First Person Shooters

[PJ]

Yet another one?

Am I the only one who thinks that this genre is all... the same?

My friend was telling me why XBox 360 was so superior to the PS3 (This isn't a console debate, btw, I'm just saying), and he was saying all these 360 exclusive titles;

Now, I know there are 360 exclusives that AREN'T shooters, but his only examples happened to be shooters.

So now, here's what I have to say: I don't care for shooting games

I can't aim well, I don't like the perspective. I DO like Halo, but that's because there's a) A car that's hilariously fun to drive [and honk], b) Rocket Launchers that are fun to blow shit up and c) An Energy Sword to slash things up.

What? WHAT?! But those are all noob things! I'm not gonna pretend I'm good at Halo, so I just go to what I enjoy most, and that's those things. My friend was telling me about Call of Duty

"You get Grenade Launchers, it's like Rocket Launchers, only with realistic shellshock!"

WTF? Do I CARE about realism in video games? No, I don't want to have SHELLSHOCK after I've shot JUST BECAUSE IT'S REALISTIC. My friend then proceeds to tell me that I only like futuristic sci-fi things in games it seems. Yeah, I guess it if means I don't get SHELLSHOCK when I EXPLODE.

And not only all this, but pretty much all shooting games seem the same pretty much. I assume Bioshock is different, otherwise it wouldn't have so much hype... right? http://www.pso-world.com/images/phpbb/icons/smiles/icon_confused.gif But the rest of the shooting games really aren't all that special.

[amtalx]

Bioshock is more of an adventure game than typical shooter. Less blasting and more thinking. But yea...most FPS games are the same. There are a few that decide to do something different, or actually try some new. For the most part though, the whole FPS genre is meh.

[ABDUR101]

They call it a 'genre' for a reason, duh? First Person Shooter; yeah you're pretty much stuck with perspective, it's going to be 'first person', and odds are there's going to be shooting or bashing of things in..'first person'. It's not going to have the flexibility of something under 'action adventure' because 'action adventure' type games could be simple 2D, massive 3D, and any-kind of gameplay thrown in.

HellGate:London atleast adds an experience, equipment/inventory system, with classes. And there are other FPS shooters that do that, but again, if you don't like the 'first person' perspective, then what do you expect? If you're not good at it, you're not good at it.

The fact that you say you're not good at them is why you don't get into them and enjoy them for what they are. I don't play a FPS often for the story(Halo and afew other fps' being the exception), it's the gameplay itself that keeps me coming back. The multiplayer aswell has to be solid, intense and long-lasting(and we're talking a multiplayer with tactics, not just run and gun constantly down corridors).

I don't enjoy card games, to me every card game is the same; boring and not worth my time merely because I don't like playing cards. Poker? Texas Hold'em? Solitaire? Sorry, I'd rather go dig a ditch. That doesn't mean there aren't plenty of people who understand and fully enjoy playing cards, I just can't get into them, so I leave them alone.

It's like FPS with you, not every FPS is the same, you notice changes and differences based on them as you play, much the same way a card player will enjoy the differences between Poker and Texas Hold'em.

[PJ]

Well, clearly, if you don't enjoy something, you're gonna look at them all the same way anyways http://www.pso-world.com/images/phpbb/icons/smiles/icon_wacko.gif

I understand there are differences to each game (Otherwise there wouldn't be so many), but for someone like me who doesn't care...

And yeah, it's a genre, so that's how it should be, but the FPS genre seems to be way more limited in what it can do, or atleast what they do do, compared to, say, the adventure genre.

[amtalx]

There isn't a problem with the genre, it's the games. Every genre has its "run of the mill" games. It just seems that FPS has a great deal of them. Whether its devs being lazy, or its just a hard genre do differentiate yourself in, who knows.

[ABDUR101]

The genre is 'first person shooter', you just said you can't aim well and so on, so obviously you'd have a very hard time getting into any FPS due to that. Much the way that card games elude me, I don't 'get it', so I don't care to play cards.

However, the point I made was there isn't alot of innovation you can add to the FPS genre, it's first person, there's shooting, and if you don't like the underlining gameplay mechanics or can't play it well, it doesn't matter what else is thrown in to the mix you're not going to enjoy the game itself; because the game is still going to be a FPS. And of course FPS are much more limited, you have to build a game around a first-person viewpoint, that limits you immensely. Thats what I just said, it's not like a set of ten games all labeled "Action adventure RPG" and each one could play entirely different. Turn-based combat, real-time combat, top-down perspective, side-perspective, third-person perspective, those changes alone can make a game something it wasn't before.

I don't play many FPS's anymore merely because most are just 'run of the mill', they bring nothing new, and most often their 'story' is not all that interesting or captivating, and even if it is, more often than not the gameplay, level design, gameplay or game-control doesn't feel right.

I'll cite Call of Duty 2, it's controls were tight and responsive; but when CoD3 came out, the multiplayer in that piqued my interest. Vehicles, strategic action. But after playing the multiplayer and finding the control scheme and even the game-engine itself shot to shit, I scrapped it and gave it to my nephews. It just wasn't fun to play.

Thats basically what it comes down to. You can make the most beautiful peice of shit in the world; but in the end it's still a peice of shit.(Put that in context of anything, it could be the controls, the story, game mechanics, etc)

First person shooters are very much 'touch and go', and 'hit or miss'. Either you play it and can get into it, or the game itself just doesn't hit the mark it should have in some area and that causes it to just fail with everything else.(i.e. a bad control scheme will kill a game)

[Para]

I was never much of a FPS player myself either...

Maybe playing Golden Eye and Turok 2/Rage Wars occassionally with friends but that was really it. Never really got into FPS games on PC.

Then along came UT2k4 which I thought was an awesome game XD Just run in blast around kill die respawn etc. Can't wait till UT3 http://www.pso-world.com/images/phpbb/icons/smiles/icon_biggrin.gif

[ZodiacNKnight]

I'm into Battlefield 2 and Battlefield 2142. It's kind of like starwars battlefront but a whole lot better and some. BF2: Project Reality Mod is the most realistic game to modern day warfare you can ever get to. If you get hit you go into shock and if you don't get medical assistance immediately you bleed out / die.

BF2: Ambush at Mashtuur
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fBoXQH-c_fk

Project Reality 0.5
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IzUQbA8Ls-Q

Project Reality 0.6
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3Zyk23QRSgw

There are some technical issues that may question whether BF2/BF2142 skipped beta but it's good gameplay none the less.



<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: ZodiacNKnight on 2007-08-23 11:51 ]</font>

[amtalx]

On 2007-08-23 11:47, Para wrote:
I was never much of a FPS player myself either...

Maybe playing Golden Eye and Turok 2/Rage Wars occassionally with friends but that was really it. Never really got into FPS games on PC.

Then along came UT2k4 which I thought was an awesome game XD Just run in blast around kill die respawn etc. Can't wait till UT3 http://www.pso-world.com/images/phpbb/icons/smiles/icon_biggrin.gif



Quake I > All http://www.pso-world.com/images/phpbb/icons/smiles/icon_biggrin.gif

I STILL have old school Quake matches. id wrote the book on deathmatch...literally.

[360NyTeMaRe]

I think all FPS games are the same too. The reason is, well...because they SUCK. Especially these new "innovative" ones with magic and telekinetic powers.

[Solstis]

I liked Call of Duty: United Offensive because of the vehicles and intense multiplayer action. A lot of cat and mouse sniper battles. CoD 2 was okay, though they somehow made sniping easier.

I'm not particullarly great at FPS games, but I have a keen eye and a knack for surprising people. I'm generally screwed in a straight-out gunbattle (which is why I lolsuck at single player).

But, yeah, there's a lot of generic "meh" FPS games. I think that they came out with 5 Vietnam games in one summer.

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Solstis on 2007-08-23 13:21 ]</font>

[Weeaboolits]

Only FPS games I really played are Halo and Call of Duty 2, my aim isn't that good, so I don't of play them myself.

[Dre_o]

Meh, It's all in the player.

Personally, I'm a FPS god. Rainbow 6, Unreal (preferably Championship), Perfect Dark, it doesn't matter. I've got aprox. .14 second reaction time and instincts that will put the cross air on the head the first shot.

You could say I'm a natural killer. http://www.pso-world.com/images/phpbb/icons/smiles/icon_wacko.gif

But it's purely the person. If you're not very quick minded or just a little overbearing in your movements, FPS's can be VERY difficult and not very fun.

(Note: I firmly believe that Halo 2 is the WORST FPS ever made. I don't care if it sold well. If you can have your cross air COMPLETELY off of the enemy's body and the bullet CURVES to hit the enemy, you've got a problem. And when you can use an NON-PROPELLED blade in MID-AIR to ACCELERATE into your opponent for an OHKO, you've got a problem. And when you can fire a ROCKET LAUNCHER in MID-AIR and not get blown back by the FULLY ACCELERATING ROCKET, you've got a problem. Oh but I digress...)

[Weeaboolits]

It's in the future, recoil inhibitor to the max, I guess. :/

I like the multiplayer campaign, I don't like playin' FPS solo. :/

[MetaZedlen]

On 2007-08-23 15:50, Dre_o wrote:
(Note: I firmly believe that Halo 2 is the WORST FPS ever made. I don't care if it sold well. If you can have your cross air COMPLETELY off of the enemy's body and the bullet CURVES to hit the enemy, you've got a problem. And when you can use an NON-PROPELLED blade in MID-AIR to ACCELERATE into your opponent for an OHKO, you've got a problem. And when you can fire a ROCKET LAUNCHER in MID-AIR and not get blown back by the FULLY ACCELERATING ROCKET, you've got a problem. Oh but I digress...)

That, and the fact that you can only carry 2 weapons...

Why in the hell did they start that concept, it didn't even exist back in the days of Doom!!!

[Solstis]

On 2007-08-23 15:50, Dre_o wrote:
Meh, It's all in the player.

Personally, I'm a FPS god. Rainbow 6, Unreal (preferably Championship), Perfect Dark, it doesn't matter. I've got aprox. .14 second reaction time and instincts that will put the cross air on the head the first shot.

You could say I'm a natural killer. http://www.pso-world.com/images/phpbb/icons/smiles/icon_wacko.gif

But it's purely the person. If you're not very quick minded or just a little overbearing in your movements, FPS's can be VERY difficult and not very fun.

(Note: I firmly believe that Halo 2 is the WORST FPS ever made. I don't care if it sold well. If you can have your cross air COMPLETELY off of the enemy's body and the bullet CURVES to hit the enemy, you've got a problem. And when you can use an NON-PROPELLED blade in MID-AIR to ACCELERATE into your opponent for an OHKO, you've got a problem. And when you can fire a ROCKET LAUNCHER in MID-AIR and not get blown back by the FULLY ACCELERATING ROCKET, you've got a problem. Oh but I digress...)



I like Halo. It's not the best FPS, but it's fun. It doesn't require much skill to be good at, but quite a bit to "master." I hate Unreal. It's a frantic mess. Yeah, there's no autoaiming, but you can do crazy, unrealistic crap in that game too. Oh man, rail guns are totally not possible. Goo guns? OMGREALISTIC. RANT RAVE RABBLE. Whatever.

I thought that I was a videogame snob, but, eh, guess not.

[Blitzkommando]

I personally don't like console shooters. They tend to be sluggish, have ghastly easy auto-aim built in, and the controls are frankly junk. Other people can't stand PC shooters and that's fine. Will I call console games stupid, sucky, or other silly things because I don't enjoy playing my shooters on consoles? Not unless I've played the game that is mentioned, and then I'll give reasons why I feel it is that way but I won't go to insulting people that do like it. That's their taste, this is mine. My type of shooter is fast, furious, has a decent amount of puzzles, but also has some areas where I can slow down (or stop fighting entirely) to simply enjoy the scenery (afterall, that is why the developer put it there, right?). BUT, I also like shooters that allow you to set the pace to as slow as you want simply to explore the world, almost like an adventure game (Stalker was great about that) and if it has nice little puzzles to solve every so often, that's even better (Half-Life had plenty of little puzzles to go through).

Shooters aren't all the same but have similar traits between them. If you don't play them individually you won't see that and will simply see 'yet another shooter... yawn'. I could say the same of RPGs if I didn't play them. The vast majority are turn-based and have similar combat/non-combat systems and, ooh, lookey you level up. But, oh, wait, not all RPGs are the same! They share similar roots but that's because, omigosh, they're all part of a single genre. Calling an entire genre stupid, or sucky, or whatnot because you personally don't like that type of game, don't have the reflexes, puzzle solving ability, or interest doesn't shine a good light on you. It frankly makes you look arrogant and ignorant, just like doing the same of anything.

There are action-adventure/RPG FPS games out there. I already mentioned Stalker as it has quite obvious role-playing and adventure properties (you roam a gigantic world, collect items, armor, and weapons to better your combat ability, and the AI interacts with itself and you in a rather interesting and dynamic way). Another is the recently released BioShock which out of what I have played thus far has turned out to be a spectacular blend of role-playing and shooters. If you want to go way back try out Heretic or HeXen. Or more recently the RPG that was played in both first and third-person, Oblivion. If you don't like the fact that you play in first-person in first person shooters, then I can understand why you don't enjoy them. But, you will miss out on some of the best games ever made if you single them out simply because you can't see your character.

My final point is to reiterate my first point, there is a rather noticable differenece between console shooters and PC shooters. Yes, using a keyboard and mouse is hugely different than interacting with a controller. My preference is for that mouse and keyboard as it solves some of the issues you yourself mentioned (hard to aim and interact primarily). But, again, that's how it usually is between PC games and console games. Both are developed for very different people most times and they have completely different feels from each other. Part of that is just how easy it is to develop for a console. There's no variability in hardware so they can code it very specifically. But with PCs you can get a game today that won't play at maximum settings on your current computer because the game is so far ahead of the current hardware. But, in a year or two when the new hardware comes out, you turn up the settings and like magic the game can change with it. The result is almost like playing the game for the first time again and it can be quite fun. The other thing that PC games have been able to do is be modified or to have mods created using the retail game's engine. The mods alone are reason enough for me to really stick with PC gaming like I have. Some of the best games I've ever played have been completely free game mods (Azure Sheep, Scientist Slaughter House, Scientist Hunt, UT2004RPG, Garry's Mod, Poke 646, and SMOD to name but a few). And some mods become so big, and so successful that the creators end up being hired by the original company to continue the mod (Counter-Strike being the most famous).

As for railguns (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Railgun), they do in fact exist and are currently being used and developed. Of course, that's barring the fact the Railgun only appears in the Quake series with the Flak Cannon taking its place in UT games. And goo guns (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sticky_foam)? Been there, done that. The Marines even used them in Somolia. Sure Unreal has its share of fantasy, but the weaponry is all completely possible, albeit possibly impractical (and are possibly being developed or used today).

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Norvekh on 2007-08-23 20:53 ]</font>

[Shiro_Ryuu]

Guess I'm not alone in this whole hate for FPS. I'm not a big FPS person either. I just dont' find them to be my taste in games.

[Weeaboolits]

I don't hate them, I just don't play them often, I prefer third person usually, like to see what's behind me and such. :/

[Sgt_Shligger]

On 2007-08-23 15:50, Dre_o wrote:
Meh, It's all in the player.

Personally, I'm a FPS god. Rainbow 6, Unreal (preferably Championship), Perfect Dark, it doesn't matter. I've got aprox. .14 second reaction time and instincts that will put the cross air on the head the first shot.

You could say I'm a natural killer. http://www.pso-world.com/images/phpbb/icons/smiles/icon_wacko.gif

But it's purely the person. If you're not very quick minded or just a little overbearing in your movements, FPS's can be VERY difficult and not very fun.

(Note: I firmly believe that Halo 2 is the WORST FPS ever made. I don't care if it sold well. If you can have your cross air COMPLETELY off of the enemy's body and the bullet CURVES to hit the enemy, you've got a problem. And when you can use an NON-PROPELLED blade in MID-AIR to ACCELERATE into your opponent for an OHKO, you've got a problem. And when you can fire a ROCKET LAUNCHER in MID-AIR and not get blown back by the FULLY ACCELERATING ROCKET, you've got a problem. Oh but I digress...)



But. . . It's a video game. It's not supposed to be realistic.

The needler is a homing weapon, let it home. Master Chief is a bionic super-human. He weighs a half ton and can lift a tank. There BETTER not be any blow back on my rocket launcher.

The energy sword... Maybe it's attracted to shields http://www.pso-world.com/images/phpbb/icons/smiles/icon_wacko.gif

[ABDUR101]

Dre_o did a good job of basically negating the points he was trying to make. You can't shootdown one game for it's gameplay mechanics and citing "it's not realistic" and then say you love Unreal Tournament..."Unreal" Tournament..with aliens and demons and everything in between as playable characters, not to mention the myriad of absurd weapons available.

But again; Halo's auto-aiming is part of the gameplay mechanics. To me it felt right for the game, while in other, more realistic FPSs, 'auto-aim' doesn't seem right at all. Most often if given the option to switch between the two, I tend to turn it off to see how the game flows. Some games feel ok with it, while other games it can actually hinder you from getting kills.

I think you really need to take each game for what it is, and give an overall impression. "Does this work with what they did here, does the sum of the games parts mesh properly to give an overall good gameplay experience". Much in the sense that the Halo series limits you to two weapons. They do that because they don't want you running around with a shitload of the most powerful weapons for every encounter. Every enemy drops their weapon, you're meant to feel frantic and make decisions. "ok, do I want to stick with my energy rifle/sniper rifle for what might be up ahead, or switch out and pick up the rocket launcher..". Knowing that one decision or the other will give you a benefit in either direction.

I think Halo would have been a very different, and not nearly as fun and frantic game if you were tugging around every weapon; honestly the most fun were the times when you were watching your ammo meter go down and you're thinking mid-fire fight "Shit, I've gotta scramble over and get to that plasma rifle.." while you were trying to make use of cover and smacking enemies who tried to run up on you. Or after the big firefight, instead of running through and picking up every gun, you ran through and checked the weapons, picked up the ones with the most ammo and moved on.

Thats why the game was memorable, because it wasn't just some endless run and gun, you were still thinking tactically even after the fight was over, in preperation for the next fight.

[DurakkenX]

from a design perspective Most FPSs are total trash. Reskin this or that, change setting, change how many rounds something can hold, amount of damage something can do... the only difference between most FPSs are what they look like and the numbers they use for the different guns...oh and how many different numbers they use to create more guns.

I'm not saying all FPSs suck though. i loved to play Perfect Dark. Head Sniping people with a standard Falcon 2 from outside of scope visual range was just fun, but most are the exact same and don't even try to be innovative and every time someone says this new FPS was awesome the first thing they turn to is something graphical... though that is to be expected considering that graphics is pretty much all that the last 10 years has been about in most cases.

The only thing worse than FPSs in my opinion is Sports games v.v I can't stand people who would pay $50 a year for the same game.

As far as how good I am at FPSs...well anything other than Perfect Dark, I suck at, but I don't play FPSs a lot, PD I played a lot. FPS players also annoy me as to learn that game you have to pick it up slowly, while there isn't a lot of skills involved, the ones that are are hard to learn and the only way you can really learn them is by playing with other players and most often they are going to be more experienced than you and after they find you there isn't much "learning" that is involved, just being fragged over and over again. It's hard to learn a game when you're dead 98% of the learn time ^.^

[Weeaboolits]

All this FPS talk kinda' makes me wanna' boot up Metroid Prime. http://www.pso-world.com/images/phpbb/icons/smiles/icon_wacko.gif

[amtalx]

On 2007-08-24 10:07, Ronin_Cooper wrote:
All this FPS talk kinda' makes me wanna' boot up Metroid Prime. http://www.pso-world.com/images/phpbb/icons/smiles/icon_wacko.gif



Corruption next week. WIIIIIIIIIIIIIII!!

[Para]

The thing is with Unreal... its very easy to pick up and play. With its high damaging weapons, anyone can score a kill without too much trouble but there's a lot of depth with its dodging and aiming that makes it a game worthy to play for awhile but that's my opinion hehe.

[Sekani]

I only like the more strategic FPS games such as Rainbow Six, Ghost Recon, and Gears of War. Nothing is a bigger buzzkill then joining a multiplayer match in Halo or Unreal Tournament and watching everyone bounce around like kangaroos on speed. Leave the acrobatics out of my game, thank you very much.

I also play almost exclusively on consoles because WASD-style PC controls become extremely uncomfortable if I play for more than twenty minutes or so.

[Weeaboolits]

I like gears, partially because it's third person, which I like better. also, it was fun to play co-op.

Didn't like the things that killed you in the dark, though. http://www.pso-world.com/images/phpbb/icons/smiles/icon_frown.gif

[Arcyon]

Timesplitters series?
A good match of Frantic Virus with a few people is enough to get your pulse racing =]

[opaopajr]

if i didn't get so horrendously motion sick playing them i might be more willing to think of FPS in better terms. funny that, because you can literally drop me in any roller coaster or airplane turbulence and i can sleep like a log. i found the premise of running around corridors 'taggin' each other entertaining -- i mean it's like lode runner for the modern age. but sadly i cannot partake, so i must write-off any FPS advantages a system touts.