Modern trends in FPS I do not care for

[bombadilillo]

Problems with the FPS genre

This is NOT a half-life vs. the world thread. Please keep it as such, but as I was reading too many of those recently it made me wonder why do I STILL think HL is one of the best games ever. Is it pure nostalgia? Or do I actually like the mechanics. Had I never played it 12 years ago would I find it just as engrossing today? That is unknowable, but I still find it fun to boot up and play occasionally and I think there are some reasons why. There are some trends in the FPS genre that are keeping it down. Now all these have been discussed before so please dont post to say Weve talked about this. Just dont post if you dont care. Please.

1. Health. Vs Regen. I really hate regen. No matter what game it is all strategy goes out the window and becomes POP UP take out 1 or more baddies while taking damage POP DOWN and wait, repeat. Health makes you accountable for your actions, tense, and makes you think. I am all for hybrid systems. Have a shield that protects a few shots with a nonregen health below. Or health regens to a certain level so your never near zero. Awesome, go for it, but regen still turns all game play into a boring popup cover shooter.
2. Length, games are too freaking short. I look forward to the day when COD does not have a single player campaign. When they finally drop the pretext and token effort and just make a multiplayer game, put in some bots and challenges for singleplayers if you must. This worked with unreal tournament 10 years ago, its a viable strategy. I personally like single player campaigns more and would LOVE a distinct split. Make multi only games and single only games and put your effort into that. I want a 20 hour campaign. Keep the 5 hour crap. If it was 20 hours with replay value and multiple play style options I might just buy it instead of gamefly.
3. Story, Im going to skirt tenuously close to the Half life debate here so bear with me. Spoiler alert as well. In half life near the start you have spent hours trying to get to the surface. The scientists have been talking about rumors of the military coming to rescue you all in your fight against mysterious aliens. You enter a room on a catwalk and see 2 soldiers! You are saved! A scientist yells ?Thank God youre here!? and the soldiers brutally gun him down. Thats it. You can surmise that its cover up time and your about to be covered up. Theres no cut scene spelling it out in detail the decisions back in Washington, you know what your character knows, nothing more. Later in the game black ops assassins show up and start taking out the soldiers! Height of irony, now their being covered up too. How much worse have things gotten? Someone high up is freaking out to the point that they dont trust the regular military! Compare this to a recent story telling event in COD:BO. I torture a person violently till they give me some bullet points for the plot, hand them a gun and their on my side now, the guy I just tortured, WTF. WTF, well glad hes not made about the whole insane pain thing. Now its not always necessary to keep just your characters perspective, and knowing plot beyond them can be good, but the modern fps isnt really doing a great job here.
4. Smart AI. A lot of review laud the smart AI in fpss like ?they use grenades to flush you out, they flank you?. I think this is a growing symptom of the health regen reducing things to cover/popup shooters. Smart AI really means, you have to switch cover occasionally or theyll get you. 12+ years ago there were smart enemies, they never stayed in the same cover, they flanked you, if you stay in same place they grenade launch your ass. On that point, they like you had grenade launchers on their rifles AND THEY USED THEM. This is all probably a problem with the idea of smart AI. We want challenging enemies not smart. Imagine a game with you vs 100+ actual players coordinating with each other in a single player setting. You would stand no chance at all and it wouldnt be fun.
5. Carrying 2 weapons. So you can carry only 2 pistols, but you can carry a m60 with ammo and a rocket launcher. I call shenanigans. Especially when my character model has a FREAKING PISTOL HOLSTER ON IT. At least have pistol +2 others?.This is a weird contention point because I know its silly to carry 12 different guns. Grid based and weight based are good systems but take away from the fps experience with the management factor. I kinda like the one of each style, one long gun one rocket/special one pistol one smg sized. I dont know what I like best here, but its defiantly not 2 guns PERIOD. I wanna save my shotty for when I need it dammit. Having different guns for different situations is fun. A lot of 2 gun games know this and but areas with a bunch of guns before big fights so you can choose. Why not just let me take more then game?
6. Varied gameplay. Fighting of zombies for a few hours with limited ammo and a crowbar, fighting soldiers and aliens, fighting just aliens in another dimension, occasional puzzle, pseudo stealth section, exploration, platforming. Dont get me wrong I like the token stealth level in COD, though its getting more ?follow some dude while he talks? unchallenging with each game. Otherwise shooters are just firefight, walk firefight. There has to be something fun to do between fights that developers can think of.

Well, this didnt start as a wall of text but I guess I had a lot to say. Im sure there are more and a bunch people disagree on. Lets all be nice please, and if you dont care, dont post

 

[Fiz_The_Toaster]

You've just stated almost every single problem I have with most shooters, and why I hardly play them. I always thought the regenerating health things was rather stupid and it felt unnatural to me, exactly why do I have to hide behind a couch to get the red out of my screen.

I'd love to play a good long shooter where the story makes sense and I'm not being bossed around by the squad leader like I'm their *****, and I only do it to drive the story along. You do make some good points that I never thought of though, or even bothered to since I was too busy being bored playing the game.

 

[bombadilillo]

I too hate the "jelly on your visor" damage indicater. I liked Far Cry 2's heal yourself method. That made it almost fun to nearly die.

Yes on Crysis 2, whole thing got dumbed down from health to a simpler suit interface, probably for controller limitations. Speed was awesome in the original, now its sprint and takes energy. WTF. I hate tech going backwards between sequals.

 

[rockingnic]

Only problems I have are that the single player campaigns are unoriginal as well as being less than 8 hours. I want a game where it takes me at least 10 hours to beat, without dying even, and I enjoy it thoroughly. I think Halo: CE had the best health system. It had regenerating shields as well as health. The health system gives you durability in fights and the shield system made it so you don't have to worry as much about finding and using health packs. But Halo: CE put it together where both systems benefit each other where you can literally go all out Rambo style and it would be effective as well as other tactics. What other shooters do you have today that you can go all out, Rambo style, and survive? Not many...

 

[Sixcess]

1. Health. Vs Regen.

My old school fondness for health bars has taken a beating during my current (first time) playthrough of Half Life. The problem is that a health bar/medipack system just wouldn't work with the amount of incoming damage you take these days. In DOOM you were a one man army who could take a lot of damage, or dodge with your 60mph run speed. In most modern FPSs 3 or 4 shots from a pistol, or one or two bursts from an automatic weapon, will kill you. It's one of my main problems with HL - some of the enemies, especially the HECU, do a ridiculous amount of damage to you in seconds, and they're very hard to dodge, forcing a lot of trial and error game play because just one unlucky shot can leave you at death's door for an extended period of time until you find the next medipack.

Modern, action heavy FPSs like Crysis would be incredibly difficult, and not much fun, without regenerating health.

2. Length, games are too freaking short.

Mostly agreed, but I think it's inevitable that story heavy FPSs tend to be short (by which I mean pure FPSs, not hybrids like Deus Ex, which should be long.) DOOM and DOOM II have dozens of levels, but there's damn all story in any of them, just pure run and gun gameplay fun. Stretching out a story-heavy, set-piece heavy game to that kind of length would probably be prohibitively expensive.

3. Story,

Well one thing I can praise about HL is the story, but I think if there's a problem it's got a lot to do with the way stories are told in modern games - primarily through big set pieces and scripted scenes. HL uses these fairly sparingly, but other games throw in a lot more, leading to the games themselves being shorter because all that sound and fury takes a lot of time to develop. I hated the final act of Crysis because it just herded you from one big set piece to another, on rails, with virtually no standard FPS gameplay in between the big moments. Very visually impressive, but it got boring after a while.

4. Smart AI.

Depends on the game. I was absolutely blown away (er... literally as well) the first time I got into a firefight in STALKER: SoC. Seeing standard enemies changing position and outflanking me was a very new experience. Crysis does it pretty well also, but the funny thing is that game actually becomes harder when you start encountering the aliens, because they just charge straight for you, and they move bloody fast.

5. Carrying 2 weapons.

Agreed, though if done well (like in Halo) the 2 weapons thing means you probably won't get into a situation where you've used up all your good ammo before you run up against something that is virtually immune to your lesser weapons. Anyone who's ever encountered an armoured vehicle and discovers they've ran out of rockets/grenades/gauss gun ammo will know what a pain in the ass that can be.

6. Varied gameplay.

Sort of agree, but I hate platforming sections with a passion because they always suck, and vehicle sections are usually rubbish as well. By all means mix it up a bit, and I love exploration in particular, but when I pick up an FPS I want to shoot things, not screw around with platforming.

 

[The Admiral]

I think Perfect Dark on the 64 had the best AI. When things started to go south, the bad guys would run away. It made me feel like I wasn't fighting mindless drones. I would love to see enemies in games show some self preservation.

 

[The_root_of_all_evil]

I'd say the worst problem is the Shooting.

Let's face it - even at it's best - use trigger on enemy gets boring after a while.

Especially when it's "SO REAL", but doesn't jam, deafen you, misfire, sprain your wrist if you hold it wrong or any other thing that happens in real life.

And ffs, get rid of the ubermacho marine. They're SO dull.

 

[DeadlyYellow]

I miss the old Mayhem shooters where moving fast and dodging were more core to gameplay than hiding behind a rock.

But I guess that's the problem with relying on the old hit-scan systems instead of actual projectile physics.

 

[bombadilillo]

Some good points you raise there. Thanks for being sensible about this and making suggestions on how to improve the genre, instead of bashing it or the audience (Bob, I'm looking at you).

The one point that was especially good was the one about smart AI. It does get kinda boring to just wait behind a box, pop out, and then wait in the same place again.

As far as story goes, I think Halo and CoD have a long way to go. I find it funny because CoD 4 did well in that regard, but the new ones are just being as convoluted as possible. Halo, on the other hand, has a fantastic and rich universe full of interesting creatures and species, but in the games, they never bother to actually explain any of that. As far as a player is concerned, Step 1 - aliens = enemy. Step 2 - Kill the enemy. Hell, there's probably been about 2-3 mentions in all of their games explaining why the Covenant wants you dead.

On a side note, I have a few suggestions to make - use more spacing between your points, and make sure you use paragraphs as well. Plus, use something like Word for posts as long as this one. It'll catch the spelling errors as well.

I used word but the formating just died when I pasted, every ' turned into a ?. Changing font didnt help so I just deleted them all. Oh well.

 

[D33dl3]

Agree with most of what you're saying here.

My main problem with regen health is that it makes me feel like my actions have no consequences.
Haven't bought a shooter since CoD4 because the industry seems to think that 5-6 hours of gameplay in single player is absolutely fine.

 

[Dyp100]

For health systems, the Halo 1/Reachis best in my humble opinion, though STALKER has done it well as well. (To be fair, my STALKER alway seems to be majorly bogged down, so you know I'm well prepared for most fights.)

I agree a bit of variey in a story doesn't hurt though a game should be able to hold on its own basic gameplay. Again, something like Halo is good for this because vechile driving is so smooth and well built, plus an intergal experience of Halo.

I totally agree FPS's need better stories, plus a mix up or settings. Where is my post-apoc steampunk FPS already? D: (And no, Bioshock doesn't count.)

AI is fine, really. Programing hard AI is a lot easier than easy AI. Such as STALKER, the AI was said to be so good it could finish the singelplayer game by itself and they had to dumb it down so it wasn't kicking your arse the whole time.

 

[Fooz]

And ffs, get rid of the ubermacho marine. They're SO dull.

i know, i wouldnt mind playing as some marine who may have a psychological disorder, an event that recently happened in a battle that caused it (otherwise he would have been let in to the marines)

or a soldier that has been drafted, so he's not really a soldier, and instead of fighting, your character is too scared to fight, instead you have to try and sneak around, occasionally kill, only when you absolutely have to

i know they sound dumb now, but with some pro's working on them ideas, they could become awesome ORIGINAL games

 

[rsvp42]

If regen makes sense, I like it. Biosuits, genetic enhancements, shields, whatever keeps me playing the game. I think it really works for some titles. A badass Cog in Gears of War shouldn't be dying constantly. He should be able to take hits and come out alive. I realize that to some extent, this messes with the reality, but it doesn't reduce the fun. Other games, like perhaps a game where stealth and survival are more important, can do without it. It depends on the needs of the game and how they address the fun factor.

 

[Wraithspine]

This thread makes me happy

I have been a fan of FPS' since the days of the N64 and HL. Back then, you had all the guns you could see, varied levels that weren't: "Generic middle east".

Mulitplayer was just a room, a mate or two beside you, and a handful of guns. Simple: Effective. None of this online gaming culture where only the dicks survive and anyone without a 10:1 Kill/Death ratio needs to be shouted at to make them better!

You're screen didn't jump up and down or shake viloently just because you reloaded or coughed! It never gave me headaches! I'm looking at you Killzone 1/2/3!!!

You had 100 health. You lost health when you were shot and regained health when you found medkits. This brought in so much to the game - It meant that each fight was actually a meaningful experience as, if you were down to 25 health, you had to be sodding careful because of what might be lurking around the next corner. Instead, nowadays we get this, crouch for 5 seconds and all will be well. What the hell!?

Crouching. This is one of my personal pet hates of modern FPS'. Why the hell do I have to crouch behind any object I see for 3/4 of the arsing game? The only time you walk is to get to the next crouching area! Damn I hate Cover-'em-ups!

Why can't they bring back the fun I used to experience when playing HL, Perfect Dark, Goldeneye and the Turok and Timesplitter series?

Instead I fought my way through a 4 hour campaign, 3 hours looking at the back of a crate I was hiding behind and Half an Hour waiting for the screen to stop being red! Only to be frustrated and cheated at the crap experience I just had.

Sorry about that but I think that the FPS genre, which I really used to love, has lost it's way. I hope it returns to form soon!

 

[Pink_Pirate]

My main problem with FPS's is the lack of variety between titles. With RTS and Fighting games you get different gameplay mechanics and systems in each title, but the most variety between FPS titles is some different guns, and even that's not always a given.

 

[repeating integers]

Nice post, bombadilillo. I agree with some of it, but not all.

1) Games have to be rather careful with their health systems. Regenerating health, at its best, greatly improves the flow of the game without reducing the difficulty, if the game's levels and enemies are appropriately designed for it; when done wrong, it does as you say, and turns the game into a boring popup cover shooter. Non-regenerating health systems have to be careful too; if the developers set up a really hard section having misjudged how much health you have at that point, then the game can become incredibly frustrating, so that sort of situation should obviously be avoided. For the record, I think HL2 did non-regenerating health pretty well - if there was gonna be a very difficult section, Valve always made sure to place health packs beforehand, and frequently by the end of said section you'd have to tread lightly through the not-unreasonably-difficult sections afterwards looking for another 'pack.

2) Yes. Length! I want more length in my FPS games. However, I disagree with the way HL2 went about its 15 hour length (on Normal) - much of the game was filler with little plot, which kind of killed the pacing and made the length seem artificial.

3) Again, I think HL2 had a bad plot (if an OK story), but this is a very variable thing. Some games do story well, some don't. It all depends on the quality of the writers.

4) I did notice, when playing the Bad Company games, that the AI almost never actively attacked. You were always the one doing the attacking, they usually sat there, occasionally moved and shot at you. From what little I've played of Call of Duty, the huge amounts of scripted events bury the AI to such an extent that I can't tell if it's a complete pile of shit or the best AI in the world. Halo has good AI (so long as you're referring to the enemies only...), but even that uses flanking tactics quite infrequently. As for HL2, my decision to play on normal could have contributed to not seeing that supposedly advanced, tactical AI in action (though I also read somewhere that the AI, while designed to do this, often couldn't due to the level design).

5) Limiting you to 2 weapons forces you to make important tactical decisions... when there is actually a noticeable difference between weapons. In your archetypal wartime FPS, there aren't enough weapons or varieties of enemy for it to have a noticeable effect. Halo popularised the trend, and it had clearly defined roles for each weapon, and enough enemy variety for it to make a difference (e.g you'd be much better off taking a Needler than an Assault Rifle to take care of those Elites, but vice versa for Grunts). Modern war FPS games suffer - you fight the same kind of enemy every time, pretty much, just with a reskin (by necessity; there's only 1 species of human). There are also usually only 5-6 weapons: assault rifle, SMG, pistol, shotgun, sniper rifle, RPG. Yes, there are different varieties of all, but they are all functionally very similar. I think games like this would benefit from giving you a larger inventory, considering there are few tactical decisions to be made anyway. (Incidentally, I liked the way BC1 did it - things like the rocket launcher, C4, artillery designator etc. were assigned to a different inventory, and the levels were very open and allowed you a lot of choice in how you approached the enemy. Also, weirdly, the Assault Rifle had a grenade launcher attachment you could switch to, basically meaning that 1 gun counted as 2 and took up your whole inventory... still a great game.)

6) To be fair, these are shooters we're talking about here. Still, it's good to break up the standard SHOOTSHOOTSHOOT occasionally - an easy and effective way of doing this is with vehicle sections, but HL2's puzzles work too (even if its vehicles sections don't ).

Wow, that was long.

 

[auronvi]

You've just stated almost every single problem I have with most shooters, and why I hardly play them. I always thought the regenerating health things was rather stupid and it felt unnatural to me, exactly why do I have to hide behind a couch to get the red out of my screen.

I'd love to play a good long shooter where the story makes sense and I'm not being bossed around by the squad leader like I'm their *****, and I only do it to drive the story along. You do make some good points that I never thought of though, or even bothered to since I was too busy being bored playing the game.

I have found that the developers do put in game modes for the different players. Like, you don't like the red jelly on the screen? Play Hardcore mode where 1-2 shots kill you. Halo with shields off. Regenerating health is a streamline mechanic and running around grabbing health packs is almost equally ridiculous. I always enjoyed shooters that rewarded the player that had the skills that would reward them in a real life combat situation. Fast reflexes and steady aim. I like the games that require you to listen to footsteps, not make your own, predict the movement of the enemy and react quickly when they come into view.

The MW2s and clones reward mastering their aim-bot mechanics more than anything. I love hardcore mode because when I am on fire, nothing can stop me because I can just shoot that much faster. Too many times if I play regular mode in MW2 do I get the first shots off, hit them square in the chest but they squeeze off a burst and drop to the ground and finish me before that 5th bullet could hit. That just frustrates me. First shot fired and hit should be the one who wins the confrontation because that is how it is. I feel like its more like shooting with rubber bullets and a test of whoever can stand up the longest.

^^This is all for multiplayer. I can suspend my belief better for single player. I don't mind if enemies can take a couple extra shots, that's why I put it on a higher difficulty.

 

[JET1971]

Not completly modern FPS, but my FPS complaints in general...

1. forced vehicles sections where you sit in the back and fire a particular weapon.
2. forced to use a particular weapon. usualy with someone telling you to use it over and over again.
3. wave based enemies where you need to push forward to get them to stop.
4. AI that follow you or you are a member of a squad (they get in the way).
5. invisible walls.
6. strawberry jelly on my screen when i get hit.
7. health regen, medkits can drop from enemies randomly and med stations can be placed randomly.
8. cutscenes. for some reason i think cutscenes dont work well in FPS games.