First-person shooters must die

[Nihilanth]

This is something I wanted to write for a long time on numerous occasions. It always felt too random or just barely touching the problem and in the end I posted nothing. I thought that maybe a more clever idea would be to summon a whole new thread for that.

Keep in mind that most of the stuff I'm gonna write here consist of a bunch of random thoughts on the subject. Do not read all of that as the set-in-stone statements from me.

AN IMPORTANT PS ADDED LAST MINUTE: At the time of writing this thread I've been in a mood to really talk a lot about the subject. Because it didn't just show up, there were a lot of changes in the content. I changed some parts dramatically, ereased others altogether. There were at least few times I wanted to post it but then again came back to fix either the text or do something to make it feel more coherent. In time my enthusiasm about it just faded a bit, it's not like I changed my mind, I just don't feel like extensively talking about it or taking this text to the point where I could say it's finished. Then I waited some more waiting for a proper moment but I just thought that this way I'd just throw the whole God damn thing away. So I decided that I just don't care about those fixes I had in mind and posted it as it is. Sorry for the current (poor) state of the thing. And once again, keep in mind that this is really more of a random thoughts than coherent opinion, so read it as that. It's painfully unfinished. Remember that. Unfinished. You have been warned. Thanks.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
So despite the threads title, I am a big fan of first-person shooters. This is actually my favourite gerne, nothing to debate here because no other perspective can provide more lifelike immersion. So with 2007 behind, I should probably be happy with all those awesome shooters that came out this year and even more, consider it the best 12 months for the gerne in years. It would be like this for sure if I just played games without thinking about anything beside whether this or that title is fun or not.

First-person shooters are standing in place. There's absolutely no evolution inside the gerne. And I know that many people will step up to convince me how much is still to be done: Full Body Awarness, better physics, destructible environments, moving closer to visual photorealism... oh, wait a sec. Get the idea? Yes, these are changes and this is evolution that brings games closer to reality BUT these changes are not going to bring the gerne anywhere. This is not the evolution of shooters but the evolution of tech. As the tech improves, you can make prettier graphics, better physics, bigger explosions, greater level of destruction. We all love it. If you say you're not impressed by technical improvements like this, in tech demos, games themselves, then you're lying to yourself. However the tech alone will never ever push the gerne forward.

It's a little like with Duke3D versus Quake. Quake had better tech but it just followed the path of DOOM while Duke3D had interactivity and even more importantly the Duke himself, a character that talks trash, kicks alien asses, someone who has personality and that's why many people considered that game superior to Quake.

After Half-Life something changed. Okay, let me get this straight that I'm not a 'played every single game' type so I might have missed something. But pretty much every FPS that came out after it was just more of the same and it's not like there was any big thing that had such an impact on other games. Games do introduce improvements and new ideas, new concepts but when you look at it, it's just you running around with a gun + something blah, blah, blah. The core is always about shooting. Sure, you will say that's because these are First-Person Shooters so it's ok. Now that's something I will not agree on.

Since Half-Life and then, even more importantly Deus Ex I saw the First-Person Perspective gerne as a gerne with unlimited potential. I saw it as exactly this: First-Person Perspective, not First-Person Shooters. Half-Life pushed the gerne forward by integrating the story with gameplay but it was really Deus Ex that changed everything. It was this game, First-Person Perspective game that put YOU in a world, you're not a gun wielding train on a rails anymore. You may choose to go in guns blazing, stealth approach, even talking your way out of the problems, huge explorational value and meaningful conversations. Others people attitude towards you, even if only "on paper" without direct effect on gameplay. Here's an important thing. You may say that "oh, you're right, but you forget that this is more of an RPG than a shooter AND/OR FPS/RPG hybrid". Sorta, but frankly, that's what I see as the right direction for the gerne.

Ok, so I already hear "go play some RPGs then". No, that's not what I mean. Or rather it actually is! But not in a way most people would interpret it. So let me explain. Initially the only reason for which I loved Deus Ex so much was that it was "like an RPG" with skills, self-upgrades and weapon mods. I thought like that for a long time. Back at the time of DX I haven't played System Shock 2 yet and I heard that it's "a lot like an RPG" so in the DX mood I was like "woah, I gotta play it". So I finally bought the game and played the hell out of it. I loved it, all those stats and things, it was awesome. But still I ALWAYS leaned more towards Deus Ex. I didn't understand why, technically, Shock2 is a lot more like an RPG than DX. Lately I finally got the answer.

So before going with that, there was something that helped me find it and it was stalker. After the fiasco of Deus Ex: Invisible War [still a nice game after all!] I started looking for a game that would give me the glimpse of DX. I chose stalker, I knew about it before, I just didn't pay much attention to it. So then there was a time of me being hyped over this game and stuff and there was one very important thing that I found on the official site. Sorry I can't get you the exact quote. GSC said that stalker "is a role-playing game without stats and character grownth". They said that in the mood of creating a realistic game they don't want stalker to be a game where you start as an absolute nothing that after few hours turns into a demigod. The main focus was on open world where you develop yours relationships with others via quests, communication and trading.

That seriously inspired me and I finally begun to understand what "role-playing games" are really about. Most people see stats as the signature element of RPGs. Wrong. Role-playing game is a game where you do exactly this, play a role, where you can develop yourself in a way you choose. It's NOT about having a character with Strenght and Agility and skills. Stats, abilities, skills, levels came from "paper RPGs", systems like D&D. When a game takes place in your imagination you need stats so that you can refer to them when it comes to who you actually are in the game and for instance how successful you are when attempting to do something. But in a computer game, there's really no crucial need for stats when you want to make a role-playing game. There are simply enough ways to express yourself that can be programmed and you can ride with that. And that's the reason why I liked Deus Ex more than Shock2. Because Shock2 was more of a Diablo-styled RPG with character development playing the most important role. In Deus Ex character grownth was not that huge but there were more opportunities to actually develop yourself, your character and how others see you. That's why DX is superior to Shock2.

Yes, I see this kind of gameplay as the right path for First-Person Perspective games. And these are the games I want to play. Games of choice, meaningful decisions, freedom of action and playing style. Games where guns are just tools that you can but don't have to use. Just one kind of tools that you can use to achieve your goals. Games where your success or failure at certain activities depend on yours, users abilities, not stats. I am not fan of divisions. Lines should not strickly divide games. Lines should blur, gernes should benefit from each other.

I suspect there's a chance that certain people would respond that I expect too much. Consider how much of that have been achieved in Deus Ex. How Deus Ex still remains the game that developer's should look at in the minds of many people. It's 2008. It's been 7,5 years since DX was released. Seven f*ckin years. Kinda scary when you think about it, if DX did that much 7 years ago, then what could have been achieved now with some effort?

And the problem returns. After 7 years we did not have a game that would equal DX in many aspects. That's not because we're expecting too much, there really was no game like that. And again, we're talking about equaling Deus Ex, but for Haven's sake, after 7 years we should expect so much more from the gaming, shouldn't we?

But like I said earlier, something became terribly stagnant. The worst thing is that nobody actually tried to go down the way DX did. But also the fact that nothing really changed in terms of gameplay at all. Shooters are still "on the rails" running and gunning rides. Just better graphics and physics. You know, that doesn't mean games nowadays are bad. It's just that most of the time the story is cool, characters are interesting or the setting is great while gameplay is just solid. That means, gameplay is well-balanced or fun or gripping but at the end of the day it's just the same old same over and over and over again. Nothing really changes. Occasionally there are some cool, extraordinary things here and there but the core gameplay remains the same. And in my opinion it's the core that should evolve, not everything beside it.

[Nihilanth]

So this year we had Half-Life 2: Episode Two. Gameplay is... well, solid, that's all you can really say about it. Other than that it's just an improved Half-Life. We had Crysis. The pinacle of pretended evolution: all about tech, graphics, physics, destruction. Gameplay is solid at best, nothing even remotely groundbreaking. [note: yes, I know higher level of possible destruction affects gameplay; I just don't see it as anything outstanding from wider perspective] Now we also had BioShock. Well, I wrote something about cool story and setting above and this is the perfect example. Everything about this game is awesome, except gameplay. Again, it's not bad. It's just not innovative in any way. So it's cool because it's a lot like System Shock 2. It's uncool because it's nothing more than that. Ok, that was actually all I expected from it so I can't complain. Too bad we had to wait 8 years for something like Shock2 and after all something that does not make any difference for the gerne. Again, characters, story, that's all great but that's something that creates games personality not something that pushes the boundries of gameplay.

The only game that really felt innovative this year was in my opinion stalker. It's not perfect, lots of elements like communication, trading or stealth needs further attention, but I really consider this game to be a step in the right direction. Sure, it's shooting-focused for most part. But the A-Life system is something great, the open-ended nature of the environment, the feeling that you actually are within a living world. And finally, gameplay that does not limit your progress with artificial boundries like death of a certain character or failing a quest. With the small exception of traders, everyone can die, you can kill anyone and offend anyone and befriend anyone (well, almost). The only way to really fail is to die, nobody stops your game just because you failed Quest XYZ.

Looking now at my signature I try to pick the titles I think have the potential to push the envelope and take the gerne further, at least a bit. That's hard. Hard to actually find something there. The only game I'd choose right of the bat is Clear Sky. We all know what stalker is about by now and the improved version of it is always welcomed. I'm also eagerly awaiting further development of A-Life system and how it handles The Global War of Factions. Opportunities to make a lot of choices about who are you gonna trust and help seem to be plentiful in the prequel. Other than that I just feel an urge to mention Deus Ex 3. We don't know shit about it, so it's a blind choice but I can't really strip myself out of the hope for that title. Lastly, I think this one may be a bit of surprise given what I wrote above but it's Duke Nukem Forever. Sure the game will most likely be linear run&gun type of thing like almost everything else, yet there's single reason for which I chose it: interactivity. I'm not quite sure what to expect, but it seems to me that it MAY be the right thing to do as well.

Size-wise it seems like I wrote a lot yet there are still so many things I'd like to mention. I understand that there are a lot of subjects that can appear as an aftermath of this thread. What about people who want nothing more than simple run&gun? If shooters turn into lifelike role-playing games, what about classic stats- and/or turn-based RPGs? Lots of other things. I might just add thoughts about that later on. I also understand that my high hopes for the gaming are way too high even if this is really the way things should be. There's no room for innovation and drawing way outside the lines. We'll be lucky if there's one single game in the future that breaks away.

Anyway thanks for reading (provided you didn't just skip everything to this very part ;)). I'd like to hear your own comments on that subject, regardless of whether you agree, partially agree, disagree or think I'm insane.

One last note. You may get an impression that I'm one of the "I don't find games fun anymore" dudes. That's not true. I'm definetely not tired of gaming and despite my criticism I do enjoy some of those not-going-anywhere shooters (I intentionally bashed Episode Two and BioShock, one of my favourites of the year). I've learnt to just take what I get and have fun with it as much as possible, but that doesn't mean I'm all-happy about the current state of gaming.

[Rider]

I think I agree with you :)

Games haven't evolved in a while now... but personally, I wouldn't know where to start. Especially with the shooter genre... well... nothing but giving more choice to the player, making the environment react to the player more.

Maybe even start with having the player interact with the game world more... VR? Smell-o-vision?

[crunchy superman]

Beyond totally destructible environments & physics on everything, I don't know that they can (or should) evolve much more. In fact, my personal opinion of how they should evolve is that they should de-evolve. Seems like we've gotten shooters on this super-realism kick and forgot to make them fun.

For me, I'd much rather be laughing maniacally blasting away at 200 stupid enemies at once in Serious Sam than shooting a couple of highly detailed, complex-AI soldiers in some other game to be followed by a pre-rendered cutscene of all the other enemies my character "killed".

[Sang]

The reason why there isn't a new Deus Ex yet is simple: moneh moneh moneh $$

[Dead Meat]

Personally I think that all of those first-person hybrid games (like games with RPG elements, racing elements, adventure, puzzle-solving, melee combat, games in which you have to make moral choices or stealth games or tactical games) are the ones that need to die. It seems to me that developers of such games add all of those elements just for the sake of difference.

I'v always been a fan of pure FPS games... simple and straightforward games that don't require you to think or strategize or get involved too much. In my oppinion those are the games that are the most entertaining and satisfying.

Unfortunately there are too many games that suck and too many games that simply don't deserve to be played. There are very few games that are truly awesome and memorable, to me at least.

Adding too much complexity in a game simply kills the fun.

[Scream]

Personally I think that all of those first-person hybrid games (like games with RPG elements, racing elements, adventure, puzzle-solving, melee combat, games in which you have to make moral choices or stealth games or tactical games) are the ones that need to die. It seems to me that developers of such games add all of those elements just for the sake of difference.

I'v always been a fan of pure FPS games... simple and straightforward games that don't require you to think or strategize or get involved too much. In my oppinion those are the games that are the most entertaining and satisfying.

Unfortunately there are too many games that suck and too many games that simply don't deserve to be played. There are very few games that are truly awesome and memorable, to me at least.

Adding too much complexity in a game simply kills the fun.

I agree. Meat and potatoes.

[NutWrench]

A game where you just shoot enemies is boring. There's no reward to the player beyond blowing shiat up, and once that gets boring, there's no reason to play it anymore.

You might as well just make a game that's nothing more than one huge deathmatch map.

[8IronBob]

I think what we need more are sandbox-style FPS games, imho. Too many closed, dead-end storylines anymore... Kinda like a GTA-style game in the FPS format, per se, but with a little element of interactive environments in the process. To me, Postal 2 and Deus Ex are two great examples of sandbox FPS games, all those "go anywhere, do anything" type games, you know.

[Damien_Azreal]

A game where you just shoot enemies is boring. There's no reward to the player beyond blowing shiat up, and once that gets boring, there's no reason to play it anymore.

You might as well just make a game that's nothing more than one huge deathmatch map.

They did that... it's called Quake 3 Arena.

[avatar_58]

I always see threads with people bitching about complexities, not enough, too little, kill this genre, that genre, change, etc.....

Maybe I'm alone, but I actually like the variety. Ideally I can play both hybrids AND straight action shooters. Games with story or puzzles or games that are just linear action-movie esque shooters. Why do people take offence to this? They want one side to die off for "progress". Progress? Losing genres and gametypes isn't progress. Some of us happen to enjoy classic "shoot anything that moves" games as well as the epic story involved ones. Theres always room on the shelf for both.

[HazMat]

Shooters rock! but I am sick of playing as a scum cop!

[Sang]

Deus Ex ---- sandbox FPS game

Dude no way. There were unlinear levels, surely, but it was nowhere near sandbox.

[Echo Black]

I need my Quake, and I need my Deus EX. Variety is a good thing. To the OP: Always remember you're *one* amongst millions.

[crunchy superman]

Some of us happen to enjoy classic "shoot anything that moves" games as well as the epic story involved ones. Theres always room on the shelf for both.

I agree. DeusEx & Bioshock are two of my favorite games. But where are the Doom/Serious Sam/Quake/Unreal type of games? I guess Painkiller was the last one. Sometimes I don't want a big story or lots of tactics & strategy - sometimes I just wanna kill . . . . . a lot! :D

[avatar_58]

I agree. DeusEx & Bioshock are two of my favorite games. But where are the Doom/Serious Sam/Quake/Unreal type of games? I guess Painkiller was the last one. Sometimes I don't want a big story or lots of tactics & strategy - sometimes I just wanna kill . . . . . a lot! :D

What do you call FEAR, Crysis and the like? Just because they do have story doesn't mean they aren't standard "kill everything" games. I personally like the tactics, it gets old when all you do is hold down the fire button.

[Sang]

Actually I don't think the point in this thread was that every FPS needs to be a hybrid of some sort. Seems to me that there are WAYYYYYYYYY more "mindless" shooters than hybrids.

By "mindless" I'm not just referring to the real killfests like Serious Sam or Painkiller but basically any game that forces you onto a linear path - and there's only one way for you to f*ck up which is dying, which can be resolved through a quickload. Of course, the majority of games do this, whereas there are only a few with an "immersive" way of playing the game. By that I mean.. let's take any of the Half-Life games. They're immersive games, to me, but the way in which the games are played is still very arcade-y.

As mentioned before games like Deus Ex however try to put you in a less arcade-y world which is nice. That doesn't mean there should no longer be Half-Life's or Painkillers, but there should certainly be more Deus Exes.

[Altered Reality]

I'd like to hear your own comments on that subject
tl;dr :D

[8IronBob]

Dude no way. There were unlinear levels, surely, but it was nowhere near sandbox.


Well, alright... How about 3DR's own FPS games from the mid to late 90s, like Shadow Warrior and Duke 3D? Now I know that you could make your own maps in that fashion, and it's still very popular to do today. Hard to believe that games that are 10+ years old can still be kept alive with all these imaginary minds out there.

[Danule]

i think the genre is just fine. if you don't like the games anymore than just don't play them dude, OR make your own game that you will love to play. to me everything is in the right place.

[Sang]

No, Shadow Warrior and Duke3D aren't sandbox either.

I don't think there is a sandbox FPS out there (if there is I haven't heard of it). Examples of sandbox games in general are GTA or The Elder Scrolls (I've only played Morrowind but I guess the others are similar). A sandbox game is basically a game that allows you to go anywhere at any time and doesn't work with set levels. If you've played an FPS like that, let me know :o

[Orochi Avlis]

You can say the same thing about all genres.
How many games really reinvent the genre? Very few. And that's across the board.
Granted FPS must have gotten stale to you, but there are plenty others who enjoy it.
FEAR, the HL series, the Quake series, Duke Nukem, Prey, the UT series,TF2 to name a few are all fun games. And they each advance the genre. Granted it's not the advancement that completely changes the rules, but they are good games none the less.

RTSs have been pretty much the same ever since they were first created. The only one I can think of that was somewhat different was Supreme Commander.

[Sang]

RTSs have been pretty much the same ever since they were first created.

Now THAT.. is very true :)

[avatar_58]

RPGs haven't changed much either. In fact most of the changes haven't even been positive, making people long for the old ways before all the "advancement" and "evolution". So really sometimes change for the hell of it isn't a good thing.

[Damien_Azreal]

I :love: FPS.

Always have... and I always will. I'm just able to really enjoy them.

[Niap!]

I agree, Stalker has been a radioactive breath of fresh air. :D I'm still on an old single core AGP setup, so I haven't played (or have much interest really) most recent FPS releases. I don't think I've been this immersed in a FPS since Deus Ex or the Thief series, I :love: wandering around out in the Zone. Bioshock had a great atmosphere, but I didn't enjoy the gameplay all that much.

[Parkar]

I always see threads with people bitching about complexities, not enough, too little, kill this genre, that genre, change, etc.....

Maybe I'm alone, but I actually like the variety. Ideally I can play both hybrids AND straight action shooters. Games with story or puzzles or games that are just linear action-movie esque shooters. Why do people take offence to this? They want one side to die off for "progress". Progress? Losing genres and gametypes isn't progress. Some of us happen to enjoy classic "shoot anything that moves" games as well as the epic story involved ones. Theres always room on the shelf for both.

I agree but at the same time it would be cool if more developers tried to add new stuff to the FPS genera. Doesn't necessarily have to be adding "RPG elements" (god do I hate that label). You could probably even do tons of new stuff with just the shooting bit. The more variations between the games the better.

I would love to see a first person game thats more of an adventure then a straight up shooter. Just tons of sticky situations you need to get out of or problems to solve. guns would be kind of sparse but an option at times while adventure game style puzzles and problem solving would play a major role. There would be more then one way to solve a problem though rather then just one which is usually the case in Adventure games. Think MacGyver in first person :). Add coop on that where you have to work together with great characters and a strong story and it would be gold. Obviously this would be one hell of a challenge to do but I wish someone at least tried to do something like this. Heck I might even try my self at some point in a much smaller scale and/or as a short proof of concept.

[Orochi Avlis]

Natural Selection, I find is a breath of fresh air. It first introduced FPS elements with RTS elements, and it did it very well.
Natural Selection 2 cannot come soon enough. :love:

[crunchy superman]

What do you call FEAR, Crysis and the like? Just because they do have story doesn't mean they aren't standard "kill everything" games. I personally like the tactics, it gets old when all you do is hold down the fire button.

I like those games too, but sometimes I just wanna mow enemies down - nothing more.

I like most all FPS, but it just seems to me that the genre as of late has a lot less variety and is leaning soley towards the tactical side.

Then again, maybe I'm just jaded & hard to please these days. ;)

[hellchicken]

Everything you wrote I agree with, and I think it's still a long way off till we see an evolution of the core mechanics of the genre. Though I'm not sure the genre can ever really evolve with the current state of technology and user interface. Up untill the point where our technology evolves to the next step, what I think can only be real Virtual Reality, the shooter genre will only go through revolutions but won't evolve at it's core.
Jurassic Park: Trespasser comes to mind. Here was a game that tried to do something different, but fell flat on it's face mostly due to hardware limitations.


I :love: FPS.

Always have... and I always will. I'm just able to really enjoy them.

So do I. I love 'em all: the linear traditional ones and the more complex shooters a' la Deus Ex. As long as either the story is good or the the gameplay is fun and solid (preferably the game does all these things right) I'm happy.

[someguy2435]

I honestly don't mind hybrids as long as the additions don't feel tacked on and are actually fleshed out, but pure shooters have always been my favourites.

[Phait]

I haven't even thoroughly read your 2 posts because they're so long and could be condensed to at least a few paragraphs but if the FPS genre needs to die then why not gaming as a whole? Because it seems you think there is no room for innovation in the FPS genre - but then would you say innovation will always be in other genres?

Maybe I'm wrong, but that's what I got from a glance.

But if that's the sentiment then I wouldn't agree. I wouldn't write off one genre. Times are bit different so such games are different (in the sense that they're pushed out quicker, higher budget, shorter length, less innovation and risk). Things change better or worse.

[Altered Reality]

I don't think there is a sandbox FPS out there (if there is I haven't heard of it). Examples of sandbox games in general are GTA or The Elder Scrolls (I've only played Morrowind but I guess the others are similar). A sandbox game is basically a game that allows you to go anywhere at any time and doesn't work with set levels. If you've played an FPS like that, let me know :o
If you remember, Stalker was advertised as a sandbox FPS. It came out and it wasn't, but the programming team said they were working on a patch that would actually turn it into the sandbox FPS it was supposed to be. Unfortunately, the patch hasn't come out yet.

[Nihilanth]

Wow, it felt good to throw that all out. I'm glad I did that. :)

personally, I wouldn't know where to start.
Well if nobody starts nothing will change. Ever.

Beyond totally destructible environments & physics on everything, I don't know that they can (or should) evolve much more.
That's the point! If first-person shooters are dead stuck in Half-Life-style gameplay mechanics, nothing really can change beyond what you mentioned. Something should change on a deeper level.

The reason why there isn't a new Deus Ex yet is simple: moneh moneh moneh $$
Yes... I know my friend. That's why I'm sad. :(

(i) Personally I think that all of those first-person hybrid games (like games with RPG elements, racing elements, adventure, puzzle-solving, melee combat, games in which you have to make moral choices or stealth games or tactical games) are the ones that need to die. It seems to me that developers of such games add all of those elements just for the sake of difference.

(ii) I'v always been a fan of pure FPS games... simple and straightforward games that don't require you to think or strategize or get involved too much. In my oppinion those are the games that are the most entertaining and satisfying.
(i) Ironically, such a games are already dead. Thus this thread. And no, I don't agree.
(ii) We had milions of such a games before. I don't see a reason to go like that forever.

I always see threads with people bitching about complexities, not enough, too little, kill this genre, that genre, change, etc.....

Maybe I'm alone, but I actually like the variety. Ideally I can play both hybrids AND straight action shooters. Games with story or puzzles or games that are just linear action-movie esque shooters. Why do people take offence to this? They want one side to die off for "progress". Progress? Losing genres and gametypes isn't progress. Some of us happen to enjoy classic "shoot anything that moves" games as well as the epic story involved ones. Theres always room on the shelf for both.
Oh, don't get too dramatic, here. I tried to make it clear. The title is like that because it looks cool. :) (and I already see some people seem to look more into the title than the content) I said I enjoy games. The whole purpose of this thread is to express my thoughts about the whole situation: why not, well, I don't know, move anywhere? But speaking seriously, yes, I think mindless shooters should die. More! They should have been dead by now. But that's NOT what I'm trying to say with this thread.

I need my Quake, and I need my Deus EX. Variety is a good thing.
Sure as hell! But guess what: ...there's no variety.

But where are the Doom/Serious Sam/Quake/Unreal type of games? I guess Painkiller was the last one. Sometimes I don't want a big story or lots of tactics & strategy - sometimes I just wanna kill . . . . . a lot! :D
Again, there're hundreds of opportunities to "just kill". On the other hand there're are virtually no opportunities to do anything more.

Actually I don't think the point in this thread was that every FPS needs to be a hybrid of some sort. Seems to me that there are WAYYYYYYYYY more "mindless" shooters than hybrids.

By "mindless" I'm not just referring to the real killfests like Serious Sam or Painkiller but basically any game that forces you onto a linear path - and there's only one way for you to f*ck up which is dying, which can be resolved through a quickload. Of course, the majority of games do this, whereas there are only a few with an "immersive" way of playing the game. By that I mean.. let's take any of the Half-Life games. They're immersive games, to me, but the way in which the games are played is still very arcade-y.

As mentioned before games like Deus Ex however try to put you in a less arcade-y world which is nice. That doesn't mean there should no longer be Half-Life's or Painkillers, but there should certainly be more Deus Exes.
Bingo.

if you don't like the games anymore than just don't play them dude
Dear God. Look at the last paragraph of my thread-starting message...

You can say the same thing about all genres.
Oh, very true! And I'd actually say the same thing about RTS gerne as well. I just chose FPS gerne as an example because, like I said, I see it as a gerne with the most potential. (and in case someone reads too much into it, I do NOT mean that all other gernes should die ;))

I would love to see a first person game thats more of an adventure then a straight up shooter.
Big yes! More First-Person Games not Shooters.

Though I'm not sure the genre can ever really evolve with the current state of technology and user interface.
I'm not a tech expert, but I'm pretty sure there's a shitload of things that could have been done with what we've got. It's just easier to invest in graphics and physics because everybody knows it will sell. Being innovative is risky. Devs don't want to be risky. I don't like devs.

Maybe I'm wrong, but that's what I got from a glance.
Yes, you are wrong. No offence, but I didn't write that much for fun, but because maybe you need to read it all to know what I mean?

[Scream]

I haven't even thoroughly read your 2 posts because they're so long and could be condensed to at least a few paragraphs...


If you haven't read them, how do you know they could be condensed? That makes no sense.

[Phait]

I said thoroughly read. I skimmed through them.

[Destructor]

I'll have to replay Deus Ex and give STALKER another go.

[MAT]

As long as 3-4 great FPSs come every year, the genre is fine by me.

[Sang]

The point isn't quality, it's the way in which the quality is presented. Surely a shooter with linear gameplay like COD or Far Cry is fun but sometimes people are just looking for something different. The offer for the "something different" games is very limited: There's System Shock 2, Deus Ex, Deus Ex 2, BioShock, STALKER.. and if you want to go retro I suppose you could check out Strife and System Shock 1 as well. Those are the only ones of that kind that pop into my mind and those are 7 titles.

[hellchicken]

I'm not a tech expert, but I'm pretty sure there's a shitload of things that could have been done with what we've got. It's just easier to invest in graphics and physics because everybody knows it will sell. Being innovative is risky. Devs don't want to be risky. I don't like devs.


You're right, that's why I admire the Nintendo Wii so much (although I don't own own myself). It's THE one right step into the right direction, but we're still many steps away from the point where gaming as a whole can truly evolve (not just cosmeticaly). The film "eXistence" is a good example of what I think gaming could evolve to in the future.

Also, it's not the devs you should hate as a whole. Devs had to adapt to the modern market, moreso than publishers as a whole. If anything, you should hate publishers.
But then, maybe you should hate capitalism, because capitalism truly is what is holding back new ideas and the evolution of the medium "Video Gaming".

My hope is that once Video Gaming is socially fully accepted (hopefully it wont take as long as it did with Film) we can have government funding for new game project and content development, like we have in some countries like Germany, for films.

[Damien_Azreal]

While I would like to see the genre pushed forward, be innovative and actually try something outside the box... I'm very happy with where we are at.

FPS are at a place that they can be brilliant titles, fun, atmospheric and really make you feel like your part of something... without having to be innovative.
We've reached a level that the FPS as a genre can simply "be" and still be awesome, it doesn't have to do more or create to be a blast.

Crysis... it's basically FarCry without mutants and a more refined sandbox.. but it's still an awesome shooter. Gameplay wise it is a little disappointing that it doesn't really do anything new, but it does what it does so great that I don't mind that lack of innovation. More so the same with BioShock, it basically recreated System Shock 2 in a new world, stripped out some things and went forward. And while I was sad to see they had removed something and changed something else, I was elated that it was so well done, so gripping and enthralling.

And take games like FEAR and Condemned (Yes, you knew I would mention Monolith titles)... in all honesty they don't do anything new. Lith has taken the FPS standard and pushed it to it's limits.
FEAR has a brilliant story, wonderful characters that grow on you and make you hate them. And while FEAR's melee system is in itself an original use... it's nothing new. Kicking has been in FPS since Duke3D... FEAR simply took the old use and pushed it to knew heights.

Condemned did the same. It removed functions that have been in FPS for years... taking away the players ability to jump, crouch or even reload their weapon... by doing so Monolith created a new form of tension, a new way to create atmosphere.
The melee system was the games life. And they pushed the old standard of hold an item and swing it... to places it had never been.
The game really made you use your environment... it was needed to survive.

While I do agree with you and look forward to the day that FPS take steps in a new direction... I'm perfectly content right where we are at. I'm happy that developers have found a way to make new games in my favorite genre without them feeling stale and old.
Simply by taking that tried and true gameplay and pushing it to it's limits and polishing it to a shine.

[Phait]

My hope is that once Video Gaming is socially fully accepted (hopefully it wont take as long as it did with Film) we can have government funding for new game project and content development, like we have in some countries like Germany, for films.

I really doubt this because, while films are entertainment they are also used to educate. Exampe, perhaps Saving Private Ryan. I imagine a government grant towards an entertainment medium would expect a certain motive behind the project - a shoot 'em up game I can't imagine qualifying.

That's just my guess though, that funding would go towards something that aims to benefit the public or society in some way.

[Longtimefan1984]

I'll agree that graphics and physics are ruining games, FPS in particular.....It's not easy to make a graphically beautiful, physically accurate game with-out enourmous ammounts of time and resources devoted to just those two things...unless developers have huge sums of money(which they do not) something will be compromised...and we know where it happens.

Half-life 1 was awesome because the game-world was alive, the AI was awesome they had personality...Half-life 2 was great, i could not stop playing it....but the whole time i was thinking "Man, i wish the AI was like it was before" honestly, i could not get pass that, and it did affect the way i saw the game.

So graphics = bad. If they do not put the same ammount of time into the actual gameplay, Pick up a good game from 5+ years ago and once your vision adjusts to the blurry image, the gameplay will take over....guarantee it.

[Niap!]

Condemned did the same. It removed functions that have been in FPS for years... taking away the players ability to jump, crouch or even reload their weapon... by doing so Monolith created a new form of tension, a new way to create atmosphere.

I respect the hell out of Monolith, they have made some classics. But I'm sorry, cutting features like that just strikes me as bad game design, not a new way to create atmosphere. If they don't want the player to "crouch" or "jump" a better way to approach the situation would be to make it so the player doesn't want to be jumping/crouching all the time. By removing it, it simply highlights the fact that its not there(feet glued to the ground, unbendable legs). I can understand certain features getting the axe during development, but in a FPS "jump" and "crouch" are important. I don't own condemned, but I'm guessing the game environments leave alot to be desired(exploration, navigation and such).

[ShadeEX]

As I've said before on other occations, I'm really not that picky with games..

I can play alot of different stuff and enjoy it. Some examples could be:

Peggle Extreme, Command & Conquer, Space Quest, Pokémon: Mystery Dungeon, Duke Nukem 3D, GTA, STALKER, Sam & Max, AVP, FEAR, Hitman, Bio Menace, Resident Evil, Baldurs Gate, TES: Oblivion, Serious Sam, Super Mario Galaxy.

And many many more..

While it would be interesting to see innovation in genres sometimes, I'm preatty much satisfied with the way things are now..

[WoodenSword]

Well, how about the underrated Operation flashpoint and ArmA ???

IMO this military-FPS is innovative in gameplay and open enviroments without being a hybrid of genres (certainly not RPG) .

[Damien_Azreal]

I respect the hell out of Monolith, they have made some classics. But I'm sorry, cutting features like that just strikes me as bad game design, not a new way to create atmosphere. If they don't want the player to "crouch" or "jump" a better way to approach the situation would be to make it so the player doesn't want to be jumping/crouching all the time. By removing it, it simply highlights the fact that its not there(feet glued to the ground, unbendable legs). I can understand certain features getting the axe during development, but in a FPS "jump" and "crouch" are important. I don't own condemned, but I'm guessing the game environments leave alot to be desired(exploration, navigation and such).

Not really.
The way the game is designed you don't even want to jump or crouch, and the levels are designed brilliantly.
I didn't even notice there was no jump or crouch feature in the game until I was looking through the controls in the menu.

And the levels encourage an amount of looking around for clues, and extras.

[Niap!]

Not really.
The way the game is designed you don't even want to jump or crouch, and the levels are designed brilliantly.
I didn't even notice there was no jump or crouch feature in the game until I was looking through the controls in the menu.

And the levels encourage an amount of looking around for clues, and extras.

I have a very hard time wrapping my head around that. Condemned is melee focused, correct? I imagine i'd be hitting the jump and crouch keys on reflex, whether they actually do anything in game or not. Any great FPS I can think of has jump and crouch, and for good reason. When I try and picture playing them even without something as simple as jump or crouch, alot of what I loved about them simply wouldn't be in those games.

[peoplessi]

My hope is that once Video Gaming is socially fully accepted (hopefully it wont take as long as it did with Film) we can have government funding for new game project and content development, like we have in some countries like Germany, for films.

I think there is such here in Finland, and also in Sweden. Where they fund certain gameprojects, the funds aren't really enough to develop a fullscale production, but surely help.

http://www.tekes.fi/eng/default.asp

[Hudson]

I happen to love shooters, hell it's my favorite genre. I see nothing wrong with the current FPS scene, as with all genres you get a few gems and a few stinkers.

[avatar_58]

I have a very hard time wrapping my head around that. Condemned is melee focused, correct? I imagine i'd be hitting the jump and crouch keys on reflex, whether they actually do anything in game or not. Any great FPS I can think of has jump and crouch, and for good reason. When I try and picture playing them even without something as simple as jump or crouch, alot of what I loved about them simply wouldn't be in those games.

How about playing it before judging? Shooters don't need jumping or crouching unless it adds to the gameplay or is required in the levels. Neither is true for Condemned so they didn't put it in. As a result it adds to the claustrophobic feel of the game, which is what you want for horror.

[Damien_Azreal]

Agreed.

And given Condemned's slow pace jumping would be really out of place.

[Niap!]

How about playing it before judging?

Doesn't appeal to me, was just curious how taking jump and crouch away was "adding" to the game in some way. Condemned could be a great game, I don't know I haven't played it.

Shooters don't need jumping or crouching unless it adds to the gameplay or is required in the levels. Neither is true for Condemned so they didn't put it in. As a result it adds to the claustrophobic feel of the game, which is what you want for horror.

Thats why I said something, jump and crouch would add to the gameplay. even if the levels were all flat corridors wherever you go, I would still feel restricted in combat without jump or crouch especially in a melee game. I don't care how slow the player moves, I would miss it. thats all I'm saying.

[John]

Personally I think that all of those first-person hybrid games (like games with RPG elements, racing elements, adventure, puzzle-solving, melee combat, games in which you have to make moral choices or stealth games or tactical games) are the ones that need to die. It seems to me that developers of such games add all of those elements just for the sake of difference.

I'v always been a fan of pure FPS games... simple and straightforward games that don't require you to think or strategize or get involved too much. In my oppinion those are the games that are the most entertaining and satisfying.

Adding too much complexity in a game simply kills the fun.

:doh: Wow. Everyone has their opinions but it's hard to grasp sometimes :p

So variety, and any sense of complexity or strategy = bad, gotcha. ;)

[avatar_58]

Thats why I said something, jump and crouch would add to the gameplay. even if the levels were all flat corridors wherever you go, I would still feel restricted in combat without jump or crouch especially in a melee game. I don't care how slow the player moves, I would miss it. thats all I'm saying.

I don't follow. How does leaping up and down like a bunny make the combat feel less constricted? You can't leap over a melee attack, and jumping doesn't speed you up to move to the side (not unless it's quake). Jumping and ducking are to get around obstacles, of which do not exist in Condemned. Thus having jumping for the sake of it is pointless.

[Dopefish7590]

well there are a few gems that were outside the box games... but they were mostly overlooked... a oerfect example is Aliens vs Predator 1 for pc or mac... that game was incredible, comparing Halo to AvP is like comparing Quake to Deus Ex... it has a heck of a lot more stuff not to mention innovation, in the meantime the game is old enough to predate, half life 1...

[Niap!]

I don't follow. How does leaping up and down like a bunny make the combat feel less constricted? You can't leap over a melee attack, and jumping doesn't speed you up to move to the side (not unless it's quake). Jumping and ducking are to get around obstacles, of which do not exist in Condemned. Thus having jumping for the sake of it is pointless.

I'm not a bunny hopper, or someone with bad knees from crouching all the time. I just think that crouch and jump would add to the melee combat, instead of take anything away from it. What would it add? well, how about the possibility for jump attacks, or crouch to duck a swing.. etc. It adds a little variety to the combat, theres plenty of gameplay uses for jump and crouch in a melee game. Thats why I don't understand the appeal of taking them out :confused:

The way the game is designed you don't even want to jump or crouch

I guess thats my problem, I always want to jump or crouch in a game for one reason or another :o I have found various reasons to use them in other melee games, and have become very used to the idea of jump and crouch being options at my disposal. Condemned just isn't the type of game I'd enjoy I guess. I'll STFU about it now :D

[John]

I dunno, jumping + melee can work sometimes, like FEAR. But I understand that Condemned was a slow paced game and jumping wouldn't fit it.


And I completely agree with the thread maker. Not in that there *needs* to be a forward drive in the FPS genre, but in that there needs to be more of a variety. Problem is there aren't many FPS/RPG games out, although there are some games that tease the idea (Bioshock, Stalker, etc. Both amazing games but kind of tease the idea of a hybrid when they're really just awesome shooters. I'm still looking forward to more games that take the extra mile like Deus, SS2 or Vampire: Bloodlines)


Then again, as long as FPS/RPG hybrids don't sell exceptionally well, they won't be made. Just like many other great genres that are basically dead. (I dont think the fps/rpg genre is dead though, I see it as being much more alive in the future :))

[Reaper]

The point isn't quality, it's the way in which the quality is presented. Surely a shooter with linear gameplay like COD or Far Cry is fun but sometimes people are just looking for something different. The offer for the "something different" games is very limited: There's System Shock 2, Deus Ex, Deus Ex 2, BioShock, STALKER.. and if you want to go retro I suppose you could check out Strife and System Shock 1 as well. Those are the only ones of that kind that pop into my mind and those are 7 titles.
Deus Ex "2" isn't a good example. And STALKER is bug ridden, just like Vampire: The Masquerade - Bloodlines and Boiling Point. Granted, all three have their merits, it's still sad that these types of games often end up with low levels of polish. So in a way, the point is quality.

Nihilanth, I agree with most of what you have to say, but I think Full Body Awareness can help the genre, and System Shock 2, not Deus Ex, is the pinnacle of FPS/RPG games.

[Dead Meat]

:doh: Wow. Everyone has their opinions but it's hard to grasp sometimes :p

So variety, and any sense of complexity or strategy = bad, gotcha. ;)

There are different kinds of variety. When some people think of variety, they think of different play styles within a game.
When I think of variety, I think of new moments and situations that you come across in a straight action shooter. Take Gears Of War for example... the game is pretty simple, but keeps the experience fresh by introducing you to new environments, new enemies, new and cool situations. Like for example, there's a moment where you're sniping some dudes from a window, there are moments when you're using the Hammer of Dawn against tougher enemies and there's a level where you're riding a vehicle and shooting at shit that flies around.
This is what variety is, IMO - refining and improving and adding cooler and cooler stuff instead of changing things alltogether.

[Rider]

I think game developers should probably start considering new ways of story telling. So far all storylines are quite linear. They have a beginning (which is obvious) and they have a set ending (or a few set endings). Every plot twisted is pre thought out by the makers, and you'll lose a little dynamicity in favor of an interesting storyline. Maybe that's where innovation should start?

And I also like the idea of a first-person adventure with guns. Big sandbox area, clues and items, people to talk to and the occasional gunfight to spice things up. Might be cool.

Ofcourse there are plenty more possibilities. I'm reading Trigger Happy currently, which is an ebook posted elsewhere on this forum. It really makes you think about possibilities of gaming rather then our current limitations, and I recommend it to anyone who's interested in game development on some level.

[Echo Black]

FEAR has a brilliant story, wonderful characters that grow on you and make you hate them.

Personally, I think they couldn't write a more generic plot if they tried. I played FEAR for the killing, not for the whole The Ring-ripoff little girl creeping around thing. Fettel for example, got the crappy, uneventful death to match the depth of his character. :mryuck:

[Daedolon]

Personally, I think they couldn't write a more generic plot if they tried. I played FEAR for the killing, not for the whole The Ring-ripoff little girl creeping around thing. Fettel for example, got the crappy, uneventful death to match the depth of his character. :mryuck:

I wanted so much to see how they had implemented the "Ring-ripoff girl" since I love that kind of stuff, but the combat was so generic and boring that I quit before I even saw the girl.

I wish the combat was better so I could enjoy the horror aspects of the game.

[Kev_Boy]

So graphics = bad. If they do not put the same ammount of time into the actual gameplay, Pick up a good game from 5+ years ago and once your vision adjusts to the blurry image, the gameplay will take over....guarantee it.

Screw gameplay.

[MAT]

The "jump" button in FPS games must die. At least when you hold a weapon in your hand. You don't jump when you shoot, do you. So how to overcome the obstacles that need "jumping"? Let gamers press the "use" key near the obstacle and make a beautiful animation in FPS camera. Some games do that for god's sake.

[avatar_58]

So graphics = bad. If they do not put the same ammount of time into the actual gameplay, Pick up a good game from 5+ years ago and once your vision adjusts to the blurry image, the gameplay will take over....guarantee it.


Thats such a horrible arguement. Are you insinuating 5 years ago those games didn't care about graphics and focused on gameplay? Just because they look bad now doesn't mean they looked bad back then.

The funny part is back then people would argue that games spent too much time on fancy 3D effects "Try games from the early 90's, they didn't have fancy graphics" they'd say. It's the same song and dance - people forget that older games tried their hardest to look good too. It doesn't matter how they perceieved years later. Christ, Crysis will be dated in 5 years too.....count on it. In fact I'm going to laugh at the day someone says "I'd rather play Oblivion, it's not just fancy graphics".

[big fat lazy]

The "jump" button in FPS games must die. At least when you hold a weapon in your hand. You don't jump when you shoot, do you. So how to overcome the obstacles that need "jumping"? Let gamers press the "use" key near the obstacle and make a beautiful animation in FPS camera. Some games do that for god's sake.

Hell no, I want to jump whenever I want!

[MAT]

Yes, but it's still stupid :D

[John]

Jumping and crouching can make a gun fight more exciting in a FPS game though, atleast for some people. When you're getting shot at from all angles, sometimes running from side to side while dodging and jumping will help. It isnt the most realistic approach but it can be fun at times.

You know how some people complain about where the term "realism" should fall under straight fps games. I think taking away the jumping feature all together can make things abit more bland, I mean look at John Woo films and the Matrix; they dive all over the place while holding AK47s! :p

[avatar_58]

Diving is not the same as jumping. Maybe thats something devs need to look into - adding diving to first person shooters via FBA. I think jumping straight up in the air provides no help at all for dodging a bullet coming right at you. Now if you dove and increased speed - yeah it would help.

[John]

I dunno, jumping from side to side while running the opposite direction of incoming fire always seems to keep me alive when I'm in a tough spot. Jumping up and down without moving, yeah that won't provide any help.

[Niap!]

I look at "jump" and "crouch" as basic gameplay tools, their usefulness depends on the kind of game your playing. In Stalker for example, I do jump every now and then even while in combat(though I'm usually not shooting while I do it). In some situations I would find myself under fire from multiple enemies coming from multiple directions(I'm playing on the hardest difficulty level, so them bastards can aim :D). Jumping saved my skin, whether it was to try and avoid gunfire while avoiding obstacles in the environment, or just to sneak up on someone and gain an advantage. Stalker would be really bland gameplay wise without it. In a game like Stalker, having the "use" key magiclly auto move you around obstacles would suck alot of the fun out of it, and I imagine the developers would have a nightmare of a time adding that "feature" all over the place in their game environments.

[Steve]

FEAR has a brilliant story, wonderful characters that grow on you and make you hate them.
Oh come on now, the story is inline with Doom 3 :doh:

[Orochi Avlis]

Oh come on now, the story is inline with Doom 3 :doh:
Nothing like Doom 3's story. No where near it.

[Damien_Azreal]

FEAR's story can come across as bland if you just take it as is as you play through. But there's a lot more to the story, underneath the main narrative.

If the story is so generic and lame... why after the game's release did Orochi, myself and a few others spend pages explaining it to people? ;)

I wanted so much to see how they had implemented the "Ring-ripoff girl" since I love that kind of stuff, but the combat was so generic and boring that I quit before I even saw the girl.

I wish the combat was better so I could enjoy the horror aspects of the game.

Okay... your damn near the first person I've heard of calling FEAR's combat generic.

[Nihilanth]

FPS are at a place that they can be brilliant titles, fun, atmospheric and really make you feel like your part of something... without having to be innovative.
We've reached a level that the FPS as a genre can simply "be" and still be awesome, it doesn't have to do more or create to be a blast.
Well, that's actually the way I'm not satisfied with. Like I mentioned I do enjoy some shooters these days, because they are fun. But the truth is, I don't play that many shooters at all, simply because I don't really see the point. I've skipped many shooters labeled as "fun" altogether. It's a bit sad that the only way I'm determining whether to buy a game or not is basically "how it feels" without even remotely thinking about what it has to offer. Because it's all the same just different looks.

Deus Ex "2" isn't a good example.
I think it is. Seriously. Because while Invisible War is heavily simplified DX, the concept of factions (if you played it, you know what I mean) is something pretty unique. I dig it.

I think Full Body Awareness can help the genre
It can help the immersion but not the gerne or even gameplay, at least in it's current state.

I think game developers should probably start considering new ways of story telling. So far all storylines are quite linear. They have a beginning (which is obvious) and they have a set ending (or a few set endings). Every plot twisted is pre thought out by the makers, and you'll lose a little dynamicity in favor of an interesting storyline. Maybe that's where innovation should start?

And I also like the idea of a first-person adventure with guns. Big sandbox area, clues and items, people to talk to and the occasional gunfight to spice things up. Might be cool.

Yeah, good thinking.

One of the problems is that in most cases developers as a starting point take the fact that player is a mobile turret and then focus on things that happen to him/her. In my opinion the focus should be on what player can do, to give him/her enough opportunities to make his/her own decisions. The simplest (yes, the simplest) example of such an approach is obviously Deus Ex. Seriously, it was very simple in DX but still, you could ALWAYS choose what to do. Shoot everyone? Sneak in? Bribe, lie, hack? Explore and find alternative way? Sure, why not! It worked because you didn't feel like you're forced to do something (and frankly this is the most beautiful thing about this game, not inventory or skills). I think one of the first things devs should do is to give players more ways to handle their tasks. I don't find a "I can attack from left or I can attack from right" anything even remotely spectacular, let me do more. Give me opportunities to be a person not a gun-wielding killing machine, more or less arcadey.

Obviously this is just taking what DX did and doing it again. There are more things that I'm sure are completely possible from technological perspective. Why not expand player-NPCs interactions? Why not invest in non-combat AI (even in a 100% scripted way)? Why not determine events player encounters and endings player sees based on what player actually does in a gameworld (consider things like an outcome of quests/tasks player attempted, attitude of various "forces" and groups in a gameworld towards player, the order in which player does things, style the player represents [shooting, spying, sneaking, stealing, manipulating, talking, etc)? There are literaly loads of things that can be done to make a difference. It's all right here. Just nobody takes it.

[Hudson]

Personally I think that all of those first-person hybrid games (like games with RPG elements, racing elements, adventure, puzzle-solving, melee combat, games in which you have to make moral choices or stealth games or tactical games) are the ones that need to die. It seems to me that developers of such games add all of those elements just for the sake of difference.

I'v always been a fan of pure FPS games... simple and straightforward games that don't require you to think or strategize or get involved too much. In my oppinion those are the games that are the most entertaining and satisfying.

Unfortunately there are too many games that suck and too many games that simply don't deserve to be played. There are very few games that are truly awesome and memorable, to me at least.

Adding too much complexity in a game simply kills the fun.

People have opinions yes I understand but this is just horrible.

[Phait]

The "jump" button in FPS games must die. At least when you hold a weapon in your hand. You don't jump when you shoot, do you. So how to overcome the obstacles that need "jumping"? Let gamers press the "use" key near the obstacle and make a beautiful animation in FPS camera. Some games do that for god's sake.


Tell that to Cate Archer :D I was playing NOLF 2 last night. I had a sniper rifle, and I was going to take out a guard in a tower. I needed cover, so I went behind a fence that was taller than me. When I jumped, I could see the guard for a split second, but he couldn't get a shot at me. I did scope-zoom, jumped to get a quick glance over the fence and BLAM. ;)

[Blue Lightning]

Originally Posted by Dead Meat
Personally I think that all of those first-person hybrid games (like games with RPG elements, racing elements, adventure, puzzle-solving, melee combat, games in which you have to make moral choices or stealth games or tactical games) are the ones that need to die. It seems to me that developers of such games add all of those elements just for the sake of difference.

I'v always been a fan of pure FPS games... simple and straightforward games that don't require you to think or strategize or get involved too much. In my oppinion those are the games that are the most entertaining and satisfying.

Unfortunately there are too many games that suck and too many games that simply don't deserve to be played. There are very few games that are truly awesome and memorable, to me at least.

Adding too much complexity in a game simply kills the fun.

Now that makes sense! What makes a great FPS great, is attention to detail of the basic things...that's what also makes it fun. Developers of FPS games that try to get to clever, generally screw up the game. We have seen this with HL2:Ep2 and with Stalker as well. And there are many others.

[MAT]

Tell that to Cate Archer :D I was playing NOLF 2 last night. I had a sniper rifle, and I was going to take out a guard in a tower. I needed cover, so I went behind a fence that was taller than me. When I jumped, I could see the guard for a split second, but he couldn't get a shot at me. I did scope-zoom, jumped to get a quick glance over the fence and BLAM. ;)

What's funnier than a jumping man is a jumping sniper. I secretly knew this day would come. I wish it didn't, but it did. A jumping sniper.

[Hudson]

Now that makes sense! What makes a great FPS great, is attention to detail of the basic things...that's what also makes it fun. Developers of FPS games that try to get to clever, generally screw up the game. We have seen this with HL2:Ep2 and with Stalker as well. And there are many others.

Yeah, EP2 and Stalker were just complete and total failures from both a consumer and critic point of view :rolleyes:

I guess we should also forget about the insanely high critical reception groundbreaking games like System Shock 2 received, and how Deus Ex scored numerous Game Of The Year awards. :p

[John]

Yes, more Deus Ex/SS2 "fps/rpg" or "fps with rpg tendancies" games, please. :)

[Steve]

Nothing like Doom 3's story. No where near it.

It is just as boring. I should have made that clearer. Fear has great game play but the story is :mryuck:

[Dopefish7590]

the only reason why some people play marathon is because of its storyline, which quite frankly is incredible

[Blue Lightning]

Yeah, EP2 and Stalker were just complete and total failures from both a consumer and critic point of view :rolleyes:

I guess we should also forget about the insanely high critical reception groundbreaking games like System Shock 2 received, and how Deus Ex scored numerous Game Of The Year awards. :p

No, many games can be ground breaking as long as the details of the basics were tended to, and the formula and flow of the game was not sacrificed in the name of progress. With Stalker, there was a tad too much RPG to it, and a player would get bogged down with worrying how much stuff weighed (like Oblivion) and things like that. These things tend to slow a player down, and adventure goes right out the window, if you know what I mean. Also, some basics were not done right...like the voice acting, which was poor at the very least.

Of course Ep2 was VALVe's latest dissapointment as I have mentioned on another thread, because they changed the basic formula of the game from what HL2 was.

Yes, more Deus Ex/SS2 "fps/rpg" or "fps with rpg tendancies" games, please. :)

Sounds like you should try Dark Messiah. I gave it a 97/100, and it's worth every bit of that score.

EDIT: Oh and FEAR...I keep hearing about FEAR. Well let me clue you in about that game...it's crap. The levels are way too "samey", and the story is...uggg. And when people keep saying it's "scary" I dont know what the hell there talking about. FEAR is many things, but scary isnt one of them.

[Destructor]

Of course Ep2 was VALVe's latest dissapointment as I have mentioned on another thread, because they changed the basic formula of the game from what HL2 was.

Sometimes a change is as good as a holiday.

and the story is...uggg.


Oh really, I thought it was "ooga booga". :p


And when people keep saying it's "scary" I dont know what the hell there talking about. FEAR is many things, but scary isnt one of them.

To you anyway.

[ShadeEX]

Lets all just agree to disagree.. :p

[Aegeri]

I suspect there's a chance that certain people would respond that I expect too much. Consider how much of that have been achieved in Deus Ex. How Deus Ex still remains the game that developer's should look at in the minds of many people. It's 2008. It's been 7,5 years since DX was released. Seven f*ckin years. Kinda scary when you think about it, if DX did that much 7 years ago, then what could have been achieved now with some effort?

Welcome to the world of RPGs, where the pinnacles of the genre happened so long ago they are virtually stuck in the dark ages. Games like Fallout, several of the Ultima games, Baldurs Gate 2, Planescape Torment lifted standards in RPGs that everyone else has been proud to actually fail at getting even anywhere near. The Witcher and Mask of the Betrayer have been the two most consistent RPGs with the old greats to come out in a long, long time. Expecting complex classic games that stand above the rest or set new standards in their genre (like Deus Ex) is a very uncommon thing.

Edit: I got used to this concept a LONG time ago. Every so often you get a gem (last year two gems in a row!) in a complete sea of shit. What's really bad, is when the piece of undigested corn in the sea of crap gets held up as a game that 'raises' the genre, when it fails to even do things a 10+ year old game did much better in every respect. That's when you should be truly depressed.

[Steve]

EDIT: Oh and FEAR...I keep hearing about FEAR. Well let me clue you in about that game...it's crap. The levels are way too "samey", and the story is...uggg. And when people keep saying it's "scary" I dont know what the hell there talking about. FEAR is many things, but scary isnt one of them.

This is a first and it scares me. I agree with you. (not about it being "shit" because I do like the game. Slow-mo+guns=cool :D ). The levels are too "samey" and this story is eh. And I wasn't a fan of the scary stuff :o The only scary game series I have played would be silent hill. :o

[Aegeri]

This is a first and it scares me. I agree with you. (not about it being "shit" because I do like the game. Slow-mo+guns=cool :D ). The levels are too "samey" and this story is eh. And I wasn't a fan of the scary stuff :o

I agree as well. I loved the game in fact (I've played it more times than most FPS games for some reason), but I didn't find it scary in the least and the worst part about it is the really similar level design. There isn't much difference from tight corridors at the docks, then in a building, then in an apartment complex and then in an underground bunker.

It's still all bloody corridors.

[Blue Lightning]

This is a first and it scares me. I agree with you. (not about it being "shit" because I do like the game. Slow-mo+guns=cool :D ). The levels are too "samey" and this story is eh. And I wasn't a fan of the scary stuff :o The only scary game series I have played would be silent hill. :o

Looking for a good scare? Have you tried Bioshock Steve? Parts of that game really gave me the creeps :)

[Rider]

Edit: I got used to this concept a LONG time ago. Every so often you get a gem (last year two gems in a row!) in a complete sea of shit. What's really bad, is when the piece of undigested corn in the sea of crap gets held up as a game that 'raises' the genre, when it fails to even do things a 10+ year old game did much better in every respect. That's when you should be truly depressed.

I couldn't agree with this more.

Also, the focus in most every game these days seems to be the killing the baddies part. Not that I think that's necesarily a bad thing, but would it hurt to find game mechanics that are equally rewarding but different?

I mean, games can cover a broad scope of things to do that you wouldn't normally be able to do (Race a ferrari, stop an alien invasion, build your own city etc.) but killing seems to be the main meat of gaming for quite a while now. Sure there are exeptions (those I mentioned above), but there are so many things you could base gameplay on that hasn't been touched yet.

What about a game, where the interaction between the player and the NPCs is central? What about a game where you discover alien worlds, find unknown species, catalogue extraterrestrial plantlife etc.? There's a plethora of possibilities out there that's mostly untouched because the consesus is that gamers just want to kill stuff!

[John]

Sounds like you should try Dark Messiah. I gave it a 97/100, and it's worth every bit of that score.

I've tried it, and I wouldn't compare it to Deus Ex or SS2.


And it's funny how some people say Stalker was too much "rpg", when it was originally going to be *way* more of an RPG. The only rpg aspects I can see in it, are having conversations with people and having an inventory system. Besides that it's a straight shooter as far as I can tell. (But a good one)



I also think it's crazy how when Bioshock was originally coming out, you/Blue Lightning were probably the more antagonistic poster I've seen when talking about the game. Kept saying it won't be good and that HL2 is the greatest game of all time. :p

[Nihilanth]

I couldn't agree with this more.

Also, the focus in most every game these days seems to be the killing the baddies part. Not that I think that's necesarily a bad thing, but would it hurt to find game mechanics that are equally rewarding but different?

I mean, games can cover a broad scope of things to do that you wouldn't normally be able to do (Race a ferrari, stop an alien invasion, build your own city etc.) but killing seems to be the main meat of gaming for quite a while now. Sure there are exeptions (those I mentioned above), but there are so many things you could base gameplay on that hasn't been touched yet.

What about a game, where the interaction between the player and the NPCs is central? What about a game where you discover alien worlds, find unknown species, catalogue extraterrestrial plantlife etc.? There's a plethora of possibilities out there that's mostly untouched because the consesus is that gamers just want to kill stuff!

Yeah, that's the same approach I described earlier. We're thinking the same thought.

And it's funny how some people say Stalker was too much "rpg", when it was originally going to be *way* more of an RPG.

Clear Sky is gonna put it right. Unless you mean "popular" RPG elements like stats.

Also I have to say, regarding some earlier posts, that when someone says some games these days are too complex... sorry, it scares me. :insomnia:

[Steve]

Looking for a good scare? Have you tried Bioshock Steve? Parts of that game really gave me the creeps :)

I've played and finished it over 7 times now. Not that scary.

[Blue Lightning]

I also think it's crazy how when Bioshock was originally coming out, you/Blue Lightning were probably the more antagonistic poster I've seen when talking about the game. Kept saying it won't be good and that HL2 is the greatest game of all time. :p

When I first played Bioshock I didn't understand how to play it. Therefore, I spent a lot of time in the Vita-chambers, which is no fun for anyone.

Once I learned how to play Bioshock correctly, I realized how fun and great it really is. But I still say HL2 is the greatest ever...

I've played and finished it over 7 times now. Not that scary.

Did you spend any time in Fort Frolic, and explore the secret rooms there? How about the secret rooms in Medical Pavillion?

[Echo Black]

When I first played Bioshock I didn't understand how to play it. Therefore, I spent a lot of time in the Vita-chambers, which is no fun for anyone.


What? :confused: You mean you died a lot?

[Danule]

this thread must die!

[Steve]

Did you spend any time in Fort Frolic, and explore the secret rooms there? How about the secret rooms in Medical Pavillion?

Well, after playing and finishing it seven or so times, of course I have spent much time in those areas. The game isn't scary.

[Zombie_Boy]

[ignores everything previously posted in this thread, believing his "unsight" will somehow, someway get people to listen!]

IMO there hasn't been any huge innovation in terms of gameplay since wolfenstein came out. Its just a natural progression of things that happens when technology reaches a certain point. A certain refinement, if you will.. control becomes more responsive, graphics become better, more surreal.. but the core gameplay itself is basically the same.

FPS games tend to focus more on the player-side of things.. such as how "realistic" the controls feel, how the enviroment reacts to the players decisions.. etc.. but really it doesn't change from the fact that you have to go from A to B and complete the level.. much like wolfenstein.

RPGs focus on the storyline more then anything else. Storyline, pacing, character development.. those are all key features you'd generally look for in an RPG.. although you can argue that gameplay is as much of a feature as the storyline itself.. but thats just the natural progression as technology gets further along. Before we were thrilled if the game has hi-quality sprites and quality animation.. now we tend to judge a game's graphics on how well the textures, colors, animation and other things work together.

Does this all really change the core game mechanics? Well, depending on how the game engine handles certain things, then yes.. much like HL2 and its physics-based engine. But again, thats the natural progression of technology.. and pretty soon all video games will have to feature real world physics otherwise we'd ramble on about how "unrealistic" the game is.

Anyways, how does this all relate to the thread? Easy! From what I've read and learned, game publishers generally tend to go with the games that have the "proven" game mechanics. Very rarely do they go out on a limb and publish a game that has completely unheard of game mechanics because they do not know how people would react to such an idea. Thats why they keep publishing and pushing the same crap out over and over.. because they know, and people keep reaffirming that fact by purchasing the game.

We've literally explored almost every aspect of a First Person Shooter. We've been the hitman, the last man standing, the sole survivor.. hell we've even been the damn ninja. The mercenary, the unlucky bastard in an ugly hawaiin shirt, and even the badass Duke himself. Even a thief that sneaks around like a girl avoiding fights cause he can't win 'em. You can argue that all their game mechanics are wholely different, but they're all the same in that you need to complete certain things to progress to the next level. Oh sure they might put a different spin, different outlook, different perspective on how things are done.. but they all boil down to the same. Beginning levels, middle levels, end-game levels and bossfights.

I'm kinda strapped for time so I'll leave this at that and finish later!

[Reaper]

this thread must die!
No, John Tucker must die. This thread is "for the live".

[Zztx]

I don't have a problem with the FPS genre itself; just developers' stubbornness and unwillingness to experiment more with gameplay execution.

[Rider]

Maybe the S in FPS is what's keeping the FPS genre stuck in a rut?

Just thought of it now :)

[Reaper]

Perhaps it should be FPG. Kinda like Role Playing Game, Adventure Game, etc.

[Nihilanth]

I thought that I'd further expand my views regarding what should actually change, because in my first message I barely said anything about it. I also noticed that many people say that the point is to have more "FPS-RPG hybrids". I'd say it's not really about putting RPG elements in shooters but the expansion of players possibilities.

In movies we have basically two types of events: (i) those that are NOT crucial to the progression of the story (chases, shootings) and (ii) those that set direction in which the story actually progresses (plot twists, revelations). The same thing we can say about shooters, there are those two types of events as well. So one of the problems with todays First-Person Shooters is that we are always given an opportunity to participate in the first type of events but never in the second.

Games are as that:

S - AAAAAA - S - AAAAAA - S - AAAAAA - S - AAAAAA - S

S - story point (sets direction of the story)
A - action point (does not affect the story, only leads to a certain point)

So let's say we have a game. Imagine we have two versions of this game, A and B. Version A gives players an opportunity to participate in those parts of the game that does not affect the plot (action points). Version B let's players affect the result of events responsible for plot progression (story points). Which one would be better?

Well at least I can say that version B would be closer to what I think we need in the gerne. There's nothing wrong that games are interactive in those "action" events. It's very very good, because games are all about being interactive. But I think I don't want to be stuck forever in games that allow interactivity only where it doesn't matter. I want to be able to truely affect the outcome of my actions. Because games right now are like pseudo interactive movies: we can do stuff but only this kind of stuff that does not compromise the integrity of the linear plot. From that perspective, todays shooters are no different than DOOM; it's just that in DOOM story points were a text screen and today they're all visualised. I think games should strive to become fully interactive. Simply because version B would not work as a game.

The reason why version A actually gets away with being fun while still being almost completely limited in terms of interactivity is the fact that there's always far more action than plot twists. It's just the way it is. Plus, version A is very easy to create in a way that's both fun and gives the illusion of possibile choices, while in truth offeres nothing but a randomness of how for instance enemies die. Version B would be almost like a long cut-scene with occasional ability to interact. Sure, in a meaningful way but that would not be enough to be fun.

Ideally for a progression in First-Person Perspective gerne we'd need games to allow interactivity all the time. That's also one of the things I meant when I said that it's the core that needs to evolve. Because even the super innovative and extraordinary gameplay would fail in a long run if it didn't allow the interactivity on a more meaningful level that would affect the global outcome.

[8IronBob]

Yeah, just make the ultimate FPS games that combines open-endedness with the storyline, meaning, that you can make your own situations in a real-life world, yet, try to get around doing the missions that you want to do at the same time. Postal 2 comes to mind. Probably have more FPS games like it, with less bugs, better features, and more places to go and things to do. We'll probably be there sooner than later.

[Malgon]

I don't have anything really valuable to say, but it's an interesting thread nonetheless. :D

[John]

No, John Tucker must die. This thread is "for the live".

Terrible movie or not, I don't ever want to hear the words "John" and "must die" in the same sentence ever again. :mad:

[Destructor]

But I think I don't want to be stuck forever in games that allow interactivity only where it doesn't matter. I want to be able to truely affect the outcome of my actions. Because games right now are like pseudo interactive movies: we can do stuff but only this kind of stuff that does not compromise the integrity of the linear plot.

Whether a game compromises the integrity of the linear plot or not makes no difference to me. What it's all about is presentation and execution. If a game is presented and executed well it is a good game. It doesn't matter at all whether the game is fundamentally linear or non-linear.

[Simon Charles]

Six pages of debate and I still have no clue what you guys are talking about.

[Damien_Azreal]

The thread was started for the point of discussing the lack of actual advancement gameplay wise in FPS. While graphics and minor bits and pieces are improved and polished... gameplay in FPS remains, for the most part, the same as it's been for years.

But somewhere along the line... it drifted away and kept going. :p

[shiranui]

I'm just waiting to play DNF, then I'm done. At least until there has been a significant paradigm shift.

[Damien_Azreal]

As I've said earlier in the thread.

I'm very pleased with where we are in the FPS genre. We have a great balance of story, characters, gameplay and tech. I look forward to a shooter that looks to change and push the genre forward... but until then, the FPS market is doing great.

[Aegeri]

At least FPS games have been advancing in gameplay and technology, while still getting better every 2-3 years. Whereas some genres like RPGs have been going backwards (especially in terms of gameplay).

[Damien_Azreal]

I will admit a lot of RPGs have actually scaled backwards lately instead of pushing forward. And where as in the past years some smaller genres have all but died off.

[Aegeri]

All I can say is thank God for the Witcher and Mask of the Betrayer. Rays of hope.

[Dead Meat]

I'm just waiting to play DNF, then I'm done.

Same here. After DNF, I'll probably quit gaming.

Unless of course I decide to play the sequel to DNF someday. ;)

[Telee]

What about Blood 3? ;)

[avatar_58]

All I can say is thank God for the Witcher and Mask of the Betrayer. Rays of hope.

Well I wouldn't call the Witcher a ray of hope for change or a step in the right direction. I really like the game, but it shares many of the flaws of modern RPGs. Can't comment on Mask as I haven't played it yet.

However the RPG and Adventure genres are in far worse shape than shooters. Shooters still have their glory day, with all sorts of different types released each year. This year we had a sysem shock esque clone in Bioshock, on rails action-movie style ala COD4 as well your standard action in Crysis. They are also mostly AAA, even the mediocre shooters have good production value and aren't a total waste.

[8IronBob]

One good thing about Deus Ex, is that it's a hybrid of all sorts of genres, but being that it was an FPS for the most part, it probably had more interactivity than any run-of-the-mill FPS game that I can think of. It's gonna be a long time before anything can touch that. So, if there's any more games like that, we'll most certainly have something that'll keep shooters strong for years to come.

[Malgon]

I guess what people are saying here is that the fundamentals are (slowly) being polished and tweaked, but we need to come up with something very new to advance the genre or breakout so to speak. Am I kind of on the right track here? :D

[Nihilanth]

I guess what people are saying here is that the fundamentals are (slowly) being polished and tweaked, but we need to come up with something very new to advance the genre or breakout so to speak. Am I kind of on the right track here? :D

I can't speak for anyone else, but what I'm saying is that instead of endlessly working on features that make First-Person Games better shooters, developers should try expanding the core of the gerne. Make the player be a person, not a rail mounted machine gun.

[Kev_Boy]

Sounds all well and stuff but don't assume it's quite that easy, as an idea it might seem great but when you think about it for a longer time and more thoroughly you'll start to see it's not that simple. It has it's flaws. It must fit into the game to work.

It's not as straight-forward as it sounds...

[Nihilanth]

Nobody says it's easy. I already explained it earlier in fact. As long as people will just give up on such a concept without even trying, nothing will change. Plus, you don't have to sit down and make a perfect game. Just, you know, strive to do it, move closer to such a concept and I'm sure it would have an impact while still being doable. That's what I'm hoping for.

[Blue Lightning]

One good thing about Deus Ex, is that it's a hybrid of all sorts of genres, but being that it was an FPS for the most part, it probably had more interactivity than any run-of-the-mill FPS game that I can think of. It's gonna be a long time before anything can touch that.

I think you forgot about Oblivion, Iron Bob. :rolleyes:

[avatar_58]

I think you forgot about Oblivion, Iron Bob. :rolleyes:

Are you going to tell me Oblivion is interactive? Why, because you can throw apples at people?

[Damien_Azreal]

I think you forgot about Oblivion, Iron Bob. :rolleyes:

This made me laugh... a lot. :) I've simply stopped taking your posts seriously and started thinking of them as humorous little bits here and there.

[8IronBob]

Well, can't forget FPS games in the other direction like NOLF series, probably by far and away one of the best in the class of sneak/spy shooters. Almost like Splinter Cell or MGS in FPS form, so to speak... With a babe agent, as opposed to a dude military spy.

[Damien_Azreal]

Ironically, the first NOLF titles was originally planned to have a male lead. I have an old issue of PC Gamer or PC Games magazine around here that has a preview on NOLF when it was still in alpha.

Showed different weapons, locals, gadgets and a male lead.

[avatar_58]

How odd, since much of the humour required you to be a woman.

[8IronBob]

Yeah, then NOLF2 had teh hot Cate Archer... Definitely one of the better characters in FPS history. Uhm... Not as good as Duke Nukem, I mean, I'd probably be kicked if I didn't like Duke or Lo Wang on top all else. Hehe... :D After all, what forums am I on if I didn't make mention of them?

[Damien_Azreal]

How odd, since much of the humour required you to be a woman.

Well I'm sure that the humor was much different when they had a male lead in mind. They made large changes to the story when they decided to go with a female protagonist.

I'll dig up that issue and see what's in there... but I'll post it in the NOLF/NOLF2 thread. :)

[Blue Lightning]

Are you going to tell me Oblivion is interactive? Why, because you can throw apples at people?

OMG you must be joking...Oblivion is the most interactive game out there. You can choose to talk to anyone at anytime, you can ask them different things...or you can choose to steal from them and run....or fight them and further a mission. Or you can choose to leave you mission and find another mission. You can choose no mission at all and just wander around...the list goes on and on. I can't think of a more interactive game.

[Damien_Azreal]

Wow.

How about, I don't know... Morrowwind, Deus Ex, Boiling Point, STALKER. Your definition of interactive in that statement isn't very good. Being able to talk to an NPC is not a new feature.
Choosing, dropping or changing quests... again, not new. Pretty standard RPG gameplay.

[avatar_58]

OMG you must be joking...Oblivion is the most interactive game out there. You can choose to talk to anyone at anytime, you can ask them different things...or you can choose to steal from them and run....or fight them and further a mission. Or you can choose to leave you mission and find another mission. You can choose no mission at all and just wander around...the list goes on and on. I can't think of a more interactive game.

Hahaha.....:doh: Describing every element of a game isn't interaction. I don't even know where to begin. Oblivion is like the least interactive RPG out there, you cannot possibly be serious. Please tell me this is a troll post so I can regain my composure.

[ZuljinRaynor]

OMG you must be joking...Oblivion is the most interactive game out there. You can choose to talk to anyone at anytime, you can ask them different things...or you can choose to steal from them and run....or fight them and further a mission. Or you can choose to leave you mission and find another mission. You can choose no mission at all and just wander around...the list goes on and on. I can't think of a more interactive game.

http://img231.imageshack.us/img231/9287/facepalm2b3af59uk5.jpg

[Damien_Azreal]

Now that... is perfect.

[Blue Lightning]

I sure would say that Oblivion is very interactive. I would say interactivity is a player engaging with the enviorment, and if you think about it, Oblivion give you that in spades.

[ZuljinRaynor]

Except 99% of the NPCs are clones.

[avatar_58]

So what can you do to the environment besides throw objects or smack them with your sword?

[Blue Lightning]

You can use magic on them. You can light things on fire. You can...oh you know what Oblivion is all about.

Look, I don't play it because it simply takes too long. A game like that take a year to try everything out, and I don't have that kind of time to spend playing a game. But I must admit it is pretty impressive for what it is.

[ZuljinRaynor]

Look, I don't play it...

'Nuff said.

[Telee]

Blue Lighting, I respect your opinion, but seriously - wtf? I like Oblivion but to say such things is a bit over the top. Oblivion wasn't really groundbreaking in the field of freedom and choices. Come to think of it, the Elder Scrolls series really has been getting dumbed down a lot since Daggerfall.

[Damien_Azreal]

Oblivion doesn't take that much time to play.

It's very easy to load it up, run around the country side for like thirty minutes or so... play a few quests and call it good.

If you don't play it.... don't make statements about it.

[John]

You can talk to people in Oblivion but the conversations were basically like using Wikipedia. You never actually say anything, you just pick topics and the other person tells you about it. Not very interactive.

You could pick up certain objects and play around with physics, but we saw that before Oblivion. And they never really used the physics to their advantage IMO.

You could change missions whenever you want, but ultimately in the end there is only one real mission and one real "ending". There's absolutely no choice and no change. (Nor any true consequence in the gameworld for your actions except for going to jail or dying.)

You can sit in a chair.....


One thing I'll give to Oblivion, is the exploration. It's more fun to actually walk around and look at things, than it is to interact with other objects or npcs. I would definitely disagree about Oblivion being the most "interactive game ever".

[Damien_Azreal]

Yes, but walking around soon becomes nothing more than walking around. After a while you discover that the world is very empty and doesn't feel as alive as it should.

Unless your on a quest or in a village... you'll spend most of your time alone... looking at trees.

[Mr. Milton]

For me Vampire the Masquerade: Bloodlines is a nice step on the way of accomplishing something awesome with the fps genre. I see so much potential in the game. I swear, if I was filthy rich I'd finance a follow-up and/or remake of that game.

It's the only game that I can think of right now where I actually felt as if my actions really mattered. And where I had to think hard about my choices. This might sound a bit silly, but I tried to play my character and do things that are consistent with who I am in the game. If I'm a certain character I don't eat rats and avoid sewers even though there's no penalty for acting out of character.

The game is pretty linear, I'll admit that. But sometimes the intriuges and your role in them almost seem real. Choosing who to trust can be tricky. And it's fun to play double agent.

I'd love a new VATM where it made more difference what clan you where and the things you made would make more impact on the world. The illusion of being in a real world fades when things that should matter don't. I'd love a game where you have to think about your rumor.

The focus when making such a game would not be graphics. Instead you'd have to have a huge team of peaople who write dialogue and a legion of game testers. It's not that I'm after lenghty dialogues, but for them to be consequent to the things you've said and done earlier there must be loads of different reactions from the ones you talk to.

Things that should matter:
- If you ask the same question again the answer should be different
- If you a) killed everyone or b) shot everyone in the knee T2-style or c) just sneaked past the guards or d) never finished the mission and try to lie and say you did or e) blew the whole place up or f) sucked everyone dry and left a pile of corpses with strange bite marks on their necks or g) something else, it should matter. People should react different if you save them by slaughtering everyone or just sneak out the back door.
- If you're wearing a clown costume. We love to put on cool clothes on our characters, but nobody ever notices =(
- If you're wielding a bloody axe in public. (Bloody, as in: with blood on it)
- Your relationship with another character. You have to build trust.
- If you barely make it back alive from a mission or if you just ninja-flew through the mission with style
This list goes on...

[Aegeri]

OMG you must be joking...Oblivion is the most interactive game out there. You can choose to talk to anyone at anytime, you can ask them different things...or you can choose to steal from them and run....or fight them and further a mission. Or you can choose to leave you mission and find another mission. You can choose no mission at all and just wander around...the list goes on and on. I can't think of a more interactive game.

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v305/Aegeri/voices.jpg

[Malgon]

http://img231.imageshack.us/img231/9287/facepalm2b3af59uk5.jpg

That is classic my friend. :D

[avatar_58]

For me Vampire the Masquerade: Bloodlines is a nice step on the way of accomplishing something awesome with the fps genre.

I would argue the game is more of a first person RPG. Just because you have guns doesn't make it a shooter - especially since a shot to the foot or head is basically the same, and is calculated with stats and damage indicators.


If you don't play it.... don't make statements about it.

Also shouldn't argue with those of us who have finished it and completed most of the quests / explored every inch of the map.

[Mr.Fibbles]

Oblivion is not that great of a game, addicting, but not that great. I look at is like crack, it sucks, really, the results are not that great and it can really damage you, but it sure as hell is addicting and you won't stop until you die from it.
I am playing the game (Solid 60 hours on it in the last 2 weeks) and I can say that the conversation is lame, I didn't know you could throw apples at people (I have tried to equip the apples and nothing happens, I eat the thing). It is a lifeless environment and a not so fantastic story (no really, 60 hours in and I am not entirely satisfied with the story).

As far as FPS pushing the limits, I have to say that STALKER was a good step and I really enjoyed the game. The story is predictable and some things aren't fully functional, the interactivity is limited in almost every way (no lights to turn on or off, in fact, there is nothing to turn on or off) but it is still a nice game with a decent AI and some neat features.
I can't comment on some of the other new FPS since I have not played much more than the demo of them (Crysis, Bioshock, TimeShift, et al) but they all seem the same of what has been seen before. A new shiny feature which is really an adaptation of an older feature from a generation or two back.
Most everything has been done before, but some things haven't been done in a long time and those are what I am waiting for.

[John]

BioShock was pretty good I thought, but really as a straight shooter with small customization and an amazing atmosphere/level design. It has a good story (imo) and while the action is mostly the same, choosing to customize the weapons and change your plasmids can add alittle replayability to it. I still wish it was more "rpg" but I like it anyways.

Crysis, to me is actually really fun, but mostly because while I get bored of WW2 games, the whole "futuristic Korean-war" setting is interesting (while abit unfair from an objective point of view :p.) and I've always wanted a great war game set on a jungle/beach setting. Some get bored of it but I think the different routes one can take, along with the different vehicles and such are still fun/fresh to me. The suit could've been better, but I am always glad when a FPS incorporates atleast alittle "augmentation" :D

Even though I still have a small pessimistic urge, I'm still awaiting Fallout 3 to see if Bethesda can pull it off. If it's a good game, who knows...maybe we'll actually have something to look forward to that "pushes" the FPS limits. ... Or not. :o

[Destructor]

Oblivion is not that great of a game, addicting, but not that great. I look at is like crack, it sucks, really, the results are not that great and it can really damage you, but it sure as hell is addicting and you won't stop until you die from it.

I never got addicted to it. I had great fun the first couple of times I played it (i.e. doing the side quests), but then the novelty wore off.

[SilverSoldier]

I really doubt this because, while films are entertainment they are also used to educate. Exampe, perhaps Saving Private Ryan. I imagine a government grant towards an entertainment medium would expect a certain motive behind the project - a shoot 'em up game I can't imagine qualifying.

That's just my guess though, that funding would go towards something that aims to benefit the public or society in some way.

Whoever this depends there are some Fps games that teach, for example Americans army teaches you what its like to be in U.S Army

[Damien_Azreal]

Yes, because just like in the Army you can save, reload an old game if you die and stop playing whenever you want. AA doesn't really teach anything... it's a simple marketing tool to draw kids into the Army thinking it will be cool.

I would personally like to see more shooters do the path of STALKER, Boiling Point (even though it was buggy) or even Thief.
I loved the Thief games and they weren't really shooters. They were not about killing everyone... it was about avoiding everyone, sneaking around and not being seen. A true FPP game were combat was a last resort.

[Hudson]

Well, I have no problems with FPS games, and really I think a lot of people are being over-dramatic about the whole thing.

The FPS genre is very flexible, for every intricate Deus Ex or System Shock we can also get a Painkiller or Serious Sam.. very cool :cool:

[Zombie_Boy]

Well, I have no problems with FPS games, and really I think a lot of people are being over-dramatic about the whole thing.

The FPS genre is very flexible, for every intricate Deus Ex or System Shock we can also get a Painkiller or Serious Sam.. very cool :cool:


..or games like "KingPin" :doh:

[Hudson]

I happen to love Kingpin: Life of Crime :p

[Damien_Azreal]

Same here. :love: Kingpin may be buggy, it may not be an amazing experience... but it's fun. And that's what really matters.

[Aegeri]

..or games like "KingPin" :doh:

Kingpin was actually pretty good for its time. Beyond the swearing, there was actually a good game in there and it even had an innovative mutiplayer mode.

[Damien_Azreal]

Well, you can install the game so that the swearing and extreme gore are not included.

[Blue Lightning]

Oblivion doesn't take that much time to play.

It's very easy to load it up, run around the country side for like thirty minutes or so... play a few quests and call it good.

If you don't play it.... don't make statements about it.

Who says I don't play it? I may not now, but I used to, so I know what it's about. And I can say with CERTAINEY that a player has more options with Oblivion than any other game you care to mention...and that's saying a lot.

The quests are interesting, but unless a player has LOADS of time, it's not good, because a player can never get to the end in less than say...a year. I'm talking about playing through all of the quests, plus wandering around and making his own quests. The game seems endless with possibilities. It is in that way...quite amazing.

There are negitives about the game, but I won't go into those right now.

[Rider]

Urm, I don't think the intention of this thread was to talk about how Oblivion may or may not be a very interactive game.

In that light, Oblivion is definitely not a step forward in innovation, which is relevant.

Then again... maybe the point of this thread has been made and that's why it's no longer being discussed... :)

[TBZ]

Actually, like it's stated in this thread, Oblivion can be finished in 15 hours, that includes every quest;
http://forums.3drealms.com/vb/showthread.php?t=28776

[avatar_58]

Who says I don't play it? I may not now, but I used to, so I know what it's about. And I can say with CERTAINEY that a player has more options with Oblivion than any other game you care to mention...and that's saying a lot.

The quests are interesting, but unless a player has LOADS of time, it's not good, because a player can never get to the end in less than say...a year. I'm talking about playing through all of the quests, plus wandering around and making his own quests. The game seems endless with possibilities. It is in that way...quite amazing.

There are negitives about the game, but I won't go into those right now.

You aren't making one iota of sense. The game does not take a year to finish, most people finish it in about 60+ hours doing every quest. I farted around and goofed off for the most part and finished it in 100 (having nothing else to play at the time helped too).

You keep saying it has endless possibilities and yet you list none of them. It's a regular RPG with regular quests, just like any other. It doesn't matter how big the speedtree generated terrain is, that doesn't make it endless or interactive. The quests are no more complex than your average RPG, and they usually don't go any deeper than fetch quests given by NPC 20097 to save NPC 600078.

Hell the main quest isn't even longer than an hour. Theres like 5 or so parts to it.

[Damien_Azreal]

Agreed. Oblivion was fun... but not great. Not innovative, actually a bit of a step backwards gameplay for a RPG.

And interactivity can be genre pushing and innovative... but Oblivion wasn't hugely interactive. You could talk to NPCs, pick up stuff and walk around.
Things that have been in games for years and I wouldn't consider any of them interactive really.

Yes talking to people can be at times... but in Oblivion you were simply being talked at. You were not really in the conversation... so the interaction was very small.

And picking things up and throwing them around... again... not really interactive. HL2 allows you to do this... and in a smoother, better way. And Crysis takes it a few steps further. But it's not hugely innovative.
And while slightly interactive... it's a cheap way of looking interactive, but not coming through.

The opening level of PREY, in the bar... that had amazing interaction in it. Sadly it didn't really go on in any other level. But for that one level the game really made you feel like you were in a real place. (please not I'm not dogging the rest of PREY... I love the game from start to finish)

[Destructor]

The opening level of PREY, in the bar... that had amazing interaction in it.

Yeah, Oblivion should have had a couple of arcarde machines thrown into it. :p

[Damien_Azreal]

Why not.

The Dark Brotherhood needed a Mortal Kombat machine down there... really help ya relax in between quests. :p

[Hudson]

Unfortunately, that opening bar scene is about the only ultra-interactive area in the entire game :(

[ZuljinRaynor]

After the bar, the only interactivity is what... like some machines you find along the way and switches?

[Damien_Azreal]

Pretty much.

Still a fun game, but it was a little disappointing that the interactivity in the first level didn't last.

[Destructor]

Why not.

The Dark Brotherhood needed a Mortal Kombat machine down there... really help ya relax in between quests. :p

Mortal Kombat? Pfft. A Super Turbo Turkey Puncher...3 machine would have really aided in the release of your pent up frustration. :D

[WoodenSword]

The opening level of PREY, in the bar... that had amazing interaction in it.

Unfortunately, that opening bar scene is about the only ultra-interactive area in the entire game :(

Well i really don't see why everyone says that the bar was ultra-interactive.......?????

The only thing that you could do is play arcade games and turn on the faucets in the toilet....(gimmick)....

[ZuljinRaynor]

Well i really don't see why everyone says that the bar was ultra-interactive.......?????

The only thing that you could do is play arcade games and turn on the faucets in the toilet....(gimmick)....

Yeah, and pick music. Other games only have doors and switches.

[Damien_Azreal]

You really didn't look around huh?
There's a tile on the wall in the bathroom you can twist, flush toilets, turn on sinks, turn on the hand dryers, use the soap dispensers, turn off/on the water heater, turn on and off lights, spin bar stools, play arcade machines, use juke box, and change TV channels.

True, they didn't effect the gameplay but it did help the opening level feel real. It felt more like a bar, a real place on Earth... which was needed before you went to the ship.

[ZuljinRaynor]

I guess aliens are not big on interactivity so they abducted the bar to learn about interactivity. :p

[Damien_Azreal]

Maybe.

But IMO it worked.
Having the high level of interactivity in the bar really helped ground it and make it feel real. If seemed more familiar, like a place you could really go to.
You feel more involved in the setting, taking it on as a real place... then when your abducted the alien ship seems even more bizarre and strange.

[Scream]

You mean you didn't enjoy interacting with the giant alien anuses and vaginas all over the ship?

[Telee]

I penetrated them repeadedly with my weapons, but apart from that, I didn't. ;)

In all seriousness though, Prey definitely was disappointing in terms of interactivity... The bar scene completely mislead me.

[Damien_Azreal]

Just thought of a title that is very impressive in how it handles the genre.

Penumbra

With the second and final episode being released next month, Black Plague, it reminded me of Overture (the first episode). The game is set in first person perspective... but is a true survival horror title.
With very limited melee combat you are expected to stay alive and find your way out using the environment. The impressive physics and way in which you interact with them... really helps bring this game full circle.

[Malgon]

Kingpin was actually pretty good for its time. Beyond the swearing, there was actually a good game in there and it even had an innovative mutiplayer mode.

Was it just me, or was Kingpin f*cking hard?

[Aegeri]

You mean you didn't enjoy interacting with the giant alien anuses and vaginas all over the ship?

The speaking one was a highlight (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ebUJCKWWJdQ), I will give you that.

I just liked how the space vaginas had crabs. I found that endlessly amusing.

Edit: Malgon, yep, Kingpin was a very hard game until you could afford some of the better guns. It had a hilarious flame thrower though.

[Malgon]

^Yeah, I used to play with cheats back in the day, but when I tried to play it properly it was pretty tough, even in the opening level. :o

P.s. I've never seen that in Prey before. It's definitely out there. :D

[WoodenSword]

Was it just me, or was Kingpin f*cking hard?

Was it just me, or was Kingpin f*cking awesome?

Its flamethrower IMO is STILL the BEST flamethrower in any FPS.

You really didn't look around huh?
There's a tile on the wall in the bathroom you can twist, flush toilets, turn on sinks, turn on the hand dryers, use the soap dispensers, turn off/on the water heater, turn on and off lights, spin bar stools, play arcade machines, use juke box, and change TV channels.

True, they didn't effect the gameplay but it did help the opening level feel real. It felt more like a bar, a real place on Earth... which was needed before you went to the ship.

Well i guess you are right, but it didn't hit me as ground-breaking interactive game as FPS,but more like "Look,our game is interactive!". Duke 3d interactivity was more immersive imo.

[ShadeEX]

The speaking one was a highlight (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ebUJCKWWJdQ), I will give you that.

I just liked how the space vaginas had crabs. I found that endlessly amusing.


Bwahaha a talking .... :D

I didn't even know about that.. :o

I have to find that secret next time I play Prey

[Malgon]

Was it just me, or was Kingpin f*cking awesome?

Its flamethrower IMO is STILL the BEST flamethrower in any FPS.


Better than RtCW? :o

[Damien_Azreal]

I would say... they are even. :)

[Steve]

The speaking one was a highlight (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ebUJCKWWJdQ), I will give you that.

A taking vagina. Gold. :D