I need a good multiplayer FPS for my Xbox. Thing is, I can only get one now. As of now, I'm thinking of getting either Battlefront, BO3, Destiny Legendary Edition or Rainbow Six Siege. Any suggestions?
Best Multiplayer FPS for XB1?
- Thread starter Dedpewl
- Start date
xandros9
Active member
Halo MCC for raw content, Halo 5 if you want. They're the multiplayer stalwarts I know of.
I'd also be interested in Rainbow Six.
I'd also be interested in Rainbow Six.
I'm just going to cover them all as best I can.
Siege: I played the beta for it, and it's an OK game. However, if you don't have a dedicated group of friends to play with, you're likely to be disappointed. It's very much a camping-oriented shooter because of modes that are about assaulting/defending and objective, along with how quick deaths can come. It's a tactical shooter, nothing against that, but make sure you have a team of coordinated playing partners, or prepare for frustration at aimless, senseless actions by strangers without mics (which is basically the sum of my beta experience).
TMCC: Like was said, TMCC pretty much has no challenger in the real of content quantity. Quality is a major sticking point though, because the nature of the game ties four multiplayer experiences together, and they don't always cooperate well. This can mean dropped games, longer matchmaking connections than the alternatives, and inconsistent gaming environments (if you go to the Team Slayer lobby, you could go from Halo 4 to Halo 2 between games, which is somewhat jarring). Personally, after a year with it, it's just too much of a clumsy mess for me to go back. You have to be interested in playing the campaigns AND willing to suffer clunky matchmaking to pick this, IMO.
Battlefront: If you're into Star Wars, it's hard to recommend something else. I'm not sure why people say game modes are lacking, because there are plenty. However, map environments are limited (only 4 in the game), and DLC is extremely expensive (industry-high $50 Season Pass). There's no in-game chat, so if you don't have friends going in, you won't be making them as you play. That makes it a very lonely experience, but it's also the most impressive in sights and sounds. It's also generally fun, even if you're not doing well, because of the laid-back nature. Basically, it's the exact opposite of Siege.
Black Ops III: I can't recommend much less than this. If you like what BO3 is showing you, just get Titanfall. It handles the movement aspects touted in the latest Treyarch offering so much better, and it's much of a clumsy mess of too many action buttons. I really liked BO and BO2, but after the BO3 beta, the CoD franchise was dead to me.
Titanfall: Since I mentioned it above, I might as well explain a little more. It's got a tiny community at this point, so matchmaking could be slow at times (though still faster than TMCC). Maps are probably the biggest negative to the game, since they feel awkwardly sized for both Pilot (too big) and Titan combat (too small). Still, it can probably be had pretty cheaply, and if you got EA Access for $30 for a year, you'd get it, Battlefield 4, and Battlefield: Hardline to play.
Destiny: Just don't. It's a total mess, the majority of the content is dead because later expansions outleveled its usefulness, and you're looking at VERY little content in 2016 before an unknown sequel-ish release in 2017, which might gut the thing for a second time, and The Taken King did it in late-2015.
Halo 5: This is the hardest for me to judge. The core gameplay is nice. Movement is fluid, weapon balance isn't bad, and it's got a lot of potential and free content coming (18 total maps from October to June). However, maps in the game are just too bad to ignore. If you like having your lives frequently last under 15 seconds, Halo 5 Arena was built for you. Spawn killing regularly makes up one-third of deaths in a match, and it's infuriating when you spawn with no chance to react or have a fair fight. Arena maps are absurdly tiny--Halo 2 was a much slower game, and its maps were twice as large. It's just too claustrophobic for my liking, but I can still enjoy it in spurts. Warzone is a really fun concept ruined by terrible boss and scoring design, but REQ weapons can be extremely fun to mess with--just don't expect to matter in a mode built on RNG and general luck more than skill.
You'll ultimately have to decide if you're aiming for a competitive experience or a casual one. Halo 5 is probably the only offering that can give you both in a decent package (though Siege's Terrorist Hunt can be a blast to relax with). If you want competition and tactics, Siege is going to be hard to beat. If you just want to fire a gun without a care in the world, Battlefront's probably the go-to for Star Wars fans, with Titanfall a decent-enough alternative because of the uniquely fun Titan-based combat.
Siege: I played the beta for it, and it's an OK game. However, if you don't have a dedicated group of friends to play with, you're likely to be disappointed. It's very much a camping-oriented shooter because of modes that are about assaulting/defending and objective, along with how quick deaths can come. It's a tactical shooter, nothing against that, but make sure you have a team of coordinated playing partners, or prepare for frustration at aimless, senseless actions by strangers without mics (which is basically the sum of my beta experience).
TMCC: Like was said, TMCC pretty much has no challenger in the real of content quantity. Quality is a major sticking point though, because the nature of the game ties four multiplayer experiences together, and they don't always cooperate well. This can mean dropped games, longer matchmaking connections than the alternatives, and inconsistent gaming environments (if you go to the Team Slayer lobby, you could go from Halo 4 to Halo 2 between games, which is somewhat jarring). Personally, after a year with it, it's just too much of a clumsy mess for me to go back. You have to be interested in playing the campaigns AND willing to suffer clunky matchmaking to pick this, IMO.
Battlefront: If you're into Star Wars, it's hard to recommend something else. I'm not sure why people say game modes are lacking, because there are plenty. However, map environments are limited (only 4 in the game), and DLC is extremely expensive (industry-high $50 Season Pass). There's no in-game chat, so if you don't have friends going in, you won't be making them as you play. That makes it a very lonely experience, but it's also the most impressive in sights and sounds. It's also generally fun, even if you're not doing well, because of the laid-back nature. Basically, it's the exact opposite of Siege.
Black Ops III: I can't recommend much less than this. If you like what BO3 is showing you, just get Titanfall. It handles the movement aspects touted in the latest Treyarch offering so much better, and it's much of a clumsy mess of too many action buttons. I really liked BO and BO2, but after the BO3 beta, the CoD franchise was dead to me.
Titanfall: Since I mentioned it above, I might as well explain a little more. It's got a tiny community at this point, so matchmaking could be slow at times (though still faster than TMCC). Maps are probably the biggest negative to the game, since they feel awkwardly sized for both Pilot (too big) and Titan combat (too small). Still, it can probably be had pretty cheaply, and if you got EA Access for $30 for a year, you'd get it, Battlefield 4, and Battlefield: Hardline to play.
Destiny: Just don't. It's a total mess, the majority of the content is dead because later expansions outleveled its usefulness, and you're looking at VERY little content in 2016 before an unknown sequel-ish release in 2017, which might gut the thing for a second time, and The Taken King did it in late-2015.
Halo 5: This is the hardest for me to judge. The core gameplay is nice. Movement is fluid, weapon balance isn't bad, and it's got a lot of potential and free content coming (18 total maps from October to June). However, maps in the game are just too bad to ignore. If you like having your lives frequently last under 15 seconds, Halo 5 Arena was built for you. Spawn killing regularly makes up one-third of deaths in a match, and it's infuriating when you spawn with no chance to react or have a fair fight. Arena maps are absurdly tiny--Halo 2 was a much slower game, and its maps were twice as large. It's just too claustrophobic for my liking, but I can still enjoy it in spurts. Warzone is a really fun concept ruined by terrible boss and scoring design, but REQ weapons can be extremely fun to mess with--just don't expect to matter in a mode built on RNG and general luck more than skill.
You'll ultimately have to decide if you're aiming for a competitive experience or a casual one. Halo 5 is probably the only offering that can give you both in a decent package (though Siege's Terrorist Hunt can be a blast to relax with). If you want competition and tactics, Siege is going to be hard to beat. If you just want to fire a gun without a care in the world, Battlefront's probably the go-to for Star Wars fans, with Titanfall a decent-enough alternative because of the uniquely fun Titan-based combat.
MobileVortex
New member
^^ haha i disagree with a lot of what he said. but the last paragraph is pretty much how I feel. I'm not going to break it down anymore then that, to avoid a flame war.
Competitive- Halo 5 and Siege
Casual - Titanfall, Destiny, Battlefront.
Most bang for your buck is Destiny IMO. You can put countless hours in this game in both the PvE and PvP modes.
With all of them obviously having a few buddies to play with is going to make your experience 10x better. So if you have a friend with any of them, Id go with what he has haha.
Competitive- Halo 5 and Siege
Casual - Titanfall, Destiny, Battlefront.
Most bang for your buck is Destiny IMO. You can put countless hours in this game in both the PvE and PvP modes.
With all of them obviously having a few buddies to play with is going to make your experience 10x better. So if you have a friend with any of them, Id go with what he has haha.
Duvi
New member
Black Ops 3 is hands down the best FPS out now. I will be switching to Tom Clancy's RPG, The Division in about a week.
I only get games for MP (like you) and I have played Battlefront, Battlefield 4 & Hardline, Siege, Halo 5 and several other titles for both Xbox & PS4... nothing feels as fluid as BO3. The most balanced FPS I have ever played.
If you give BO3 the shot, you'll enjoy it more than all the other games if you're looking for MP. Lots of content. And it's like getting 3 games for the price of one. Single player can be MP because you can team up with 3 others and rank up. Same for zombies. Most people will look at their friend's list and don't really see more than 5 people playing other games, consistently... even though I'm sure someone will say otherwise. Just checked and these are the amounts playing the games you mentioned:
Halo 5 - 2 (I know you didn't mention this)
Siege - 3
BO3 - 5
Titanfall / Battlefront - 0
Destiny - 1
I think Halo: Reach was the last good Halo game. Siege... it's like search & destroy from cod, but slower than cod. Titanfall... I recently installed the game to play it again, but TF2 is on it's way out. Battlefront... I'm not a Star Wars fan, but I still give games a shot and the sounds of the guns get annoying. Game play seems to chaotic to me. Destiny... used to see lots playing it, but it's too time consuming to get to the high levels. I stopped at rank 16 and was very bored.
I only get games for MP (like you) and I have played Battlefront, Battlefield 4 & Hardline, Siege, Halo 5 and several other titles for both Xbox & PS4... nothing feels as fluid as BO3. The most balanced FPS I have ever played.
If you give BO3 the shot, you'll enjoy it more than all the other games if you're looking for MP. Lots of content. And it's like getting 3 games for the price of one. Single player can be MP because you can team up with 3 others and rank up. Same for zombies. Most people will look at their friend's list and don't really see more than 5 people playing other games, consistently... even though I'm sure someone will say otherwise. Just checked and these are the amounts playing the games you mentioned:
Halo 5 - 2 (I know you didn't mention this)
Siege - 3
BO3 - 5
Titanfall / Battlefront - 0
Destiny - 1
I think Halo: Reach was the last good Halo game. Siege... it's like search & destroy from cod, but slower than cod. Titanfall... I recently installed the game to play it again, but TF2 is on it's way out. Battlefront... I'm not a Star Wars fan, but I still give games a shot and the sounds of the guns get annoying. Game play seems to chaotic to me. Destiny... used to see lots playing it, but it's too time consuming to get to the high levels. I stopped at rank 16 and was very bored.
Duvi
New member
And something I forgot to mention was that BO3 is the only one in that list that you can get away without having a few teammates that you know. Some times no one is on and I like the fact that I can play BO3 without them. The other games, you really need a squad to enjoy the game (IMHO).
Haha, I don't think I've ever heard "fluid" used to describe a CoD game, especially BO3. Play Titanfall, try its wall running, then go back to BO3. While TF has its failures (mostly in map design), BO3 made a total mess of its wall running. It's inconsistent in its stickiness, and it caused me a LOT of trouble as a result. Plus, the general movement is inconsistent, with how you can jump on one roof, but not the next, even though you can clearly reach it. I guess the shooting is fluid, but only becuase the Aim Assist is so darned forgiving. Honestly, after hoping and praying for Treyarch to save the franchise from Ghosts and Advanced Warfare, they just drove a full-on railroad spike into the coffin for me.
Duvi
New member
I love Titanfall, but I can definitely say, BO3 had better mechanics than Titanfall. I played Titanfall since ghosts sucked.
Tons of folks who don't even like black ops will still say it's better when it comes to the fluidity of the game. The thrusting to the wall running to the sliding or the combos.
Gimme an example of inconsistency that effect the game in a negative way. What spots are you referring to? Name of the maps.
I don't know the maps' names. I never bought the game. I just played the beta. My dad bought the actual game and said it was basically exactly as I described, that the wall running would sometimes not want to stick and sometimes stick just from jumping sideways. The inconsistency in overall movement is related to vertical navigation. There's some map with a white building, and you can boost jump to its lower roof. However, you cannot get to its upper roof, which is clearly within reach (they just have an invisible wall).
The whole idea of fluidity in CoD, it's just laughable. Yeah, shooting's "fluid," because the game's Aim Assist is having your bullets hit people when you're aiming well off of them. CoD's been like that for years, it's just getting more and more forgiving. It got so bad that after destroying people with Aim Assist off in BO, I was almost useless without Aim Assist in BO2--it almost feels like the game punishes you for not taking the easy way out, with on-line shots not registering with Aim Assist off.
BO3, from what I played, honestly has no redeeming qualities. BO2 had crappy maps and extreme Aim Assist, but it had a fun factor (that was tested to me at times) because it was accessible and allowed for tactical play, even in a sea of ADHD kids. BO3 now punishes methodical, tactical shooting. It's actively driving people, who aren't running around all the time, away. It's got way too many non-shooting toys to manage. Aim Assist makes shooting too easy. Map design is bad (why maps have random holes in the middle is beyond my understanding). Movement feels off to me, like a bad attempt to sit between a grounded BO game of the past and the over-the-top Advanced Warfare. Weapon balance has NEVER been a strong point in CoD games, and I don't expect they figured it out this time around.
Calling BO3 a FPS is borderline generous, at this point. It's more like a first-person Michael Bay simulator with some guns on the side. I was hoping Treyarch could save me from the turd that was Advanced Warfare, but they somehow made something even worse.
Jez Corden
Staff member
It's not an FPS, but have a look at The Division (third person shooter), it's a thousand times better than Destiny, frankly, far more depth, better RPG mechanics and better shooting mechanics.
damir84
New member
Better shooting mechanics than Destiny? lol no just no. Division is a great game but its nothing like Destiny. MMO aspects can be compared but thats it. If you're looking for a great FPS for PvP play, try Destiny. Right now its cheap and its tons of fun with trials every weekend and crucible in general. PvE content is lacking at the moment because of lack of updates, but if you are just getting into the game there is a lot to do. Next for me would be Halo for PvP...black ops is just meh..
I don't agree with much of anything here. Destiny's shooting feels good, but that's the start and end of ANYTHING good about that game, to me. The loading times are awful. The zones are small. The balance is whatever, I haven't played since the beta to comment there. The group aspects were just bad, as was the tight instancing (only having a few players on-screen at once). The environments weren't visually impressive. In the cases of both it and The Division, the voice acting and plot were non-factors. Destiny is just good shooting mechanics, the rest is below-average across the board. While core gameplay is a big deal, Destiny seemed to just shovel manure around that core, and it ruined the game for me.
The Division's not perfect either. However, its shooting feels good. Its RPG elements are simplified and accessible. The negative there is that the depth isn't like a true MMO, but it also won't scare people off with complexity, so I can live with it. The crafting stuff is probably too basic, given it's just have X number of one part, and you're good. I also like that you can basically assign skills at-will, so you don't have to do like WoW or Neverwinter and pay a chunk of money to experience a different play style. Where the game gets me is the open world and environment. It looks good, and you aren't loading the game constantly. The world's not densely populated by any stretch, but the benefit there seems to be that I can run all around the map and not need to "get on a ship" as an excuse to load another area.
damir84
New member
As far as PvE goes I absolutely agree with you. It's choppy as hell and having to go to orbit just for a mission sucks. As for PvP...You just have to play it to see it. Comparing the two games as far as gun play goes isn't fair to either one. They're completely different in that aspect. Third person cover shooter vs a fast pace FPS. I've played Destiny since beta and now I play Division but I know as soon as there is an update I'll be back on Destiny. I still play crucible (PvP) all the time. Its competitive and fun.
I'm not comparing them to each other, in terms of quality. I'm saying that as a FPS, I don't like Destiny. As a TPS, I love The Division. I enjoy one, but not the other.
Similar threads
Latest posts
-
PlayStation boss Jim Ryan is retiring in March 2024
- Latest: Windows Central
-
Valve's Counter-Strike 2 is available now on Steam
- Latest: Windows Central
Trending Posts
-
-
FTC vows to keep trying to block Microsoft's controversial acquisition of Activision
- Started by Windows Central
- Replies: 1
-
Former Surface head Panos Panay officially on the way to Amazon
- Started by Windows Central
- Replies: 4
-
Report suggests Qualcomm's upcoming Oryon CPUs stirred controversy among PC makers
- Started by Windows Central
- Replies: 0
-
Valve's Counter-Strike 2 is available now on Steam
- Started by Windows Central
- Replies: 0
Facebook
Twitter
Instagram