What would you say is stagnating exactly. What advances should you see that you aren't seeing? The more recent titles are as polished as they're going to get on current gen tech.the hidden eagle said:
Poll: Will the competitive side of the "shooter" genre eventually be dumbed down?
- Thread starter yungr3zzyson
- Start date
Recommended Videos
Honestly it's the pursuit of Graphics and the cost of having HD graphics. In the past, you only could have graphics so good whether it was PC or Console and so more money could go into other things like gameplay design or writing, companies liked to have good gfx because you could show them off easily. It's harder to show off great AI or a great story, so graphics would win out. With today's tech, you need an army to make sure every pixel is in place, every square inch looks good and it's ballooned the cost, not leaving a whole lot for other things.the hidden eagle said:
Also FPS games have always had a follow the leader mentality and I kinda gave up on them when they all decided single player was for chumps, which was the flipping Arena shooter games (I don't have any more respect for Unreal Tournament than CoD, they both have the same problem of Multiplayer first and who gives a damn about single player.) The whole genre was everyone copying Doom, then it was quake, then it was half life, then it was UT and now it's CoD. The genre just needs to diversify.
I'm sensing more than a little bit of elitism in this thread. I really miss the days where I could like Halo AND TF2.
Yeah, COD may not be the most complex game ever. What's wrong with that?
Yeah, COD may not be the most complex game ever. What's wrong with that?
Nothing is wrong with it, it's just not competitive in comparison to old arena shooters.erttheking said:
I think the problem here has to do with the labeling of "filthy casual console peasants" (though there is one console shooter I enjoy. Dust 514 with a mouse and keyboard. There's no reason any shooter on any device with USB ports can't use that setup... except for lazy development).
...and of course simpler games are going to have a wider audience. The current audience for games like Call of Duty is far larger than the entire gaming scene was back in the 90s. Those of us who play fast-paced complex arena shooters were a niche back then, and we're a niche now (says the guy who refuses to play TF2 because the popular maps are too simple. Yes, I'm actually that elitist. I'm gonna go back to playing UT'99 with its million mods now).
Yeah, that does seem to be a bit of a problem. Not going to lie, I have been getting more and more into PC gaming as of late, but I still get really annoyed every time someone criticizes someone else for playing a console and not a PC, or for playing a game that was "dumbed down" and isn't a real game, ergo they are not a "real" gamer. I feel like there's just a bit of an elitism problem in general when it comes to gamers and that mindset has always just gotten on my nerves.loc978 said:
Heck, I've tried to get into Counter Strike GO but the game is just so damn brutally difficult and the community so toxic that I just can't dedicate myself to it. Does that make me a filthy causal?
...I'd say it makes you less than an absolutely hardcore FPS player... and so what? So am I these days. I don't have the time or patience to be hardcore into shooters the way I used to be.erttheking said:
Still, I'll be the first to admit that I'm a huge elitist. I don't play shooters with thumbsticks, because I find it to be terribly imprecise, and it bothers me when a game lets me score a hit when I know I missed (which covers about 90% of hits when using thumbsticks. I'm one of those who can win a match and feel like I lost the fight I was having with the game's horrible controls).
...but does that mean anyone who likes said controls is wrong? No. I still say the problem isn't gaming casually, the problem is applying the "casual" label so liberally and with such vitriol. Let people like what they like... just never try to claim a thumbstick shooter is an equal e-sport to something like CS... those guys are crazy. They'll gut you like a fish.
Do you believe that there is still significant creativity that can be brought into realistic shooters? I mean, Fantasy shooters have a lot they can do and screw around with from a portal gun to spinning sawblade guns that are actually dangerous and more effective than hand guns. But realistic shooters are thematically tied to being realistic.the hidden eagle said:
So what kind of creativity would you like to see them do with that in mind? They've begun scraping the bottom of the barrel as far as top of the line tech is concerned so they MAY be able to do a futuristic take on warfare in the distant future rather than near future. But at that point you're talking about a different genre. Ultra futuristic is just sci-fy which isn't a bad thing but isn't COD or Battlefield.
You can only strive to get so realistic before you finally get realistic. Once you're there, any other step is a step away from the goal.
What the next gen will allow developers to do is apply minor tightening to graphics but the real prize will be improved physics rendering and AI. That will lead to better innovation as far as smarter bots. But that's just reaching a little closer to realism
If you're not happy with realistic shooters, you're going to have to do something other than COD or Battlefield. Gears of War, Halo, Resistance, these are titles for you. I personally like them all and appreciate both the realism of COD and the fantasy of the other titles. Complaining about COD because it's realistic and isn't changing away from realism would be almost like a fan of romantic comedies complaining about horror movies not being romantic or comedic enough for their tastes.
Nope, we've seen how blindly copying CoD goes, it goes like Medal of Honor.yungr3zzyson said:
The success of Tribes and Planetside (and ARMA, Metro, Battlefield) show there is still a big market for games with a bit of challenge (or more than a bit). I think the future for FPS games leads away from from being as CoD-like as possible simply because those people who buy CoD in droves also fail to buy any other shooters in the twelve months in between. They've become an ingrained market that buys habitually the same way they do Fifa, Madden or even Dynasty warriors, they've not a good market to chase for a competitor.
I also don't see gaming as a whole going back to hit scan and auto aim just to ape Call of Duty, Battlefield has sold millions ignoring both, so it's not as if the mass market is repulsed by vaguely complex shooting mechanics.
I'd quite like to see a return on a larger scale from Unreal clones (or UT4), tanking damage and bouncing round the map like a deadly squash ball is much more gratifying than than the faux-realism that's in fashion now.
I always find it interesting when people demand innovation when there's not any clear area to motivate in.Kroxile said:
Shooters have been dumbed down since the release of Halo: Combat Evolved. In fact, I'd go as far to say that the only "active" competitive shooter that is truly "competitive" is Quake Live, which is basically Quake 3 with many new adjustments and features.
Well, I'm sorry to say this contrary to your opinion, but my experience has been the complete opposite of what you have said, simply because of how many more variables a game like Quake or Unreal Tournament has and what you have to do in a game, particularly strategy wise.
In my experience I don't have to think in COD, because the game does so much for me; it gives me weapons the instant I spawn, I have perks that gives me various buffs, I have radar, I have killstreaks/scorestreaks. I don't have to time any power ups or health.
Of course, I'd fully agree that in regards to the damage output of the weapons it's far easier to be killed than in an arena FPS. At the end of the day it all boils down to keeping as steady firing position as humanly possible in order to get the drop on enemies and maintain accuracy.
So what you're saying is that FPS games that rely on fine motor skills don't require intimate knowledge with the games' mechanics and strategic thinking, as opposed to COD?wulf3n said:
Well, I'm sorry to say this contrary to your opinion, but my experience has been the complete opposite of what you have said, simply because of how many more variables a game like Quake or Unreal Tournament has and what you have to do in a game, particularly strategy wise.
In my experience I don't have to think in COD, because the game does so much for me; it gives me weapons the instant I spawn, I have perks that gives me various buffs, I have radar, I have killstreaks/scorestreaks. I don't have to time any power ups or health.
Of course, I'd fully agree that in regards to the damage output of the weapons it's far easier to be killed than in an arena FPS. At the end of the day it all boils down to keeping as steady firing position as humanly possible in order to get the drop on enemies and maintain accuracy.
What was your major? Wonder if we've crossed paths before?his1nightmare said:
Good comments by the way, I wholeheartedly agree.Clearly spoken as someone who has not played something like Quake at a competitive level. The games referred to earlier on feature this massively as map control and the like are often what competitive games boil down to when all the basics are relatively even and taken as a given.wulf3n said:
No, it's not that at all. I consider CoD a great game for what it's worth and obviously has a place in the market - the problem is that anything that deviates from this, especially when it comes to competitive titles, are basically non-existent with hardly any players. This thread is more about the whys... for the record, I do not think CoD is hard to master at all. That said, it doesn't mean it shouldn't exist at all merely that it should not be considered a competitive shooter in any way.Tom_green_day said:
I'd say those two being considered the only professional choices is just endemic of how far the genre has fallen.Phrozenflame500 said:
Actually, the tone of the thread only took a dive when you chimed in. Perhaps I could be bothered to address any points you made but I really can't be bothered as I think it would be an exercise in futility.Zhukov said:
Nothing is wrong with liking it in and of itself, see above. It's more about the effect it's had on competitive shooters, and why no studio will really consider making them. Just see the recent rehash of Nexuiz. That's probably the closest we got to a new arena shooter in a good decade.erttheking said:
Everyones pouring scorn on cod. I guess thats the cool thing to do because its popular.
If its as no skill as everyones saying with little between the good and the average players then why are the "good" players consistantly going 25-2? Hows knowing your map and using and using the right weapon for he job better than the tool on quake ll who camped the rocket launcher?
There just seems to be a lot of pretentious elitism in this thread.
If its as no skill as everyones saying with little between the good and the average players then why are the "good" players consistantly going 25-2? Hows knowing your map and using and using the right weapon for he job better than the tool on quake ll who camped the rocket launcher?
There just seems to be a lot of pretentious elitism in this thread.
Whoever mentioned that the problem lies with most gamers who play MP FPS are all that competitive, they aren't that skilled and have very little motivation to improve, that's why a game like CoD is perfect for them.
My only problem is that casual MP games take away the all the scrubs and cannon fodder from some of the more competitive games and makes been a noob those games a pain because the skill ceiling is higher with not many other players of the same ability to play against. (i'm talking about MP games in general not just FPS)
There's also room for highscore systems in MP shooters imo, not just about killing ppl with style like Bulletstorm but shmup chaining that the SP FPS Xotic does. Or Hell what about an Ikaruga polarity system, different colour weapons/ or bullets do more or less damage depending on what colour the target is.
Imo it's not that there is any fresh avenues for the genre to go down, it's that most gamers hate complexity and just want a gun and a simple target to shoot at.
I personally would love devs to start to rediscover some of the 3D shooter elements from the PS1/2 era before Halo took off and every 3D shooter became a std FPS or 3rd person covershooter. While all the more interesting and quirky subgenres of 3D shooters like rail shooters became straddled with naff motion controls or the limitations of the 3DS.
My only problem is that casual MP games take away the all the scrubs and cannon fodder from some of the more competitive games and makes been a noob those games a pain because the skill ceiling is higher with not many other players of the same ability to play against. (i'm talking about MP games in general not just FPS)
Well I certainly think 3D shooters over use aiming with hitscan weapons, with the popular ones atleast ignoring slow moving projectiles with the ability to quickly dodge or reflect attacks.Lightknight said:
There's also room for highscore systems in MP shooters imo, not just about killing ppl with style like Bulletstorm but shmup chaining that the SP FPS Xotic does. Or Hell what about an Ikaruga polarity system, different colour weapons/ or bullets do more or less damage depending on what colour the target is.
Imo it's not that there is any fresh avenues for the genre to go down, it's that most gamers hate complexity and just want a gun and a simple target to shoot at.
I personally would love devs to start to rediscover some of the 3D shooter elements from the PS1/2 era before Halo took off and every 3D shooter became a std FPS or 3rd person covershooter. While all the more interesting and quirky subgenres of 3D shooters like rail shooters became straddled with naff motion controls or the limitations of the 3DS.
