The Evolving FPS Genre
- Thread starter Lobsterkid101
- Start date
Recommended Videos
A LOT of people have said what I simply have to agree with; that an FPS will ALWAYS involve shooting things. Any other game is similar. You do what the genre is. In an RPG, you grind, take quests, and level up. In a platformer, you jump around and fall off of things. In a shooter, you shoot things. What a game does, and you're goals, rewards, etc. are all bound to the genre. An example of an FPS that's used a lot as an example of a game that does everything right without having to depart from normality id CoD4. In the mission "All Ghillied Up", you follow a strictly linear path, doing exactly what you're told to or else you have to deal with 30 angry Russians shooting at you. However, if you do what you're supposed to, you're rewarded with one of the most intense, well scripted stealth missions in any shooter, ever. It delivers a AAA gameplay experience without having to innovate. Innovation is fine, but a game can be great without departing from the norms of it's genre.
Why does everybody forget about Metroid Prime?
It's you against the world, but it is literally a world. Most of the enemies you encounter are simply bugs or beasts that you intruded upon. The space pirates are there, but they don't show up too frequently until you actually break int their laboratory. Even the bosses make sense. You fight the mother snow lizard-thing because there is vital equipment in its lair and it does not want you to come in.
Your gun functions as a tool as mush as a weapon, allowing you to clear away obstacles and power switches while still being able to blow stuff up. It's like if the gravity gun and the entire Bioshock arsenal (maybe not the ENTIRE arsenal) were mixed together
There are so many platform puzzles that you need to solve that sometimes you forget that enemies exist. Also, the puzzles usually don't feel out of place; the platforms are part of the environment (some of the tunnels are kind of strange though).
Lastly, while the story given to you is bare bones (stop the space pirates), you can find out more by exploring the world around you with your scanner, which not only gives you information, but can hack computers and activate devices. There are no missions or levels, the world is all one big map (with NO loading times I might add) that you explore. You get access to different areas as you find more equipment, so you are not stopped from exploring the lava pits, but without the right equipment you won't survive very long. Places are inaccessibility because you cannot reach them, not because the area is off limits for whatever reason.
If you haven't played Metriod Prime you should. It did eight years ago what Mirros Edge is doing now. There has been lots of innovation within FPS's, but most of it is eclipsed by the "need" for multi-player, which stems from the success of Halo.
It's you against the world, but it is literally a world. Most of the enemies you encounter are simply bugs or beasts that you intruded upon. The space pirates are there, but they don't show up too frequently until you actually break int their laboratory. Even the bosses make sense. You fight the mother snow lizard-thing because there is vital equipment in its lair and it does not want you to come in.
Your gun functions as a tool as mush as a weapon, allowing you to clear away obstacles and power switches while still being able to blow stuff up. It's like if the gravity gun and the entire Bioshock arsenal (maybe not the ENTIRE arsenal) were mixed together
There are so many platform puzzles that you need to solve that sometimes you forget that enemies exist. Also, the puzzles usually don't feel out of place; the platforms are part of the environment (some of the tunnels are kind of strange though).
Lastly, while the story given to you is bare bones (stop the space pirates), you can find out more by exploring the world around you with your scanner, which not only gives you information, but can hack computers and activate devices. There are no missions or levels, the world is all one big map (with NO loading times I might add) that you explore. You get access to different areas as you find more equipment, so you are not stopped from exploring the lava pits, but without the right equipment you won't survive very long. Places are inaccessibility because you cannot reach them, not because the area is off limits for whatever reason.
If you haven't played Metriod Prime you should. It did eight years ago what Mirros Edge is doing now. There has been lots of innovation within FPS's, but most of it is eclipsed by the "need" for multi-player, which stems from the success of Halo.
Um. Bioshock is a spiritual sequel to System Shock II, which was very innovative. There goes your theory about non-sequels having all the magic. Also, you may want to play the Deus Ex games before looking to Goldeneye as the latest milestone. Also there are some great ideas that we have seen develop in the FPS genre, such as context-sensitive actions, character classes, squad commands, and fresh game variants.drumboi88 said:
Bringing up Portal has nothing to do with the "click on badguy until he dies" argument against FPS gameplay innovation, but it does demonstrate that there are other things we can do in first-person besides shoot. The real key here is redefining what we mean by first-person combat and how that translates to gameplay. Mirror's Edge presents us with some fun first-person combat and platforming, but there's still much to learn from this approach. I think that until we see a good first-person boxing or fighting game, it will be very difficult for first-person combat to further evolve.
If the only way to "fix" FPS is to turn them into a different genre, then maybe you should play another genre.
Portal is not an FPS and neither is Mirror's edge.
Portal is not an FPS and neither is Mirror's edge.
I think certain control schemes lend themselves to different gaemplay functions. For example, being a healer/medic would be better suited for a point and click interface where your team's diagnostics are on your HUD where as FPS dynamics clearly work for shooting situations.... having a game meld different game mechanics into the same experience in order to maximize the fun of different job roles would be exciting. Hell, maybe heavy machine gunning is better suited for a 3rd person camera perspective?Phase_9 said:
Imagine being a ranked general and being able to use an in-game PDA to switch to an overworld map that plays like an RTS only dictating directions to in game FPS players. The more we deconstruct these supposed "genres" as gameplay dynamics the more creative games can become.
Ye, I just used it as an example of the type of gameplay.needausername said:
I think there's some real potential in that direction. But they chose to do "story" and make it all grimy, I think that's where they blew it. It should have been a constant cascade of "+100000 bonus" "multiplier up" "SUPER WEPUNZ", colors and weird enemies. A much faster-paced game where you shoot a *lot* of stuff and it's all totally exaggerated. Kind of like Katamari Damacy, but where the solution to everything in Katamari was "roll it", here it would be "shoot it".
*hands you Battlefield 2142*BallPtPenTheif said:
While I agree with most of what you said, I feel I must point out that the world is actually divided into several sections, not continuous, and that there are load times, they are just hidden well. Remember those doors that didn't open immediately? The game was loading the next room.randommaster said:
If they make an FPS that is like the beginning of Far Cry: Instincts, then I will be very happy. Your health drains so fast that you're forced to use stealth to take down your enemies, collecting the weapons of your fallen foes. I had a lot of fun with that game, until I got injected with the experimental serum. Why is it that I need beast sense to see in the dark, but the enemies all have telescopic X-ray vision? That was so annoying.
I see genres combining more in the future. Games like Deus Ex and Mass Effect, with a mixture of real time shooting and rpg will become more common, as will other genre mixers. I'm waiting for the day where you have a first person RPG in which you roam an open world, becoming gradually more important, passing through and RPG+FPS stage as a soldier or something, then becoming an important general/government leader in a RTS or TBS stage. Of course, as a leader you would be able to join your troops in the field, or visit planets and talk to people in an RPG fashion. It would take ages to make if one were not to make each stage too shallow but it would be amazingly epic, and with the addition of new planets and systems via expansions and mods, it could possibly be the last game I'd ever feel the need to play. This could of course be done in settings other than scifi, just switch planets and systems for nations and regions, villages and tribes, etc. Of course, a game of this scope is probably far off, but a man can dream... At any rate, combination is where I see the future going in FPSes and gaming in general.
Edit- ninja'd by about 10 posts in the time it took to write this. Well, I agree with all the people who posted my idea before me.
Edit- ninja'd by about 10 posts in the time it took to write this. Well, I agree with all the people who posted my idea before me.
Quoted in its entirety for the benefit of those with short attention spans to have a second chance to read it, as this is pretty much how it is in terms of truly innovative FPS.pxZero said:
System Shock/2, Deus Ex, Vampire The Masquarade: Bloodlines, and BioShock in the "FPS/RPG" direction. This direction emphasizes immersion and includes a connection with your character's development.
The Natural Selection, Battlezone, Savage, Mercenaries (okay that's more 3rd person) ect in the "FPS/Strategy" direction. This direction emphasizes giving the players a powerful number of world-altering choices and often takes a competitive spin.
Half Life is practically a tech demo in comparison. Yes, you have your physics and awesome cinematic experiences, but in terms of being a game it does little.
Saying that you're just holding the mouse over the other guy and clicking is the same thing as saying sex is just wiggling your midsection a bit. It completely understates what is happening.
I like what you are saying. I personally like all the shooting but I agree it needs to change. What you're saying abotu Mirror's Edge is basically combining two genre's PoP's running and an FPS' first person and shooting). How about just experiment with something other than shooting. Mirror's Edge was fine, it could have done better with NO SHOOTING and just hand-to-hand combat. My example of a mutant FPS is Condemned (just the first too much gun play in the second). Like Yahtzee says they did a good job with everything in terms of gameplay (but damn those doors). Why not more FPS games that require hand-to-hand combat. For instance The Three Musketeers, for the Wii. Simulate sword fighting, and its not a shooter. Or Assassin's Creed on the Wii, wall running and sword fighting... just not boring this time... and maybe not exactly Assassin's Creed but soemthing like it.
I'm well aware of the game thank you. I am speaking in abstract terms, there's no need to be sassy and overcorrective. I'd prefer you're thoughts about genre incorporation not an emote.Shellsh0cker said:
I'd like an FPS-RPG that didn't strip out the action while tossing the RPG element into it. System shock, bioshock, deus ex, fallout3, they all just kinda slowly plod along while you fight a handful of enemies.
Left 4 Dead was a refreshing departure in that it brought twitch gaming back into fighting AI enemies. You really don't need to think on your feet in singleplayer since you can re-load and just remember what happens next. That procedural enemy generation /based on player context/ might be the next big design standard for this genre. It doesn't have to only apply to hordes of zombies, but perhaps dropping coordinated and varied teams of soldiers, dinosaurs, ghost, whatever the badguy du jour is.
FPS games tend to be quite linear since open games have difficulty with pacing. By monitoring player context for enemy generation they found a way to sprinkle enemies in an exciting way, regardless of where the player might be. This allows games to open up, L4D was linear in order to help 4-player teams moving in the same direction while under duress, but this won't be an issue for singleplayer games. It's a technique that can still be mixed with the giant setpiece encounters with memorable scripting.
In an FPS-RPG, they tend to ease off on the player to avoid overwhelming the players who favor an RPG pace. By monitoring the context, they can dump more enemies on the players who can handle it.
I think this new form of pacing will be a common design element in FPS games to come, like regenerating health, cover systems, melee buttons, etc.
Left 4 Dead was a refreshing departure in that it brought twitch gaming back into fighting AI enemies. You really don't need to think on your feet in singleplayer since you can re-load and just remember what happens next. That procedural enemy generation /based on player context/ might be the next big design standard for this genre. It doesn't have to only apply to hordes of zombies, but perhaps dropping coordinated and varied teams of soldiers, dinosaurs, ghost, whatever the badguy du jour is.
FPS games tend to be quite linear since open games have difficulty with pacing. By monitoring player context for enemy generation they found a way to sprinkle enemies in an exciting way, regardless of where the player might be. This allows games to open up, L4D was linear in order to help 4-player teams moving in the same direction while under duress, but this won't be an issue for singleplayer games. It's a technique that can still be mixed with the giant setpiece encounters with memorable scripting.
In an FPS-RPG, they tend to ease off on the player to avoid overwhelming the players who favor an RPG pace. By monitoring the context, they can dump more enemies on the players who can handle it.
I think this new form of pacing will be a common design element in FPS games to come, like regenerating health, cover systems, melee buttons, etc.
Lobsterkid101 said:The Fps (First Person Shooter) Genre has seen a lot of action. Surely Trillions of lives have been lost in epic battles for survival, not all those lives were human, but they were lives nonetheless. The Core concept of this genre revolves around, to quote Yahtzee "you and the other enemy hold your mouse?s over each other and click until the other person dies"
To the average person, one might think that this would get boring, and indeed, the concept could get very monotonous if it weren't for the brilliant developers constantly thinking up of new environments, tactics, and enemies for people to work out their on.
Like I recall saying once, many many MANY FPS are way too similar to each other, and whilst I agree fully on that, I have to say that your argument abbout Mirror's Edge is absolutely flawed. No offence to myself, but in EVERY single occasion I attempted to take on the armies that were chasing me throughout the rooftops (which kinda defeats the point of escapism if you cannot perform clever tactics to evade your pursuers and actuallymake them work.) I found myself in the position of having the capacity of using my body as a water filter to create strawberry squash (I am SO sweet). So , Like I have mentioned before, Mirror's Edge is not only a game meant to be played escapetively, like Assassin's Creed is meant to be (although in that one you seem to be a hybrid of Achiles and Hercules born from the bowels of Christ), but it's also so short and easy that it can be easily, as has already done before by me, compared to an . Satisfactory pleasing, but incredibly short, and leaving you wanting for more
And of course white.
Whilst all this is fun and great, the massive onslaught of FPS's have completely jaded me in their regard. Massive attacks on enemy fortresses barely flutter the heart anymore, the nuclear no longer even registers on the holy scale, and the epic push to save the human race from aliens doesn't show anything new enough to slap me in the face and wake me up from this trance. I'm pretty sure I'm not the only one in this regard. Many a site I've visited with majority of the complaints that could be summed up as "it's been done before"
Yes, yes it has been done before, and the reason why people still buy fps's while they have a cupboard chockfull of them is simply because they have a different premise. A different environment so to speak, which tricks consumers into thinking its a wholly different game when its really not. A perfect example of this would be Call of Duty 5, great game, I'm not disputing that. But the fact that it runs on the exact same engine as Call of duty 4, just a different premise, 50 years into the past, helps emphasize my point. Its the same thing, just a different environment.
If my jaded(ness) is anything to go by. I believe that this well of painting new coats of paint on an extremely old house is going to dry up very soon. However, the Genre of FPS is far, FAR too profitable for it to die just like that. Instead, I believe it will be forced to evolve when it can no longer rely on consumers to buy products that all have the same core concept in mind with very little variation in its core-gameplay, much like the human race will evolve beyond our dependence on oil and change to alternative fuels instead.
The question now is, how will the FPS genre evolve beyond First Person ? I honestly couldn't tell you. However, i think an excellent example of such a FPS mutant would be Mirror's Edge. Yes, its gameplay focused almost exclusively on platforming rather then , but the very fact that it was in first person, and that you could indeed shoot, but also run up walls and jump buildings proves my point. The core concept has evolved beyond just , its now an entirely different beast, something that combines to genre's into a game that is truly different on the most basic level, rather then just a pretty coat of paint on an old war-horse. Some people may not like the idea of platforming and , and that?s ok. But the very fact that it CHANGES the core concept of an FPS is something certainly in the correct direction.
Mirror's Edge is only one direction where the FPS genre could go. To some, I'm sure it seems like a natural evolution, to others, perhaps not. To leave a question, just so I can get you all to comment, what kind of evolution would you like the FPS genre to take? What different direction should it head in, and what ideas you might have for a game that you have thought of yourself that employs this thinking?
No, no, no... Please. Not FPS in that case. FPS stands for First person SHOOTER. FPS is a shooter.Varchld said:
Now, many people don't realise that, or are too stupid to connect the two points, but this means that every game that is an FPS is a shooter. It could be an action shooter, sure, it could be an advenure shooter, it could be a shooter simulation, etc. But it's not a delivery method. FP for only first person however IS, and it's a perspective, not a delivery method, but that's another matter. You can have a first person roleplaying game. You can have a first person puzzle game (portal, for example). You could have a first person strategy game.
You'd be hard pressed however to make a first person shooter stragety game. FPS IS a genre. FP is not. Because of that we SHOULD think about FPS AS a genre, and FP as a perspective. Not muddle everything up and start misusing words, we had enough of that when people started using the term action-rpg.