FPS's MOST important qualities.

[zerooneeleven]

What do you guys think? Don't just agree with me, this isn't a thread about speed, say what you think is most important to be found in an FPS! It might surprise some of you.

I think you're talking less about speed and more about movement in general. But what exactly do you have in mind to innovate on that isn't on the market? Brink and Bulletstorm are signs that the market is shifting toward more complex movement controls.

Personally, I think that the best FPS games are complemented by tools, which provide a break from the monotony of aiming and shooting as well as adding a tactical layer. Battlefield: BC2 (tracer gun, motion detector, ammo/health kits, repair tool), Black Ops (tactical insertion, Decoy Grenade, Jammer, flashbangs), Homefront (drones) are good examples of using tools to gain an edge over enemies. And I'd really like to see the integration of tools more into FPS games: barbed-wire cutters, det-cord to breach doors, IR beacons to mark enemy locations, etc. Essentially, more interactions with the environment. If you want to pitch a specific idea, I'd go with something along the lines of a "private contractor" (read: mercenary) in the 1970s and 1980s, training soldiers in Africa, Iran, Iraq, China, the USSR satellite nations.

 

[LoFr3Eq]

The most important thing is an engine with 0 errors. Immersion is the most important part of FPS and this must be the thing that is flawless. All the innovation in the world won't count for anything unless the engine is great. Any time you see an enemy walking into a wall and still walking will break how you see yourself actively in the game.

Also as many people have already mentioned, movement and speed is very very important. any time you can't run as fast as you'd like and die will break immersion.

 

[BENZOOKA]

Ahh, I disagree with practically anything about what OP said...

Solid controls and frame-rate.

This is why COD keeps on performing better than anyone trying to compete - it is more immersive to the eyes at 60FPS and has arguably the most fluid, responsive controls in a shooter.

Responsive controls are vital, yes, but what has framerate got to do with game's qualities?

And in the world of Counter-Strike (and UT2004, for example), 60 fps is not enough. Solid 100 fps and 75 hz, at least, and we're talking. But even then it's about hardware, configs and preferences. And I'd argue very strongly against tying those superlative qualities to COD. In fact, I'm sure that could even be proven quite simply.

 

[A Weakgeek]

Inventory space. Explain how i can hold 8 bajillion guns?

You can because the developers chose to take the "Amazingly retarded" way of giving players variety.

 

[HerbertTheHamster]

Ahh, I disagree with practically anything about what OP said...

Solid controls and frame-rate.

This is why COD keeps on performing better than anyone trying to compete - it is more immersive to the eyes at 60FPS and has arguably the most fluid, responsive controls in a shooter.

Responsive controls are vital, yes, but what has framerate got to do with game's qualities?

And in the world of Counter-Strike (and UT2004, for example), 60 fps is not enough. Solid 100 fps and 75 hz, at least, and we're talking. But even then it's about hardware, configs and preferences. And I'd argue very strongly against tying those superlative qualities to COD. In fact, I'm sure that could even be proven quite simply.

If your screen is 75 hz, you won't see the extra 25 fps. The screen updating 75 times a second would bottleneck the game.

We can barely see any difference beyond 60 fps anyway.

OT: FPS games are fun if you make them quick and responsive and have loads o guns. FPS/RPG hybrids like Stalker are a different story, however.

 

[godofallu]

Multiplayer with decent maps and weapons.

I want quick kills, and some form of radar or map so you can plan ahead. I want UAV's or motion trackers or something to let me plan ambushes.

Then make sure you have regening health. No the quarter system doesn't cut it.

 

[BRMXJzjsoawk321]

-

 

[Nmil-ek]

I really don't like modern FPS so for me what makes or breaks one is the following, weapons I need good weapons "realistic" shooters are a dime a dozen I don't want my weapons to sound silenced and have realistic ranges. To be frank I want my shotguns to be point blank and sound like the world is ending with ever shell. And please stop with the copying standard military hardware shit, where are the sawn off shotguns, alien toad things from half life, lazer guns, saw blade guns, chainguns, BFG's.

Regenerating health, know what I'm fine with this but make it slower regenerating health makes fps far too easy these days when your back to full in 15 seconds and removes strafing/positioning as a vital element of play. Stop with the red jam shit and start with better ideas how about a limp after x amount of damage or arm injuries that knock aim off of balance that slowly reset to normal.

Gimmicks, I like gimmicks sure alot of other people do aswell bulletstroms point thing was a nice distraction as were bioshocks audio log's or painkillers minigames if there's nothing to do but shoot waves of enemies shit gets old fast.

Linearity/length can we please stop with corridor design it removes all strategy remember all the twists, turns, vents, jumps, power up rooms of old why can we not have that shit back.

 

[AnAngryMoose]

Maps are extremely important. Because of the maps in Halo: Reach I didn't play it anywhere near as long as I did with Halo 3. Also, weapon balance.

Personally, when it comes to multiplayer the experience is so much more more enjoyable when everyone has a role and isn't Rambo. That is why I love BF:BC 2 so much. Also, epic-scale fights. Not necessarily throwing wave upon wave of footsoldier grunts at you, though. For example. Today while playing BC2 I was defending I think the third segment of Oasis. It. Was. Awesome. There wasn't even a single footsoldier to be seen. The battle consisted of an enemy Apache making strafing runs and leveling most of the place. There were also a couple tanks mounted on some high ground and we had a couple people picking off anyone who was making a run for the M-Comms. The adrenaline was really pumping as I rushed around with my defibrillator and Medkit healing people while everthing exploded.

 

[BENZOOKA]

If your screen is 75 hz, you won't see the extra 25 fps. The screen updating 75 times a second would bottleneck the game.

We can barely see any difference beyond 60 fps anyway.

Please tell me your joking. I wasn't going to reply because I took your response as obvious trolling attempt at first.

Nothing you say is true, except for 75 Hz not giving more fps, but that is just because Hertz are a completely different thing than frames-per-second...

Bottleneck... That makes absolutely no sense. Cows chew and vomit the whole Eiffel tower annually?

80fps, 100fps, 150fps. With those, differences noticeable very quickly. It's a world of difference.

 

[Phlakes]

Regenerating health, know what I'm fine with this but make it slower regenerating health makes fps far too easy these days when your back to full in 15 seconds

More like five seconds. Or in Homefront, about three. BFBC2 does it well by making it considerably longer, especially so that medkits actually have a purpose.

 

[Jimmy T. Malice]

@godofallu: So you want Call of Duty... another clone of that is exactly what we need.

 

[silver wolf009]

Good clipping/hit detection. Nothing sucks more than bullets that are made from a different universal material than our own and pass right throught their target.

 

[Srs bzns]

I no longer think you can define FPS's by calling them FPS And Nothing Else.
There is a lot of variety in them, (stay with me) Halo is the polar opposite of CoD, to take a well known 'debate' and throw it on the burner. Define what kind of shooter is needed first.
A fast paced, B-Movie style kill-em-up like CoD
Something set in the future, add some vehicles and a decent crouch button and there is Halo.
A tactical shooter, like Battlefield, with big maps, big numbers of players, and enough military equipment to take a city.

 

[Kevon Huggins]

with 8 bajion arms
but seriously nice campaign and weapons and mp

 

[Zaik]

A feeling of some sort of pressure or urgency.

There are three games in particular that did a good job of that. In no particular order...

FEAR - Until you realized the the game was completely broken up into a fight scare fight scare fight scare pattern, it really felt like every shadow could jump out to eat your face off.

System Shock 2 - Probably the best of the bunch. I felt like i was barely hanging on by a thread the entire time, especially at one point about halfway through where I was completely lost for three hours, desperately searching for some way into a cockpit or something. Enemies were constantly spawning and I was losing a lot more fighting them than I was gaining killing them. I wasn't sure I was going to make it, or how long I'd have to go back if I didn't.

Serious Sam(can't remember which, it was before the actual "Serious Sam 2" though.) - A game where your biggest issue was killing fast enough, rather than ammo or curscenes or some nonsense. The best part was this humongous open area that had a bunch of retractable walls that would shoot up as you got to them, and you ended up fighting tons of aliens as you made your way through the maze. After making it through the maze there was another huge open area with respawning health and ammo in the center. You were pretty much forced to make your stand right there in the center as hundreds of enemies poured out from every direction possible, and probably some that weren't possible. It was crazy and awesome and I've never seen anything even remotely as cool since.

 

[MiracleOfSound]

Responsive controls are vital, yes, but what has framerate got to do with game's qualities?

And in the world of Counter-Strike (and UT2004, for example), 60 fps is not enough. Solid 100 fps and 75 hz, at least, and we're talking. But even then it's about hardware, configs and preferences. And I'd argue very strongly against tying those superlative qualities to COD. In fact, I'm sure that could even be proven quite simply.

You're thinking in PC terms here... I was thinking along the lines of the consoles, where most shooters are stuck at 30FPS or below. It just doesn't flow as well as COD's (almost constant) 60FPS and to me it makes a huge difference in how the game flows and feels to play when the frame-rate is that bit higher.

 

[Grond Strong]

I really don't like modern FPS so for me what makes or breaks one is the following, weapons I need good weapons "realistic" shooters are a dime a dozen I don't want my weapons to sound silenced and have realistic ranges. To be frank I want my shotguns to be point blank and sound like the world is ending with ever shell. And please stop with the copying standard military hardware shit, where are the sawn off shotguns, alien toad things from half life, lazer guns, saw blade guns, chainguns, BFG's.

Regenerating health, know what I'm fine with this but make it slower regenerating health makes fps far too easy these days when your back to full in 15 seconds and removes strafing/positioning as a vital element of play. Stop with the red jam shit and start with better ideas how about a limp after x amount of damage or arm injuries that knock aim off of balance that slowly reset to normal.

Gimmicks, I like gimmicks sure alot of other people do aswell bulletstroms point thing was a nice distraction as were bioshocks audio log's or painkillers minigames if there's nothing to do but shoot waves of enemies shit gets old fast.

Linearity/length can we please stop with corridor design it removes all strategy remember all the twists, turns, vents, jumps, power up rooms of old why can we not have that shit back.

I agree! More, more, more! Same old gets boring real fast! I played Bulletstorm as well and although I got a smile out of the ways I could gloriously disembowel my enemies, I found that it just became too monotonous. By the time I got to the end of the game it felt like I was beating myself in the forehead with a hammer.

 

[Grond Strong]

A feeling of some sort of pressure or urgency.

There are three games in particular that did a good job of that. In no particular order...

FEAR - Until you realized the the game was completely broken up into a fight scare fight scare fight scare pattern, it really felt like every shadow could jump out to eat your face off.

System Shock 2 - Probably the best of the bunch. I felt like i was barely hanging on by a thread the entire time, especially at one point about halfway through where I was completely lost for three hours, desperately searching for some way into a cockpit or something. Enemies were constantly spawning and I was losing a lot more fighting them than I was gaining killing them. I wasn't sure I was going to make it, or how long I'd have to go back if I didn't.

Serious Sam(can't remember which, it was before the actual "Serious Sam 2" though.) - A game where your biggest issue was killing fast enough, rather than ammo or curscenes or some nonsense. The best part was this humongous open area that had a bunch of retractable walls that would shoot up as you got to them, and you ended up fighting tons of aliens as you made your way through the maze. After making it through the maze there was another huge open area with respawning health and ammo in the center. You were pretty much forced to make your stand right there in the center as hundreds of enemies poured out from every direction possible, and probably some that weren't possible. It was crazy and awesome and I've never seen anything even remotely as cool since.

Awesome! I love to play a game that seems to worm its way into your brain with the setting, gameplay, or story. Sometimes it's just the soundtrack that keeps one on edge and will make an otherwise boring game into a masterpiece! Agreed. And ultimately, I believe this is the sole purpose of what a game aspires to be. An alternate reality with a purpose and urgency put on none other than your shoulders. The mission is yours, if you choose to accept it.

 

[Grond Strong]

I no longer think you can define FPS's by calling them FPS And Nothing Else.
There is a lot of variety in them, (stay with me) Halo is the polar opposite of CoD, to take a well known 'debate' and throw it on the burner. Define what kind of shooter is needed first.
A fast paced, B-Movie style kill-em-up like CoD
Something set in the future, add some vehicles and a decent crouch button and there is Halo.
A tactical shooter, like Battlefield, with big maps, big numbers of players, and enough military equipment to take a city.

Wise observation. There seems to be such a market for this game and for good reason too! (It happens to be my favorite style.) So much so that developers have almost exhausted every type of FPS there could be, and henceforth placed each drastically different style into sub-categories of the FPS genre as a whole. What fun! Good news for of us FPS lovers. Variety, as far as the game type is concerned, is something we have at our fingertips. We'll always be sold something with a new twist or gimmick. This can both be a good and bad thing.

What I meant by original query however was something like this: If one was to start an FPS of your design from scratch, what quality would you be sure to make them include over all others?