What makes a good F.P.S

 Pages 1 2 NEXT
 

Ok After reading that "least horrible company post" and mention of mediocre First person shooting games. I would like to break down what actually makes a good first person shooter. The reason?

Well, I think all first person shooters are 90% all the same with a different colour meshed object without the slightest hint albeit minimal plot. If you think i'm wrong please read more

So what makes a good fps which is also the reason why they are all the same?

1. Good Clipping with walls and magic dirt as I like to say, when you are stuck in a glitched wall. It is perhaps the worst thing in a f.p.s game to succumb to this.

2. Variety of weapons- close, medium and heavy weapons. Pretty much the stock standard of all f.p.s games regardless of its label, oh you can throw in the B.F.G gun for the occasional on-line death-match.

3. Walls to hide under- pretty standard stuff to crouch or ambush to and from.

4. Easy to use w,s,a,d format. (most games use this but you do come across the rare breed who want to attempt to be different)

5. a cross-hair to shoot from, and a slider bar for your mouse sensitivity

What they Try to do in an attempt to cover up the exact same game

1. Bullet time mode- This is like the new obsession or craze at the moment to create a matrix simulation that makes my blood boil

2. Zombie games- as said on some of these video's zombie games are a great way of expanding the products diversity using different colored enemy objects, also known commonly as zombies.

3.DLC/Selection of heroes- This is the biggest fraud of them all, download the ultimate weapon that kills every enemy as you paid for its overpowered statistics with real money.

Heroes are also another thing they try to create by letting you play the slack jawed Arnold type or the buxom redhead, regardless you never actually look at your character other than the hand holding the gun or maybe the odd screenshot you send your friend.

Thats all I have to add, this is not a hate thread about F.P.S as I do enjoy the occasional fallout 3 or Css but Id like to just point out that gamers are being ripped off money wise for something you can find in the special sale section in your retail store.

Single-player: as OP mentioned, weapon variety is important. The emphasis should be on guns that are entertaining to use, like the basic shotgun from Doom (dat sound), the sticky launcher from TF2, the spinfusors from Tribes, and the weird legendary guns from Borderlands.

Enemy variety is similarly important - most shooters, unfortunately, have two kinds of enemy: man with gun, and man with rocket launcher. (Helicopters and tanks that you take out in a scripted segment don't count.)

Also, pacing is important. An endless string of fights is less interesting than interspersed segments of attack, exploration, evasion, etc.

Multi-player: I think, broadly, two things are important from a multiplayer perspective: skill floor and skill ceiling.

Skill floor is basically how easy a game is to get into - lower is easier. Chess, Team Fortress 2, and Modern Warfare 2 have a low skill floor. Tribes: Ascend and ArmA 2 have a high skill floor. I think a low skill floor is a good thing for a multiplayer shooter to have, but it's also nice to have some complex and/or hardcore shooters with a high skill floor from time to time. Not as important as:

Skill ceiling is basically how difficult a game is to master - higher is harder. Modern Warfare 2 and Tic-Tac-Toe have a low skill ceiling. Chess, Team Fortress 2, Tribes: Ascend, and ArmA 2 have a high skill ceiling. IMO, it is absolutely vital for a good multiplayer game (including multiplayer shooters) to have a high skill ceiling unless it's something like a party game. A low skill ceiling makes the game feel shallow, unrewarding, and monotonous at high skill levels.

kingthrall:

Well, I think all first person shooters are 90% all the same with a different colour meshed object without the slightest hint albeit minimal plot. If you think i'm wrong please read more

I did and you're wrong.

Perhaps you should actually attempt playing a game like Quake Live for a month, then go back and compare it to CoD and it's ilk that you seem to think are the be-all and end-all of FPS. Your list is laughably off base.

Guns. Guns make a very good F.P.S. because without them the shooting part does not work very well.

Also, don't have it take too long for enemies to die. I kinda like how COD does it with just a few shots as opposed to games like rage which take about a whole clip

GoaThief:

kingthrall:

Well, I think all first person shooters are 90% all the same with a different colour meshed object without the slightest hint albeit minimal plot. If you think i'm wrong please read more

I did and you're wrong.

Perhaps you should actually attempt playing a game like Quake Live for a month, then go back and compare it to CoD and it's ilk that you seem to think are the be-all and end-all of FPS. Your list is laughably off base.

This is interesting , can you elaborate? Also how old is quake live btw?

OT: i think what you said is true ... For military shooters . I personally thing we should move away from the serious shooters and have things more wacky and fun like serious sam. Games in general , in my opinion have to stop being so serious all the time and just have fun with it and be imaginitive . Now that doesn't mean fps can't be serious . Look at metro 2033 for example . It's serious and pretty grindark but at the same time it's different . The atmosphere , the stress , the despair . It wasn't just a spectacle a la call of duty . It wasn't a powertrip , you were fighting for your survival .

kingthrall:
Ok After reading that "least horrible company post" and mention of mediocre First person shooting games. I would like to break down what actually makes a good first person shooter. The reason?

Well, I think all first person shooters are 90% all the same with a different colour meshed object without the slightest hint albeit minimal plot. If you think i'm wrong please read more

So what makes a good fps which is also the reason why they are all the same?
...

Hmm, most things you listed are basic gameplay mechanics. It`s a bit like listing jump and run features and then saying "you all get ripped of. Dust of your C64 and play Giana Sisters".

The FPS is a bit of a stagnating genre (for the last ten years i guess) but most developers try to implement something new at least (yeah, it may be these little 10%). Just leave CoD and BF on the shelf if you want something different (i`m still enjoying these titles but i can understand that they seem to be to repetetive for some gamers).

I`m having to much fun with these games and it doesn`t sound like you`re a fps player (you listed Fallout 3?)or someone who likes the genre at all. For someone who doesn`t want to create a hate thread there`s some kind of bad vibe in your post (at least to me).

btt
A talking main character. I don`t identify with a mass murderer anyway so why not give a personality? I don`t like voiceless characters. It feels stupid when your character doesn`t answer (i`m not even expecting a choice) when npcs are talking to him/her.

(The following is for SP FPS)

1: Good... no, excellent leveldesign.

As a singleplayer expirience FPS come and fall with leveldesign. You don't need free roaming maps but you need to give the player at least some freedom how he approaches a problem. Give him the option to use the terrain to set up ambushes or watch how the enemies run blind into the places he threw grenades a second ago because he anticipated that.

2: Don't let the player feel useless. This goes to CoD:

I am not playing an FPS to be the one guy who doesn't even have the rank to open a door. FPS are, in most cases, the embodyment of the power fantasy. You are the guy who saves the world, you are the one who gets the bad guy, you are the one piece that changes everything. In modern day FPS you are lucky if you can open a door...

3: 2 Weapon limit - A big no no!

It doesn't make sense in singleplayer. Again, I don't want to be Johnny Whatshisface, I am friggin Gordon Freeman! I don't want to have this limit just so that one spot takes the one weapon needed to complete the next part while the other is utterly useless.

4: The tension - No full regenerating health.

There is no impact or feel of danger if you can take a load of bullets to the face and shake it off without consequences. I personally don't even regard a FPS with full regen HP as hard because they aren't. I feel bored the whole time. Change it at least to sequential regenerating health when you are too lazy to proper balance the giveaway of healthkits (and every good FPS with healthkits you don't need to backtrack because the people give you at least the least amount of health you need to complete the next part. And be it just 1 hp so you feel fancy!). I want consequences for my stupidity, I don't want to be rewarded for sucking ass.

Suggestions for good SP FPS: Hard Reset and Serious Sam 3. Hard Reset shows neat leveldesign with fancy weapons while abusing the two weapon system to deliver 10 different weapons, Serious Sam 3 will kick your butt up to the moon while combining oldschool FPS with modern day mechanics (to be precise, iron sights and sprinting).

You need a host of simple mechanics which combine together into something very fun, and preferably challenging.

The only other requirement I have is no over-the-top railroading. Beyond that, almost anything goes.

Currently playing through the Halo series again, in order of release. Actually, saying that reminds me of just one more very personal requirement: please, lots of checkpoints, or a manual save function. CE is great in most respects, but its checkpoint allocation is frustrating.

This might sound strange...but I think the speed you move at is very important. I like to be able to move fast, fast enough to get back to the action and flank on the fly without planning it minutes In advance and whatnot. Halo is about my minimum happy point for movement speed. Though I really loved games that let me move a lot faster than that, like being an alien in AVP(is that a shooter? I mean theres guns in it if your the other races but you dont shoot as an alien...)

Projectile weapons, especially for the enemies. and all the design choices that logically result from them.

and a fucking quicksave key :)

kingthrall:
Ok After reading that "least horrible company post" and mention of mediocre First person shooting games. I would like to break down what actually makes a good first person shooter. The reason?

Well, I think all first person shooters are 90% all the same with a different colour meshed object without the slightest hint albeit minimal plot. If you think i'm wrong please read more

So what makes a good fps which is also the reason why they are all the same?

1. Good Clipping with walls and magic dirt as I like to say, when you are stuck in a glitched wall. It is perhaps the worst thing in a f.p.s game to succumb to this.

2. Variety of weapons- close, medium and heavy weapons. Pretty much the stock standard of all f.p.s games regardless of its label, oh you can throw in the B.F.G gun for the occasional on-line death-match.

3. Walls to hide under- pretty standard stuff to crouch or ambush to and from.

4. Easy to use w,s,a,d format. (most games use this but you do come across the rare breed who want to attempt to be different)

5. a cross-hair to shoot from, and a slider bar for your mouse sensitivity

All of these don't make FPS's the same game. The arguments you made about their being walls to hide behind, WASD controls, and clipping are all irrelevant. These are almost requirements for any 3D game. They are also there for a reason, clipping is bad, WASD controls give you access to more buttons on hand, walls are good for balance and not dyeing. Not to mention, a lot of games have a habit of dropping the crosshair. Also, a mouse sensitivity slider does not make a game even slightly similar to any other, thats just too general.
Those same arguments you just gave can be easily be given to any subgenre. We have to remember that FPS is not a large group, its popular, but not large. When it comes down to it, every game in a subgenre is similar to its others (JRPGs, adventure games, MMORGP's, RTS's, etc.). Similarity doesn't make it the same or copy and pasted. I can tell you that playing a game like Deus Ex and MW3 is very different. As is HL2 and Bioshock. In the end, if what your saying is true, then all videogames, from every genre, and every period of time, is the same.

Kahunaburger:
Single-player: as OP mentioned, weapon variety is important. The emphasis should be on guns that are entertaining to use, like the basic shotgun from Doom (dat sound), the sticky launcher from TF2, the spinfusors from Tribes, and the weird legendary guns from Borderlands.

Enemy variety is similarly important - most shooters, unfortunately, have two kinds of enemy: man with gun, and man with rocket launcher. (Helicopters and tanks that you take out in a scripted segment don't count.)

Also, pacing is important. An endless string of fights is less interesting than interspersed segments of attack, exploration, evasion, etc.

Once again, I have to respectfully (emphasis on respectfully) disagree with you.

Games like COD 1, MOH Allied Assault and Metro 2033 had virtually nothing in terms of weapon variety and "fun", but the atmosphere and pacing in those 3 games was so outstanding, they were great anyway. Theres more than one way to make a great single player FPS.

I love both ways. Hard Reset, the older Serious Sam games, Doom, all crazy games with crazy weapons. But COD 1? Also amazing. Being thrown into battle in Stalingrad without even having a gun - thats something only a military FPS can do.

OT: For me personally a FPS game needs to have a great setting that it takes full advantage of, a good challenge and good pacing. Note: hiding behind a wall for 10 minutes is not good pacing.

I like games like Ghost Recon too, which are very slow and weighted, but most of them are third person shooters now so they dont really count.

SP:

1: Good story. A good story can pull an iffy gameplay through. Half Life 2 is an example of this. The gameplay isn't the best in the world, but the story will pull you in and make you forget entirely about how melee weapons have no weight or impact to them and how the majority of enemies can barely scratch your massive testicles.

2: Gameplay must be good. Good gameplay can pull an iffy story through just the same. Games like Serious Sam are examples of that. Shit story, excellent gameplay, end result is a good shooter.

3: Location, location, location. A good setting, with good level design, is a big big biiiiig part of it.

4: Engine. Give your shooter a good engine. Note how good shooters all have good engines and bad shooters all have bad engines. The engine can make-or-break a game, and it takes something special to pull through this.*

5: Weapon Variety. There needs to be a wide variety of weapons. None of the 'good' shooters have two weapons. They all have a selection. Shotguns, pistols, long rifles, MGs, SMGs, rocket launchers, shit like that, all carried in your back pocket with a healthy dose of ammo for each.

6: Those weapons must be fun to use as well. No sense loading us up with a bunch of fucking nerf guns.......unless it's a nerf game. But nobody's made a first person nerf game. So don't load us up with fucking nerf guns.

7: Allow mods!!! SP FPSs tend to lack choice, this hurts replayability. Allowing us to mod it gives us a reason to play it again and again. Official DLC helps as well, so long as it's well made and priced fairly.

8: If the game has MP attached, do NOT half-ass the single player to develop the multiplayer. The multiplayer in your typical FPS is too damn simple to get right, you have no excuse to ruin the SP in favor of it.

9: Lastly, price it right. Unless it's Fallout 4 or Half Life 2 Episode 3, $60 just isn't going to work. Try $40-$50 instead for AAA releases.

MP:

Balance the weapons, balance the classes, give everyone deathmatch, team deathmatch, CTF and free-for-all, and you're in the money. This isn't hard to do, and honestly I feel it doesn't need to be done anywhere near as much. Price at $30 or less if it's standalone.

*Fallout 3 and Fallout NV are two notable examples of good FPSs that managed to pull their god-awful abomination of an engine through. I love both of them, but I'm not gonna try to tell you they have a good engine. They don't. Gamebryo sucks. How they did it is they literally checked every other box on the list.

What I look for is generally something that it does either different (Reason why I play BF, I feel it offers me stuff nothing else does and I looove it) or something it does new and innovating. Almost the same thing. Generally, what I look for in every game, is something new other games cant offer me. That's on reason why I love Half Life so damn much. And the original Deus Ex

i guess that is is different depending on the fps in particular.what made system shock or deus ex great istt going to be the same thing that could make cod or moh great.

SmashLovesTitanQuest:

Kahunaburger:
Single-player: as OP mentioned, weapon variety is important. The emphasis should be on guns that are entertaining to use, like the basic shotgun from Doom (dat sound), the sticky launcher from TF2, the spinfusors from Tribes, and the weird legendary guns from Borderlands.

Enemy variety is similarly important - most shooters, unfortunately, have two kinds of enemy: man with gun, and man with rocket launcher. (Helicopters and tanks that you take out in a scripted segment don't count.)

Also, pacing is important. An endless string of fights is less interesting than interspersed segments of attack, exploration, evasion, etc.

Once again, I have to respectfully (emphasis on respectfully) disagree with you.

Games like COD 1, MOH Allied Assault and Metro 2033 had virtually nothing in terms of weapon variety and "fun", but the atmosphere and pacing in those 3 games was so outstanding, they were great anyway. Theres more than one way to make a great single player FPS.

I love both ways. Hard Reset, the older Serious Sam games, Doom, all crazy games with crazy weapons. But COD 1? Also amazing. Being thrown into battle in Stalingrad without even having a gun - thats something only a military FPS can do.

OT: For me personally a FPS game needs to have a great setting that it takes full advantage of, a good challenge and good pacing. Note: hiding behind a wall for 10 minutes is not good pacing.

I like games like Ghost Recon too, which are very slow and weighted, but most of them are third person shooters now so they dont really count.

^That's a good point - my criteria definitely overlook shooters that use limitations to create atmosphere, immersion, and a sense of place.

Scantily clad female characters are all you need to make a good FPS.

SP - Fast paced gameplay or a intresting location is a must. Story alone cant carry a FPS

Everyone that's a fan of FPS should play Operation Flashpoint: Cold War Crisis and the expansion Resistance. The best single player campaign in a FPS ever. And play it on the highest difficulty. (which just removes the on screen helpers)

Flac00:

kingthrall:
Ok After reading that "least horrible company post" and mention of mediocre First person shooting games. I would like to break down what actually makes a good first person shooter. The reason?

Well, I think all first person shooters are 90% all the same with a different colour meshed object without the slightest hint albeit minimal plot. If you think i'm wrong please read more

So what makes a good fps which is also the reason why they are all the same?

1. Good Clipping with walls and magic dirt as I like to say, when you are stuck in a glitched wall. It is perhaps the worst thing in a f.p.s game to succumb to this.

2. Variety of weapons- close, medium and heavy weapons. Pretty much the stock standard of all f.p.s games regardless of its label, oh you can throw in the B.F.G gun for the occasional on-line death-match.

3. Walls to hide under- pretty standard stuff to crouch or ambush to and from.

4. Easy to use w,s,a,d format. (most games use this but you do come across the rare breed who want to attempt to be different)

5. a cross-hair to shoot from, and a slider bar for your mouse sensitivity

All of these don't make FPS's the same game. The arguments you made about their being walls to hide behind, WASD controls, and clipping are all irrelevant. These are almost requirements for any 3D game. They are also there for a reason, clipping is bad, WASD controls give you access to more buttons on hand, walls are good for balance and not dyeing. Not to mention, a lot of games have a habit of dropping the crosshair. Also, a mouse sensitivity slider does not make a game even slightly similar to any other, thats just too general.
Those same arguments you just gave can be easily be given to any subgenre. We have to remember that FPS is not a large group, its popular, but not large. When it comes down to it, every game in a subgenre is similar to its others (JRPGs, adventure games, MMORGP's, RTS's, etc.). Similarity doesn't make it the same or copy and pasted. I can tell you that playing a game like Deus Ex and MW3 is very different. As is HL2 and Bioshock. In the end, if what your saying is true, then all videogames, from every genre, and every period of time, is the same.

Flac00:

kingthrall:
Ok After reading that "least horrible company post" and mention of mediocre First person shooting games. I would like to break down what actually makes a good first person shooter. The reason?

Well, I think all first person shooters are 90% all the same with a different colour meshed object without the slightest hint albeit minimal plot. If you think i'm wrong please read more

So what makes a good fps which is also the reason why they are all the same?

1. Good Clipping with walls and magic dirt as I like to say, when you are stuck in a glitched wall. It is perhaps the worst thing in a f.p.s game to succumb to this.

2. Variety of weapons- close, medium and heavy weapons. Pretty much the stock standard of all f.p.s games regardless of its label, oh you can throw in the B.F.G gun for the occasional on-line death-match.

3. Walls to hide under- pretty standard stuff to crouch or ambush to and from.

4. Easy to use w,s,a,d format. (most games use this but you do come across the rare breed who want to attempt to be different)

5. a cross-hair to shoot from, and a slider bar for your mouse sensitivity

All of these don't make FPS's the same game. The arguments you made about their being walls to hide behind, WASD controls, and clipping are all irrelevant. These are almost requirements for any 3D game. They are also there for a reason, clipping is bad, WASD controls give you access to more buttons on hand, walls are good for balance and not dyeing. Not to mention, a lot of games have a habit of dropping the crosshair. Also, a mouse sensitivity slider does not make a game even slightly similar to any other, thats just too general.
Those same arguments you just gave can be easily be given to any subgenre. We have to remember that FPS is not a large group, its popular, but not large. When it comes down to it, every game in a subgenre is similar to its others (JRPGs, adventure games, MMORGP's, RTS's, etc.). Similarity doesn't make it the same or copy and pasted. I can tell you that playing a game like Deus Ex and MW3 is very different. As is HL2 and Bioshock. In the end, if what your saying is true, then all videogames, from every genre, and every period of time, is the same.

To a certain extent most F.P.S games are the same. I agree that MW3 is different to Deus Ex however Deus Ex is more of an RPG like Fallout 3 than a FPS.

Also my arguments about walls and W.A.S.D are still valid, so many times ive seen games neglect to revise the basic principles in games and fail miserably. Ever play Hexen or even fallout new vegas and see the bad meshes merging together? Or what about my favourite when Empire total war came out there was no Naval invasions which rendered England useless. The 5th instalment of a total war series you would of expected the devs to get it right?

I will admit I am not the hugest fan of F.P.S because it is usually 12 year old kids who play them and I have rarely if ever seen any real social interaction between players in comparison to starcraft or even my favourite game Myth II. Ive been to Ukraine and met in clubs in italy with people online from my Team that ive been with for seven years. You do not get that kind of interaction in an F.P.S which is the reason why F.P.S is also not a popular choice as you have said more of a sub-genre of choice.

Guns and enemies to shoot with guns...

TestECull:
SP:

1: Good story. A good story can pull an iffy gameplay through. Half Life 2 is an example of this. The gameplay isn't the best in the world, but the story will pull you in and make you forget entirely about how melee weapons have no weight or impact to them and how the majority of enemies can barely scratch your massive testicles.

2: Gameplay must be good. Good gameplay can pull an iffy story through just the same. Games like Serious Sam are examples of that. Shit story, excellent gameplay, end result is a good shooter.

3: Location, location, location. A good setting, with good level design, is a big big biiiiig part of it.

4: Engine. Give your shooter a good engine. Note how good shooters all have good engines and bad shooters all have bad engines. The engine can make-or-break a game, and it takes something special to pull through this.*

5: Weapon Variety. There needs to be a wide variety of weapons. None of the 'good' shooters have two weapons. They all have a selection. Shotguns, pistols, long rifles, MGs, SMGs, rocket launchers, shit like that, all carried in your back pocket with a healthy dose of ammo for each.

6: Those weapons must be fun to use as well. No sense loading us up with a bunch of fucking nerf guns.......unless it's a nerf game. But nobody's made a first person nerf game. So don't load us up with fucking nerf guns.

7: Allow mods!!! SP FPSs tend to lack choice, this hurts replayability. Allowing us to mod it gives us a reason to play it again and again. Official DLC helps as well, so long as it's well made and priced fairly.

8: If the game has MP attached, do NOT half-ass the single player to develop the multiplayer. The multiplayer in your typical FPS is too damn simple to get right, you have no excuse to ruin the SP in favor of it.

9: Lastly, price it right. Unless it's Fallout 4 or Half Life 2 Episode 3, $60 just isn't going to work. Try $40-$50 instead for AAA releases.

MP:

Balance the weapons, balance the classes, give everyone deathmatch, team deathmatch, CTF and free-for-all, and you're in the money. This isn't hard to do, and honestly I feel it doesn't need to be done anywhere near as much. Price at $30 or less if it's standalone.

*Fallout 3 and Fallout NV are two notable examples of good FPSs that managed to pull their god-awful abomination of an engine through. I love both of them, but I'm not gonna try to tell you they have a good engine. They don't. Gamebryo sucks. How they did it is they literally checked every other box on the list.

Can I just say you said what I was about to say for the most part?

For me a shooter need a good variety of guns, but guns that don't make each other redundant.

Balance, I like games where EVERYBODY is equal when the game starts, everybody has the same weapons, and everybody has the same abilities, that way player skill will determine who gets the kill, rather than, who has spawned with the best weapon/ability that suits the situation more.

Also I prefer map weapon pick-ups, because I have never really liked the idea of loadouts/kits.

I... disagree. Cross Hairs are boring, and don't belong on every game. If you're planning on making a first person game, why don't you at least commit to the realistic aspect of actually aiming down the sights of the gun you're given?

I understand there are multiple good exceptions to this, but one of my biggest pet peeves are when someone tries to complain about ADS in a First Person Shooter.

And slow mode being a negative? Have you ever played CoD4 with the slow mode cheat activated? It's almost an entirely new game. And it's amazing.

And I get that it's your opinion and all, but when you end by saying there are only a few good FPS's that you like, I hardly think you're in the position to tell us what makes a good FPS. Especially with the inclusion of Fallout 3 on that list. Really?

What I think FPS need to start avoiding is the legions of enemies you kill, at least in games that are trying to take a semi realistic approach to them. During games like MW3 and Battlefield 3, I got taken out of the immersion when I realized just how much I was decimating everyone, even more highlighted by my teammates not really doing anything, to the point where they were just getting in the way from when I was trying to take cover (Battlefield)

kingthrall:
-snip-

What they Try to do in an attempt to cover up the exact same game

1. Bullet time mode- This is like the new obsession or craze at the moment to create a matrix simulation that makes my blood boil

-snip-

Bullet time mode is a new obsession? After Max Payne a dozen games tried to do bullet time, and since then there has been at least 1 bullet time/slow motion/time distortion game released each year.

Welcome to the 21st century.

JoesshittyOs:
I... disagree. Cross Hairs are boring, and don't belong on every game. If you're planning on making a first person game, why don't you at least commit to the realistic aspect of actually aiming down the sights of the gun you're given?

I understand there are multiple good exceptions to this, but one of my biggest pet peeves are when someone tries to complain about ADS in a First Person Shooter.

And slow mode being a negative? Have you ever played CoD4 with the slow mode cheat activated? It's almost an entirely new game. And it's amazing.

And I get that it's your opinion and all, but when you end by saying there are only a few good FPS's that you like, I hardly think you're in the position to tell us what makes a good FPS. Especially with the inclusion of Fallout 3 on that list. Really?

You want me to list a page worth of FPS ive played is that it? I was for a very long time sniping with shotguns in cs source with sponsors and tournaments, so please as much as I understand you want to question the validity of my post, I dont need to justify every post I make on websites about my background so to speak.

Slow mode is a negative for me, just because its not realistic, and is probally why fps does not appeal to me no more is the realism of being shot in the face with a shotgun doesnt actually blow the enemies face off in one shot. or even a simple pistol fire on the arm should cripple just like fallout 3.. a game which you so keenly mocked.

kingthrall:

Slow mode is a negative for me, just because its not realistic, and is probally why fps does not appeal to me no more is the realism of being shot in the face with a shotgun doesnt actually blow the enemies face off in one shot. or even a simple pistol fire on the arm should cripple just like fallout 3.. a game which you so keenly mocked.

Don't get me wrong, I liked Fallout 3 for the most part. It's just the Combat was not it's strong suit. Especially if you're judging it in terms of gunplay.

And so what Slow mode is not realistic? You're already committing to a game such as CS that relies on the hipfire aspect, and then a game such as Fallout 3 where you can literally freeze time and pick your shots. But bullet time is going too far?

i never used the bullet time engine at all, that was the sole reason why I enjoyed it better than most F.p.s games. What game do you consider the "ideal choice" for an f.p.s that you are comparing to what I have listed?

kingthrall:
To a certain extent most F.P.S games are the same. I agree that MW3 is different to Deus Ex however Deus Ex is more of an RPG like Fallout 3 than a FPS.

In the same way that most platformer games are the same, in the same way most JRPGs are the same, in the same way MMORPGs are the same, in the same way most beat-em-ups are the same, in the same way blah blah blah. Stating similarities between games of the same genre isn't an argument, it's stupidity. It's the similarities that define the subgenre it's a part of. If it ddidn't use WASD/Mouse or Left/Right control stick controls, for movement and aiming in a first person perspective, it probably wouldn't be a FPS. Or it might be an FPS, but it'd be a bad one for neglecting to use a control setup games have been perfecting over the last 20 years.

kingthrall:
Also my arguments about walls and W.A.S.D are still valid, so many times ive seen games neglect to revise the basic principles in games and fail miserably. Ever play Hexen or even fallout new vegas and see the bad meshes merging together? Or what about my favourite when Empire total war came out there was no Naval invasions which rendered England useless. The 5th instalment of a total war series you would of expected the devs to get it right?

Totally non-comparative analogy. Collision detection in 3D games is a very tough process to achieve, and can be incredibly processor intensive to get it right. A little clipping is fine by me, although I do think that developers should make sure that character models do not clip THEMSELVES in any animation. I see this a lot, one of very few instances where the developers have direct and total control over the movement and collision of parts of a model, and they still can't get that right, strikes me as lazy. A little clipping into walls though? So long as the game breaking thing of getting stuck in walls doesn't happen, it's perfectly acceptible. But this goes for any 3D game, not just FPSes.

Anywho, back to your analogy... Comparing a technical problem and the use of WASD with a developer adding naval warfare content to an RTS game is just... No... If you argued being able to move troops in an RTS onto non-accessible terrain, or talked about a different style of unit movement system, then maybe. But RTS has much more samey games than FPS (at least in the micro-focused, 3 different team, base building exercise that Dune kinda invented, Command and Conquer popularised and Starcraft turned into a sport). The Total War games can be remarkably similar between each other. They all use similar control setups. Y'know why? Fans of the RTS genre, or a particular series of games, won't want to relearn different controls and skills with each new game they play. Same in an FPS. If all of a sudden a game came out with left stick as looking and right stick as movement, that would seem totally stupid, yes?

kingthrall:
I will admit I am not the hugest fan of F.P.S because it is usually 12 year old kids who play them and I have rarely if ever seen any real social interaction between players in comparison to starcraft or even my favourite game Myth II. Ive been to Ukraine and met in clubs in italy with people online from my Team that ive been with for seven years. You do not get that kind of interaction in an F.P.S which is the reason why F.P.S is also not a popular choice as you have said more of a sub-genre of choice.

The amount of 12 year olds I see on FPS games are generally pretty minimal, and the ones I do see are the only ones speaking (read: Yelling and screaming) on mic. Generalisation of the audience of FPS games while you try to critique it is poor form. I've met some good friends on CS:S, TF2 and MW1-3, and regularly play with them. FPS clans are some of the biggest around, since you can't really play as a team all by yourself. RTS games are a silly choice of example since many are 1v1s, especially in any kind of tournament level, since it's the easiest to balance. Just because you haven't had any experience of doing this on an FPS doesn't mean it doesn't happen, it most certainly does.

Plus, what does your last line even mean? How does limited interaction (which is total bollocks and you should have done more research before making such a ridiculous claim) make FPS a sub-genre? The reasons FPS is a sub genre is a specific list of mechanics (some of which you touched upon on your first post but essentially any game played from a first person perspective where you shoot guns is a First Person Shooter) that make it an FPS. A lack of interaction between players in an FPS probably makes it a single player FPS.

Also, text colour for my captcha: "paint it red" EXCEPT NOT NOW BECAUSE KINGTHRALL CAN'T READ RED TEXT AWWW DIDDUMS SHUT THE HELL UP STOP MOANING AND JUST READ THE TEXT

Anthraxus:
Everyone that's a fan of FPS should play Operation Flashpoint: Cold War Crisis and the expansion Resistance. The best single player campaign in a FPS ever. And play it on the highest difficulty. (which just removes the on screen helpers)

This. Resistance is quite possibly the most underappreciated expansion ever.

While they obviously retain the same core ideas, Shooters are overall a pretty varied bunch so I don't really think they really need anything in particular, just so long as they're fun to play and there's some variety in weapons, enemies, locations etc, especially if they're set in some sort of fictional setting.

However personally I do think there should be a particular focus on sound. The guns should feel like guns. If you're in a warzone the sounds of it should make it feel like a warzone. FPS's really seem to focus way too much on other things instead, and personally I don't think any game has made the feeling of a battlefield through sound as well as the original Call of Duty and it's expansion.

TallestGargoyle:

kingthrall:
To a certain extent most F.P.S games are the same. I agree that MW3 is different to Deus Ex however Deus Ex is more of an RPG like Fallout 3 than a FPS.


In the same way that most platformer games are the same, in the same way most JRPGs are the same, in the same way MMORPGs are the same, in the same way most beat-em-ups are the same, in the same way blah blah blah. Stating similarities between games of the same genre isn't an argument, it's stupidity. It's the similarities that define the subgenre it's a part of. If it ddidn't use WASD/Mouse or Left/Right control stick controls, for movement and aiming in a first person perspective, it probably wouldn't be a FPS. Or it might be an FPS, but it'd be a bad one for neglecting to use a control setup games have been perfecting over the last 20 years.

kingthrall:
Also my arguments about walls and W.A.S.D are still valid, so many times ive seen games neglect to revise the basic principles in games and fail miserably. Ever play Hexen or even fallout new vegas and see the bad meshes merging together? Or what about my favourite when Empire total war came out there was no Naval invasions which rendered England useless. The 5th instalment of a total war series you would of expected the devs to get it right?


Totally non-comparative analogy. Collision detection in 3D games is a very tough process to achieve, and can be incredibly processor intensive to get it right. A little clipping is fine by me, although I do think that developers should make sure that character models do not clip THEMSELVES in any animation. I see this a lot, one of very few instances where the developers have direct and total control over the movement and collision of parts of a model, and they still can't get that right, strikes me as lazy. A little clipping into walls though? So long as the game breaking thing of getting stuck in walls doesn't happen, it's perfectly acceptible. But this goes for any 3D game, not just FPSes.

Anywho, back to your analogy... Comparing a technical problem and the use of WASD with a developer adding naval warfare content to an RTS game is just... No... If you argued being able to move troops in an RTS onto non-accessible terrain, or talked about a different style of unit movement system, then maybe. But RTS has much more samey games than FPS (at least in the micro-focused, 3 different team, base building exercise that Dune kinda invented, Command and Conquer popularised and Starcraft turned into a sport). The Total War games can be remarkably similar between each other. They all use similar control setups. Y'know why? Fans of the RTS genre, or a particular series of games, won't want to relearn different controls and skills with each new game they play. Same in an FPS. If all of a sudden a game came out with left stick as looking and right stick as movement, that would seem totally stupid, yes?

kingthrall:
I will admit I am not the hugest fan of F.P.S because it is usually 12 year old kids who play them and I have rarely if ever seen any real social interaction between players in comparison to starcraft or even my favourite game Myth II. Ive been to Ukraine and met in clubs in italy with people online from my Team that ive been with for seven years. You do not get that kind of interaction in an F.P.S which is the reason why F.P.S is also not a popular choice as you have said more of a sub-genre of choice.


The amount of 12 year olds I see on FPS games are generally pretty minimal, and the ones I do see are the only ones speaking (read: Yelling and screaming) on mic. Generalisation of the audience of FPS games while you try to critique it is poor form. I've met some good friends on CS:S, TF2 and MW1-3, and regularly play with them. FPS clans are some of the biggest around, since you can't really play as a team all by yourself. RTS games are a silly choice of example since many are 1v1s, especially in any kind of tournament level, since it's the easiest to balance. Just because you haven't had any experience of doing this on an FPS doesn't mean it doesn't happen, it most certainly does.

Plus, what does your last line even mean? How does limited interaction (which is total bollocks and you should have done more research before making such a ridiculous claim) make FPS a sub-genre? The reasons FPS is a sub genre is a specific list of mechanics (some of which you touched upon on your first post but essentially any game played from a first person perspective where you shoot guns is a First Person Shooter) that make it an FPS. A lack of interaction between players in an FPS probably makes it a single player FPS.

Also, text colour for my captcha: "paint it red"

sorry I didnt read all of it because it was in that horrendous red font you used. But I get the drift I think from that first line I barley read about you not agreeing with me.

kingthrall:
Snippysnipsnip

Fixed it for your blind self.

Well Frames Per Second plays an important part when...
Oh, First Persin Shooter...
Well Metroid Prime is a prime example xD

Good controls, good graphics, good story (fat chance ey) and good mechanics makes a good FPS.

TallestGargoyle:

kingthrall:
Snippysnipsnip

Fixed it for your blind self.

1. I am not blind just because I do not like to read a bright red text on a white background.
2. You have no clue what you are saying about FPS being the same as RTS, about the similarities of W.S.A.D,

ie- Starcraft uses base building, has some micro and a rock paper sissors styled warfare

Empire Earth uses a base building epoch system, you have a base but can either swarm your enemy with lower century units or tech up

Dawn of war II and + has no base building but uses weaponry to determine stratergy, also has a small version of either swarming or teching up to determine victory

C&C is a joke of an rts, you got me good there

Total war does represent 60 units as lets say 1 unit normally on a traditonal rts style game. Depending on what you are refering to there is base building and probally the most detailed of all the stratergy games listed from religon right down to taxes. If not, then you have your armies with all different counters yet terrain assists and so does morale.

These are just 4 different RTS all with different mechanics of gameplay, all stratergy yet you
quote "But RTS has much more samey games than FPS (at least in the micro-focused, 3 different team, base building exercise that Dune kinda invented"

Oh but wait- drum roll, first person shooters have that same kind of detail, with thickets of grass for terrain to hide in and stealth and timing for ambushes. However the difference is there is no moral of enemies and you do not work to obtain your high end weapons 80% of the time. The reason- because in a first person shooter you get respawned so fast you can just spam out your death count for weapons, there is no sense of vital loss.

Finnaly- I didnt say that W.A.S.D should be changed as being a bad thing as the same keys, I never said that it was terrible that it was all the same with different colored objects as your enemy.

I also said that you can have 10 thousand friends on your f.p.s games but how many have you actually met in real life? Ive met heaps because we have our annual yearly gamers Roast for fun with pictures and stuff, but Ive never heard of an F.P.S having a BBQ with a bunch of F.P.S Doug lookalike players talking to each other about that perfect Boom Headshot. At least in stratergy when you talk about games you have real time tactics, stupid fun tactics and different factions with unique unit choices. Also Plot which many F.P,S fail to deliver on. That said I dont just talk about games at the roast but just writing what is to keep on topic

 Pages 1 2 NEXT

Reply to Thread

This thread is locked