What defines a shooter?

[F4LL3N]

Wow. That's all I can say! The four shooter types I know of are:
-FPS
-TPS
-Side Scrolling shooter
-Top down shooter

That's all dealing with camera perspective. Combat focusing on guns or vehicles with guns define a shooter. Than again, I'd probably define a game as a shooter if the main combat mechanics were bow and arrows or projectile magic.

 

[DementedSheep]

To be a shooter you just have to have a focus on shooting shit with a ranged weapon. Thats it really and you can be a shooter and have other things, like bioshock has light RPG elements.

 

[anthony87]

I'm sorry but....the fuck?

A shooter is a game where you SHOOT PEOPLE/PLACES/THINGS!!!!

What the hell needs to be questioned or complicated about that?

 

[Owyn_Merrilin]

I can kind of see the point he's trying to make. There is some difference between games being based around guns and games including guns. I'm pretty sure (though I wouldn't like to try it) that you could actually play through Bioshock without actually pulling a gun. If anyone cares to correct me then please do so, but I can't actually think of a single part of the game that can't be done with purely with the non gun mechanics. The same cannot be said for games like Call of Duty or Killzone. I think from his post you might be taking quotes out of context, clearly the cover based thing is pretty stupid.

You can do it using nothing but Plasmids and melee, but Plasmids are just guns that use a different ammo system, really. If being able to use plasmids disqualifies it as a shooter, then Hexen, Heretic, and that Wheel of Time game that ran on the original Unreal Tournament engine are all in some separate, non-shooter genre, which is just ridiculous; they're all first person shooters.

 

[MagnetoHydroDynamics]

If the majority of the game is making things dead with some sort of projectile attack, then it is a shooter.

Substitute projectile for blunt body parts, you (usually) get beat-em-up.
Substitute for bladed weapon, you get hack-n-slash.

 

[Macrobstar]

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. 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. 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. 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.
Also, I don't play CoD, and I'm definately not MLG, that made me laugh

Actually you said you cant compare killzone and bioshock because bioshock isn't a proper shooter
You literally said a proper shooter has to have "ADS, shoot, good cover system, grenades, melee, crouch"

Actually he said he doesn't think of Bioshock as a shooter because of the things that Bioshock does differently. Namely the part of the game that gives it the name Bio.
It's not a shooter because of the small parts where you get biologic enhancements that replace some of the shooting mechanics. He never mentioned cover mechanics in his post at all. He didn't literally say that BioShock wasn't a proper shooter for not including cover system.

In my opinion any game where you point with a gun and shoot with the gun are shooters.

Oh I forgot you where there in the conversation we where having when he said what i said, that was a quote from the message he sent me

 

[Yopaz]

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. 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. 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. 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.
Also, I don't play CoD, and I'm definately not MLG, that made me laugh

Actually you said you cant compare killzone and bioshock because bioshock isn't a proper shooter
You literally said a proper shooter has to have "ADS, shoot, good cover system, grenades, melee, crouch"

Actually he said he doesn't think of Bioshock as a shooter because of the things that Bioshock does differently. Namely the part of the game that gives it the name Bio.
It's not a shooter because of the small parts where you get biologic enhancements that replace some of the shooting mechanics. He never mentioned cover mechanics in his post at all. He didn't literally say that BioShock wasn't a proper shooter for not including cover system.

In my opinion any game where you point with a gun and shoot with the gun are shooters.

Oh I forgot you were there in the conversation we where having when he said what i said, that was a quote from the message he sent me

So you basically quoted a post that had nothing to do with what you were saying? Well, thinking this is an open forum that is overly confusing. Especially when you put it in context with this:

I then told him to look at games like bioshock and HL and compare them to other shooters like cod and KZ, he then told me something I never knew before, apparently bioshock isn't a "proper" shooter because its not based on cover based shooting like KZ and they can't be compared because KZ is a "proper shooter" and bioshock isn't.

The part where he says he is surprised that someone would say Half-Life or BioShock aren't proper shooters. If he sent you a message then it would be a good idea to answer in message form rather than in a forum where only you know what you're answering to and on top of that get annoyed when someone joins in.

 

[Zantos]

I can kind of see the point he's trying to make. There is some difference between games being based around guns and games including guns. I'm pretty sure (though I wouldn't like to try it) that you could actually play through Bioshock without actually pulling a gun. If anyone cares to correct me then please do so, but I can't actually think of a single part of the game that can't be done with purely with the non gun mechanics. The same cannot be said for games like Call of Duty or Killzone. I think from his post you might be taking quotes out of context, clearly the cover based thing is pretty stupid.

You can do it using nothing but Plasmids and melee, but Plasmids are just guns that use a different ammo system, really. If being able to use plasmids disqualifies it as a shooter, then Hexen, Heretic, and that Wheel of Time game that ran on the original Unreal Tournament engine are all in some separate, non-shooter genre, which is just ridiculous; they're all first person shooters.

I'd disagree, plasmids have more in common with a magic system than guns. If plasmids count as guns then you could argue that Oblivion is a shooter because the magic there is just guns that use a different ammo system.

Plus I'm not saying that plasmids disqualify it as a shooter. I'm saying that the fact you never have to shoot someone separates it slightly from some games where the use of guns is required to play the game.

 

[No_Remainders]

So yeh, do you agree? What do you think?

I think your friend is an idiot.

If one of the main combat mechanics is shooting, then it's a shooter.

 

[Use_Imagination_here]

Well than call of duty ain't a shooter. It's not cover based, it's what would happen if cover based shooting and run and gun shooting had a lovechild that doesn't really function as anything but a deathmatch.

 

[woolfie]

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

this is surely a candidate for most desirable superpower

 

[Macrobstar]

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. 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. 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. 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.
Also, I don't play CoD, and I'm definately not MLG, that made me laugh

Actually you said you cant compare killzone and bioshock because bioshock isn't a proper shooter
You literally said a proper shooter has to have "ADS, shoot, good cover system, grenades, melee, crouch"

Actually he said he doesn't think of Bioshock as a shooter because of the things that Bioshock does differently. Namely the part of the game that gives it the name Bio.
It's not a shooter because of the small parts where you get biologic enhancements that replace some of the shooting mechanics. He never mentioned cover mechanics in his post at all. He didn't literally say that BioShock wasn't a proper shooter for not including cover system.

In my opinion any game where you point with a gun and shoot with the gun are shooters.

Oh I forgot you were there in the conversation we where having when he said what i said, that was a quote from the message he sent me

So you basically quoted a post that had nothing to do with what you were saying? Well, thinking this is an open forum that is overly confusing. Especially when you put it in context with this:

I then told him to look at games like bioshock and HL and compare them to other shooters like cod and KZ, he then told me something I never knew before, apparently bioshock isn't a "proper" shooter because its not based on cover based shooting like KZ and they can't be compared because KZ is a "proper shooter" and bioshock isn't.

The part where he says he is surprised that someone would say Half-Life or BioShock aren't proper shooters. If he sent you a message then it would be a good idea to answer in message form rather than in a forum where only you know what you're answering to and on top of that get annoyed when someone joins in.

No he was explaining what he said when what he actually said was what I then told you he said, how is this hard to grasp?

 

[Yopaz]

No he was explaining what he said when what he actually said was what I then told you he said, how is this hard to grasp?

What's hard to grasp is this:

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. 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. 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. 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.
Also, I don't play CoD, and I'm definately not MLG, that made me laugh

And how this post states that a shooter has to have cover mechanics. This is the post that you quoted and as far as I can see there's not even mentioned cover mechanics in it once. Can you put it in bold where he says that a shooter has to have cover mechanics.
Also while you're at it I have a problem grasping why you post something at an open forum on a free website if you don't want anyone to join in.

 

[ChatmakGames]

That was my point, Bioshock does too much other stuff to be comparable to Killzone. That doesn't mean its not a shooter, it's more shooter than it is RPG, and I'll admit the term "proper shooter" was a bad choice of words, but when giving examples of what shooters can do when talking about Killzone, Bioshock isn't the best example to give, because they're so different.

 

[ChatmakGames]

to everyone that's calling me out for the "no cover=no shooter thing", I never said that. What I did say is that most games in the shooter category Killzone is have cover, ADS, shooting and crouching. I in no way implied that Bioshock isn't a shooter, much less that it isn't a shooter because of the lack of a cover system. It is a shooter, just not the kind of shooter Killzone is.

 

[Conza]

Ok so long story short, i was discussing why KZ3 was generic with a friend and he said that its not because it does all these things different from COD, like mission structure. I then told him to look at games like bioshock and HL and compare them to other shooters like cod and KZ, he then told me something I never knew before, apparently bioshock isn't a "proper" shooter because its not based on cover based shooting like KZ and they can't be compared because KZ is a "proper shooter" and bioshock isn't.

So yeh, do you agree? What do you think?

EDIT: So he wants me to explain, that a game that does to many other things than shooting, like bioshock then it cant be classed as a "proper shooter"

The term "Proper Shooter" is non-sequitor. A 'pure' shooter, is a game in which its main elements revolve soley around the main character/s using a shooting gameplay mechanic. Half Life 2 is a classic example of a 'pure' shooter. Which an excellent game, it does not have the depth of say an adventure game, or an RPG. I can't speak for KZ or COD, since I believe any game with shooting elements should only be on the PC, but despite their questionable quality, they may both be called a 'pure' shooter, if their only gameplay elements revolve around shooting weapons at enemies.

Does this clarify things for you and your friend?

 

[ruben6f]

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.

There are tons of guys like that where I live, but instead of Killzone and CoD it's Counter-strike and sport games.

I learned to ignore them when they started using CoD Black Ops as a benchmark for good PCs.

OT: to me a shooter is a game that includes guns, and the player shooting guns.
Chest-high walls and ADS are optional.

 

[Macrobstar]

No he was explaining what he said when what he actually said was what I then told you he said, how is this hard to grasp?

What's hard to grasp is this:

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. 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. 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. 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.
Also, I don't play CoD, and I'm definately not MLG, that made me laugh

And how this post states that a shooter has to have cover mechanics. This is the post that you quoted and as far as I can see there's not even mentioned cover mechanics in it once. Can you put it in bold where he says that a shooter has to have cover mechanics.
Also while you're at it I have a problem grasping why you post something at an open forum on a free website if you don't want anyone to join in.

Im fine with you joining in, its just that quote wasnt what he originally said

 

[EternalFacepalm]

I'm sorry, but your friend is narrow-minded and ignorant.
What makes a shooter a shooter, is the involvement of ranged weapons. That's all a game needs to be a shooter.

EDIT: Just read his posts. The OP seems rather one-sided.