Play something like Far Cry 3 or BioShock: Infinite, or even Tomb Raider (2013) - you'll find you're not as bad as you think. Also, if you have your DPI on your mouse set up crazy to 2000+, adjust it down to ~1,200 or so. The slower the mouse is, the greater control you have over it. I learned that from my cousin when I got into BF3.

I usually suck at the newer online FPS games, unless it's teamkilling.

Not at all. I'm pretty good at FPS even though I haven't liked the genre too much since the 90s, but I did play Dead Space with a controller (yikes!) on a friend's console. I could only manage Easy without wanting to tear my hair out. It was actually quite refreshing to focus more on the story than the shooting, so I may do it again in the future, even with keyboard and mouse...

It took me well over an hour to pass this section of ACM. The funny thing is you are supposed to protect a guy that is opening a security door but all the aliens ignorer him and are heading straight for you instead. Since all your teammates are complete idiots who can't hit anything, it's now up to you to kill ALL aliens and each requires 2-4 hits before they go down.

So yes, ACM is absolutely dreadful.

yep, we old people need to do that now :D

Most let you disable the obvious snap-to aiming stuff but all of them have subtle assists you usually can't mess with. When they then port the games to PC they remove all of those assists for mouse aiming (which they should). At least that has been my experience.

And I didn't say it makes the games harder really. What I said was that I don't think mouse aim really makes the games easier due to this, so if you pick hard mode thinking the mouse gives you an edge you might be disappointed. That's how it's worked out for me, anyway.

+1 even the soft core critics slammed it

Since you're new to FPS, I recommend Hard Reset

With the recent Alien: Isolation listing on Xbox Live, maybe, just maybe the franchise can be redeemed.

Few infos:
"Alien: Isolation, described as a shooter, will apparently be set 15 years after the events of Ridley Scott's Alien and star Ellen Ripley’s daughter Amanda in the lead role."

“Discover the true meaning of fear in Alien: Isolation, a survival horror set in an atmosphere of constant dread and mortal danger. Fifteen years after the events of Alien, Ellen Ripley’s daughter, Amanda enters a desperate battle for survival, on a mission to unravel the truth behind her mother's disappearance. As Amanda, you will navigate through an increasingly volatile world as you find yourself confronted on all sides by a panicked, desperate population and an unpredictable, ruthless Alien. Underpowered and underprepared, you must scavenge resources, improvise solutions and use your wits, not just to succeed in your mission, but to simply stay alive.”

quote of a quote from ign.com

I actually enjoyed Doom 3. It was a re-imagining of the original game. Story-wise, it was standard for most FPSs... standard action flick stuff. Despite the limited color palette it was pretty gorgeous and graphically still stands up today. Ammunition and health were placed fairly logically and the levels made sense. There was only one particular level that caused any sort of frustration. I thought the atmosphere or feel of the game was pretty good. Felt almost like a survival horror game. There were a few "jump scares" here and there, just to keep you on edge. The use of lighting (or lack thereof) was utilized fairly well and was a pretty integral part of the game. It brought some new elements from modern FPSs to a classic FPS mechanic, or brought a classic FPS sensibility to modern FPSing... however you care to look at it. Was it a perfect game? Hardly. But it wasn't a terrible game either.

As far as RAGE goes, I thought it was a really solid game. It was a mission-based FPS, like Far Cry 2 or 3 except much more linear. A lot of concepts were used in the game (racing, inventory items and engineering, pilfering NPCs and the world for objects, etc) and I felt they were used effectively. The weapon balance was excellent and the use of different ammo types (and mods) was really well done. I thought that the game allowed enough strategy so that the player could approach each mission differently to their preference, but were straightforward enough that you didn't have to spend all day assembling the right items for the task. I do have a few complaints though. One, I felt the game was sadly too short, or rather, it tied up the end too quickly. Secondly, I felt that the final mission was too easy and was a bit of a letdown. Perhaps iD will give us a sequel, because the story felt rushed and incomplete.

I'd say it was pretty bad. The levels were railroad tracks without much room to maneuver, the game depended heavily upon cheap scares and darkness for atmosphere. The plot line pops up with QTE all too often. The switching between flashlight and weapon was really cheap as well.

In the context of modern FPS it's probably not terrible, but the genre has really fallen if this is what passes for a good FPS. It was really clear that the people at iD had forgotten about what made them so great. They had a great engine, but they didn't really use it to the best effect and what you wound up witth was a game that pretty much anybody could have made.

I really, really wanted to like Doom 3, but it just wasn't a very good game. Now, had they sold the damned thing as a survival horror game, that might have worked, but it's rather insulting to try and pass this off as a Doom game as it's inferior in every way, except graphics, from the original.

Considering the comments on the Steam page, it's pretty clear that the people writing reviews haven't actually bothered to play the original as it would be pretty obvious just how retrograde Doom 3 was. Doom is still just as much fun to play now as it was 20 years ago, Doom 3 is a complete chore and I can't even figure out how anybody managed to complete it as the entire game feels really cheap in the ways that actually count.

Really, the game is massively overrated. I feel bad that the bar has been set so low for modern games.

Do you remember, in the other topic, where you have admitted that you don't like survival horror so it probably just wasn't for you?

And where at least two people told you that they have enjoyed both Doom 3 and the old Doom games, upon you have stopped responding?

That, yet again, you were the one to start?

The fairly recent discussion?

... Yeah, I'll just let that soak in :-P

I played the BFG version of Doom 3. You didn't have to switch between the flashlight and your weapon. However, your shoulder-mounted light had limited battery life, so you constantly had to keep your eye on it. I think it is unfair to say that the levels were "railroad tracks". Most FPSs are like that. It wasn't until Far Cry came along that you had much in terms of "alternate routes" to choose from. Considering the limited textures/pixels/colors the designers had to work with during the early 90s, the original FPSs often felt like you were stumbling through a maze. Now I am all for exploration within games, but sometimes you have to sacrifice a little to carry on with the game. Even Far Cry knew it's limitations. I'm sorry you didn't like Doom 3, I really am. It's not for everyone. Then again, all games are like that. Just some food for thought.

I do agree that FPSs have declined in recent years, but consider that there are only so many different ways to make a game based around the premise of "move into room, kill the monsters, get the key, unlock the door, repeat". Eventually, something had to change. Again, Doom 3 is simply a re-imagining of the original. A remake, if you will. I liked it. I think many other people did too. Would I try to compare it to the original? Of course not. It's not a shot-for-shot remake. They reinvented some basic ideas (PDAs instead of keys, for example) and fleshed out a world we, quite frankly, didn't really get to see a lot of in the original. It is too easy to put on nostalgic-tinted glasses when talking about classics. Was Doom a fun game? Absolutely. Run and gun? Hell yes. It would have been easy to make that exact same game with different textures... oh wait... that was Doom 2. So how could they up the ante? They had to do something different. Considering they had completely tapped out the Quake franchise at that point (and RTCW was a bit of a dud) a Doom game of some kind was inevitable. iD has always been rather notorious for creating amazing engines, but not a lot of content. That's why Romero left. This is why I compared it to a standard action flick. It fulfilled the basic needs. It didn't stray too far from the original formula, it didn't try to get too deep or philosophical, and yet, it gave us more than some text for motivation. Most reviews I have seen give it an "average to better than average" score. That's not bad.

For the record, Doom 3 is nowhere near my favorite FPS, I just don't like to see it being talked about so unfairly.

The mechanic is bashed for no particular reason anyway, other than being a bit stupid (like a lot other mechanics are, like lunging 10 guns on you) The game worked quite well with the flashlight vs gun mechanic, quite simply because arenas were lit quite well, and you've only had to use the flashlight when exploring (or killing zombies. Which you actually could kill quite easily WITH the flashlight. Yeah.)

Where I do think it detracts from the intended experience are bits where some alternate source provides lightning for the fights - like imps carried in the shining vats, or the escort bit where if the guy didn't survive, you didn't lose, but you've had to manage somehow. Really liked those, you've probably missed them altogether.