Poll: First Person Shooters: Why all the hype?
- Thread starter CulixCupric
- Start date
Recommended Videos
You are correct. However, the industries, not just the gaming industry, aim products at demographics, stereotypical ones usually. this fact makes it so it is hard for a single person to find a game that fits his every need. the only person who could get a game tailored to his every need that i can think of is GEORGE LUCAS!
I like RPG and adventure and the like because of the story and world building. That's how I immerse myself in a game, and many shooters lack this, it seems, in favor of gameplay, multiplayer, and other mechanics. Of course, while I'm a story gamer, I'm also a challenge gamer to whom gameplay is quite important as well. The key is blending them, and some RPG's are good at this, some are not, and I prefer the former, because firstly the RPG fufills the requirement of treating story as something integral to most games rather than an optional add-on that costs more money. Shooters are in a rather reverse situation, many of them have the precision and skill-based gameplay with the variety to give challenge or one way or another, but too many of them lack the world-building or story. It's also important to note that a story in a game does not necessarily consist of cutscene this, dialogue that, wall of text here. A good story told through a video game must be done quite differently than anywhere else, even between different kinds of games, but shooters are more lacking in any of these categories than RPG's in general are. Some shooters lacking in these areas would be:
Newer CoD games. Modern, highly realistic environment but containing fictional characters and storyline. Roughly 20 games per year come out with this same setting, each as uninteresting as the next and the same shade of color. The plot is often too short to really develop into something memorable either. I can go into great detail about a number of war movies I've seen, but could perhaps tell you about my copy of Black Ops that it involved some Vietnam here some Cuba there and some guy with a cheaply inspired name that sounds both Russian and German.
Halo. Faceless soldier mows down many, many aliens. Not much else to say.
The thing is these kinds of games transform when it comes to the multiplayer. CoD constantly goes for the serious, threatening war going on and Halo a serious if shallow Sci-fi fare, but switch over to multiplayer and that serious nature swings a 180 and becomes the fantabulous and chaotic game field while trying to be the same serious setting, and the difference in jarring. A lot of RPG's actually have a similar problem with moral choice systems. Story AND gameplay combining into one wholesome feature is something of a trend not between RPG and shooters, but between first player and multiplayer games. There's the odd co-op game, but those are even more difficult to do in providing a multiplayer experience with good video game storytelling. In short, because many shooters focus on multiplayer gameplay, they have less immersive single play. So if you don't like to play shooters very much, you may be more interested in the "perfect single player experience", rather than the "perfect multiplayer experience". Shooters largely contain the latter because of how seamlessly they lend themselves to a multiplayer and competitive environment. They just seem to work better as multiplayer rather than single player, so if you try a shooter that focuses mainly on multiplayer (take note: this means NOT Portal or Half-Life) and try to get into its single player, you probably feel stunted compared to the single player RPG.
Newer CoD games. Modern, highly realistic environment but containing fictional characters and storyline. Roughly 20 games per year come out with this same setting, each as uninteresting as the next and the same shade of color. The plot is often too short to really develop into something memorable either. I can go into great detail about a number of war movies I've seen, but could perhaps tell you about my copy of Black Ops that it involved some Vietnam here some Cuba there and some guy with a cheaply inspired name that sounds both Russian and German.
Halo. Faceless soldier mows down many, many aliens. Not much else to say.
The thing is these kinds of games transform when it comes to the multiplayer. CoD constantly goes for the serious, threatening war going on and Halo a serious if shallow Sci-fi fare, but switch over to multiplayer and that serious nature swings a 180 and becomes the fantabulous and chaotic game field while trying to be the same serious setting, and the difference in jarring. A lot of RPG's actually have a similar problem with moral choice systems. Story AND gameplay combining into one wholesome feature is something of a trend not between RPG and shooters, but between first player and multiplayer games. There's the odd co-op game, but those are even more difficult to do in providing a multiplayer experience with good video game storytelling. In short, because many shooters focus on multiplayer gameplay, they have less immersive single play. So if you don't like to play shooters very much, you may be more interested in the "perfect single player experience", rather than the "perfect multiplayer experience". Shooters largely contain the latter because of how seamlessly they lend themselves to a multiplayer and competitive environment. They just seem to work better as multiplayer rather than single player, so if you try a shooter that focuses mainly on multiplayer (take note: this means NOT Portal or Half-Life) and try to get into its single player, you probably feel stunted compared to the single player RPG.
A little alienating, but I think the video game demographic has kind of changed from my generation. There's a lot of "frat boys" and American "patriots" that have taken to gaming. Leading to a lot of American hero military titles.Nexus4 said:
Or at least, that's the stereotype I hear a lot about many FPS fans. I'm obviously not saying FPS fans in general are like. But I have heard that this was a demographic that was tapped into. Apparently frat boys, chavs, lads, and Jersey Shore types seem to eat up first person shooters, ballsport games, and racing games. Or so I've heard. And that the industry is flooded with it because the new demographic likes this sort of thing, and gaming has become mainstream.
Don't get angry at me, these are the reasons I've been told that that Call of Duty is such a popular franchise and the like.
I do remember things didn't used to be this way in gaming. So things must have changes somewhat. If you look at the days of the SNES, almost every title was very different in terms of perspective and aesthetic. First Person games were Wolfenstein, Doom, and even Shin Megami Tensei. Almost everything else was a side scrolling platformer.
I'd say that I feel pretty immersed in an realistic war when playing BF3 online, though that's just me.CulixCupric said:
If you're willing to count third-person shooters as well (It seems like it is the "shooting" part you dislike), Deus ex 3 and to a lesser extent Alpha Protocol still manage to have good (until the endings) stories and extremely complex choice systems much deeper than your standard Bioware "Do you want to be good or bad?" bullcrap. I would even be willing to say that choice in Alpha Protocol has more effects on gameplay than any of the ellder scrolls from morrowind (never played Daggerfall). Then again, it was buggy as all hell, so...pretty much exactly like an elder scrolls game.
I love a massive single-player campaign with a great story and immersive environment more than anything, but online FPS gameplay offers instantly satisfying, not-stop-action. I don't have to work or wait for it, it's action right from the start and pretty much always fun, assuming I'm doing well. I can't get that instant + non-stop gratification from any other kind of game.
"If they're just hype?" Are you joking? First Person Shooters totally dominate the gaming market right now, and if there was nothing but hype there, how could it happen continually?
People like shooters because of the smooth mechanics, the feeling you get when you land a burst of bullets into a guy's head, and because of the social/competitive aspect.
People like shooters because of the smooth mechanics, the feeling you get when you land a burst of bullets into a guy's head, and because of the social/competitive aspect.
but will they continue to dominate the market?ultrachicken said:
also, it's mainly the online play of modern fps games i dislike, single player i can do. probably why i like half-life, but not halo. odd, halo has single player, but i guess it was the war-related storyline, so that is also a turn-off for me. I'm very picky.
Ah see this gets into the nature of how you role play, see in alot of fantasy RPGS you're playing as a character, like how in dragon age 2 you're Hawk the Slayer or in Zelda you're...Link confusingly but anyway, the difference is that in FPS' you literally are the protagonist and that's the difference, you don't need to pretend to be Druick the elvan hero of the morrowood (no disrespect to fantasy stuff intended I dig that stuff more then shooters too) you can just be you, John McDonald bad ass soldier, it's sort of goes along with the American philosiphy of the gun the idea that anyone no matter who they are can pick up a gun and become empowered by it, that it makes us ourselves strong.
Well therein lies a different issue, by which I mean that every game within the every genre is "unoriginal" in that sense. Racers, shooters, fighters, sports games, strategy games, RPGs etc when you look at any one you'll see that every game within that genre share a lot of mechanics/aesthetics with each other. This is because people tend to use what works, so any part of a game that's better then prior models will automatically be adapted into future games. It's refinement, not unoriginality. You wouldn't expect people to use something from 15 years ago simply to be different?CulixCupric said:
So in answer to your question, the FPS is not going to fade away, because ultimately games are not played because of originality. They're played because they're enjoyable. If you look at any entertainment medium on the planet, you'll find that everything is a re-tread of a prior idea, but so long as people find the execution of the situation fun, then they're going to enjoy it and the genre will live on.
Personally I would have to disagree just on the last point. There are a shit ton of clones and C&P of those popular franchises much in the same way that there are many generic FPS' these days. Its just that now, Mario is the only game people remember; as it was the groundbreaking title back in those days. 784 games, if wikipedia is to be believed, and only a handful are actually recalled in referring to the 'good ol days'. Games becoming mainstream definitely changed the focus of developers towards the 'mass consumer' style of games like COD and Halo that attempt to appeal to the greatest number of people, whereas something like say Armored Core doesn't sell too well due to the more hardcore nature of the games. I also think that the budget of large games are also to blame for the lack of innovation, in the AAA department; there are still plenty of games with new concepts and ideas on the indie market. When you are a AAA dev, you cannot afford to alienate your fanbase which, in say COD's case, comprises millions upon millions of people. You do that, you are fucked. Look at Red Faction Armageddon, THQ tried to mix the well received third person style (though fans hated it) of Guerrilla with the narrower focus of the earlier titles only to alienate fans who didn't like the TPS style and alienate the masses who wanted the more open world experience like Guerrilla before it. As a result, Armageddon killed RF for good. Personally, don't worry I am not angry at you or anything; this is a more broad commentLilithSlave said:
. I think people look towards the wrong places when looking for innovation. People can call out COD as showing that games never innovate; but it is no different to the hundreds of Mario clones on the NES. People need to look towards the lower end games, those whose budget or repute of its franchise allows it to play with gaming concepts as its main draw. Something like End of Eternity, that attempted to re-invigorate the JRPG genre in a way that Final Fantasy simply cannot.Or how about Killing Floor? Dungeon Defenders? Angry Birds? EYE? Recettear? All bring their own innovations to the table, I just think that people need to look towards those sorts of games, and not the AAA's, before discussing innovation.