What defines a shooter?

[Da Orky Man]

Do propel some form of projectile? You're in a shooter, or a shooter/xxx.

My particle (creep) accelerator in Minecraft begs to differ.

 

[ThatDaveDude1]

Shooter: A game where the primary method of gameplay involves shooting.

Not really a hard definition to pin down...

 

[Troublesome Lagomorph]

Gameplay composed of shooting enemies...

 

[F'Angus]

Yeah I'm going with the a game that you shoot things on. Plain and simple.

I'd still call bioshock as much a shooter as KZ, except Bioshock expands from the shooter and adds more as well.

 

[Jakub324]

When the primary function of the game is to put things you have to put bullets into between you and where you want to be.

 

[JediMB]

Yeah agreed with your friend. There are two terms: FPS and shooter. FPS is any game that's in first person and where you shoot things. A shooter however, is a game where the primary focus is shooting. Here's a quick explanation of the difference that I'd give:

In a game like BioShock - you pursue the story. Shooting, whether first or third person, is merely the combat mechanic of the game.

In a game like CoD - you shoot things. The story is (usually) there - but it's not interactive. You don't spend much time talking to people, exploring the world/environment or digging into the story interactively in any way - you just shoot stuff from one point to the next and at certain points, story happens around you.

No.

A first-person shooter is... a shooter played in a first-person perspective. Then there are third-person shooters, side-scrolling shooters, etc., etc.. Furthermore, there are plenty of first-person games where you get to shoot things without the game actually being an FPS, such as Mirror's Edge and Metroid Prime.

And the story in BioShock isn't particularly interactive. A simple trinary variable determines what sort of ending you get.

This is just a matter of the mainstream shooter fans wanting to distinguish what they play from the rest of the genre in a way that makes their games seem "pure" and "proper"... because apparently they abhor the unfamiliar.

EDIT: Also, see -Dragmire-'s post below mine.

 

[-Dragmire-]

As far as I'm concerned, a shooter is defined as a game that centers around shooting with perspective being the only thing that separates the sub-genres.

First Person Shooter - Call of Duty/Bioshock

Third Person Shooter - Gears of War/Dead Nation

Side Scrolling Shooter - Contra/Metal Slug

Top Scrolling Shooter - 1942 Joint Strike/Castle Shikigami

All these can be classified as shooters to me, none are more "proper" than the others.

 

[Glademaster_v1legacy]

Well to be honest I can't say yay or nay as you are using such a vague term as a shooter. Technically any game with guns and that revolves around and the main point of the game is shooting then it is a shooter.

You should really specify with terms we already use like FPS, military shooter, pseudo realistic we have these terms for a reason.

 

[AngryMongoose]

apparently bioshock isn't a "proper" shooter because its not based on cover based shooting

Erm; what? So... Wolf 3D isn't a proper shooter?

A shooter is a game in which combat primarily involves aiming ranged weapons.

Shooter

Shooter

Shooter

 

[x-machina]

Had he made the argument about bioshock being part RPG he might have a point. But, to insist all shooters need to be cover based? I'm sorry thats just flat out wrong

 

[Shilefin]

You point at things you don't like, and they go away.

 

[V8 Ninja]

I would define a game as a third/first-person shooter if during the majority of the game I was shooting/throwing projectiles at things, be them enemies or not. Now, as for your friend and what a proper shooter is, I would say that a proper shooter is a game where the gameplay element of shooting/throwing projectiles at enemies/things is the only element that the game has. Now, on the topic of Bioshock I would argue that the game is and isn't a proper shooter, mostly because of those slightly annoying and completely optional hacking minigames. But on the subject of Half-Life I would say that it is a proper shooter because what other gameplay elements that are in those games equate to small physics puzzles and un-strategically pressing buttons.

EDIT: Also, Bioshock does have some slight RPG elements.

 

[TheDooD]

Odd, I thought it would be easy to define a shooter.

Also, your friend sounds like one of those guys who only plays CoD/Killzone and considers themselves MLG gamers because they never play anything else.

I agree with ya and MLG is the bane of "pro-gaming" IMO.

OT

CoD is Historical/Modern Warfare, Killzone is SciFi and Bioshock is Steampunk/SciFi. All of which are in the First Person class of shooters

 

[ManOwaRrior]

Alright, I'm his friend and I never said Bioshock isn't a shooter, just that it does too much of everything else to be compared to Killzone. Killzone, Homefront, CoD and Battlefield all stick to the core mechanics of a shooter.

No, they don't. The core mechanic of a shooter is shooting. Taking Cover behind chest-high walls is not. Driving around in Vehicles is not a core mechanic of a shooter. If you want an example of an FPS that sticks to the core mechanics of a shooter, take a look at Serious Sam.

That doesn't necesserily make them better, but the shooter category is so vague that even within the category there are games that shouldn't be compared to each other.

Thats is indeed true.

The term "proper shooter" isn't real, just something I use in the absence of a proper term to differentiate between games that have less innovation but stick to the genre from games that veer off and do other less common things for a shooter, such as Bioshock and Half-life.

If anything, "modern" would be a better term than "proper".

Its fine if you think I'm nuts for making up a category to make comparing games easier, but I wouldn't put Bioshock and Half-life in the same category as Killzone and CoD.

That again, is true.
Sorry if this sounds nit picky, but it's really just your use of the word "propper". Your point is valid, your wording is not.

 

[TerribleAssassin]

Odd, I thought it would be easy to define a shooter.

Also, your friend sounds like one of those guys who only plays CoD/Killzone and considers themselves MLG gamers because they never play anything else.

You sir, are a legend.


But yeah, I generally regard a shooter as, guns, explosions and most commonly gun metal gray. But saying BioShock isn't a shooter is silly, you don't need cover mechanics to make it a shooter.

 

[FEichinger]

*looks at my Shooter/RPG games collection*
*reads through the thread again*

Did I get that right ... According to what @ChatmakGames says, Mass Effect is more of a shooter than Bioshock, simply because it involves cover based combat, and (at least ME1) crouching?
This is, why franchises like Battlefield and CoD should've ended at the third installment. It just raises kiddies with 'their' gaming involving nothing but the experience of those games - which, to be quite honest, is a shame to the gamers.

As for the terms ... Interesting perceptions we see here ... Considering some people actually believe "FPS" was quite a different genre than "shooter", we should really get to some consensual terms at some point ... Like, for instance, a full subgenre overview, including references - which will be hard, considering the variety at some ends ... Whilst I assume we know one thing: The oh-so-beloved brown and grey "tactical" modern FPSes all fit in one category: Shi- ... Wait, let's rephrase: "Less appreciated games among a large chunk of gamers."

 

[Vrach]

Yeah agreed with your friend. There are two terms: FPS and shooter. FPS is any game that's in first person and where you shoot things. A shooter however, is a game where the primary focus is shooting. Here's a quick explanation of the difference that I'd give:

In a game like BioShock - you pursue the story. Shooting, whether first or third person, is merely the combat mechanic of the game.

In a game like CoD - you shoot things. The story is (usually) there - but it's not interactive. You don't spend much time talking to people, exploring the world/environment or digging into the story interactively in any way - you just shoot stuff from one point to the next and at certain points, story happens around you.

No.

A first-person shooter is... a shooter played in a first-person perspective. Then there are third-person shooters, side-scrolling shooters, etc., etc.. Furthermore, there are plenty of first-person games where you get to shoot things without the game actually being an FPS, such as Mirror's Edge and Metroid Prime.

And the story in BioShock isn't particularly interactive. A simple trinary variable determines what sort of ending you get.

This is just a matter of the mainstream shooter fans wanting to distinguish what they play from the rest of the genre in a way that makes their games seem "pure" and "proper"... because apparently they abhor the unfamiliar.

EDIT: Also, see -Dragmire-'s post below mine.

Fair enough, yeah, it's not a perfect definition, but I stand by the crux of it. In a "shooter", you go around shooting things and stuff happens around you, nothing much, basically just backstory thrown in a few checkpoints. In a non-shooter FPS, there's more to it than shooting. It's not just the story, it's exploration, it's puzzles, it's everything. A shooter is defined by it's shooting - if you took it out, there'd literally be nothing left. If you took out the shooting from something like BioShock, you could just replace it with another combat mechanic and the game would still be there.