Fair call, but as much as I love System Shock and Deus Ex I've never really been able to think of them as true shooters- more their own beautiful mutants of genres. Sure they are action games to an extent, but combat isn't the main focus of either. Both are about offering a variety of approaches rather than focusing on truly innovating action. If you play them today, you'll see the shooting and combat mechanics are actually quite simple- it's all the other things in the package that make them amazing and unique. You could just as much call them innovative role-playing games as you could call them shooters- but I guess that depends on your personal reflexivity.meatloaf231 said:Yes, but you can't innovate without stretching the boundaries a little.
People say that and I don't know why. To me it was hard but not revolutionary in any way.l Ancient l said:Halo 1 was definitly revolutionary, it completely changed FPS`s forever
Me neither. It's a standard SHOOT EVERYONE ON YOUR WAY Fps. And yes, You always go the way where the enemies appear.Grimm91 said:People say that and I don't know why. To me it was hard but not revolutionary in any way.l Ancient l said:Halo 1 was definitly revolutionary, it completely changed FPS`s forever
Operation Flashpoint came out the same year as Halo (2001) and was a military sim- gameplay was based on real training programs for US wargames projects. Less of a shooter, more of a first person strategy game (though firing at people with a big gun played an important part in its success). Codename Eagle sunk so far below the radar nobody would have noticed anyway dude.raxiv said:Was done way before... Flashpoint? Codename -something- ? Any other more realistic FPS had it.
halo 1 pretty much started thatraxiv said:Me neither. It's a standard SHOOT EVERYONE ON YOUR WAY Fps. And yes, You always go the way where the enemies appear.Grimm91 said:People say that and I don't know why. To me it was hard but not revolutionary in any way.l Ancient l said:Halo 1 was definitly revolutionary, it completely changed FPS`s forever
Yes and even in Halo 2 the " Revolutionary duel wielding" had been done before. The Halo franchise just cannibalized ever shooter EVER MADE and made it into one.raxiv said:Me neither. It's a standard SHOOT EVERYONE ON YOUR WAY Fps. And yes, You always go the way where the enemies appear.Grimm91 said:People say that and I don't know why. To me it was hard but not revolutionary in any way.l Ancient l said:Halo 1 was definitly revolutionary, it completely changed FPS`s forever
Three things: 1) Weapon design and balance (besides the damned pistol, everything allowed for a great deal of combat variety).Grimm91 said:People say that and I don't know why. To me it was hard but not revolutionary in any way.
I don't know about that. Anyone ever play Blood?l Ancient l said:halo 1 pretty much started thatraxiv said:Me neither. It's a standard SHOOT EVERYONE ON YOUR WAY Fps. And yes, You always go the way where the enemies appear.Grimm91 said:People say that and I don't know why. To me it was hard but not revolutionary in any way.l Ancient l said:Halo 1 was definitly revolutionary, it completely changed FPS`s forever
im not saying its the first to do it but it made that style popularhippieshopper said:I don't know about that. Anyone ever play Blood?l Ancient l said:halo 1 pretty much started thatraxiv said:Me neither. It's a standard SHOOT EVERYONE ON YOUR WAY Fps. And yes, You always go the way where the enemies appear.Grimm91 said:People say that and I don't know why. To me it was hard but not revolutionary in any way.l Ancient l said:Halo 1 was definitly revolutionary, it completely changed FPS`s forever
Actually, the fact that they could be called RPGs orshooters is precisely why they are innovative. They didn't stick to the formula.alexdakid6 said:Fair call, but as much as I love System Shock and Deus Ex I've never really been able to think of them as true shooters- more their own beautiful mutants of genres. Sure they are action games to an extent, but combat isn't the main focus of either. Both are about offering a variety of approaches rather than focusing on truly innovating action. If you play them today, you'll see the shooting and combat mechanics are actually quite simple- it's all the other things in the package that make them amazing and unique. You could just as much call them innovative role-playing games as you could call them shooters- but I guess that depends on your personal reflexivity.meatloaf231 said:Yes, but you can't innovate without stretching the boundaries a little.
Weapon design blew, and was very unbalanced. I can kill you with a shotgun from 30 feet awayalexdakid6 said:Three things: 1) Weapon design and balance (besides the damned pistol, everything allowed for a great deal of).Grimm91 said:People say that and I don't know why. To me it was hard but not revolutionary in any way.
2) AI- not since Half-Life's marines had there been such an engaging computer control enemy to fight in the Covenant (especially Elites).
3)The regenerative health system.
It also proved that FPS's could be done well on a console, started the whole "You can only carry two weapons" and "You don't need to select your melee weapon to thwack something, you just thwack it" thing. There's also the cool, mysterious storyline, sensible regenerating health system, and vehicle sections that are actually fun.raxiv said:Me neither. It's a standard SHOOT EVERYONE ON YOUR WAY Fps. And yes, You always go the way where the enemies appear.Grimm91 said:People say that and I don't know why. To me it was hard but not revolutionary in any way.l Ancient l said:Halo 1 was definitly revolutionary, it completely changed FPS`s forever
This!blackcherry said:Doom and Wolfenstein. They were the first to get massive recognition and kick start interest in the genre.
True!zen5887 said:This!blackcherry said:Doom and Wolfenstein. They were the first to get massive recognition and kick start interest in the genre.
only problem is that they were the first technical FPSs created thoughzen5887 said:This!blackcherry said:Doom and Wolfenstein. They were the first to get massive recognition and kick start interest in the genre.
the regenerative health system wasn't 'revolutionary' it was in-fact ripped off from Jurassic Park: Trespasser. But I guess only someone that bought that underrated game (that tried too many new things) would know that.alexdakid6 said:Three things: 1) Weapon design and balance (besides the damned pistol, everything allowed for a great deal of combat variety).Grimm91 said:People say that and I don't know why. To me it was hard but not revolutionary in any way.
2) AI- not since Half-Life's marines had there been such an engaging computer control enemy to fight in the Covenant (especially Elites).
3)The regenerative health system.