FPS's MOST important qualities.

[Grond Strong]

[IMO]
Multiplayer is of equal or lesser importance to an excellent, replayable story mode; in my case CoD 4, compared to say, Modern Warfare 2 (grrrrrrrr)

Guns aren't magical point-and-click death machines, but require some form of aiming, accuracy and short, controlled bursts; in my case Battlefield 2, compared to say, Modern Warfare 2 (WTF!?!?!)

The weapons handle viscerally, so they operate clumsy, heavy, but deadly; in my case, Battlefield: Bad Company, compared to say, Modern Warfare 2's 'air particle weapons' (GAHHHHHH!)

There is some form of balance and one team doesn't get constantly mauled by teh supr proz wth ther awsm gunz! I prefer when shooters have some form of balancing... which Modern Warfare 2 certainly didn't have (AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAARGH! *thump*) A good server on Battlefield 2 would do this. Also, guns and such should not be OP compared to others (see Modern Warfare 2 for how not to do it).

Obviously if my three good examples were mashed together through some kind of super game, I'd be happy. And it wouldn't even know what the words 'kill streaks' were; CoD 4 was fine, WaW was a bit much (come on, instakill dogs?) and since then its been a farce of balancing.
Oh yeah, and I like shooters that try something new, rather than just copy Call of Duty, even if its not as good. I may not play it long, but brownie points for being creative/original/not going with the flow.
[/IMO]

EDIT: so long as you're going for some realism, else let us take six guns, like Timesplitters: Future Perfect and allow us to port around a nuke launcher (Fallout 3 anyone?)

Lol, so you like CoD MW2 huh? Ah, I kid... Yep, as realistic as MW2 is supposed to be there is an outrageous amount of things that have no resemblance to what we mere mortals are limited to. It's like watching Clash of the Titans but instead of watching it, your playing it, with guns instead of swords and the ability to do sueprhero things and walk away in slo-mo from it, claiming that because it's modern day it's realistic. False.

If one makes a game that is supposed to be real, make it real, make it hard.
If one makes a game that is supposed to be far-fetched, then go all-out and crazy.

The only thing that I might disagree with you a little about is the multiplayer taking a back seat to campaign. I think that the campaign should be great! But that doesn't necessarily mean it has to take away from multiplayer and vice versa. The thing that makes a game great for me is the ability to keep on coming back and playing it, over and over again. It's the multiplayer that makes me put so many hours into a game, not playing the campaign 67 times over. I get bored just the second time around mostly.

 

[Trolldor]

Immersion, Atmosphere, a quality story-driven single-player campaign.
Even Bulletstorm managed what CoD never could - I gave a shit about the characters. Admittedly playing as Wolverine helped, but still.

Also - Use the fucking hands for something. If I'm climbing a ladder then show me climbing it. I'm not a goddamn hoverbot. I don't glide up ladders.

 

[Azure-Supernova]

Doesn't this entirely depend on the kind of FPS you're playing?

Sure Call of Duty benefits from a really easy to use control scheme; it's action orientated and takes on a poor attempt at gritty overblown (but somehow passes itself off as an example of 'realism') warfare. If you step outside of the campaign it's essentially just a big bag of nerd rage and hating. It's fast, it's frenzied and if you don't know the maps and use spray fire then you're bollocksed. So if that's the kind of FPS then great. The multiplayer is a bit of dumb fun. I personally think Borderlands did it better, but hey.

But then you can flip over to the likes of Bioshock. Near enough a polar opposite to Call of Duty. The game is heavily story driven; the guns use is strategic and are most effective when combined with Plasmids; stealth is possible and there are tense moments when you know you won't survive another hit so you tread carefully. Try going in guns blazing against your first few Big Daddies and I can guarantee it won't be the cakewalk you'd make out of Call of Duty.

Then you've got your tacticals. S.W.A.T. 4 and Rainbow Six. It's kind of a mish mash between action and stealth; but the main focus is on squad tactics. I found my first run through Rainbow Six Vegas 2 was abysmal because I kept trying to gun everything down (apparently my character was squishy and mortal). My second playthrough on Realistic was a tad harder, but I learned to use my squadmates to clear rooms, flashbang and smoke enemies into vulnerability. Again you just can't play it like you would CoD or even as you would Bioshock. You choose weapons and armour according to the situation.

They can all be equally as fun. Point is that you might need to narrow it down.

 

[Kortney]

Right now I'd love to see a FPS that doesn't turn into something that resembles a B grade action movie. Slower pacing wouldn't hurt either. What is the point of action when it is ALWAYS IN YOUR FACE LIKE THIS! I'm looking at you, Call of Duty. I also would like to see more "realistic" action. I don't want to fight my way through hundreds of enemies. Make the combat more intimate and believable.

That's what I want!

 

[Zantos]

Number one question i ask when buying an FPS (suprisingly moreso than other genres): Is it fun? If the answer to that is yes then it can get away with murder.

 

[bbad89]

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

I will use another user's post to explain this.
gameplay>realism

 

[bbad89]

I have a video, saved in my favorites on youtube, that clearly shows there is no way the bullet could have killed him, due to the cross hairs not being over the guy that died. (you have to pause the vid as soon as you hear the shot)

Another example is, ever be aiming somewhere with an AR/LMG when an enemy walks infront of you and your crosshairs follow him for half a second? Thats what lets QSing players be so good.

About the crosshairs-not-being-on-him, that's called "bullet magnatism", developed because controllers are damn bad for FPS's

 

[omega 616]

I have a video, saved in my favorites on youtube, that clearly shows there is no way the bullet could have killed him, due to the cross hairs not being over the guy that died. (you have to pause the vid as soon as you hear the shot)

Another example is, ever be aiming somewhere with an AR/LMG when an enemy walks infront of you and your crosshairs follow him for half a second? Thats what lets QSing players be so good.

About the crosshairs-not-being-on-him, that's called "bullet magnatism", developed because controllers are damn bad for FPS's

Is there a reason you brought PC elitism to this thread?

It isn't called "bullet magnitism", just aim assist snapping on to it 'cos your spinning to quickly for the aim assist to keep up.

 

[HandfulofWolf]

Fun. The most important thing. Get rid of all the attempted realism and make it fun.

Games all too often forget about imagination in favour of anything else.

So summing up, fun and imagination.

Thanks! This is also a popular response it seems and for good reason too! After all, isn't that what we play videogames for in the first place? Somehow, somewhere down the developing line people thought it would be better if it was left out. But games ARE supposed to be fun! I suppose it's up to the individual to decide whether that fun is worth the cost of it being "unrealistic." Not that it has to be. But I can say this, if a game WAS too realistic and perfectly mimicked life in all its aspects I don't think it would be as entertaining at all. Imagination! It's what's for dinner!

Amen.

A game can be both realistic and fun. But it's a difficult task and I think often companies attempt this, find it too difficult and just kind of drop it. Which causes both the realism and fun to suffer for it.

Another two things I would add are, get rid of the artificial game lengtheners.
I'm talking about that specific section of the game where you're forced to backtrack or you're forced through a section or three with such severe difficulty spikes it would make the cheapest Arcade games blush. I would rather play a polished four hour game that I thoroughly enjoyed than a 16 hour game which I only enjoyed for the first 4 hours.

The second thing is a two parter: Balance and attention to detail. A FPS needs both of these in spades. Nobody will enjoy an unbalanced game as it negates the use of tactics and skill and turns it into a game of "My gun/class is more overpowered than your gun/class!". Attention to detail proves that the developer understands both their fans and the world they're creating.

Cheers.

 

[DaHero]

A good FPS:

Multiplayer based
Named "Call of Duty" or "Halo" (otherwise nobody will buy it)
Have plenty of "exploitable engine bugs" so you can make it more "skill based" (like quickscoping and bunnyhopping in CoD, makes sense in UT/Doom games though)
Must...MUST have plenty of overpowered weapons that are completely cheap and require little to no skill.
Must have a very short singleplayer campaign
Must be ported to the PC, instead of starting on it.
Must charge 1/4th of the games price for a couple extra maps
Requires that noobs start with nothing, while pros can kill everything.
Have easily memorized maps so snipers can shoot behind cover knowing someone is there because they've been there for years, also allows for easy game beginning tubing.
Must all be really tiny maps that a sniper wouldn't be caught dead in, yet now is full of them.
No large maps, ever...and no customized ones, that'll just piss the "pros" off.

You have to follow these criteria to make a sellable game in today's market...in other words...you need to make Modern Warfare 3. A good FPS? Never gonna happen.

 

[Grond Strong]

A good FPS:

Multiplayer based
Named "Call of Duty" or "Halo" (otherwise nobody will buy it)
Have plenty of "exploitable engine bugs" so you can make it more "skill based" (like quickscoping and bunnyhopping in CoD, makes sense in UT/Doom games though)
Must...MUST have plenty of overpowered weapons that are completely cheap and require little to no skill.
Must have a very short singleplayer campaign
Must be ported to the PC, instead of starting on it.
Must charge 1/4th of the games price for a couple extra maps
Requires that noobs start with nothing, while pros can kill everything.
Have easily memorized maps so snipers can shoot behind cover knowing someone is there because they've been there for years, also allows for easy game beginning tubing.
Must all be really tiny maps that a sniper wouldn't be caught dead in, yet now is full of them.
No large maps, ever...and no customized ones, that'll just piss the "pros" off.

You have to follow these criteria to make a sellable game in today's market...in other words...you need to make Modern Warfare 3. A good FPS? Never gonna happen.

You know, I thought you were being serious for a second, and then I smiled at your ironic sarcasm because I am much the same way, but then I realized that in a way, you WERE being serious. Well, maybe I just found something seriously disturbing about it.

It seems as if the blockbuster mentality has caught the gaming (not only gaming but we'll keep it here for example's sake) world by storm. Developers, through trial and error have found a formula that works with the general, stereotypical, casual gamer. And they have worked hard to perfect this formula into a profit-making behemoth. What this did was cut down on the originality and focuses on game sales rather than customer satisfaction. Like it or not, videogaming is a business to most of the developers out there, not a recreational hobby to perfect their videogame fantasies. And the ones who DO want to make a risk-taking, rule breaking game are shot down by the CEO's who don't want to take the risk of losing money when they could be dumping their massive budget into CoD 17. The "nice" developers who extend a helping hand to those new artists looking to expand the market with new ideas send a budget cut that might fund a decent Barney episode.

Sad thing is, I sometimes enjoy these big production hits. I mean, they have redeeming qualities, they're beautiful to look at and not entirely evil. They're like Darth Vader. Almost completely shallow and robotic but yet just redeeming enough to pull it off in the end and make everybody love them for it. But I do wish that the money was more spread so that we'd get a better selection of games to choose from instead of being fed the same explosion, cut-scene riddled games of these times.

 

[veloper]

#1 accurate and responsive controls

 

[DaHero]

A good FPS:

Multiplayer based
Named "Call of Duty" or "Halo" (otherwise nobody will buy it)
Have plenty of "exploitable engine bugs" so you can make it more "skill based" (like quickscoping and bunnyhopping in CoD, makes sense in UT/Doom games though)
Must...MUST have plenty of overpowered weapons that are completely cheap and require little to no skill.
Must have a very short singleplayer campaign
Must be ported to the PC, instead of starting on it.
Must charge 1/4th of the games price for a couple extra maps
Requires that noobs start with nothing, while pros can kill everything.
Have easily memorized maps so snipers can shoot behind cover knowing someone is there because they've been there for years, also allows for easy game beginning tubing.
Must all be really tiny maps that a sniper wouldn't be caught dead in, yet now is full of them.
No large maps, ever...and no customized ones, that'll just piss the "pros" off.

You have to follow these criteria to make a sellable game in today's market...in other words...you need to make Modern Warfare 3. A good FPS? Never gonna happen.

You know, I thought you were being serious for a second, and then I smiled at your ironic sarcasm because I am much the same way, but then I realized that in a way, you WERE being serious. Well, maybe I just found something seriously disturbing about it.

It seems as if the blockbuster mentality has caught the gaming (not only gaming but we'll keep it here for example's sake) world by storm. Developers, through trial and error have found a formula that works with the general, stereotypical, casual gamer. And they have worked hard to perfect this formula into a profit-making behemoth. What this did was cut down on the originality and focuses on game sales rather than customer satisfaction. Like it or not, videogaming is a business to most of the developers out there, not a recreational hobby to perfect their videogame fantasies. And the ones who DO want to make a risk-taking, rule breaking game are shot down by the CEO's who don't want to take the risk of losing money when they could be dumping their massive budget into CoD 17. The "nice" developers who extend a helping hand to those new artists looking to expand the market with new ideas send a budget cut that might fund a decent Barney episode.

Sad thing is, I sometimes enjoy these big production hits. I mean, they have redeeming qualities, they're beautiful to look at and not entirely evil. They're like Darth Vader. Almost completely shallow and robotic but yet just redeeming enough to pull it off in the end and make everybody love them for it. But I do wish that the money was more spread so that we'd get a better selection of games to choose from instead of being fed the same explosion, cut-scene riddled games of these times.

Believe me, I'm a very disturbing person. I enjoyed Halo more than CoD (even though ultimately I prefer the PC) because of the single player. I dislike multiplayer down to an utter hatred...

Know what I miss the most? Innovation and co-op...I gave up being a gamer when those died.