Would You Rather: FPS Edition?

Since it’s yet again been a slow news week, it seems that it’s already time for a new edition of Would You Rather. A few weeks back, we did an RPG version of the game, which got lots of awesome responses from people. It was great to see all the positive feedback, and to learn a little bit more about what makes the fellow Sushi-ers tick. So, we thought we’d bring it back, this time with a different genre: FPS games.

For the uninitiated, in Would You Rather, I simply ask a series of questions, and you follow up with your answers. Give as much or as little explanation as you want for your choices, but we all know that we like to see the reasoning behind the madness.

But beware, lest your answers suck mightily. In which case, Anthony and Mitch will kidnap you to trap you inside of Nick’s beard. You don’t want to know what other kinds of creatures lurk in there. I know this firsthand.

For an FPS, would you rather…

1. Be allotted only a handful of guns with alternate firing modes, or have a vast array of weaponry?

2. See a game that encourages squad-based combat, or solo?

3. Experience small, more intense multiplayer maps or large, open battlefields?

4. Mix up the mechanics with dialogue-trees and small puzzles, or stick to shooting only?

5. Play objective-based multiplayer or straight-up deathmatch?

6. Have a story that is focused on historical events/realism, or futuristic/original settings?

7. Aim with WASD and a mouse, or a console controller?

Written by

I write about samurai girls and space marines. Writer for Smooth Few Films. Rooster Teeth Freelancer. Author of Red vs. Blue, The Ultimate Fan Guide, out NOW!

19 thoughts on “Would You Rather: FPS Edition?”

  1. I’d rather:

    1. Well, it depends. In Fallout 3, I’d be fine with a handful of guns, even though they can’t do much. That’s why the weapon mods in New Vegas make me excited. However, if the main pull of the game is just killing things, like in Half-Life 2 SMOD or Counter-Strike, I want a large array of guns and weapons.

    2. I still think we have yet to reach a point where squad-based allies can think and act without major intervention. A lot of times, it’s like I have to hold my allies’ hands through gunfights and whatnot. I’d rather play solo, but still have some companions on the side.

    3. I prefer smaller maps because I play multiplayer to kill and have fun, not to hike over to a vehicle or search aimlessly for something to kill.

    4. I actually wish more FPS’s would implement things other than shooting. As good as Borderlands is, all you do is shoot and find stuff. I wish the NPC’s were more interactive and that I could get more than just one-liners out of them. What I’d like to see games do is at least have the player find stuff on their own, instead of giving them the exact point to go to.

    5. As you guys have said earlier in episode 3 or 5 (?) of the podcast, I feel straight-up deathmatch doesn’t carry that many memories. If a hybrid of deathmatch and objectives were available (and given my limited boundaries of games I’ve played, it probably is), I’d be all over it, more than just “take the flag, put it in base”.

    6. It really depends on the type of game we’re talking about. If the gameplay is frantic with lots of emphasis on pure shooting, then I’d say a historical or realistic setting wouldn’t make sense. That kind of setting would be better suited to a more relaxed but deeper style of FPS.

    7. God, WASD+mouse all the way. I can’t go back to console shooters anymore because of the wonky, tank-like aiming mechanics.

  2. 1. I would say limited guns with different firing modes.

    2. It all depends. If it’s something like SW:Republic Commando, then squad based. It was simple yet effective.

    3. Large open fields. I’m much better at long-range.

    4. More than just shooting. It doesn’t work with all FPS games, like CoD, but I wouldn’t mind seeing.

    5. Team Deathmatch ftw.

    6. It pretty much depends on the game, but sometimes the more historical events give you less working room.

    7. They both have their place. I can play with a control for the Xbox 360 version of CoD, but on the PC I just prefer keyboard and mouse. It just seems like there’s still a difference there.

  3. Okay. I’ma stick to the one-liners.

    (1) Handful. So long as I got my shotgun, sniper, and a RPG, I’m happy.
    (2) Solo. Ever since Doom, I see no reason for comrades.
    (3) Large battlefields. All the better to snipe you, my dear.
    (continued in next post)

  4. (4) Stick to the guns. I’d buy Final Fantasy if I wanted to hear a bedtime story. :/
    (5) Objectives. 3 games to thank for this: Quake, Alien Swarm, and Team Fortress. CTF ftw.
    (6) Original, because if I see 1 more game based in a world war, I’ll start WW3.

  5. 1. I don’t like too many weapons. Usually the more weapons you have the more unbalanced or bland they become.

    2. Squad based combat for sure. It is so much more satisfying when you do stuff as a team.

    3. Large open battlefields all the way. This goes along with squad based combat. When a map is big there is not a player in every part of the map at once so you and your squad can take a flanking route and help win it for the team.

    4. Trees and puzzles for sure. When you have nothing but shooting it can become quite tiresome for players. But when you have little breaks like trees and puzzles it lets the player relax a little bit so they are not always in an intense setting. I think this leads to less rage when one dies.

    5. Both are good to have but I think objectives can bring more longevity to a map and game.

    6. If the historical event is unique (aka not WWII, cold war, or middle east) or has a very good realism system then I’m all for it. But usually original ideas/scifi do better because you can make things up more easily.

    7. Keyboard and mouse FTW, proven here http://kotaku.com/5593259/rumor-microsoft-killed-plans-for-pc-vs-xbox-360-online-play

  6. 1. For single play FPS, many different guns. For online multiplayer, a small amount of guns with different firing modes. A large amount for single play FPS because each gun can be a new experience for the player, or simply be of aesthetic value. Having a smaller amount of guns with different firing modes requires players to rely more on tactics and skill, and keeps the game play simple and challenging, while still providing some variety.

    2. I would like to see games in which players have some ability to solo it against at least two other people, if they’re skilled enough. Halo was a game where you could one-man quite a few people, if you were skilled, without doing anything too out of the ordinary. The same goes for CoD. For a game like GoW, it is almost impossible to one-man more than two people unless you “cancel” certain action animations, for various reasons. There needs to be a balance between the two, because I’d have no reason to doubt that we all know that playing with a team of people who run at the first sight of a coordinated enemy or sit in corners when the logical thing would be to rush an advantage point instead of cluster in a death trap is more frustrating than failing because of ones own lack of skill against someone else.

    3. The theme of balance comes in again here. Large maps are only good when you’ve got the tools to fight long range, as well as good defense from those long ranges, and enough of a leeway to, with skill, push forward. They are very pointless when the only thing that you do is spend a lot of time running across them/staring around looking for the one fool who decides to be the one to run across them. Small maps have few negatives. The biggest issues with them come in when large radius weapons come into play, like rocket launchers or grenades. Close quarters firefights without large radius (or limited amounts of large radius) weapons are rarely ever dull.

    4. Dialogue. Shooters need more [good] stories.

    5. Objective based games that focus more on pushing forward rather than camping out. Capture the flag games are fun when the maps as well as the game play are balanced. I’d like a game where the objective was to say, break into a facility and fight your way through, with enemies having to defend different sections/having help to do so by AI. As long as the maps [and games themselves] are balanced, I find those game types fun. Deathmatches are fun, but by themselves, they don’t have freshness out of facing people of different skill sets.

    6. Doesn’t matter. The biggest issue in my opinion is slow game play for more “realistic” games. As long as the game play works, both can work. I’m more partial to the futuristic games, as more innovation can be made in those games.

    7. WSAD and a Mouse. Controller FPS’s require a different skill set than WSAD and Mouse FPS’s, in that Mouse FPS’s require hard aiming and tracking skills, whereas controller FPS’s depend more on timing and adaptation. Examples: I’m playing counter strike, I’m going to track a moving target with my mouse while shooting at that target, and press WSAD less. I’m playing Halo, I’m going to track a target less with the controller, and move my body more to be in line with the person. This difference comes about mainly because moving a stick from left to right in quick succession, as well as stopping it midway, is much more difficult than moving a cursor with a mouse, making lining up with the person and timing shots an easier way to aim than trying to track the person with the stick as they bob from left to right. Also, body movements are usually more “1 to 1” with the stick than crosshair movements.

  7. 1) Vast array of weaponry

    2) Squad-based…it’s soo much fun to see your buddy sniped or blown to bits and laughter ensues

    3) hmmm i would say large battlefields because it allows you to choose where and how you want to fight

    4) Valve has it right w/ the puzzles in Half life…it allows you to rest and still have fun

    5) Deathmatch gets really boring and tiring after a while…objectives provides a method behind the madness

    6) i like my WW2 games but futuristic allows developers to be more creative

    7) DEFINATELY WASD + Mouse! mainly b/c i suck w/ a controller. It’s my personal opinion that w/ a mouse you can turn and aim MUCH faster…i think a mouse would beat a controller any day!
    I sure hope i didn’t start a PC vs Console war haha

    …Oh and i think some1 should create a RPG where the main character gets lost in Nick’s beard and must fight the hideous creatures to free himself….i think it would be a hit anyway 🙂

  8. Woot! Just the thing I need to stop being bored for 10 minutes – a WYR!

    1. I don’t really need different firing modes, but I prefer fewer guns with more specialized roles. For example, I’d rather have one burst-fire rifle and one semi-auto rifle as opposed to many variations with only slight changes.

    2. Squad-based combat is more satisfying and better for multiplayer, but solo combat can still be fun for story mode, especially for horror or tense survival situations.

    3. It’s all about finding the right balance with the game’s weapons and pace. BFBC2 excels in large environments since its vehicles can tear shiz up, but small maps in Halo keep up with the pace without seeming like deathtraps.

    4. Puzzles are cool but I don’t like being frustrated when playing an FPS, so I prefer just keeping the shooting challenging. And dialogue applies to outside-of-combat, so that’s more of a Story Mode feature.

    5. Objectives, when done well, keep the action going. Still, a little Deathmatch never hurt anyone. Oh wait.

    6. As long as you aren’t having an identity crisis (cough MW2 can’t decide if it’s an authentic war game or an insulting action movie /cough), any setting done well is great. I like war shooters as much as original and futuristic shooters.

    7. I prefer the console controller. I like having a more solid grip on the controller itself and actually pulling a trigger. I know aiming with a mouse is easier in theory, but my computer’s connection prevents me from playing above, like 15 fps, so I can’t really compare. lol No, I’m good enough with a console joystick so I like it more.

    Great questions, guys! Can’t wait for WYR: Hentai Game edition! lol…plz?

  9. 1. A vast array of weaponry. The crazier the better.

    2. Solo. I am a lone wolf.

    3. Intimate battlefields, if they are done right. Like most CS maps.

    4. Depends on the game. Games built around story should have dialouge trees, puzzles, etc and games built for shooting should stick to the shooting.

    5. Both are awesome. If I have to choose then objective-based multiplayer, just more to me.

    6. As much as I truely love historical events/realism, I prefer futuristic/original settings.

    7. I prefer the WASD and a mouse, but im an old school PC gamer. I prefer my PC for FPS, roleplaying, and RTS. For third person shooters, driving games, platforms, and fighters I prefer the console controller?

  10. 1. Vast array definitely. Unless the alternate firing modes are really crazy.

    2. Squad based for sure. That’s why I can’t stand call of duty.

    3. Whatever fits the game. Halo is better up close, while Battlefield is always better spread out.

    4. Never hurt to mix it up a bit.

    5. Both are fine. If I can get some friends who are good at objective stuff I’ll always go for that. Assault and CTF and Halo are some of my personal faves.

    6. Original/futuristic will always be my preference, but games like the 1st Brothers in Arms shows how to do historical. Either go full historical or not at all.

    7. A tough one. I grew up on a joystick, and I haven’t been able to adjust to mouse aiming yet because I just this year bought a PC that could run games. I will always prefer a joystick for moving though, the range of motion is a lot better and there’s no need for a “walk” button.

  11. [quote comment=”12453″]
    7. Keyboard and mouse FTW, proven here http://kotaku.com/5593259/rumor-microsoft-killed-plans-for-pc-vs-xbox-360-online-play%5B/quote%5D

    To your 7th point, a game called “Huxley” was going to be one of those cross-console games. It supposedly eventually turned into a console version/pc version game, and then the console version for XBOX360 was supposedly scrapped. It seems like the PC version has stopped as well in development, but regardless, I believe that that point made in the article is the biggest issue with cross-console shooters. Other game types may work better cross console.

    To add to my point about game types, there’s this free online game I used to play called “Cross Fire” (it’s essentially similar to CS 1.6, but has different/more modern guns, much different maps, and also has some interesting game types called “Ghost Mode”, where terrorists are invisible, can only knife kill and plant the bomb, and can only be found by listening to footsteps and another mode called “Mutation” where in a team of humans, one would become infected and turn into a bio-engineered monster, and attempt to “infect” the rest of the people on the team. As each person got infected, the infected “team” grew. If the infected monster, who got a large boost of health, special abilities like health regeneration, invisibility, speed boosts, jumping abilities, etc., was killed before infecting anyone else, or if all the infected were killed, the humans would “Win” that round. It was challenging in that the monsters had so much health, and ammo for soldiers was limited, so they had to eventually run from their “bases” to find ammo drops on the map and risk being rushed by a group of infected. It was a great game type and fun in theory (issues arose when infected monsters were given a lot of health, and teams would not coordinate in taking the monster down/griefers who would get infected and use their size to block the rest of the humans in small areas, preventing the other infected from reaching them and winning the match.

    More innovative team game types like that would be fun in console/higher budget PC games, instead of game types that simply use the popularity of one weapon, say a rocket launcher, to make a game type (not to say that those simplistic game types aren’t fun).

  12. 1. A vast array of weaponry! Let me spew hot death in a variety of flavors.

    2. Squad based combat all the way. I mostly play over Skype with my friends, so this is what I prefer.

    3. Large open battlefield. Although, choke-points to concentrate the action is always nice.

    4. It really depends. All shooting all the time would get boring, but that’s mostly what Call of Duty does. I’ve yet to see an FPS with dialogue trees, but I’d like to try it.

    5. Objective based multiplayer. I’ve had more fun with Rush from Bad Company than in any other game. Invasion in Halo: Reach was also pretty fun.

    6. I can do half and half. Eventually though, we’re going to run out of modern conflicts to cover.

    7. WASD and a mouse, no question.

  13. 1. More than Red Faction: Guerilla, Less than Borderlands

    2. Squad based always. Ventrilo is nice

    3. Smaller intimate maps. Or, allow players to build them however they like.

    4. I like me some puzzles thrown in there. Just don’t take too much of a break from the action (HL2 did this sometimes…)

    5. ummm objective based but if everyone dies the round is over (<3 CS)

    6. Gotta have a good mix.

    7. I think you know my answer. However, I do have a controller plugged into my PC now for the driving in GTA/Mafia/Racing games, and then WASD for shoots. I get the best of both =D !

  14. Where are Eddy, Anothony, and Nick’s answers? I’m interested in what they have to say.

  15. Sorry, been busy! Here we go:

    1. Vast array. Ratchet and Clank, Resistance…what I love about those games are the tons of weapons, which allow me to choose my tactics and how I want to play.

    2. Solo. Sometimes, the squad does too much or too little and I get annoyed.

    3. I like the smaller ones. On the big ones, you die and repawn clear across the map and it’s just a drag.

    4. Mix it up, baby! Try new things!

    5. Depends on if your moronic teammates are going to play right. Nothing is more annoying than playing an objective game and having your teammates think it is a deathmatch and still just shoot people.

    6. I think original settings have more impact, like Deus Ex, Bioshock, Half Life

    7. Console, just b/c I am used to it and thats what i do.

  16. 1. I think for solo campaigns I like lots of weapons to manage, to add an element of strategy to what you’re taking with you. In multiplayer, I’d rather have just a handful to even the playing field more.

    2. I love squad-based combat, and that makes it easier to jump into a co-op mode as well. I don’t like playing co-op for games that are designed for just solo play.

    3. This one’s tough. There’s nothing quite like mixing it up close quarters, but I also love the huge battlefields and vehicle combat of certain games. Push?

    4. Most FPS games seem to suck at branching out too much, so just the shooting, I think.

    5. Objective based for sure. I love capture the flag variants, and it keeps the fun of killing but adds a little spice to it. But like Anthony said, the frustration can be great if people don’t do what they’re supposed to.

    6. Futuristic or original settings are best for me, love the creativity of new worlds.

    7. I prefer to play with a controller, but recognize that WASD and a mouse is far superior for aiming. I just like sitting on my couch, haha.

  17. 1. Give me your standard sidearm, Assault Rifle, and Sniper-Rife/LMG with firing modes (Also add Safety, I mean, it is real firearm safety after all) and I’d say I’m good to go. The way Borderlands does it with Billions of weapons that are almost identical just doesn’t work with me.

    2. Squad-Based Combat all the way. SW:Rep Com is a great example of what I like

    3. Large, open maps. Stuff like Arma and Bad Company that allows for ranged combat AND frantic CQB. You need room to maneuver, if you give me that, I’m very happy.

    4. Dialogue-Trees; Yes. Puzzles; No.

    5. Objective Based Multiplayer. But those who play with you need to be squad-oriented. And since that never happens, have a deathmatch mode as a backup.

    6. Historic Settings, Realism. Futuristic games can be good too though. So I suppose either is okay as long as it isn’t outlandish.

    7. Console Controller. But then you have less button-pushing options… 🙁

  18. I’m probably best categorized as a “casual” fps player, so take these answers with a grain of salt.

    1: Lots of weapons. I’d rather juggle a dufflebag worth of firepower than fiddle with alternate firing modes on the fly. Apparently, I’m the only one here who loves drowning in the weaponry of Borderlands. But I’m an old pen and paper rpg guy, so for me there’s nothing better than spending 10 minutes min/maxing the costs and benefits of a weapon that gives +2 range vs one that does +2 damage vs one that does +2 rate of fire vs…well, you get the idea.

    2: Solo based. I want my fps game to make me feel like I’m Schwarzenegger in “Commando,” not Tom Hanks in “Saving Private Ryan.” I’m okay with expendable squadmates, but only if I’m in no way responsible for them and I don’t fail the mission if they die. Having said that, I would still knock over someone’s grandmother to play a good “Aliens” squad based fps.

    3: Small maps. I hate getting lost without seeing anyone for five minutes only to get capped in the face because I’m too shocked at the sight of another player to remember to fire.

    4: I hate fps puzzles (Portal excepted, but that’s not really a shooter, is it?). The only puzzle should be deciding which guns are more effective against a given enemy. I’m fine with story and dialogue, though, so long as it’s either well implemented or doesn’t interfere with me shooting things.

    5: Objective based, because I suck at deathmatch.

    6: Fantasy/original settings. I hate hate hate hate hate hate “realistic” shooter settings. I have absolutely no desire to play a WW2 shooter like Call of Duty or Medal of Honor, even if it’s universally heralded as the greatest game ever. Now, if it’s a fantasy historical setting, say, a WW2 game with Nazi zombies, mutant Soviets, and secret US alien weaponry, I’m completely on board.

    7: Console Controller. I don’t like the keyboard/mouse setup and I don’t care if anyone calls me a wuss or questions my gamer credentials. Yes, I know it’s more precise, yes, I know you have more flexibility. I don’t care. It just feels way too floaty for my taste and I always end up moving the mouse off the mousepad, throwing my line of sight skyward, and getting shot as a result.

    And if I could get any type of aim assist, that would be awesome, too. I don’t want realistic physics, I want to wave the barrel in the general direction of an enemy and have the bullets hit them without standing still behind cover and aiming down iron sights. I grew up on 80s action movies that featured heroes mowing guys down by shooting from the hip on the run and that’s just the way I expect these things to work.

Comments are closed.