What direction would people like the FPS market to go?

an end to the stupid duck hunt style single players of CoD and Battlefield 3

something more like the original half life would get my vote
 
It has always amazed me how many people judge things like Quake as a purely reactions-based game and seem to think that there is more strategy to things like Battlefield simply because you move slower.

Map control, pickup control, learning to work out people's locations from the sounds they make, situational weapon choice...the list goes on.

It's a really common misconception but it still bugs me to this day.

I guess I shouldn't really expect most people to bother to learn about something before dismissing it out of hand, though...
 
Planetside 2 is the future of FPS games. Why bother with AI scripted NPC's when you can just have 2000 human controlled players?

Discussion over.
 
Conscript said:
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.
Click to expand...

I do understand it, but my issue is that there is virtually nothing else. I enjoy a good realistic shooter as much as the next guy. But fairly regularly I find myself craving some really silly, hilarious one-liner ridden carnage. It's so hard to find something to fill that void that has decent graphics and is recently released. Duke nukem forever, bulletstorm, serious same BFE compared to how many realistic shooters? Everyone clamouring for more realism and more realistic shooters is just annoying because it highlights how unlikely it is that we'll see genuinely innovative FPS.

If I could time travel I'd be bringing back MW year 3000, BF78 and any other future realistic shooters (which of course by then would hopefully be really rather good and set well in the past) and then that would be it. Job done, nothing needed except DLC for that from the developers and then studios could do something imaginative and creative.
 
I really miss FPS games the way they were back in the Quake 2 / Quake 3 era. Ive tried games like COD, BF and Crysis 2 but they just dont feel right. Crysis 2 was the last game I tried to get back into online FPS but the pure luck that is involved from spray is just ridiculous! In Quake you had a railgun luck never really came into it, all skill!

I find the community on servers very different in current FPS games prob due to too many whining 12 year olds!
 
lrlcr said:
I do understand it, but my issue is that there is virtually nothing else. I enjoy a good realistic shooter as much as the next guy. But fairly regularly I find myself craving some really silly, hilarious one-liner ridden carnage. It's so hard to find something to fill that void that has decent graphics and is recently released. Duke nukem forever, bulletstorm, serious same BFE compared to how many realistic shooters? Everyone clamouring for more realism and more realistic shooters is just annoying because it highlights how unlikely it is that we'll see genuinely innovative FPS.

If I could time travel I'd be bringing back MW year 3000, BF78 and any other future realistic shooters (which of course by then would hopefully be really rather good and set well in the past) and then that would be it. Job done, nothing needed except DLC for that from the developers and then studios could do something imaginative and creative.
Click to expand...

But that's the thing - the realitic shooters arent realistic in any way past the way they look. That's my objection. I think were on the same side here - you want less realism in your games but see lots of "realistic" shooters on the market, whereas I want some more realism, but the "realistic" shooters aren't.

For example: Modern Warfare/Battlefied 3, probably the two most popular shooters currently. Looks realistic. Has authentic looking weapons. Real world environments. Authentic sound effects. It basically does everything to convice you that it is an accurate representation of the physical world.

So, I come along to play it. I see a game where the devleopers have done their best to recreate a contemporary environment with real weapons and tactics available. But when I actually come to play, the base mechanics are very similar to any other shooter. I shoot an enemy player in this realistic world and expect a realistic reaction. Instead, I am frustrated by filling them with bullets and having them survive, jump backwards and forwards a few times then dissapear to regenerate their health. I find that a real immersion breaker personally. I'm guessing for people at the other end of the scale such as yourself, you find it frustrating that to you the game is what you want mechanically but dressed up in yet another a realistic facade?

This is perhaps more obvious in MW3, but I hope you see my point. This is why I prefer hardcore modes in BF3. I know it's still not a realistic game, but it helps to keep that real world immersion. I dont want that from all games - like you, I enjoy fast paced FPS as well, as long as that's the obvious intention of the game. But I find that the realistic shooters you refer to are only realistic on the surface - their underlying game mechanic is still appealing to a much more traditional FPS style, and it annoys me that I can find few such games which play like the real world as well.

Red Orchestra is about the best example I can think of which is a middle ground between the above mention games and all-out military simulator. It looks and sounds like an authentic WW2 game, plays fluidly and smoothy and has simplified a lot of the mechanics in order to be fun to play and familiar to pick up for all audiences. But it also features realistic damage models, ballistics and weapon loadouts etc.

I'm not saying that all games need to move to be more realistic. Absolutely not. I just want games which present me with an authentic realistic environment to at least mirror that authenticism in their mechanics. And I think that you would be happier to see games return to a more imaginative and abstract vision, rather than as you say MW3000 and BF78, would that be fair to say?

We are arguing two sides of the same coin, I think. But, there's room in the market for all types of players, so there's no need for animmosity between those who want different things :)
 
Last edited:
Something that is as fun as the original Counter Strike when that came out.

Half Life.

Quake.

Duke Nukem 3D.

Problem is that everything has been done before hasn't it? :/
 
FrenchTart said:
It has always amazed me how many people judge things like Quake as a purely reactions-based game and seem to think that there is more strategy to things like Battlefield simply because you move slower.

Map control, pickup control, learning to work out people's locations from the sounds they make, situational weapon choice...the list goes on.

It's a really common misconception but it still bugs me to this day.

I guess I shouldn't really expect most people to bother to learn about something before dismissing it out of hand, though...
Click to expand...

There's more strategy in a game like battlefield because it's a team game, and you have far more tools available to help you achieve the goal. All the elements you mentioned are present in battlefield (well, except pickups), but you've also got the added layer of stategy that comes with vehicle use, coordinated teamplay, spawn control, class distribution use of less conventional weapons such as mines and remote charges, etc.

I was in a bf1942 clan which played competitive matches, and the way we'd play was COMPLETELY different to what you see on public servers where people are just looking to get into a firefight, rather than playing as part of a co-ordinated team. If a team of 32 people are not coordinated, it often becomes random and very un-skill-based (i know that's not a word ;)) beacause you're just 1 of 64 on a server, and no matter how high your indiviual skill is, it's going to be diffiicult for your contribution to make a difference in the match.

I played a lot of qIII back in the day, and I know the sensible strategies for a lot of the maps. I wouldn't be able to implement it against top players though, because of the skill levels involved. We'd both try and run the same route, and I'd get rail gunned within a few seconds of us meeting, whilst he dodges all my shots like he's Neo.
 
jimbob27 said:
There's more strategy in a game like battlefield because it's a team game, and you have far more tools available to help you achieve the goal. All the elements you mentioned are present in battlefield (well, except pickups), but you've also got the added layer of stategy that comes with vehicle use, coordinated teamplay, spawn control, class distribution use of less conventional weapons such as mines and remote charges, etc.

I was in a bf1942 clan which played competitive matches, and the way we'd play was COMPLETELY different to what you see on public servers where people are just looking to get into a firefight, rather than playing as part of a co-ordinated team. If a team of 32 people are not coordinated, it often becomes random and very un-skill-based (i know that's not a word ;)) beacause you're just 1 of 64 on a server, and no matter how high your indiviual skill is, it's going to be diffiicult for your contribution to make a difference in the match.

I played a lot of qIII back in the day, and I know the sensible strategies for a lot of the maps. I wouldn't be able to implement it against top players though, because of the skill levels involved. We'd both try and run the same route, and I'd get rail gunned within a few seconds of us meeting, whilst he dodges all my shots like he's Neo.
Click to expand...

Not really... Some of the tactics I mentioned are indeed in Battlefield, though often are of less importance than they are in Quake. You also can't fairly compare a team game of BF against a random public FFA server in Quake. I completely agree that the public deathmatch games are indeed random spam fests, but those are a far cry from TDM, CPMA, Rocket Arena and 1v1.

Variety of weapons and the addition of vehicles doesn't really add as much strategy as you're suggesting, either. Of course it's nice when you can call in support and having the option to try for various kinds of armour superiority in certain situations but it's not that this is really such a huge part of the strategy that the lack of it in Quake means that it's just a mindless shooter in comparison. In fact, there's a lot of people that believe that vehicles in the BF series make the game more spammy and detract from the general strategy.

I am not going to out and out say that there is *more* strategy involved in a Quake game than in a Battlefield game. What I am trying to say is that the common misconception amongst many Battlefield (etc) players is that Quake is just about running around like a madman. At low skill levels, sure, that's what you'll see, but at the mid to high levels you have a very deep game. The fact that you *also* need decent reactions as a prerequisite doesn't detract from that.

edit: From how you've described your playing of Q3 then I can fully understand why you have come to the conclusion you have but there really is a lot more to it than that :)
 
Last edited:
Sider said:
I really hope they nail PS2
Click to expand...

They won't though, will they?

SOE just can't help it. You want them to succeed because MMOFPS is an amazing concept and as badly wrong as they got it in a lot of places with PS the first it had so much obvious potential but somehow they always disappoint.

I want the FPS market to get a bit diversified and not go in any one direction.

It's super dull that they're basically all just copying each other and making sit on couch console games. Don't get me wrong, I like those games but I also don't like them being the only games.

I'd like a couple more developers to get back into more complex think-ey PC games.

I miss tac shooters for example. Nobody is making GR type games anymore. I saw this "Making of" vid about R6: Vegas. They have a physics engine capable of handling a semi-realism shooter. They make that game first. They then tune everything to conform to what people are expecting from watching 24 / John Woo movies. "Well this gun is pretty realistic in real life but in movies it sprays bullets everywhere..." "Shotguns don't have superb penetration but everyone knows from TV that they do so..."

Or something as complicated as System Shock. That wouldn't get made nowadays.
 
Last edited:
Sadly I think you’re right :( I love the MMOFPS concept too but thanks to consoles and the general dubbed down style of games now days I can’t see them getting it right.

I am however open to surprises :)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom