God yes! I hate HATE HATE timed levels. I like to take my time and be thorough, not run around like Sonic the Hedgehog on crack because if I don’t complete the level in five minutes I’ll die. It’s even worse if there’s no good reason to have a time limit. (Then, I hate HATE HATE HATE levels with stupid arbitrary time limits.)
Yes, I know. I’m complaining about it being poorly implemented. If I’m not supposed to go in a particular direction, give me a reason that makes sense in game. If I’m a highly trained killing machine who can leap twenty feet in the air, throw a car, and has a demonstrable disregard for legal authority, it’s pretty dumb to tell me I can’t go down a particular street because I’m blocked by a single line of police tape.
I disagree. Particularly in a FPS, I want the ability to use the enviroment to my fullest advantage. Why do I want to be able to open that particular random hotel door? Maybe because I happen to be in a firefight in the hallway in front of that door, and I want the additional cover of firing from a doorway. If I can’t open that door, don’t give me items or weapons that clearly should be able to open that door, but arbitrarily do not function on that door, because that door doesn’t have a power up behind it.
Poor modeling of what the human body can do as far as barriers are concerned.
I’m sitting in a cubicle right now, surrounded by walls about five feet high on three sides. If I had to, I could climb over a wall that high. It wouldn’t be pretty and I’d probably pull something or bruise myself in the process, but if my life depended on it I’d do it. Yet in many FPS games, a barrier over waist-high is impassable. Prince of Persia and Tomb Raider let you pull yourself up onto ledges, but in many other games I feel like I’m in a wheelchair or something.
Artificially rugged boss battles.
I hate the inevitable open empty plaza with ominous music swelling. A huge lumbering boss with ridiculous imperviousness to bullets is always about to appear, combined with me all of a sudden being locked inside with it.
I get bored to tears by circle-strafing around bosses, emptying clip after clip, the only challenge being their overpowering resilience combined with me being trapped in a gimicky cage.
Mmmm. Perhaps I’ve been misinformed. I’d better check out “Guns of the Patriots” when it comes out.
Sez the Wikipedia article Machine gun:
This is something I really liked about Manhunt. When I was told my next mission was an escort, my first thought was “well, so much for this game, it was fun while it lasted.” But it actually wasn’t a problem; you can tell the person you’re escorting to stay put (usually accompanied with a satisfying quote like “make a sound and I’ll kill you myself.”), go slaughter the bad guys, then come back and herd the escortee to a new safe spot (“get moving and shut the hell up!”). Plus, the hobo had enough amusing lines of his own to make up for having to backtrack and pick him up again.
That sounds like a lot of strain on your video card. Then again, I have a pretty shitty comp.
Yeah–but he can’t get into a locked car! Which leaves you to wonder why almost every single resident in a high-crime city like New York, LA or Miami leaves their car unlocked wherever they go.
Sure, but I hear it’s harder to find rocket launchers and shotguns lying around in Switzerland than in many FPSes. 
I liked that about MGS; getting seen by security cameras is a big deal, but it only means what it would mean in a real-life stealth attack; you’d better be prepared to either get back out of sight or kick some serious ass.
Me, I hate it when half the freaking level is a bottomless pit and you have to constrain yourself to a tight path to move around in a freaking deathmatch/CTF game. It’s one thing if you’re in a single-player campaign and the mission involves sneaking around, but there shouldn’t be 8 million ways to kill yourself on a deathmatch map. That really pissed me off about Q3A. There were certain maps I just refused to play because I had to think about how not to kill myself, and had no time to focus on killing other people.
Interesting. I believe it’s incorrect and started a discussion on the talk page to discuss that particular section, to see if someone can produce some evidence.
Errr… the wikipedia page is more or less accurate. Different militaries have had different theories about how to properly use a machine gun, but they have NEVER been designed for high accuracy. Repeatability, yes. Given enough bullets they’ll hit almost anything and everything. But not high accuracy in the sense you’re thinking of. It ain’t a sniper weapon.
Well, on the higher difficulty levels you can set it so that triggering an alarm is game over, but on normal difficulty, it just means “hide your ass really good.”
Here’s another gripe: evaporating guns.
Let’s say I’m playing one of these new FPSs where defeated enemies grab guns you can take and use. Now say I’ve just killed a bad guy and he’s dropped a shotgun. If I already have a shotgun, I can pick his up to get ammo. Not only does this destroy any ammo in the gun that I can’t hold, it destroys the gun. If I can hold 30 shotgun rounds, and am currently carrying 29, and I pick up that shotgun, I get one round, while the shotgun and all ammo in it somehow evaporate. This is particuarily annoying in the newer FPSs where you can team up with NPCs who are capable of picking up and using dropped weapons.
It is not (or at least, it’s rather poorly worded). Fully automatic machine gun fire is inherently inaccurate due to it being fully automatic, NOT because they are intentionally designed to give a greater shot “spread”. Machine guns typically ARE designed to be accurate as possible. The automatic nature of the weapon in one sense extends it’s effective range - firing single shots at a target 600m away and the variance between the shot placement may be too great to be effective, but firing 10 rounds at once, even with the same variance, would be much more so.
… hit submit too soon.
Given the above, it would be obvious as to why designers would want to design machine guns to be as accurate as possible, that is, with the least amount of “spread”, because it extends the effective range of the weapon.
This is what I meant when I made my comment. In many FPSs, the guns all have infinite accuracy and range; the power of the shot is the only difference. In real life, if I shoot a pistol at a guy who is waaaay down the street, even if the shot is powerful enough to make it that far, the pistol is so inaccurate that I’ll have a hell of a time hitting him. With a rifle, the shot would be trivial.
Hmm, I haven’t played any recent FPSes that are like this. Maybe it was like this for very old games, but those old games typically didn’t have large, open spaces anyway, due to the limitations of the graphics hardware.
Anecdotal story: Some Canadian Forces members were explaining to friends of mine that the machine gun they were standing by was meant to be pointed at the center of a target, say a tent. When fired, the bullets all went their mildly separated ways enough to wipe out the entire tent without having to re-aim
Actually, most high quality machine guns are roughly in the same boat accuracy-wise as sniper rifles, although their ammunition isn’t match-grade. The furthest confirmed sniper kills were made buy a guy firing an M2 .50 MG.
It’s a myth that machine guns are a spray and pray weapon as portrayed in movies. On the defensive, great care is used to establish specific firing lines and fields between different machine guns to create a certain pattern. They don’t just go nuts, aim at a target, and unload, but often they simply fire down a line in the same path in accordance with the defensive plan.
On the offensive, the situation is much more fluid - but still, the guns aren’t designed to give you a big scatter at 100 yards or something or their range would be impacted. The practical range of a machine gun tends to be in the 800m+ range, and if you had deliberate, significant spread, you couldn’t engage particular targets at that range.
They do indeed produce a cone of fire so that every round doesn’t go into the same spot - but that’s an inherent part of firing 10-20 rounds a second, rather than a design feature.
Well, it’s more of a hangnail than a full-blown complaint, but I’d love to be able to see bullet drop actually simulated in a FPS—well, one that’s not as hard-line realistic as Rainbow Six, I mean. It’d be kinda fun to try to work around a little more ballistic realism when I’m fighting zombies or something. (Heh!)
There are a few games that do this. Operation Flashpoint, Red Orchestra… probably others.
Operation Flashpoint is one of the only FPS games that has fights at ranges where bullet drop would be singificant - in most games you’d barely notice it if implemented because all fights take place at pretty much point blank range.