Poll: The next step in gaming genres?
- Thread starter stormcaller
- Start date
Recommended Videos
Playstation is inventing that exact game. Its called MAG with 258 multiplayer matches.Fightgarr said:
No and yes, respectively.harhol said:
Nowadays, everything is either a ripoff of another game or a sequel. While I agree partly with your idea on good sequels, many times the company is just milking a dead franchise. Take Mario/Zelda/Metroid for example. I thoroughly enjoyed the old Mario/Zelda/Metroid games, but I always lose a little respect for nintendo whenever they pull a new ripoff out of their ass...
FPS(or any shooter for that matter)won't die because people are in love with the achivements they make killing NPC's in video games and you can get shot like a million times and never die for real!
Virtual Reality is probably the next step. A motion control scheme is not that far of a step from a WiiMote, and three-dimensional monitors/projectors already exist and are in the process of being popularized.
Not specifically a genre...or maybe it is, but I'm thinking the next thing will be having a FPS in which the story changes based on your spoken answers/commands via headset. Has this kind of thing been done before? I think it'd be a cool thing for a game like, say, Deus Ex 3.
"First Person" is a way of viewing an interaction with an environment,
"Puzzle" describes that interaction,
"Role Playing Game" is a description of various aspects of the game (generally outside the core game play experience),
And "Real Time Strategy" purports that a certain non-turn-based game has a high requirement for strategy.
These "genres" aren't contradictory...
"Portals" is a first person puzzle game,
"Fallout 3" is a first person roleplaying game,
"Deus ex" is pretty much a first person adventure game (and because an "adventure game" is more-or-less an alloy of "role playing game" and "puzzle game", it could be called a "first person role-playing puzzle game" or similar ugly phrase)
And unless your definition of RTS requires that the strategy be isolated from any dexterity tests, there have been a whole bunch of FPS-RTS mixes.
Further, you need to clarify what you mean by "remain top dog on the shelves". Hopefully, you don't mean to imply that most games sold are FPSs, because it's not really true: http://www.theesa.com/facts/pdfs/ESA_EF_2008.pdf (see page 5, 6) - at worst, FPSs are /among/ the most popular games.
**********
But, eh, predictions?
1) First person interaction isn't going away. It is an excellent way to get the player to identify with his avatar, as well as being a natural way of interacting with the world. The last point holds especially true with the current 2-stick hardware.
1.5) Top down "classic-style" RTS games aren't going to take off on consoles unless the hardware starts supporting keyboards and mice.
2) Plot elements (role playing) are likely to become more common and effective, for two reasons. Foremost, because they make good business sense: the number of people who like a plot outnumber those who hate plots, and secondly, due to rising production costs and instructive examples in story telling, it is becoming less expensive to add something which is more than an excuse.
3) Puzzle elements will retain their current position in the market - a powerful force among "casual" gamers, and a small part of many major productions.
"Puzzle" describes that interaction,
"Role Playing Game" is a description of various aspects of the game (generally outside the core game play experience),
And "Real Time Strategy" purports that a certain non-turn-based game has a high requirement for strategy.
These "genres" aren't contradictory...
"Portals" is a first person puzzle game,
"Fallout 3" is a first person roleplaying game,
"Deus ex" is pretty much a first person adventure game (and because an "adventure game" is more-or-less an alloy of "role playing game" and "puzzle game", it could be called a "first person role-playing puzzle game" or similar ugly phrase)
And unless your definition of RTS requires that the strategy be isolated from any dexterity tests, there have been a whole bunch of FPS-RTS mixes.
Further, you need to clarify what you mean by "remain top dog on the shelves". Hopefully, you don't mean to imply that most games sold are FPSs, because it's not really true: http://www.theesa.com/facts/pdfs/ESA_EF_2008.pdf (see page 5, 6) - at worst, FPSs are /among/ the most popular games.
**********
But, eh, predictions?
1) First person interaction isn't going away. It is an excellent way to get the player to identify with his avatar, as well as being a natural way of interacting with the world. The last point holds especially true with the current 2-stick hardware.
1.5) Top down "classic-style" RTS games aren't going to take off on consoles unless the hardware starts supporting keyboards and mice.
2) Plot elements (role playing) are likely to become more common and effective, for two reasons. Foremost, because they make good business sense: the number of people who like a plot outnumber those who hate plots, and secondly, due to rising production costs and instructive examples in story telling, it is becoming less expensive to add something which is more than an excuse.
3) Puzzle elements will retain their current position in the market - a powerful force among "casual" gamers, and a small part of many major productions.
I know. RPGs are soo much more original in their battle systems!ansem1532 said:
/Sarchasm
I just have to say it: FPSs are just about as repetetive as RPGs, they just rely on different gaming mechanics. I mean, an empty room in an RPG would likely be a lot more exciting than an empty room in a FPS, but unless there is an "Action-" prefix to the RPG, the battle system isn't really fighting, but (dare I say it) more like cooking.
Lets see, this takes longer to cook, but I have to coordinate it with the time it takes to bake this and roast that...
Should I use the last of my buttermilk in my biscuits or my dumplings? The Buttermilk gives a +3 to tastiness, so....
Actually RPG's are far more original than FPS's when it comes to the combat. Just think about it. In FPS's we are doing the same thing since the early days of the genre. At least with the RPG's you have some sort of variety!Erana said:
And if you want an example: Baten Kaitos
Ok, first of all, you are comparing battle systems of a first person shooter, with a role playing game. Not trying to be mean, but if you are saying first person shooters have a better battle system, no shit.Erana said:
First person shooter is a battle system to be technical
I wasn't confirming that RPG's had better battle systems. FPS's have near perfect battle systems but it gets repetitive. A bit more repetitive than RPG's. RPG's still retain a somewhat uniqueness to it's genre.
In response to the first part of what you said: "If I am saying?" I said what I meant to say: "FPSs are just about as repetetive as RPGs, they just rely on different gaming mechanics."ansem1532 said:
The second part: So, you disagree. Why?
In my post, I just stated how I felt that RPG battle systems are typically more like the coordination involved in cooking. Apply my feelings to the hundreds of fights that I would have to go through in an RPG, and you have the makings of repetitive gameplay. Tell me what about RPGs you feel is less repetitious than a FPS.
One word: Pokemon. And if "non-gamers" are the criteria for the top genre, then isn't casual gaming the true king?mhitman said:
hmm alot of the replies are making me think of a sort of good version of a mmo-fps with heavy story telling maybe cross-genre is the way to go.
As long as any americans live there will always be shooters
Not a bad thing just there needs to be more rpgs and developers are focused on fps
Not a bad thing just there needs to be more rpgs and developers are focused on fps