent level design (for the time) with full voice acting, a stupendous number of scripted events (if you've forgotten them, pretty much every time a monster of some kind busted through a ceiling, wall, etc., that was scripted), cutting-edge graphics, seamless (for the time!) gameplay, and more puzzles in single levels than in many complete games. Prior to HL1, most FPS games paid lip-service to plot or dished out the plot in cutscenese between levels. HL1 did it during the game, with no cutscenes of any kind. While the plot may be tame by modern standards, it was a massive leap forward from the games which came before it. Keep in mind, before HL1, the games we got were stuff like Doom, Quake 1, Descent, and Dark Forces. Plot was totally ancillary to all of those and was simply done as an excuse to shoot things. HL1 told a lengthy story throughout the entire game and rewarded patience and attentiveness with plot details and surprises. You simply did not find that in FPS game before 1998. If you're poo-pooing the plot, I really do think you didn't have the previous experience with FPS games to understand what a shift it was. At the time it was released, HL1 was considered a story-based game first and a shooter second. Considering the absurdly minimal amount of storyline in HL1 based on modern standards, that's a commentary in itself about just how non-existent plot line was in shooters prior to 1998.



I don't know what else to say. Thief worship is fine, it's been the love-child of FPS historians since the day of its release (a few weeks after HL1, incidentally), but I really do believe that HL1 has had more impact on FPS gaming as a whole than anything other than Wolf3D. It was a seminal game and it changed the whole notion of what was possible with the genre. Much of what has come since then was based on doors that were opened in the minds of developers by that game.

[Ja'chyra]

Well I got the orange box and have been playing HL2, seems quite good so far but then I've only got as far as the hover boat thing and had to have a break as it was making me feel travel sick, lol pathetic I know.

[Meneldil]

Bioshock is by far the best FPS ever created by man. All the other games are merely worth of being looked at as long as you don't have played Bioshock. Period.

Period.

[Hooahguy]

Bioshock is by far the best FPS ever created by man. All the other games are merely worth of being looked at as long as you don't have played Bioshock. Period.

Period.

having played Bioshock i respectfully disagree.

[Whacker]

Egads. I'm sorry to hear you didn't like HL1 FBE. Tincow's last (long) post did an excellent job of summing up what a lot of us "old school" guys feel. I also happened to play it when it was brand new, and I can't think of many games that had as great of an impact on my gaming career as HL1 did.

I will agree that HL2 was very dull and a huge letdown by comparison. It was moderately pretty, the physics gun was ok, and the setting was reasonably well done. On the other hand, the gameplay was very boring and predictable, levels completely uninspired, I found the atmosphere non-engaging and the storyline quite lacking. It was not a worthy successor to the 1st, IMO.

[frogbeastegg]

I think our opinions differ so much on this that there's probably not any middle-ground to be found

Agreed. The reasons why I didn't like HL are subjective and a matter of what appeals. As I originally said, I found it dull to play, didn't like the level design, didn't like the weaponry, and didn't like the story. Everything in the previous post is aside from that or a minor contributory factor.

I think of HL1 like I think of Citizen Kane: it is not the best ever made, but it is the first true representation of what we now know as FPS gaming

To me that position will always be occupied by the Jedi Knight/Mysteries of the Sith combo. They had most of the things you mention for Half Life, and other things aside which I value, such as character customisation via a light RPG system. They were packed full of memorable gameplay experiences; I've not seen anything like the pair of levels set within crashing space ships in all the years since.

One should not compare Thief with Painkiller and such, the games have different purposes and should be judged based on what they are, not what they are not.

When it comes to critique I don't like chopping games up into genres and isolating them. It lets too many games off far too easily because "This genre doesn't do X". As a stealth section in Uber Death Kill XX should be compared to stealth in thief, so too should thief's sword fighting be compared to Amazing Swords 6. If a developer isn't trying to make an element as good as it can be then one must wonder why they are adding it. Aiming for mediocrity should not be encouraged. I am not interested in something that's good for the [X] genre; I'm interested in something which is good for what it is.

seamless (for the time!) gameplay

Seamless means no loading times anywhere, full stop, once you are out of the main menu. Any game with loading between areas is not seamless. To grab two examples, Zelda: Ocarina of Time was seamless because it never paused to load and never showed a loading screen once you reached the game world. Fallout 3 was not because it had loading screens between areas. A lot of older CD based games are not as the technology did not exist to make it possible. Even today it's a minor feat of design and technical ability. Half Life is not seamless; you would have to rewrite the engine to make it so. You could say that it had well optimised load times.

I really do think you didn't have the previous experience with FPS games to understand what a shift it was.

Before I tried HL I played - off the top of my head - Wolf 3D, doom, doom 2, duke nukem, dark forces, jedi knight: dark forces 2 and its expansion, outlaws, rise of the triad, some star trek FPS, hexen, heretic, hexen 2 plus expansion, quake's demo. I might have played Blood.

I didn't finish many of them because they weren't to my taste; it was a genre I dabbled with because I could borrow most of them from friends. Wolf 3D, hexen 2 and the star wars set were the only ones I did like. So yes, I do understand how the genre was. It's why I didn't like it, with the exception of a few games.

scripted events (if you've forgotten them, pretty much every time a monster of some kind busted through a ceiling, wall, etc., that was scripted)

Oh. That. Huh - I thought you were talking about bigger battles and scenes. Monsters coming out of the 'walls' is something I'd already seen in Dark Forces years before. Several years later the very first level of Mysteries of the Sith had stormtroopers blasting holes in the walls and running in to attack.

[Monk]

I will agree that HL2 was very dull and a huge letdown by comparison. It was moderately pretty, the physics gun was ok, and the setting was reasonably well done. On the other hand, the gameplay was very boring and predictable, levels completely uninspired, I found the atmosphere non-engaging and the storyline quite lacking. It was not a worthy successor to the 1st, IMO.

I couldn't disagree more, in fact I would use your entire argument against HL2, against HL1.

I found HL1 slow, boring, and just a hair short of tedious to play through. The concept is interesting, but its overall execution and presentation is lacking at best. it just wasn't very fun. In contrast I found HL2's gameplay, story and atmosphere much more compelling than the first.

I just realized the HL debate can be summed up as thus: What do you like more, jumping puzzles or physics puzzles?

[econ21]

I don't normally like shooters, due to a mixture of taste and personal incompetence, but have recently gone back to Stalker: Shadow of Chernobyl and greatly enjoyed it.

It's main attraction is probably the large atmospheric game world it creates, which you are free to wander in (if you can stand the heat). It rivals Morrowind in this aspect and I found it rather more immersive, even if - and probably because - you interact less with its denizens. It's one of those games like System Shock or Vampires where you really get sucked into the experience.

As a shooter, it is the kind I like - "realistic" in the sense that the weapons are pretty lethal, encouraging stealth and sniping, but not so unforgiving that close quarter combat is impossible. The AI seems pretty decent - it is alert, takes cover, flanks you and regularly strafes (something I have not quite managed - the personal incompetence bit again). It has some survival horror aspects that are very well done, but most of the combat is against soldier/mercenary types.The weaponry seems to be based on real world models and feels satisfying to wield.

There's a passable main quest to motivate you through the game, with lots of optional sidequests. I've got a few levels to do to finish the game, but have put it to one side as it is becoming rather boringly linear. The main attraction is just living and surviving in the zone. The experience of going from a newbie with a pistol to the number 1 "stalker" has been very enjoyable.

[TinCow]

I don't normally like shooters, due to a mixture of taste and personal incompetence, but have recently gone back to Stalker: Shadow of Chernobyl and greatly enjoyed it.

I very much agree, STALKER has been one of my favorite shooters in the past few years. It's main flaw is simply that it's hugely buggy, though mods have gone a long way to fix it. I also bought Clear Sky, which promised a lot but didn't deliver anywhere near as well as the first game. The second game is too populated and this reduces the great feeling of lonely exploration that there was throughout much of the first game. Even so, I'm looking forward to the third game which is due out later this year.