I was saying that respawn ruin fps.
I strongly disagree.
Look...the time until you respawn is an important factor in the development of an FPS (or rather: a gametype therein), and designers should do well to properly take this into account before...well...probably before anything else. The longer it is, the more you'll have to accommodate for tactics that are useless or irrelevant on the "zero time until respawn"-spectrum. That's why games like quake or unreal tournament don't have a lean-function: the pace is just too fast to make use of it. But the longer it takes to come back into a match (assuming you ever DO come back), the more you'll value that life you have. It's a different kind of game. Not the kind of game I usually tend to like, but I'm not everyone.
Basically, what I'm saying is: the respawning itself isn't the problem, and certainly not something that ruins a genre that is way too broad to make these bold statements about (half life and strictly speaking even portal are FPS'es...surely they're not ruined by respawning...).
Yeah but it is the thing that turns what is enjoyable into a bro game.
Erm...no?
I just googled the definition of brogame. Here:
Usually referred to
Halo 2-4 (HeyBro 4 )
Call of Duty (Bro of Duty)
Modern Warfare (Modern Brofare)
Or any online shooting game where one or more Bros can get on a complain about camping or not getting a kill due to hacking or some other tactic of playing
(
source)
So theoretically, I can actually argue the exact opposite: the longer the respawn time, the more camping gets rewarded (though this depends a great deal on level design as well), and as such, more people ("bros", I guess?
) will complain about it. Thus turning it into a brogame...I assume.