Best multiplayer FPS

Qaze

Which first person shooter in your opinion has the best multiplayer?

I would say Quake 4 but no one seems to play it anymore.

 

Keebs1984

I like Shadowrun, personally.

The odd combination of races, technology, and magic is quite refreshing from the usual BF-clones and CS-wannabes.

CPmmo

Counterstrike Source World of Warcraft DM servers.  

Qaze

Originally posted by Keebs1984


I like Shadowrun, personally.
The odd combination of races, technology, and magic is quite refreshing from the usual BF-clones and CS-wannabes.

I was looking at that but loads of people say it's crap.

Keebs1984

Originally posted by Qaze

Originally posted by Keebs1984


I like Shadowrun, personally.
The odd combination of races, technology, and magic is quite refreshing from the usual BF-clones and CS-wannabes.

I was looking at that but loads of people say it's crap.

I heard that too, then I saw it at Best Buy for $30 and decided to pick it up. . . its not that bad.

My only problem with it is the biggest sized games I can find are 8 v 8. . . I really love 16 v 16. Oh well, its not a dealbreaker.

 

methane47

Battlefield 2 for me..

b0rderline99

Originally posted by methane47


Battlefield 2 for me..

agreed

goneglockin

It's actually FEAR.  It was never popular, though it's formula and game mechanics are nearly the perfect evolution of years and years of traditional FPS game experiences.  It never gained the favor of all those quake-con toolboxes because it isn't tailor made for 1 on 1 arena play.  For most of us who are beyond dialing up our friends computer on a 14.4 modem; or having to 1099 our gaming prize money- 1 on 1 play is hardly still important today.  I only want FPS games to support more players now without dumbing down the FPS end of the business ala BF2.

I've been playing BF2142 for a lil while and it's awful.  The game wants you to stand still for a workable CoF and exchange fire with another fella standing still; the first guy to die loses.  Boring.  Anti-FPS to the core.  The whole game is designed to force teamwork on people at the sacrifice of FPS gameplay prinicples.

And Counterstrike?  Counterstrike shuns score-based DM and TDM gameplay; the backbone of FPS multiplayer anything- and therefore I have shunned it.

tvalentine

rainbow 6 vegas for the 360 hands down.

modjoe86

CS 1.6 or earlier.

Jackcolt

I'm not gonna comment goneglockins post as we've already had that discussion before.

 

BF2 right now since it's a very skilled, competitive and fun fps. Playing with 5 of friends(online or irl) in one squad is frekking awesome.

kel11

Originally posted by goneglockin


It's actually FEAR.  It was never popular, though it's formula and game mechanics are nearly the perfect evolution of years and years of traditional FPS game experiences.  It never gained the favor of all those quake-con toolboxes because it isn't tailor made for 1 on 1 arena play.  For most of us who are beyond dialing up our friends computer on a 14.4 modem; or having to 1099 our gaming prize money- 1 on 1 play is hardly still important today.  I only want FPS games to support more players now without dumbing down the FPS end of the business ala BF2.
I've been playing BF2142 for a lil while and it's awful.  The game wants you to stand still for a workable CoF and exchange fire with another fella standing still; the first guy to die loses.  Boring.  Anti-FPS to the core.  The whole game is designed to force teamwork on people at the sacrifice of FPS gameplay prinicples.
And Counterstrike?  Counterstrike shuns score-based DM and TDM gameplay; the backbone of FPS multiplayer anything- and therefore I have shunned it.

FEAR has the most unbalanced guns, generic maps, and nothing special to make it something.  Sure, it can be decent if everyone uses the same Assault Rifle that everyone uses anyway.(Unless you want to get dominated)

 

I don't like the BF series either, but I'm not saying its a terrible or unskilled game.

 

CS style of plant a bomb or rescue terrorists or kill everyone on the other team is great, why hate it?  Its something dfiferent then whoever has the most kills wins.

goneglockin

Originally posted by kel11


 
Originally posted by goneglockin


It's actually FEAR.  It was never popular, though it's formula and game mechanics are nearly the perfect evolution of years and years of traditional FPS game experiences.  It never gained the favor of all those quake-con toolboxes because it isn't tailor made for 1 on 1 arena play.  For most of us who are beyond dialing up our friends computer on a 14.4 modem; or having to 1099 our gaming prize money- 1 on 1 play is hardly still important today.  I only want FPS games to support more players now without dumbing down the FPS end of the business ala BF2.
I've been playing BF2142 for a lil while and it's awful.  The game wants you to stand still for a workable CoF and exchange fire with another fella standing still; the first guy to die loses.  Boring.  Anti-FPS to the core.  The whole game is designed to force teamwork on people at the sacrifice of FPS gameplay prinicples.
And Counterstrike?  Counterstrike shuns score-based DM and TDM gameplay; the backbone of FPS multiplayer anything- and therefore I have shunned it.

FEAR has the most unbalanced guns, generic maps, and nothing special to make it something.  Sure, it can be decent if everyone uses the same Assault Rifle that everyone uses anyway.(Unless you want to get dominated)

 

 

I don't like the BF series either, but I'm not saying its a terrible or unskilled game.

 

CS style of plant a bomb or rescue terrorists or kill everyone on the other team is great, why hate it?  Its something dfiferent then whoever has the most kills wins.

Because there's an entire generation of FPS gamers, millions of them, that grew up with or came into the genre with DM and later TDM as the focus- the sole purpose- of these games.  It's like if you took scoring away from football to all the greying guys with beer bellies from many a monday night spent with a six pack on a couch.  They're not gonna accept it. 

The phrase "Counterstrike kiddy" comes to mind... Maybe it's just a derogatory phrase but it does imply an overabundance of younglings taking residence in that game.  I believe CS is a new skool for a new generation of gamers.  That's fine, you can keep it.  Call us when you discover some good old fashioned deathmatch mayhem.

kel11

Originally posted by goneglockin


 
Originally posted by kel11


 
Originally posted by goneglockin


It's actually FEAR.  It was never popular, though it's formula and game mechanics are nearly the perfect evolution of years and years of traditional FPS game experiences.  It never gained the favor of all those quake-con toolboxes because it isn't tailor made for 1 on 1 arena play.  For most of us who are beyond dialing up our friends computer on a 14.4 modem; or having to 1099 our gaming prize money- 1 on 1 play is hardly still important today.  I only want FPS games to support more players now without dumbing down the FPS end of the business ala BF2.
I've been playing BF2142 for a lil while and it's awful.  The game wants you to stand still for a workable CoF and exchange fire with another fella standing still; the first guy to die loses.  Boring.  Anti-FPS to the core.  The whole game is designed to force teamwork on people at the sacrifice of FPS gameplay prinicples.
And Counterstrike?  Counterstrike shuns score-based DM and TDM gameplay; the backbone of FPS multiplayer anything- and therefore I have shunned it.

FEAR has the most unbalanced guns, generic maps, and nothing special to make it something.  Sure, it can be decent if everyone uses the same Assault Rifle that everyone uses anyway.(Unless you want to get dominated)

 

 

I don't like the BF series either, but I'm not saying its a terrible or unskilled game.

 

CS style of plant a bomb or rescue terrorists or kill everyone on the other team is great, why hate it?  Its something dfiferent then whoever has the most kills wins.

 

Because there's an entire generation of FPS gamers, millions of them, that grew up with or came into the genre with DM and later TDM as the focus- the sole purpose- of these games.  It's like if you took scoring away from football to all the greying guys with beer bellies from many a monday night spent with a six pack on a couch.  They're not gonna accept it. 

The phrase "Counterstrike kiddy" comes to mind... Maybe it's just a derogatory phrase but it does imply an overabundance of younglings taking residence in that game.  I believe CS is a new skool for a new generation of gamers.  That's fine, you can keep it.  Call us when you discover some good old fashioned deathmatch mayhem.

Then you don't have to play Plant and Defuse based games, simply.  Many enjoy both types.(me) 

 

CSS has a huge community, of course their are going to be some immature people in it.  Hell, if FEAR even had a community, it would have plenty of them too, I am sure. 

Milky

Battlefield 2142.  No question. 

Battlefield 2142 supports up to 64 players per map.  Now thats multiplayer. 

I vs 1 vs 1 vs 1, 4 vs 4, 8 vs 8, ect is all crap and nothing compared to what you can do in Battlefield 2142.

Battlefield 2142 is the best multiplayer FPS on the market.  Period.

Nihilanth

I hate to give my preference to a game that isn't even out yet, but Call of Duty 4.  I have never had so much fun in an online game in my entire life, and all I got to play was the beta (which sadly ends tomorrow).  That game is simply amazing.

Aguy

I'd say AssaultCube.  It is a game you can download for free of of fileplanet and other sites.  It specializes in multiplayer.

Unknown

Wolfenstein: Enemy Territory. I still play it, and it's free :P

Orca

Counter-Strike 1.6

Pynda

If you want to try something with a more realistic approach (and a more mature playerbase), check into Red Orchestra. There's nothing like jumping into a Tiger tank and letting somebody have it. New gigantic size player made maps are also really breathing life into this game right now.

http://www.steampowered.com/v/index.php?area=game&AppId=1200&

daq113

COD4 Beta was pretty fun,but i got burned out after a few weeks.Too similar to COD3 which i played online since it was released,

 

Shadowrun is a pretty cool game,but it's gameplay isn't totaly different from most other fps aside from magic,and it lacks the different game types and maps other games(ie halo 3) have.It wasn't worth the 60 usd i payed for it and with the company  that created it shutting down,theres no hope for more maps or game modes that i was looking forward to.

 

Halo 3's online is probably the best new shooter for online play.Tons of game modes,a good number of maps,good graphics make it  the best shooter of the year imo.

 

kel11

Originally posted by Milky


Battlefield 2142.  No question. 
Battlefield 2142 supports up to 64 players per map.  Now thats multiplayer. 
I vs 1 vs 1 vs 1, 4 vs 4, 8 vs 8, ect is all crap and nothing compared to what you can do in Battlefield 2142.
Battlefield 2142 is the best multiplayer FPS on the market.  Period.

So allowing alot of people in a server at once means the game is the best.  Haha, you sir, are funny.

CleffyII

I like counter-strike.  Mainly because of the round setup.  You only have 1 life so people usually play more carefully, and doing cheap stuff matters.

Ch40spwns

Quake 4!!! hands down, i use to play =]

Qaze

Originally posted by Ch40spwns

Quake 4!!! hands down, i use to play =]

Woohoo! I salute you.

Dulain

I really like BF2 as well. It has squad warfare with objectives. There is also a good balance of infantry and vehicles.

 

For realism, I really like America's Army. It is hard to get into if you are used to Deathmatch though.

*edit* Not sure how long it has been available, but Crysis beta is now open to all users at Fileplanet. An FPS definitely worth checking out.