The downward slope of recent FPS games

[RMcAvoy]

I know I can't be the only one thinking this.

I'm not here to talk about singleplayer features or campaigns. So let's leave that at the door. From a perspective of somebody who loves playing first person shooters online, I think the most recent and incredibly popular games in the genre are complete garbage. I'm talking largely about Modern Warfare 3 and Battlefield 3. As I'm sure anybody who has ever watched a video on Youtube knows, there is this massive debate over which is better.

In my head this question sounds more like:

"what would you rather eat, poop with peanuts in it or poop with sweetcorn in it?"

Why? Because the sad truth is, the reason they are both liked so much is purely because a large majority of the people playing them never experienced Call of Duty 1, 2 or 4. All of which blow Modern Warfare 2, Black Ops and MW3 out of the water. The same goes for Battlefield 1942 and Battlefield 2.

So, what's wrong with them? Why are their earlier counterparts so much better?

Dice have created what looks like a fanstastic game on paper with Battlefield 3, yes. The animations, designs and rank systems are all admirable and the gameplay idea of it all is nothing of short of great. Just like the old Battlefield games. But they really shot themselves in the foot when they insisted on using the "Frostbite" engine. It's one of the most jumpy, sluggish and unimpressive feeling engines i've ever had the misfortune to play on. Yes, it's great seeing walls crumble when things explode. But when the over-all flow of the engine feels worse than the one they released Battlefield 1942 on back in 2002, you know that something's not right.

The main culprit, however, is COD. Call of Duty is a series that's recently and quickly become extremely popular. This is largely due to the fact that almost every household owns a current-generation games console and an internet connection. And because every second household has a tell-your-friends-what-game-your-into-just-now-pre-pubescent-teenage-boy. To give you an idea of how much the series has ballooned, Call of Duty 2 sold around 2 million copies in the first 3 years of it's release on xbox alone. Pretty good as far as games went in 2005. What about today's MW3? 6.5 million. In the first 24 hours.

You would think that with all this extra cash that Activision and Infinity Ward would stop at nothing to create an online experience that is unmatchable... right? No. The multiplayer is a disasterous recycled copy of it's predecesors. Maybe it's because almost all of the original creators of Call of Duty have left the company (see link at bottom for that story) and they don't want to change a recipe that's proven to work. Understandable. But this excuse can only apply to a small slice of the gigantic "MW3 sucks" pie. The combat is extremely simplified. You can now die/kill about twice as easy as you did in previous games. I'm willing to bet that this is a change made to make the game more playable for the ever-growing fanbase of people who don't actually play games very often. Cause, let's face it, it's not very fun for casual-joe when he's getting his ass handed to him. But for somebody that values whooping ass because he's good at the game, watching a "kill-cam" in which your opponent looks like a drunk bone-head with no thumbs is one of the most irritating thing's I've ever experienced in gaming. But casual-joe is unlikely to buy the next title if he's getting his ass whooped, isn't he? Money, money. But probably the most irritating thing about the game is the absence of dedicated servers. For those of you who don't know what I'm talking about, have a watch of this very short video. It isn't actually gaming-related but the same principle applies:

Peer to Peer versus Dedicated Servers:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BxXoJRL3uXE

Yeah, you guessed it. Call of Duty runs on peer-to-peer. Why? Because Activision/Infinity Ward are lazy and their pockets are water-tight. If it can be done with Battlefield 3 then there is absolutely no excuse for not doing it with Call of Duty. The peer-to-peer hosting system is the reason you might see a kill-cam that is completely out of synch to what happened on your screen. It "favours" certain connections/computers over others, resulting in some players having an advantage relative to a god damn time-machine. Getting this advantage is like rolling a dice, so for those of us that play games to challenge each other or to "compete" it's disk-shattering stuff. But, ask yourself, how many people do you think playing MW3 right now even know what a dedicated server is?

To sum it up, MW3 is a recycled, dumbed-down, shameless and carefully budgeted way of taking cash from the pocket's of people who don't know any better.

My worry is that if this trend continues then we're unlikely to see any more games of the same caliber as the older Call of Duties/ Battlefields. What do you think? Perhaps Respawn Entertainment will come along with something great. But how long will it take before money steers that ship more than gameplay?

Infinity Ward's employees move to Respawn:

http://www.escapistmagazine.com/news/view/100204-Infinity-Ward-Respawns-at-Respawn-UPDATED

 

[Jdb]

Good thing Hawken and Natural Selection 2 are coming out this year. A mech flavored arena shooter and team-based FPS/RTS hybrid should stir things up.

 

[Skin]

I don't play multiplayer games with iron sights. Halo and Counterstrike are still going strong. I have no reason to play any other game.

 

[Zhukov]

I'm having a lot of trouble swallowing this notion that BF1942 is better that BF3.

I certainly don't consider that to be the case.

 

[XMark]

I wouldn't say FPS games are on a downward slope. I'd say they're more on a flat plain. Kind of stagnating, though not really falling.

Partly due to this console generation getting stretched out for too long, partly due to increased game budgets lowering the amount of risk-taking by major game studios, partly because doing exactly the same thing as the last game (or in the base of BF3's single player campaign, doing exactly the same thing as your competition's last game) is proving to be very profitable for game makers.

It's only a matter of time before someone with enough skill and luck makes the next big breakthrough game that pulls the FPS out of its current stagnation.

 

[gyrobot_v1legacy]

Nope, with Kotick monopolizing everything and slowly reducing the number of avaialable companies, there will only several publishers left and fun shooters will be gone.

 

[Still Life]

I know I can't be the only one thinking this.

Why? Because the sad truth is, the reason they are both liked so much is purely because a large majority of the people playing them never experienced Call of Duty 1, 2 or 4. All of which blow Modern Warfare 2, Black Ops and MW3 out of the water. The same goes for Battlefield 1942 and Battlefield 2.

So, what's wrong with them? Why are their earlier counterparts so much better?

Nostalgia isn't your friend.

It's one of the most jumpy, sluggish and unimpressive feeling engines i've ever had the misfortune to play on. Yes, it's great seeing walls crumble when things explode. But when the over-all flow of the engine feels worse than the one they released Battlefield 1942 on back in 2002, you know that something's not right.

We're obviously not playing the same game, because the BF3 I play feels smooth, plays smooth with good pings and looks excellent. The game has had a few teething issues, most of which have been ironed out. Big deal.

The main culprit, however, is COD. Call of Duty is a series that's recently and quickly become extremely popular. This is largely due to the fact that almost every household owns a current-generation games console and an internet connection. And because every second household has a tell-your-friends-what-game-your-into-just-now-pre-pubescent-teenage-boy.

Isn't that the reason games like BF and COD grew in popularity from the very beginning? Because of 'word of mouth'? Gamers themselves are the most prolific source of marketing, so if something is good to play, you'll very likely hear about it one way or another. They're massively popular today, and for good reason. However, iterative refinement of a franchise is innately a sign of decay? That would be a logical fallacy and that is essentially your argument distilled to its essence.

You would think that with all this extra cash that Activision and Infinity Ward would stop at nothing to create an online experience that is unmatchable... right? No. The multiplayer is a disasterous recycled copy of it's predecesors.

In many ways, COD is the online FPS because of the features/service it offers to its extremely diverse community -- across all platforms. It may not be the 'pro' gamer's first choice for cut-throat competitions, but as a social game it is more than adequate at what it does.

absence of dedicated servers.

MW3 has dedicated servers.

To sum it up, MW3 is a recycled, dumbed-down, shameless and carefully budgeted way of taking cash from the pocket's of people who don't know any better.

The formula works exceptionally well and is a 'fun' way of kicking back with some friends. People will keep buying so long as a quality product is consistently produced.

My worry is that if this trend continues then we're unlikely to see any more games of the same caliber as the older Call of Duties/ Battlefields. What do you think? Perhaps Respawn Entertainment will come along with something great. But how long will it take before money steers that ship more than gameplay?

What did I get from your exposition/pontificating? Nothing. Nothing at all except a meandering spiel. You're starved for new and fresh FPS games because the industry/genre is in steep decline? Look harder.

You've missed Metro, Stalker, Killing Floor, Arma, Hard Reset, Serious Sam, Bulletstorm, Tribes: Ascend, Rage, etc? Ever bother to seek out the indie scene, or the mod scene? I find that hard to believe.

Sorry, your post is simply nothing more than a self-indulgent wall of text. Stale bread (ironically) would be an appropriate metaphor for your argument, but you insist on buttering it. Why don't you use all your spare time to talk about real issues, such as the preservation of older games for the sake of posterity?

 

[MorphingDragon]

Recent?

Boy FPS games have been going down in Quality since 1980.

 

[Still Life]

Recent?

Boy FPS games have been going down in Quality since 1980.

Back in the 90s id software was stifling the industry because many, many gamers were playing Doom, right?

 

[Phlakes]

Bioshock, Far Cry 2 (and probably 3), Crysis, Resistance 3, Bulletstorm, Halo Reach, L4D2, FPSRPGs like Deus Ex HR, STALKER, Borderlands, etc.

Unless by "downward slope" you mean "the relatively small amount of CoD clones that get most of the attention of forums like this".

And even then, MW3 and BF3 are good games. Believe it or not, most game reviewers know as much as or more than you about what they're doing, and if damn near every single one of them rates them highly, 99% of the time it's because the games deserve it.

 

[Laser Priest]

Gee willickers, that's a whole... two series of games as the basis for your entire argument. Meanwhile, pretty much every other shooter is doing just fine.

I can't really say, as I'm not fond of the series, but I'm sure many who enjoy Call of Duty would tell you it is going anywhere but downhill.

 

[BarbaricGoose]

Battlefield 3 was a pretty big disappointment for me. Some of the maps are WAY too big for the amount of players on consoles. 64 players on PC I get, but doing those same, gigantic maps with half the normal amount of players? That's just a load of shit. On some of the maps I find I'll just wandering around various objectives aimlessly. It's a ****ing warzone; I shouldn't be wandering around aimlessly. That, and the blinding flashlight thing.

I really enjoyed BFBC2. I thought they did just about everything right with that game.

CoD has, I think, remained about the same in terms of enjoyment for me. I play it more for the single player, and I like the mulitplayer, but I never get past rank 50.

 

[daveman247]

*Points toward halo reach* I dare you to find a more balanced, varied and fun multiplayer shooter.
- Battlefield bad company 2 was excellant.

 

[KILRbuny]

I'm not a very big battlefield player (the only game i put even 30 minutes into was bad company 2, speaking strictly multiplayer), but I have put quite a bit into the Call of Duty games. For me, there's a lot of fun to be had. I'd definitely classify Call of Duty a "bro shooter" and I can accept that and enjoy it sometimes; I play with my friends online quite often just for some chat and something to do. I wouldn't say MW3 is such a horrible game as you make it out to be. No revelation like CoD4 seemed to be. But the game does what I expect it to: Deliver an over-the-top story for 6-10 hours, and keep me playing games during slow times between the big releases I want.

As far as a downhill slope from shooters, I think you are dead wrong, my friend. Off the top of my head, The Darkness II is coming out, and looks to be very promising in terms of awesomeness and sweet shooter elements you won't find anywhere else (quad weilding) and Bioshock Infinite looks to deliver an awesome story with really good first person shooting to back it up. Both are on my list of home console games to get this year.

I think in about ten to twenty years, we'll all look back and remember the good times we spent gaming (playing Halo 3 online for hours, wasting time on the couch late at night playing Super Smash Bros. with our friends, etc. etc.) rather than look back and think, "Remember that one Call of Duty game that was so bad? God, playing games when I was younger sucked!" They'll all be just tiny splotches of crap on an otherwise awesome history of gaming that will be there.

 

[zehydra]

*Points toward halo reach* I dare you to find a more balanced, varied and fun multiplayer shooter.
- Battlefield bad company 2 was excellant.

I'm just going to say that BBC2 was an amazing FPS. I don't have BF3, but if it's anything like BBC2, then I'd get it.

If it weren't for Origin.





...and my lack of funds.

 

[Legiondude]

At times I wonder where FPSs can go from here. All the settings just seem so inundated, I wonder if they've really run out of imagination as a collective whole.

WW2 and modern military conflicts have been done, dominantly by Battlefield, CoD, and Counterstrike. A streak of sillyness was put on the modern setting with TF2. Halo has that niche of being the headliner near future sci-fi FPS that can't be dethroned so long as there's a dedicated fandom and Microsoft backs it. Killzone has that not-our-world-near-future sci-fi setting. Warhammer 40k that far future sci-fi.

EDIT: There's alot of FPS games I've left out, I was just listing off the top of my head

I'm still holding a candle for Interstellar Marines. Land Sharks FTW!

 

[teebeeohh]

when did this wave of writing opinion pieces and labeling them as fact start on this forum?

besides, online fps peaked with the towering pillar of hats in tf2

 

[Dandark]

You would be completely right if by the FPS genre you meant Call of Duty and Battlefield.......
However since many other games in the FPS genre have been doing pretty good lately with still more to come out, not all of them FPS games but shooters none the less.
Such as you know The Darkness 2, Hawken, Lost planet 2, Deus ex, STALKER, metro 2033 and last light, Space marine etc.

All of them those listed above are fun shooters and whether people like them or hate them they all have their own unique way of playing. They are not similar to Cod or Battlefield.
So no I wouldn't say recent shooters(I assume you meant that by FPS like most people) are on a downward spiral, your just only looking at the main two series.
I would however agree that the Call of Duty and Battlefield are on a downward spiral, this could simply be because they are both pretty old now and have been very well used.

 

[Blizzard36]

The simple single cause for the current top mass market shooters having been "dumbed down" is consoles and their control, demographic, market, and technological characteristics. Consoles are an ever larger percentage of the video game market, not surprising since a gaming console is much more affordable than a gaming PC, and so an increasing number of games are built to console standards instead of PC standards. With the increasing costs of developing computer games developers will also often make them available for multiple platforms in order to maximize their possible sales, when developing for multiple platforms the lowers common denominator is what is designed for. Since that is almost always one of the consoles many of the PC platform?s advantages are negated.

The Battlefield series shows this well. The more complex features of BF2 that were not carried over to BF:BC2 and BF3 (both still good games in my opinion), most notably the command utilities for both squad leaders and overall commander, simply aren't doable with the limited controls on consoles. The early problems using bipods in BF3, which had more impactful restrictions than they should have due to poor controls is a good example of this. Making bipod deployment a toggle like the laser sight or flashlight would have fixed this and PC keyboards had plenty of keys left that could have been used for that task console controllers already were using every button. Eventually a more efficient solution was found by the programmers by having bipod deployment automatically bring you to your sights as well, avoiding the delay getting to your sights because of having to do two toggle commands with the same action.

Another FPS I play, Space Marine, has had even bigger issues due to this limitation. Two weapons used by the Devastator class, the plasma cannon and lascannon, are considered to be more powerful than most others in the game and to need more limitations in trade-off. The most commonly suggested trade-offs would be that the shooter would have to brace to use it, which they already do with the heavy bolter (a heavy machinegun that's the 3rd possible weapon for that class). Even though skilled heavy bolter users can be far more lethal than the other two weapons the limitations while braced mean that the people they're against know the Devastator had to work at it and that they will be able to use certain counter moves to get around them. Bracing the plasma cannon or lascannon can't be used as a solution despite strong player support for the idea because there is no remaining button free for that command on console controllers. The button used on the heavy bolter has other uses with those weapons. In the case of Space Marine the control limitations of consoles have led not only to certain features having to be cut out but also balance issues that can't be easily fixed.

Call of Duty's problems (from a consumer perspective) are more complex, caused by market demographics, the secondary market infrastructure, and the technology restrictions in the market. Demographics are the biggest cause, hardcore console players tend to be more casual than hardcore PC players. A brand new console needed to play the latest most advanced games had never cost more than $300 until the last generation where $500 was the norm for quite a while, while top flight PCs routinely run near or above $2000 and have for two decades. Spending 4x as much on your platform shows a certain higher level of dedication to your chosen hobby, and also leads to more demanding standards in order to get your value from that purchase. Hardcore console gamers want a good enjoyable game while the hardcore PC gamers want a revolution or perfection.

Even after initial demands in product are taken into account there are many other demographic reasons that console games can be of comparatively lower quality and still be very successful in the console market. The biggest is the ?Madden? effect. Console game producers in the sports genre have gotten in the habit of releasing yearly versions of their games. The consumers in the console market have in turn become accustomed to the yearly releases from these brands and don?t see anything unusual about them, while PC gamers see yearly releases as guarantees that the game was rushed and will not be as good as it could have/should have been. I?m going to make a statement here, as a PC gamer, that will shock most other ?hardcore? PC gamers. Yearly releases are not necessarily a bad thing! In fact, it is exactly what a certain type of gamer wants; a type of gamer that evidently makes up a very large percentage of the console market.

In the case of sports games these yearly releases are vital. Season and dynasty modes are the favorite type for the dedicated sports game enthusiast and due to the large roster changes every year it is important to release new versions of these games each year to take into account these roster changes in order to keep the hardcore sports gamer happy. These yearly release schedules mandate that changes to the game play are minimal from year to year, which is why PC games hate them so. But this actually has a benefit for those who are looking for it. The small changes to these yearly franchises are enough to keep the game play fresh for those who play it each year, but also ensure that it is still more or less the same game they?ve been playing for some time now so they are immediately familiar with it. The player can quickly learn the differences and get down to the important business of perfecting their dynasty. Call of Duty has adopted the same approach, becoming the second major FPS franchise to do so (no one remembers Medal of Honor these days). The much maligned lack of improvement in the Modern Warfare series, seen as proof of it?s being a rushed cash cow by many PC detractors, is actually intentional and EXACTLY what a very large number of console players want. The games are so similar that skills and knowledge from previous versions can be transferred almost seamlessly allowing the hardcore players to immediately focus on learning the finer nuances of the new maps and mechanics to start their perpetual competition with their friends and rivals anew.

The major secondary markets in consoles, used and rental games, don?t exist in PC gaming and are major enablers of the yearly production cycle for sports franchises and CoD. A player with more demands for improvement or breakthroughs in their new games than the console norm can avoid the risk of buying a costly game that will let them down by renting it first. That way they buy only ones they know they will like and avoid many of the bitter letdowns PC gamers have to live with. They can also artificially increase the apparent improvement in each game by skipping a year, which also saves them money in the long run by making half the purchases.

The used market allows a console player demanding more value for their money to wait and simply buy last year?s version, which is always cheap after the new replacement comes out. This also gives them plenty of time to find out which ones to get for sure and which ones to avoid, virtually guaranteeing that all their purchases are ones they are happy with. The option to sell old games to the used market also enables the players who make the yearly purchases of these franchises to recoup some small part of their costs, something usually impossible for a similar PC gamer. The amounts of money involved aren?t much, but every little bit helps and makes that yearly purchase just a little more likely.

The technological limitations on consoles are the last big reason these ?dumbed down? games are accepted. Most importantly is how much harder it is to mod a game on a console than PC. PC game programmers are effectively competing with many of their end users when creating a product, because some of their users will take that product and then make it better. This makes them look bad if the mod fixes a problem or adds a desired feature. It also means that when working on expansions or sequels they have to make sure their next product is better than any mods of the current one if they are going to have any hope of selling it. This generally requires more work than could be done on a yearly release schedule. Just as the used game secondary market allows console gamers to afford or accommodate yearly release schedules modding allows PC gamers to avoid or undermine it.

 

[LobsterFeng]

I think you bring up some good points. MW3's multiplayer is, in my opinion, very unbalanced and not fun at all. And you die so easily that it's very hard to do any good until you get to about level 22. But if you're patient, and lucky enough, you can get into some really good matches. But I guess the same can be said for any online multiplayer game.

Aside from multiplayer, I think I'm one of the few weirdos that actually enjoys CoD's singleplayer features. I can see why some people may hate the campaign, but I actually thoroughly enjoyed MW3's campaign. (Although it might just be because the last CoD campaign I played was Black Ops on reflection.) Plus Spec Ops mode is a lot of fun, and is enough to keep me entertained for a while.

So while not everyone may appreciate CoD, I think it's good at what it tries to do, it's fun. And I haven't played any of the Battlefield games so I can't speak for them.