Better Gaming: The First-Person Shooter

[violent]

Communities are a wonderful thing for a multitude of reasons. Advice, differences in opinions, enlightenment and humbling. While many of us here have differing opinions on almost every aspect of the proverbial spectrum, there is one that comes close to unanimous agreement: a love of gaming.

What I am proposing in this particular thread is a sharing and refinement of ideas in hopes of eventually reaching a place of almost agreement in regards to the improvement of a given genre, game or any other subject that lends itself to potential improvement.

In this case, it is the first-person shooter. Most of us have played them, many love them, others don't. Regardless where you stand, an idea must surely have made it's way though your experiences which would improve the very game you were playing. This is what I want us to share. I've known a fair many intelligent people in this community and the idea of sharing ideas in hopes of shedding light on what we lack in our games as gamers is a very promising one.

Though this should not have to be said, it will. The very concept of this idea could go sour by a simple few that will not abide by an idea and would rather deter the sharing than to simply not participate. For those who are interested, I urge you to let these individuals know of their counter-productivity in hopes of showing them the fruitlessness of such action.

So with that out of the way, I leave you with this question:

The first-person genre, one that has survived for quite some time seems to have hit a plateau in regards to innovation. My question to you is, how do we fix it?

[J Arcane]

Linearity is dead, embrace the sandbox.

Part of the reason I almost never play single-player shooters anymore is because the vast majority of them are only a WASD away from being arcade style railshooters. There's no real freedom or thought involved, just charge forward through the box canyon/office hallway/spaceship corridor until you reach the end of the level (or in the case of the new GoW era games, charge from waist-high wall to waist-high wall).

Even the old school shooters like Doom and Wolf3d managed to interject at least some semblance that these were real places instead of theme park rides, by having us back track through areas, or go through several branches to find the right switch or key to get to the next space.

Crysis created a massively powerful engine capable of rendering huge sandbox arenas, and then had you running through one box canyon after another. Even the bloody helicopter mission has you flying through box canyons for god's sake.

It's dull, incredibly so, and I've simply grown tired of it. The most fun I've had in recent years in a single-player shooter was Fallout 3. I managed to slog through COD5's single-player, but only because I had a friend playing with me in co-op egging me on towards the end.

FPS developers need to start finding ways to interject real player decision and thought into the game, because what they tend to pump out these days makes me wonder why I should bother when I could just as well play Time Crisis at the arcade and get the same effect with less work.

[crazyD]

My answer to this question for every genre - Incorporate elements of Adventure Games. Include a deep and interesting plot, with inventory and dialogue puzzles. I figured this is what Condemned would be, but the adventure game elements were weak, as was the plot.

[pomeroy]

What a surprise, J Arcane doesn't like new shooters. I can't even fathom wanting to go back to backtracking through areas to find a key after playing games like Bioshock.

While I didn't end up buying the game, I liked Mirror's Edge and it's sense of movement. More games could do this, I think.

[J Arcane]

What a surprise, J Arcane doesn't like new shooters. I can't even fathom wanting to go back to backtracking through areas to find a key after playing games like Bioshock.

While I didn't end up buying the game, I liked Mirror's Edge and it's sense of movement. More games could do this, I think.
Wait, did I misremember something, did Fallout 3 not just come out a few months ago?

Had it been sitting on store shelves all along and I just failed to notice all these years?

I must say I'm somewhat disappointed I apparently missed the boat for so long.

[rinichanraar]

My answer to this question for every genre - Incorporate elements of Adventure Games. Include a deep and interesting plot, with inventory and dialogue puzzles. I figured this is what Condemned would be, but the adventure game elements were weak, as was the plot.

This is more or less what I was going to suggest. Although this isn't really an "innovation," I find that a lot of first-person shooters lack depth of story and character. Off the top of my head, Bioshock is one of the few that stands out as not being that way. (There are probably others, but I'm failing to come up with them at the moment.) I'd love a FPS that plays out like a movie with solid, multi-dimensional characters, strong acting, an and interesting plot. Even though it's a third-person shooter/platformer, Uncharted comes to mind. Maybe I just like movies too much.

These may not be new ideas, but I think if they were applied to more first-person shooters, the shooter genre could more easily escape from the whole "meathead" stereotype. If that makes any sense.

[violent]

Let's try to keep the judgments to the ideas gents.

I certainly understand what J is saying in regards to the older shooters. While backtracking is rarely something I embrace, the idea that the progression of a shooter is in ratio with the actual shooting bothers me. Backtracking sucks sometimes but there is something positive to be said about it so long as the thing you missed that requires the backtrack is relevant to say, story.

The other argument between sandbox and linear I see is story delivery. Neither are guaranteed to be better nor worse. I think it comes down to resources. Give me on hell of a story-teller to right a story they want me to experience as one would a book and I'm all for it. Though, with something like Fallout 3, the story I created was superior to what anyone could have written. That might sound like any game with sandbox could be better but I'm not so sure. With Fallout 3 in particular, I'm sure.

EDIT: clarified a line about progression in ratio with the shooting.

[Aggort]

I like open ended gaming.

Simple statement and very true. I love being able to make story line decisions and being able to feel apart of the game. That's why I loved Fallout 3 so much and why I partially agree with J. Arcane. I am tired of FPS games that have a very singular story that make you go through the same constant motions to get from point A of a story to point B. They need to expand on how a FPS can be made in an open world, but it definitely can be done. It'd be wicked to see an Assasin's Creed game done like an FPS.

I don't like the term Sandbox though. I know it's an unfair representation, but sandbox reminds me of being able to do anything no matter how crazy it is and a lot of traveling which in an FPS, isn't always fun. It also makes me think that they game could still be straight forward even if it's in an open world, kind of how Mercenaries 2 felt to me.

I know it's hard to incorporate story into FPS titles effectively and maintain keeping it open, but it can be a very effective force. I just wanna feel more a part of the story like I did in Bishock, have freedom of choice like I did in Assasin's Creed and have depth like I did in Mass Effect and Fallout, but you can leave out the RPG elements every once and a while.

[Haemorrhage]

I always imagined with the newer generation of games we would see a more dynamic first-person camera. Giving a more engrossing feel of the action.

I picture running into a firefight, and being shot in the shoulder. The force of the bullet whipping the camera around as my character falls in a heap to the ground. My eyes open, dazed and blurred looking up at the sky. Realizing what happened, I now have to hammer on a button to pull myself to my knees. I look around in panic as I have lost my rifle. I pull out my pistol with my left hand and shakily return fire as I crawl to some nearby cover. A teammate quickly grabs me under his shoulder and helps me shuffle to a waiting medic.

I am not sure how possible these ideas are in practice. Maybe they would be too disorientating, jarring or difficult for casual players. But, I want to see the evolution of how the first-person camera is used.

[pomeroy]

I guess I would never classify Fallout 3 as a shooter. But go on with your bad self, J.

I don't want the genre to go sandbox, though. I'm one of those weirdos who actually likes scripted events.

[J Arcane]

Let's try to keep the judgments to the ideas gents.

I certainly understand what J is saying in regards to the older shooters. While backtracking is rarely something I embrace, the idea that the progression of a shooter is in ratio with the actual shooting bothers me. Backtracking sucks sometimes but there is something positive to be said about it so long as the thing you missed that requires the backtrack is relevant to say, story.

The other argument between sandbox and linear I see is story delivery. Neither are guaranteed to be better nor worse. I think it comes down to resources. Give me on hell of a story-teller to right a story they want me to experience as one would a book and I'm all for it. Though, with something like Fallout 3, the story I created was superior to what anyone could have written. That might sound like any game with sandbox could be better but I'm not so sure. With Fallout 3 in particular, I'm sure.

EDIT: clarified a line about progression in ratio with the shooting.
It's not that I think adding backtracking is some great idea or anything, I only added it because, as poor a method as it often is, it's usage meant that games often derided as old school and simplistic technically had more depth of level design than a lot of today's AAA titles.

As for sandbox, I'm just big on freedom. I want to sit in front of a big gameworld and just do whatever I want. I'm the guy who plays GTA games for hours and never does a single mission, who spends more time just running about in Burnout Paradise than doing races and challenges, and deliberately avoids the main storylines in Oblivion and Fallout 3 in favor of wandering the earth exploring and doing all manner of sidequests. I used to play Ultimas 3 and 6 constantly as a kid, yet never came close to actually getting anywhere with the stories in those games, and I thought U7 was kind of shit for being so obviously designed to "fix" that sort of behavior.

EDIT: Part of it is that early Ultima influence, but another part is that those really great story-tellers just don't exist in games, and I long ago got weary slogging through yet another not very good story at all. If more games had genuinely good stories, and actually involved me in them directly on some level, I might not mind the linearity so much. Mass Effect was really pretty linear in terms of the gameplay, but the story was for once actually really damn good, and the options to affect it directly to some degree made me more involved in it, than I am watching yet another hack director spoonfeed me an unskippable cutscene.

[violent]

I don't want the genre to go sandbox, though. I'm one of those weirdos who actually likes scripted events.

I can go either way personally. It all comes down to the story. I would love to be fed an amazing story were there an amazing story to be fed. In a breathtaking environment though, the idea of search and discovery is much more appealing.

[crazyD]

I always imagined with the newer generation of games we would see a more dynamic first-person camera. Giving a more engrossing feel of the action.

I picture running into a firefight, and being shot in the shoulder. The force of the bullet whipping the camera around as my character falls in a heap to the ground. My eyes open, dazed and blurred looking up at the sky. Realizing what happened, I now have to hammer on a button to pull myself to my knees. I look around in panic as I have lost my rifle. I pull out my pistol with my left hand and shakily return fire as I crawl to some nearby cover. A teammate quickly grabs me under his shoulder and helps me shuffle to a waiting medic.

I am not sure how possible these ideas are in practice. Maybe they would be too disorientating, jarring or difficult for casual players. But, I want to see the evolution of how the first-person camera is used.

Sounds like it would look cool, but not sure how fun it would be in implementation. Every time you get hit by a lucky shot, you fall to the ground, hammer a button, and have to be dragged off? Sounds frustrating, unless you can dodge bullets. Also, maybe it's just me, but any gameplay mechanic that involves hammering buttons is lame.

[violent]

As for sandbox, I'm just big on freedom. I want to sit in front of a big gameworld and just do whatever I want. I'm the guy who plays GTA games for hours and never does a single mission, who spends more time just running about in Burnout Paradise than doing races and challenges, and deliberately avoids the main storylines in Oblivion and Fallout 3 in favor of wandering the earth exploring and doing all manner of sidequests. I used to play Ultimas 3 and 6 constantly as a kid, yet never came close to actually getting anywhere with the stories in those games, and I thought U7 was kind of shit for being so obviously designed to "fix" that sort of behavior.

I definitely understand the appeal for the sandbox. I play GTA just like you. I'm curious though, have there been any FPS's in your experience that you've enjoyed the story fed to you? And if so, do you think any of those would have worked better as a sandbox? I assume you lose the fed story when going sandbox which is why I ask in this manner.

[Haemorrhage]

Sounds like it would look cool, but not sure how fun it would be in implementation. Every time you get hit by a lucky shot, you fall to the ground, hammer a button, and have to be dragged off? Sounds frustrating, unless you can dodge bullets. Also, maybe it's just me, but any gameplay mechanic that involves hammering buttons is lame.

That's why I'm not a game designer :p. Logistics still being worked out.

[J Arcane]

I definitely understand the appeal for the sandbox. I play GTA just like you. I'm curious though, have there been any FPS's in your experience that you've enjoyed the story fed to you? And if so, do you think any of those would have worked better as a sandbox? I assume you lose the fed story when going sandbox which is why I ask in this manner.
Well, Mass Effect was technically a third-person shooter, but the mechanics are similar enough that I'd point to it.

I also somewhat enjoyed the Half-Life games, as I felt the decision to forgo cut scenes in favor of leaving the player in his own shoes at all times made for a more immersive, involved experience. I also felt that the application of plenty of puzzles made for a more cerebral experience. HL2 also had a peculiar talent for making not-really-open areas feel more open than they were, mainly in the vehicle sections. Though I never did beat either 1 or 2 sadly, the former I don't recall why, and the latter due to Ravenholm tripping my crippling weakness to FPS horror.

As for whether they could be improved by sandboxing it up, well, Mass Effect tried, and I think had it succeeded it would've been 100 times more awesome. I think Half-Life 2 also would've definitely been made more interesting by the introduction of some more alternate paths through the game at the very least, if not an outright sandbox, though I remember getting a very sandbox feel from some of the early trailers of the buggy areas and I could conceive of some ways you could've added something of a sandbox portion to the game.

Now, if you want a sterling example of a game that could've been brilliant in a sandbox mode, go watch the early trailers of Halo. Huge open world, free form approach, squad tactics, there were hints of incredible greatness there, and if that were the Halo that saw print, I know I for one would be a hell of a lot less down on the series than I am. As it stands however, they're the poster boys for the railroad approach in my book.

[RandoM51]

The first-person genre, one that has survived for quite some time seems to have hit a plateau in regards to innovation. My question to you is, how do we fix it?

If it isn't broken, don't fix it. Instead of this heedless push for innovation we would be better served by a well-placed push for polish.

We're swamped with an endless wave of mediocre FPS games, when all we really need is a few of well-polished games. The reception of games like TF2, CoD4, Crysis and Crysis:Warhead make this pretty obvious to me.

[violent]

Mass Effect, I've tried to play once or twice but has failed to grip me. The idea though of a completely open universe to traverse as you please seems damned appealing.

Regarding Half-Life 2, I beat that one and the two episodes. The thing about it is that while branching paths could have helped, it's something that could really help any over-linear game out there and the idea of that HL2 going sandbox is a little iffy. Aside from actually opening everything up to the played, first they would be required to add substance to the characters. Primarily, Gordon. I think the mystery of Gordon is the only thing in that series that allows you to feel as a part of a story that is otherwise very linear. The only reason I like the idea of HL2 going sandbox is because more HL2 is great in my opinion. Regarding the characters though, I feel it would lose more in fleshing them out. Way I see it, it's your environments and your traversal of them that creates the tale. Sandboxing is going to require much dialogue and honestly, I think that would hurt Half Life, or at least, the heroic notion of Freeman which I think is a huge draw of that franchise.

I think though that you've hit the nail on the head with Fallout 3 though. While it may not be easily classified as an FPS, I believe it still can. Difference is though that it brings the RPG element to the mix and this may be something that the FPS genre may be lacking. While it does not have to be as stat intensive as F3, the idea of progression through travel and accomplishment would easily have a home in the genre.

[violent]

If it isn't broken, don't fix it. Instead of this heedless push for innovation we would be better served by a well-placed push for polish.

We're swamped with an endless wave of mediocre FPS games, when all we really need is a few of well-polished games. The reception of games like TF2, CoD4, Crysis and Crysis:Warhead make this pretty obvious to me.

Polish, in my opinion, could make a game better. It won't make a game good though. I think that the fundamental things have to be applied (proper controls, working display and the like), but we have hit somewhat of a halt in progression of the genre, not necessarily the games within that genre. Killzone 2 is a great example. That game is polished to all hell and has raised the bar of console shooters in regards to polish. In the end though, it's simply a new tale in a stale genre.

The point of this thread is what can we come up with to add new innovation to the genre. This is not a pissing contest, merely a sharing of ideas.

[RandoM51]

Polish, in my opinion, could make a game better. It won't make a game good though. I think that the fundamental things have to be applied (proper controls, working display and the like), but we have hit somewhat of a halt in progression of the genre, not necessarily the games within that genre. Killzone 2 is a great example. That game is polished to all hell and has raised the bar of console shooters in regards to polish. In the end though, it's simply a new tale in a stale genre.

The point of this thread is what can we come up with to add new innovation to the genre. This is not a pissing contest, merely a sharing of ideas.

I'm not pissing, ease down Ripley. I shared my idea, that the genre itself isn't stale, the mediocre titles that make up most of it are. Where is your idea? :)

My idea for innovation is to make a polished FPS experience that doesn't suck. That would be innovation for most of the FPS developers out there.

The small innovations that keep producing good games in a genre without radically changing the genre to something that original fans can't enjoy are occurring on a regular basis.

Open world
RPG-like character progression
RTS-like combined arms
Multiple engagement types ala stealth and/or diplomacy
Verticality from the platformer genre
physics
"realistic" weapon modeling

The genre is advancing, and there are great games that do and not significantly advance it. Room for both, IMHO. I think that people who think the genre is stale are those who are being swamped by the sheer number of titles in the genre instead of focusing on the ones that do advance the genre. Simply put, the FPS genre is advancing faster than any other one with the possible exception of RTS thanks to Relic, but I think what they've really done is create a new genre, the RTT.

[violent]

I wasn't accusing you Random, I was merely stating the purpose of this thread. Also, which Ripley we talking about?

[jpublic]

Polish is important, IMO.

I think a real issue is the conflict between the two main subsets of FPS players - the SP people, and the MP people. I still see too many FPSes that try to be everything to both groups, and end up being lackluster.

If you're making a single player game, focus on that. Deus Ex, TRON 2.0, Elite Force, FEAR, Undying, heck, Fallout 3 are all great expampled of this.

If you want to do a MP game, focus on that. Unreal Tournament, Team Fortress 2, Left 4 Dead - these are winners for a reason.

Also, allow me to agree with J Arcane - sandboxes are good. However, I would submit that more important is a strong sense of storytelling. If we use Fallout 3 as an example, probably the weakest part of the game was the lackluster main plotline. Much more *should* have been done with it.

[violent]

So ideally we want a sandbox game with good storytelling. Thing is though, with sandbox gaming, you can traverse large amounts of area with little injections of story. Would the breakup of story cause it to lose luster? Or would we have to include an internal voice that allows constant connection with the bigger picture?

[RandoM51]

So ideally we want a sandbox game with good storytelling. Thing is though, with sandbox gaming, you can traverse large amounts of area with little injections of story. Would the breakup of story cause it to lose luster? Or would we have to include an internal voice that allows constant connection with the bigger picture?

You've just described S.T.A.L.K.E.R., haven't you?

Trick question: What was it that held the original S.T.A.L.K.E.R. back from overwhelming success? Answer: polish!

Oh, and it is Ripley from Aliens, specifically when she is driving the troop carrier outside the base and breaks the transaxle. :)

[J Arcane]

So ideally we want a sandbox game with good storytelling. Thing is though, with sandbox gaming, you can traverse large amounts of area with little injections of story. Would the breakup of story cause it to lose luster? Or would we have to include an internal voice that allows constant connection with the bigger picture?
I think a main storyline could, and should, be handled the same way it is in Bethesda games, the only difference is it actually needs to be GOOD, not an excuse for Sean Bean to play a whiny emo kid. Basically, take the awesome main story of Mass Effect, and the awesome side quests and sandbox in FO3, and you've got a winning combination.

I felt that the original Mercenaries had a pretty good idea as well, borrowing the GTA2 approach, of allowing for multiple factions each with their own mission sets and things, and letting players have some latitude as to which side they chose and how they approached the game. I'd evolve it somewhat however, in that I didn't like how, in those games, in the end you always had to do all the factions eventually anyway if you wanted to complete each chunk of the storyline. I'd rather have things flow more fluidly somehow, or at least let you pick a choice and stick with it so that it feels like you've truly picked a side in the conflict.

However, my alternate and usual answer, and the one that gets a rise out of people most often, is simply: Why in hell do we even NEED a main story? Have we really become so chained to the train that it has to be there? Why can't we simply go the Fallout 3 route, with it's piles of awesome freeform content, and simply forgo the formality of the "main storyline" altogether, since it seems to be so often neglected unless it's forced upon the player?

I think when you as a game designer start having thoughts about "how can we make the player do this", you need to step back for a moment and consider who's really being served here, the designer's own ego, or the players? If there's a part of the game that the players won't bother following unless you lead them by the nose through it, maybe they'd have more fun if it just wasn't there?

[RandoM51]

However, my alternate and usual answer, and the one that gets a rise out of people most often, is simply: Why in hell do we even NEED a main story? Have we really become so chained to the train that it has to be there? Why can't we simply go the Fallout 3 route, with it's piles of awesome freeform content, and simply forgo the formality of the "main storyline" altogether, since it seems to be so often neglected unless it's forced upon the player?

Actually, this is an easy question to field. You need the main storyline to provide a beginning and ending to the singleplayer experience. Without that sort of progression what you've created is not a game, it is a toy, or perhaps a sim. Very few humans have the mindset to just move the cart from point a to point b and enjoy doing so without involving a carrot or a stick.

...which is exactly why multiplayer FPS almost universally drop the storyline. The beginning and ending is handled by the rounds nature of the game. The carrot is winning, the stick is losing.

[President Fred]

This is more evolution than revolution but I would like the environments to be more interactive and destructible. I thought it was going to become the standard after Red Faction came out and then nothing really happened. Far Cry 2 was a step in the right direction but I thought the AI was quite poor. It would be nice if the gunfights started becoming more unpredictable because they are the most stale element I think. I would love to see people acting unpredictably either being completely crazy, extremely careful, running away or what have you but that the behaviour varies and is difficult to predict. So AI and more interactive environments.

[J Arcane]

Actually, this is an easy question to field. You need the main storyline to provide a beginning and ending to the singleplayer experience. Without that sort of progression what you've created is not a game, it is a toy, or perhaps a sim. Very few humans have the mindset to just move the cart from point a to point b and enjoy doing so without involving a carrot or a stick.

...which is exactly why multiplayer FPS almost universally drop the storyline. The beginning and ending is handled by the rounds nature of the game. The carrot is winning, the stick is losing.
Whereas I think the immense success of MMOs in recent years, as well as the continued success of open-ended games like those Maxis produces, indicates that maybe it's only the so-called "hardcore" who really need this stick and carrot approach.

I'd also point out that it's very often the MP that decides whether given shooter survives for long past the initial release, because it offers the more free form, pick up and play experience.

[Wedge]

I'm tired and about to go to bed, so I have not read all the posts yet. Don't send someone to kill me if this has been mentioned already:

The FPS genre is still evolving. We still see incremental innovations and genre blending.
Examples:
Fallout 3: FPS + RPG
Mass Effect: TPS + RPG
Far Cry 2: Pure FPS (as in there is no character development) in a sandbox.
Killzone 2: A first person cover system, that stays in first person, that works.
Left 4 Dead: AI director. Something like this could be applied to other sub genres of FPSs.
Army of Two: Co-op specific moves (poorly executed, but I felt it had potential.)
CoD4: Best controls in a console FPS still (imho). Also fantastic net code.
Halo 3: Forge, easy replay saving & sharing.
Mirror's Edge.

I dream of a large scale war game with an AI director that controls various factions, waging the war, and giving you made-on-the-fly missions, mixed with handcrafted missions. There will be co-op, Mirror's Edge parkeour, and some form of xp system that allows you to develop your character (but none of that "put points in "guns" to do more damage crap. I'm talking about developing skills like, speed, jump, stealth (wth a cleverly made animation system that reflect this - your characters does visibly become more stealthy), and so on.)

And while I am dreaming: Where is my Crackdown sequel?

[J Arcane]

Left 4 Dead: AI director.

Actually, this is one alternate approach that I felt was very, very well executed. The levels in L4D are semi-linear, in some cases there's several ways through a level, but mostly it's point A to point B stuff.

But the shortness of the individual campaigns, and the unpredictability introduced by the AI director, means it never feels quite the same way twice, and gives it a surprising amount of replayability.

Plus, it has hordes of zombies, and does them WELL, which is cool. It's staggering how few actually good zombie games there are.

[RandoM51]

Whereas I think the immense success of MMOs in recent years, as well as the continued success of open-ended games like those Maxis produces, indicates that maybe it's only the so-called "hardcore" who really need this stick and carrot approach.

I'd also point out that it's very often the MP that decides whether given shooter survives for long past the initial release, because it offers the more free form, pick up and play experience.

I think you're giving credit to the wrong aspects of those games.

WoW has a concrete storyline. You begin at level X, you finish at level Y when you have all of the uber loot you want. Everything after that is basically just graphical IRC---and the socialization in that graphical IRC is what keeps most people playing in the long run. If you think WoW has no carrots or sticks then you quite honestly have never played WoW with other people.

The people maintaining the popularity of Maxis games treat those games as toys or even as pets. I don't see that mentality and/or approach working for the FPS. A number of FPS games have already shown that too much sim(reality) becomes less than fun.

[Tron]

seems to have hit a plateau in regards to innovation.

No it hasn't.

Thread FAIL

[violent]

No it hasn't.

Thread FAIL

Simply saying you have no clue would have been a more informative answer. Thanks for the feedback regardless.

[Drayven]

My biggest gripe with FPS is just that I'm doing exactly what the developers want me to do. I'd like to see more FPS games implement some minor RPG elements where I can make decisions that actually influence the story and game.

In terms of multiplayer FPS though I think the biggest problem is that the maps get stale after enough playthroughs. I think the next big advance is going to be a game engine that allows for multiplayer maps to randomly generate each time they're played. I picture a scenario where they're given a base set of rules that determine the overall feel of the map but the specifics of the map change up. Sort of like Diablo

[Libuke]

My biggest gripe with FPS is just that I'm doing exactly what the developers want me to do. I'd like to see more FPS games implement some minor RPG elements where I can make decisions that actually influence the story and game.

In terms of multiplayer FPS though I think the biggest problem is that the maps get stale after enough playthroughs. I think the next big advance is going to be a game engine that allows for multiplayer maps to randomly generate each time they're played. I picture a scenario where they're given a base set of rules that determine the overall feel of the map but the specifics of the map change up. Sort of like Diablo

It was semi tried by valve in TF2 with Hydro and it turned out to be one of the least popular maps.

[jpublic]

Basically, take the awesome main story of Mass Effect, and the awesome side quests and sandbox in FO3, and you've got a winning combination.

Oh my god. I want a game based on this concept so bad I can actually physically *feel* the longing.

[Ancalagon]

My answer to this question for every genre - Incorporate elements of Adventure Games. Include a deep and interesting plot, with inventory and dialogue puzzles. I figured this is what Condemned would be, but the adventure game elements were weak, as was the plot.

Agreed, this is part of the reason I think BioShock did so well, because its primarily motivated by its story.

Thats what we need - more engrossing story driven FPS games, with some RPG mechanics.

Personally, I think we need a limited amount of sandbox games. Not everyone enjoys sandbox games, and hopping on the bandwagon could be a Bad Idea (tm). I want more Metroid Primes, more BioShock, hell even more Halo 3's and Half Life 2's. I dont want Generic World War II Shooter #438.

[Tron]

Simply saying you have no clue would have been a more informative answer. Thanks for the feedback regardless.

You have no clue.

Better? :p

[violent]

You have no clue.

Better? :p

Slightly, yes.

Agreed, this is part of the reason I think BioShock did so well, because its primarily motivated by its story.

Thats what we need - more engrossing story driven FPS games, with some RPG mechanics.

Personally, I think we need a limited amount of sandbox games. Not everyone enjoys sandbox games, and hopping on the bandwagon could be a Bad Idea (tm). I want more Metroid Primes, more BioShock, hell even more Halo 3's and Half Life 2's. I dont want Generic World War II Shooter #438.

The WW2 shooter shouldn't be representative of the FPS genre beyond that of control mechanics. Storywise, developers have been pulling from that pot as an easy way to apply a tale to their game. While some have done it well, it's a tired practice. As mentioned before, STALKER is a good example of mixture between sandbox, shooter and character development. Though it still hurts a bit from fractured storytelling due to the openness of the game. Question is, is that kind of story delivery be effective enough in that context?

[Johan]

The first-person genre, one that has survived for quite some time seems to have hit a plateau in regards to innovation. My question to you is, how do we fix it?

Your question requires agreement with your premise, that the FPS genre is broken, in order to answer it. I don't think it's broken, myself, so I don't see it requiring a fix.

Some games within the genre, however, are not only broken, but actively conspire to ruin one's desire to continue to play FPSs. :)

[Tron]

Your question requires agreement with your premise, that the FPS genre is broken, in order to answer it. I don't think it's broken, myself, so I don't see it requiring a fix.

My thoughts exactly...this whole thread is based around an unproven assertion.

[violent]

Your question requires agreement with your premise, that the FPS genre is broken, in order to answer it. I don't think it's broken, myself, so I don't see it requiring a fix.

Some games within the genre, however, are not only broken, but actively conspire to ruin one's desire to continue to play FPSs. :)

Everything can be made better. This is simply a place to share the ideas. Your idea is that there should be no ideas. That's cool. Not sure what else you need to add in here then.

My thoughts exactly...this whole thread is based around an unproven assertion.

Merely a sharing of ideas, nothing more.

[Tron]

Everything can be made better. .

Obviously...but your thread isn't simply about making something better. You've stated that the genre is broken.

[violent]

Obviously...but your thread isn't simply about making something better. You've stated that the genre is broken.

I said it has plateaued in regards to innovation. We've had good examples of jumps forward in this very thread and I admit that they are damned fine examples. The point of the thread though is what we would do to actually make them better. It will be the same concept when the next of these threads arises. Read the previous replies, people have some damned good ideas. That is the point of this thread.

[TrackZero]

Obviously...but your thread isn't simply about making something better. You've stated that the genre is broken.

Tron, his points stands that if you have nothing to add this this, stay out of the thread.

Edit: Go create a new thread with your opposite viewpoint that the genre isn't broken if you like.

[fitbabits]

Tron (Schnoogs) - If you're unwilling or unable to discuss violent's points in a reasonable manner, then ask yourself just what you've contributed to the thread so far. Nobody will agree with everybody all of the time, but it's still possible to add to a discussion without making it personal.

[fitbabits]

Some games within the genre, however, are not only broken, but actively conspire to ruin one's desire to continue to play FPSs. :)
Now this is a valid point, and one worth raising. I submit Turok as an example of the above.

[violent]

Speaking of Turok, the one for the Gamecube? There's an example of what not to do. 2 minute load times.

[fitbabits]

Speaking of Turok, the one for the Gamecube? There's an example of what not to do. 2 minute load times.
I can think of many examples of games that have taken the FPS genre further, but I want to talk about two in particular - Operation Flashpoint and the original Ghost Recon, both on PC. While neither of them will ever be accused of being the best at what they do, they both added elements to the FPS genre that are still being implemented and improved upon to this day.

I also wanted to talk a little about sandbox versus scripted/linear. To paraphrase Hannah Montana, mix the best of both worlds and you'll have yourself one hell of an experience. While not an FPS, Crackdown was an early example of the perfect mixture of both styles.

[violent]

Hah! I was reading intently until I got to the Hannah Montana line then the house of cards crashed down. Considering I never played Operation:Flashpoint and only about 1 level of Ghost Recon (the original I presume, not GRAW), I'm curious, what was it that those changed or rather, founded which was built upon?

To continue with my shameful admissions, I haven't played Crackdown either though I have wanted to. I know it can very much be considered a sandbox game but I have to ask, how effective was the storytelling? Did you feel like it was a bit fractured due to the ability to roam wherever you please?

I think GTA4 (or any, really) is a good example of what is possible with a sandbox title in regards to story. While it lends itself quite well to the idea of causing mayhem while ignoring the story completely, there are so many branching tales in so many different locations that while the main story may be neglected, these side stories allow you to kinda keep in touch with the bigger picture.

[fitbabits]

Hah! I was reading intently until I got to the Hannah Montana line then the house of cards crashed down. Considering I never played Operation:Flashpoint and only about 1 level of Ghost Recon (the original I presume, not GRAW), I'm curious, what was it that those changed or rather, founded which was built upon?

To continue with my shameful admissions, I haven't played Crackdown either though I have wanted to. I know it can very much be considered a sandbox game but I have to ask, how effective was the storytelling? Did you feel like it was a bit fractured due to the ability to roam wherever you please?

I think GTA4 (or any, really) is a good example of what is possible with a sandbox title in regards to story. While it lends itself quite well to the idea of causing mayhem while ignoring the story completely, there are so many branching tales in so many different locations that while the main story may be neglected, these side stories allow you to kinda keep in touch with the bigger picture.
For shame, sir. Crackdown should be played by everyone! EVERYONE!

As for O:F and GR (not GRAW), the only thing I can say about them is that they are very "measured" experiences.

Back to Crackdown - what I loved about that game was that it allowed you to partake in the story when you felt like it, but there was so much other stuff to do outside of the story if you were feeling burned out or frustrated by it. I loved that I was able to play the game at my own pace and that Realrime Worlds didn't pander to hand-holding or artificial constraints.

[violent]

I need to get a hold of it then.

[Wasson_]

Far Cry was the first in a new breed of "open world" FPS games, giving the player more freedom than he had imagined access to with STALKER a few years later taking the concept in implementing RPG elements and a persistent world game-element. Deus Ex aside, I'm trying to retain some modernness.

Last year we were met with Far Cry 2 and Fallout 3 as well with the release of Stalker: Clear Sky. These 3 games are essentially the same thing with different approaches to things, Far Cry 2 is a pure action game, how rewarding the experience is strongly depends on your appetite for destruction I have found - which is easy when it looks as good as it does in Far Cry 2. Fallout 3 is the RPG (obvously), the combat is clunkier but still really quite good but there is much more to do in the destroyed world of Fallout as well as a more interesting variety of foes to come up against. Stalker is the blend, but still a pure FPS through and through striking a good balance between both worlds.

anyway, obviousness aside... my point is that these three games represent where I want FPS games to be going.

[jpublic]

Okay, let's talk about what FPSes you thought did things *right*. Maybe we can draw something from that.

For example, my top 5 favorites list, considering I like SP games more, are the following:

Clive Barker's Undying
TRON 2.0
FEAR
Fallout 3*
Half Life 2

*If you don't count FO3 as belonging to this list, put Call of Juarez** in there.

**I love this game, and I blame my mispent youth watching way too many westerns for that.

[violent]

Clive Barkers Undying did horror well. Very well. Atmosphere should require plenty of attention to detail.
TRON 2.0 is simply lovely. The aesthetics and the atmosphere again are top notch. Everything is relevant to your situation.
Fallout 3 and Half Life 2 both truly made me feel like the protagonist.

FEAR, I'm still trying to figure that one out. I'm currently playing it for the first time and I'm not quite getting it. The AI is a bit impressive but the atmosphere seems a bit sterile or at least it does up to the point where I currently am.


I think a good example of storytelling in an FPS is Max Payne. A chapter based sandbox title could be interesting.

[Tron]

Tron (Schnoogs).

Come again? :confused:

It's always nice to see admins resort to petty name calling.

[Tron]

Tron, his points stands that if you have nothing to add this this, stay out of the thread.

Edit: Go create a new thread with your opposite viewpoint that the genre isn't broken if you like.

So sorry for expecting him to back up his claim. Wouldn't want this conversation to be objective now would we? :p

[fitbabits]

Come again? :confused:

It's always nice to see admins resort to petty name calling.
I don't believe I called you any names, other than Schnoogs. In fact, I'm sure of it:

Tron (Schnoogs) - If you're unwilling or unable to discuss violent's points in a reasonable manner, then ask yourself just what you've contributed to the thread so far. Nobody will agree with everybody all of the time, but it's still possible to add to a discussion without making it personal.

[Tron]

I don't believe I called you any names, other than Schnoogs. In fact, I'm sure of it:

yeah...because likening someone to Schnoogs is a compliment.

[fitbabits]

So sorry for expecting him to back up his claim. Wouldn't want this conversation to be objective now would we? :p
So in your mind this is being "objective?"

No it hasn't.

Thread FAIL
Followed by:

You have no clue.

Better? http://67.227.189.160/%7Ecolonyof/cogforums/images/smilies/tongue.gif
Like, totally objective, man.

[fitbabits]

yeah...because likening someone to Schnoogs is a compliment.
I'm sure it is...for Schnoogs! :)

[Tron]

I'm sure it is...for Schnoogs! :)

We've got a special one here.

[fitbabits]

We've got a special one here.
Why, thank you.

Now, to the topic at hand... FPS - what's your beef or what do you like?

[Voodoo]

Why, thank you.

Now, to the topic at hand... FPS - what's your beef or what do you like?
What I really like about the FPS genre, especially in multiplayer, is that you can join a match while it is in action. This has been tried a few times in other genres without too much success. I seem to remember Battlezone & Ground Control both making attempts at this.

What do I not like about FPS? Frankly, not too much. I am aware of the 'on-the-rails' shooters but I don't feel their plot allows for much else. Farcry, Crysis and Warhead aren't really 'off-the-rails' either; instead their rails allow for more multiple solutions. I believe the only recent near 'off-the-rails' pure FPS's would be Farcry 2 and the two Stalaker games.

This, though, is only based on my gaming experience. There may have been other examples.

What innovations would I like to see? Frankly, I'd just like to see more co-operative play in FPS games. For example, to be able to play through FEAR 1 or 2 as a squad or a team would be a blast.

[Wasson_]

I would love to see people acting unpredictably either being completely crazy, extremely careful, running away or what have you but that the behavior varies and is difficult to predict. So AI and more interactive environments.


That happens in Fallout quite often actually, people will foolishly run at you and sometimes run away in fear. So the AI is actually quite sound when the terrain isn't fucking up it's path finding I guess. I rmemeber one of the coolest things that ever happened to me in that game was my first encounter with the Black Talon guys. They had me pinned down behind a rock for a second, then all of a sudden a Protectatron comes over the hill and gets their attention! finishing them off, and I just run out and pick off the damaged robot with ease.

A similar instance happened involving bandits and a Deathclaw no less...<,< it was pretty awesome.

People can get hung up about AI that they think is "stupid" I honestly believe that I just want enemy AI that is fun to fight against. the Combine soldiers approach the kind of perfect faceless opponent that is not quite hard nor completely harmless.

[Deadend]

FPS games need to move away from the Shooter part of First Person Shooter. Puzzles, climbing, talking, and punching/stabbing, and building need to feature more in games. As right now the way players interact with the game world is mostly based on shooting bullets from their floating gun/arm that is not part of the world. Nothing I HATE more in realistic FPS games with shadow effects than noticing that I DO NOT HAVE A FUCKING SHADOW.

I think the best idea would be to build the game like it was a 3rd person shooter, but keep the camera in the head, with a bit of steadying action. Give the player more interesting animations when it comes to cover. Give us guns that stick out in front of players making using a rifle in close quarters difficult as you can get inside the arc.

Give Me A REASON TO USE THE FUCKING PISTOLS.

Think outside of gritty realistic cities and Grey corridors. Devs should go back and play Oddworld : Stranger's Wrath sometime. That game was mostly a FPS, but the ammo forced players to set traps and think smart.

So much can still be done with the first person perspective, but so long as everyone thinks that it has to be involving guns shooting bullets, it will remain limited.

[Goronmon]

First thing we need is a solid FPS/RPG MMOG. I enjoyed Planetside quite a bit back in the day, even if the overarching gameplay was simplistic. I'm a bit confused as to why we haven't had a decent entry into that genre since then.

While open world games are fun, I have to admit that some of my favorite shooters are not open world games. CoD4, the Halo series, Half-Life 2 and others are in that rare category of games that I have played through multiple times.

I think think fully destructible environments are something that would be a big step forward in adding depth of gameplay to shooters.

I think the "first-aid" elements of Far Cry 2 are pretty awesome. Having to decide when to take of wounds adds some complexity to your basic firefights.

[Wasson_]

I think the best idea would be to build the game like it was a 3rd person shooter, but keep the camera in the head, with a bit of steadying action. Give the player more interesting animations when it comes to cover. Give us guns that stick out in front of players making using a rifle in close quarters difficult as you can get inside the arc.


I say keep FPS and cover system far away from each other. Personally I think they're a joke. Just hide behind something...there is your cover system. It really doesn't need to be more complex than that. I know your taking the game taking into account the size of the weapon but...eh, you can just assume you character is taking care of all that for you.

But as far as being able to hide behind stuff, I always felt that the Aim function in Medal of Honor: Frontline was damn near perfect for a console game. A zoom and lean function all in one, it allowed you to pop up over cover and to the side.
TRAnjj43L_w
btw...that game had perhaps the greatest soundtrack for an FPS.

[Deadend]

I say keep FPS and cover system far away from each other. Personally I think they're a joke. Just hide behind something...there is your cover system. It really doesn't need to be more complex than that. I know your taking the game taking into account the size of the weapon but...eh, you can just assume you character is taking care of all that for you.

But as far as being able to hide behind stuff, I always felt that the Aim function in Medal of Honor: Frontline was damn near perfect for a console game. A zoom and lean function all in one, it allowed you to pop up over cover and to the side.
TRAnjj43L_w
btw...that game had perhaps the greatest soundtrack for an FPS.
Have you ever WATCHED the movements of someone using a cover system in a normal FPS game? It breaks every attempt at immersion to watch it in action as a dude dances back and forth behind a wall, and it's not a fun sight either as a player. Staring at the wall texture until it's time to strafe out. It's horrible.

If you want to keep it first person entirely, I would like to be able to use a snake cam that I stick around corners or over low cover, while keeping my back to the wall.

I hate when games talk 'realism' but then to watch people play the game, it looks nothing like approaching how any person would move.

[J Arcane]

First thing we need is a solid FPS/RPG MMOG. I enjoyed Planetside quite a bit back in the day, even if the overarching gameplay was simplistic. I'm a bit confused as to why we haven't had a decent entry into that genre since then.

You know, Tabula Rasa is a popular punching bag, but the core gameplay was actually pretty damn fun, it's just that the content wasn't there. You played and had a great time for the first zone, and then you got to the second and realized they were pretty much all going to be the same, plus the quests were really dull.

But the basic 3PS RPG thingg they had going there, as well as the excitement of the fort defense/attack system (something of a prequel to WAR's PQs in a lot of ways, but I think better), was really a lot of fun. I hope someone manages to learn the good stuff from that game and implement it better. Warhammer 40k Online would be the perfect opportunity for this.

[Libuke]

Have you ever WATCHED the movements of someone using a cover system in a normal FPS game? It breaks every attempt at immersion to watch it in action as a dude dances back and forth behind a wall, and it's not a fun sight either as a player. Staring at the wall texture until it's time to strafe out. It's horrible.

If you want to keep it first person entirely, I would like to be able to use a snake cam that I stick around corners or over low cover, while keeping my back to the wall.

I hate when games talk 'realism' but then to watch people play the game, it looks nothing like approaching how any person would move.

Lean is what is best to simulate cover in FPS, it should be in all of them in my opinion. Even goldeneye on the 64 had a rudimentary lean system no FPS has an excuse these days not to have one, looking at you FEAR 2.

[headhunter228]

I think think fully destructible environments are something that would be a big step forward in adding depth of gameplay to shooters.

A lot of games have tried that so far, but I haven't seen much success in that regard. From a programming point of view, it is extremely difficult and/or time consuming to make completely destructable environments. While having such a thing would greatly help to deepen gameplay, it kind of peeters out when people actually try to do it. Either the technology doesn't exist yet, or developers just aren't willing to put so much time into one facet of the game, and if they do, other parts of the game (controls, overall graphics, story, AI, etc.) tend to suffer. Take, for example, The Incredible Hulk: Ultimate Destruction. In that game, you could obliterate practically everything, but finer details suffered, and there were only three or four (I can't remember just how many) areas to destroy. It was fun, sure, but leveling the same areas over and over again gets old after a while.

[Ancalagon]

As right now the way players interact with the game world is mostly based on shooting bullets from their floating gun/arm that is not part of the world. Nothing I HATE more in realistic FPS games with shadow effects than noticing that I DO NOT HAVE A FUCKING SHADOW.


+1

Yeah, I hate it when games go for realism but then forget to render your arms and legs, and your shadow. What am I, a ghost?

[Goronmon]

From a programming point of view, it is extremely difficult and/or time consuming to make completely destructable environments.Hey, I never said it would be easy. I just pointed it out as an area that could be improved upon.

Again though, I'm give anything for a solid MMOFPS. I just don't understand how no one is working on something like that. It seems like such an obvious progression.

[Ancalagon]

Hey, I never said it would be easy. I just pointed it out as an area that could be improved upon.

Again though, I'm give anything for a solid MMOFPS. I just don't understand how no one is working on something like that. It seems like such an obvious progression.

Because, from a first person point of view, its difficult to look at all that shiny loot you've spent hours collecting?

[SilentScreams]

I like shooters as much as the next guy, but they do get stale unless they incorporate certain elements.

For example, in Gears of War 1 & 2, you're pretty much doing the same thing over and over. Yet they made it fun and I didn't mind it.
Key for me in GoW is that the guns look, sound and feel like they can do some serious damage. All too often I've gotten fed up of FPSs because the guns all sound like pea-shooters.

Another example of what I like is Halo. In the campaign, you could do the same fights over and over, and yet they were different every time. Something unexpected could happen just as easily the tenth time you played it as it could on the first.

All modern FPSs should include the things I mentioned above.

As for how to move the genre forward? I really have no idea.
I rarely get excited for first person shooters anymore because on the surface they all look like "generic shooter #2312".
Cover systems freshened them up for a while, but now everybody does that. And Bullet Time is only a novelty for so long before it becomes a pain in the ass and a crutch that the game forces you to rely on.

That's not to say I don't enjoy modern shooters. I rarely finish them, but they're fun while they last.

[Khrymsyn]

Honestly, I'd like to not feel as disconnected from the world as I do.

Give more context to what I'm doing. Make my actions influence other's actions, and vice versa. Right now, almost all FPSs are self contained little "bubbles" that do nothing on thier own without your influence. I'd like that to change.
For instance? Why not give me and my squad some goals, and at the same time, have the enemy AI have goals, and even friendly squads have goals. Every time I go into that "territory" I now have a different experience depending on how long I take, what order I accomplish my goals are in, hell... my goals might even be completed already by the previous AI squad.
Very rarely do I feel like I'm IN the game as opposed to BEING the game. (even the cinematic CoD games fail in thier checkpoint like spawning system...)