What direction would people like the FPS market to go?

All of you saying you want realism are frankly talking balls, you want some glorified hollywood realism. Not driving round in a truck getting blown up by IED's, that would be really really really tedious. In fact, the game industry would be considerably better if everyone who wanted realism signed up for the forces.

For me I'd like the FPS to go to the UT style. Large array of varied weapons, I like perks and classes but the balance needs to be really really carefully managed. The maps need to be brilliant, MW3 has frankly awful maps compared to MW2. And proper fun, a la serious sam the second encounter coop rather than any of the current crop of AAA fps.

As for bulletstorm, it was a brilliant game, very tongue in cheek and a hilarious romp that I couldn't put down. It wasn't perfect but it was delightfully refreshing. I urge anyone who isn't a fan of 'realism' to pick it up.
 
What I dont get is why they dont do a modern game (CoD would be good for this actually. Would remove most of the bull**** that goes with that game) and start each round/spawn with a basic weapon/weapons (knife and pistol) then have weapon drops/caches/body armour/morphine(more realistic alternative to medkits) placed around and quickly picked up. Much like the old school deathmatches. Why people seem to think that a persistent character and custom camo for your 'gunzzzz' is necessary.
 
I got a free BF3 a few days ago, finally managed to get it to work long enough to join a game.

So I join my first game and can't help but wonder just how long I have to play for before I have enough unlocks to actually compete with current players? I have basic crappy guns and next to no gadgets/perks/attachments. Is there any need at all for these stupid unlocks? Cosmetic unlocks are one thing but ones that actually affect how effective you can be for the team are stupid.
 
lrlcr said:
All of you saying you want realism are frankly talking balls, you want some glorified hollywood realism. Not driving round in a truck getting blown up by IED's, that would be really really really tedious. In fact, the game industry would be considerably better if everyone who wanted realism signed up for the forces.

For me I'd like the FPS to go to the UT style. Large array of varied weapons, I like perks and classes but the balance needs to be really really carefully managed. The maps need to be brilliant, MW3 has frankly awful maps compared to MW2. And proper fun, a la serious sam the second encounter coop rather than any of the current crop of AAA fps.

As for bulletstorm, it was a brilliant game, very tongue in cheek and a hilarious romp that I couldn't put down. It wasn't perfect but it was delightfully refreshing. I urge anyone who isn't a fan of 'realism' to pick it up.
Click to expand...

Everyone asking for "realism" is completely aware that they are not asking for a 100% realistic experience. No one is stupid enough to think that's what they're asking for, and telling everyone who wants their FPS experience to be a bit more authentic the harsh realities of warfare is the same tired old response that people like you give whenever this discussion crops up. "Go join the army". You cant seem to comprehend that some people want to play a game that is least an attempt at a virtual recreation of the real world.

I guess this stems from the fact that because you don't think its fun, you cant possibly understand how anyone else can. And you think that all FPS games should play how you want them. Newsflash: Not everyone wants what you want. Get over it, and learn not to be so dismissive of what you don't understand.
 
Back on topic...

I'd like to see a more open and immersive engine that can be used to construct a vast array of different scenarios. Rather than engines which specialise. Then we could avoid a lot of these arguments by opening up many varied possibilities for gameplay styles and environments whilst sharing a hugely detailed and complex physical world.
 
no perks
no unlocks
no XP

good maps
user maps


I think back in the days of quake there was far less number of games out so the communities were a lot bigger we as today with the number of games released on PC and consoles you never get the size of community you did with quake or UT
 
Last edited:
Nerusy said:
I liked quake but it was more about twitch "skills". I don't like games where it's all about how fast your can move your mouse and click on it or keyboard.

Brain power > finger twitching power.
Click to expand...

Surely though there is an argument to suggest that the best games are those that have a blend of 'twitch' and 'brain'? Something like Quakeworld TDM looks like a pure twitch game on the face of it, but it actually has incredible depth and advanced teamplay due to the mechanics of the game. You have to think & communicate very fast, as well as aim very fast :)

Anyway to answer the OP I agree that it would be good to see more of a split between multiplayer and singleplayer, in terms of people going out to produce a solid SP experience and not getting weighed down by multiplayer.

In terms of genre-blending I definitely think the two most stand-out variants of SP FPS are:

1) those that go for an extremely polished cinematic feel, with elaborate set pieces - basically what IW did with the COD series, and to some extent Valve with Halflife
2) those with RPG elements, promoting character development, freedom of choice etc - stuff like Deus Ex

That's not to say that your more traditional FPS, something like Crysis say, doesn't still have a place in the future, but even Crytek took it a more cinematic direction with Crysis 2.
 
LabR@t said:
I think back in the days of quake there was far less number of games out so the communities were a lot bigger
Click to expand...

I'm not sure because the overall number of online gamers was also a lot smaller. Quake certainly had a big 'market share' in the 90s but it was a growing niche market, not a mature mainstream one in terms of entertainment medium.
 
Someone mentioned he prefers his FPS/Milsim separate. I agree of course. ArmA3 will be milsim. Cod/BF are FPS. But there is no middle ground at all.

We need a good combination of every suggestion here.

Someone else mentioned the fluid and smooth movement and controls of modern FPS compared to milsim (i really agree on this. the pace of arma2 is TOO slow for an fps) (but just right for milsim, could use some improvement though)

A huge focus needs to be on team play. But not so much that if you join a poor team you are doomed. Of course with a mainstream title it is much harder to get an organised team on every server.

More realism. Someone else mentioned Pistols having insane range. Far too true. Heavy ordanance is nothing like real life (javlin, stinger, at4 etc) That should be corrected. There should be a penalty for carrying super amounts of gear. a javlin should really slow you down.

Leveling up is fine. But it should not be the primary focus of the game. Which in recent times with COD/BF it seems to have become.

Killstreaks. No. An ingame perk like an airstrike, UAV, EMP etc should be due to the capture of equipment at key locations on the map. Holding those locations will aid you to victory. and give additional objectives within the mission.
I also think with killstreaks and leveling being such a high focus now days it encourages cheating. If its pure skillbased and your levels are for nothing but e-peen. Less people will feel a need to cheat to get that phat lewt.

Much more varied mission types.

Creative and open maps. This is think we are slowly trending towards. perhaps a console refresh will allow consoles to handle the bigger maps PCs currently can. and as such. console devs will have more freedom.


Mod support. Need I explain why? Paid devs do an excellent job. They make good games. But someone working for no profit other than the love of their mod often does a far better job. and they bring new life to ageing games keeping them popular for the masses for much longer.

Also not every FPS has to be about the current middle east or russia. Some variation. Past future present. Would be welcomed by all i am sure.
 
Last edited:
I want more variety from FPS games and from games in general. It seems 90% of games are going down this same road of trying to be as cinematic and accessible as possible.

OK i get that CoD is popular and you want to sell CoD numbers but it seems the mid level games from 10 years ago don't exist and those were the games that i loved the most. There's no more Ravenshields, Swats, Hidden and Dangerous, Fears. Games that were great and nailed their formula now want to utterly reinvent, throwing away a lot of what made them good in the first place: Splinter cell, Hitman, Max Payne, Fear, thief...

i basically want games made for the PC first with mouse and keyboard as the intended input devices. I think that's my main problem with why i can't get on with current games. The control just feels wrong. I played FEAR followed by FEAR 2 recently. Loved the original, much more than i did when it was released. Best thing i've played in ages. I lasted about 20 minutes in the sequel.
 
Ironically though CoD is the one FPS franchise that has stuck to it's original formula of cinematic setpieces, albeit set in the modern age rather than WWII.

In terms of games being made for "PC first" I think we all know that isn't realistic for the majority of games, it will be much harder pitching to a publisher if you aren't on XB360 and/or PS3 in addition to PC. 10+ years ago FPS were the domain of the PC still but nowadays with the likes of COD on consoles there is a big market for them outside of the PC format.
 
More Serious Sam!

The OP was "What direction would people like the FPS market to go?" Most people's responses have been about multiplayer, with very few about single player.

For me, I'd like to see more emphasis on single player games. Let the pure multiplayer games be spun out into a separate market and abandon SP altogether (some have already, with the SP just a training mkode for MP).

For games with a decent SP campaign, I don't mind MP elements, as long as it enhances the SP (like being able to play through a campaign cooperatively, as in portal 2, Serious Sam, and Borderlands).

I want more exploration, which means pickups and secrets to find, and alternate routes through a level. Games which include elements along these lins are Borderlands again, Crysis, Serious Sam, Batman (not a shooter but a good SP campaign which includes serval of the elements I'm thinking about)

These things add to replayability, which for a single player-based game should be essential.

Maybe even RPG elements like skills and abilities you can acquire, like Borderlands.

If realism means regenerating health and being only able to carry two guns, then I don't want realism. Carrying multiple guns leads to tactics (when done well, see serious sam) - which gun is best right now? Being limited to 2 means you need advance knowledge of the map - it's a crapshoot first time, so it's a cheap way to force replaying. First you die, then you play again.

Regenerating health on the other hand rewards sitting still and doing nothing, whereas medpacks (or finding medical facilities, maybe) rewards moving, exploration, actually interacting with the level.

Less Cutscenes. The way they were done doom 3 and Serious Sam 3 was pretty godo - they were very short, and often used to highlight the arrival of a new monster. In games like doom 3, the story was advanced more through exploration - you'd find video or text logs, for instance. You weren't a passive spectator of a cutscene, you were an active explorer, piecing together the story as you explored, and perhaps not finding all of it until later playthroughs.
Another thing: no cutscenes in which your character does things you can't actually do in the game!

Games are not movies. Anything which reduces players to passive spectators is a bad thing IMO.
 
We need a new UT to balance out all this quasi-military bs (though I love BF3 dearly) - something that delivers on what UT3 was supposed to (though I love UT3 dearly).

In general for the BFs of this world, BIGGER. More scale, more scope, more players, more spectacle, much more detailed maps with varied landscape. The company that makes a game that fits these criteria will have the next gaming legend in its hands.
 
I just want a new UT tbh. UT1 is still my most played game and has been that way for 10 years with a bit of UT3 and QL thrown in. UT3 was close to what I wanted but released in such a bad state that I think it killed it before it even had a chance to succeed.

The trailer for Nexuiz looks promising for dm fps fans. Arenas, fast paced, based on cryengine3. Worth checking it out on youtube if you haven't seen it already.

It does seem like theres a gap in the FPS market for a game of this type now.
 
HangTime said:
Ironically though CoD is the one FPS franchise that has stuck to it's original formula of cinematic setpieces, albeit set in the modern age rather than WWII.

In terms of games being made for "PC first" I think we all know that isn't realistic for the majority of games, it will be much harder pitching to a publisher if you aren't on XB360 and/or PS3 in addition to PC. 10+ years ago FPS were the domain of the PC still but nowadays with the likes of COD on consoles there is a big market for them outside of the PC format.
Click to expand...

I agree, my problem is not with CoD but with every other game, especially ones where the gameplay is almost contrary to it, trying to grab a piece and killing their individuality to do so.

Too many devs (or more likely publishers) think they can make their game AAA and sell bucketloads. They can't and they don't so we see a lot of failures like Homefront that would probably have made more money concentrating on a niche market. I want games that chase a steady and reliable profit (paradox style) rather than want to sell 10 million in the first week. RO did it to an extent (even if its SP was non existent).

I agree that the expectation isn't too realistic these days but i think its a viable business model for companies to adopt and i'd like to see more try it and fill that gap between mage teams and two man indies.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom