What makes a good F.P.S
- Thread starter kingthrall
- Start date
Recommended Videos
For me a shooter need a good variety of guns, but guns that don't make each other redundant.
Balance, I like games where EVERYBODY is equal when the game starts, everybody has the same weapons, and everybody has the same abilities, that way player skill will determine who gets the kill, rather than, who has spawned with the best weapon/ability that suits the situation more.
Also I prefer map weapon pick-ups, because I have never really liked the idea of loadouts/kits.
Balance, I like games where EVERYBODY is equal when the game starts, everybody has the same weapons, and everybody has the same abilities, that way player skill will determine who gets the kill, rather than, who has spawned with the best weapon/ability that suits the situation more.
Also I prefer map weapon pick-ups, because I have never really liked the idea of loadouts/kits.
I... disagree. Cross Hairs are boring, and don't belong on every game. If you're planning on making a first person game, why don't you at least commit to the realistic aspect of actually aiming down the sights of the gun you're given?
I understand there are multiple good exceptions to this, but one of my biggest pet peeves are when someone tries to complain about ADS in a First Person Shooter.
And slow mode being a negative? Have you ever played CoD4 with the slow mode cheat activated? It's almost an entirely new game. And it's amazing.
And I get that it's your opinion and all, but when you end by saying there are only a few good FPS's that you like, I hardly think you're in the position to tell us what makes a good FPS. Especially with the inclusion of Fallout 3 on that list. Really?
What I think FPS need to start avoiding is the legions of enemies you kill, at least in games that are trying to take a semi realistic approach to them. During games like MW3 and Battlefield 3, I got taken out of the immersion when I realized just how much I was decimating everyone, even more highlighted by my teammates not really doing anything, to the point where they were just getting in the way from when I was trying to take cover (Battlefield)
I understand there are multiple good exceptions to this, but one of my biggest pet peeves are when someone tries to complain about ADS in a First Person Shooter.
And slow mode being a negative? Have you ever played CoD4 with the slow mode cheat activated? It's almost an entirely new game. And it's amazing.
And I get that it's your opinion and all, but when you end by saying there are only a few good FPS's that you like, I hardly think you're in the position to tell us what makes a good FPS. Especially with the inclusion of Fallout 3 on that list. Really?
What I think FPS need to start avoiding is the legions of enemies you kill, at least in games that are trying to take a semi realistic approach to them. During games like MW3 and Battlefield 3, I got taken out of the immersion when I realized just how much I was decimating everyone, even more highlighted by my teammates not really doing anything, to the point where they were just getting in the way from when I was trying to take cover (Battlefield)
Bullet time mode is a new obsession? After Max Payne a dozen games tried to do bullet time, and since then there has been at least 1 bullet time/slow motion/time distortion game released each year.kingthrall said:
Welcome to the 21st century.
You want me to list a page worth of FPS ive played is that it? I was for a very long time sniping with shotguns in cs source with sponsors and tournaments, so please as much as I understand you want to question the validity of my post, I dont need to justify every post I make on websites about my background so to speak.JoesshittyOs said:
Slow mode is a negative for me, just because its not realistic, and is probally why fps does not appeal to me no more is the realism of being shot in the face with a shotgun doesnt actually blow the enemies face off in one shot. or even a simple pistol fire on the arm should cripple just like fallout 3.. a game which you so keenly mocked.
Don't get me wrong, I liked Fallout 3 for the most part. It's just the Combat was not it's strong suit. Especially if you're judging it in terms of gunplay.kingthrall said:
And so what Slow mode is not realistic? You're already committing to a game such as CS that relies on the hipfire aspect, and then a game such as Fallout 3 where you can literally freeze time and pick your shots. But bullet time is going too far?
i never used the bullet time engine at all, that was the sole reason why I enjoyed it better than most F.p.s games. What game do you consider the "ideal choice" for an f.p.s that you are comparing to what I have listed?
In the same way that most platformer games are the same, in the same way most JRPGs are the same, in the same way MMORPGs are the same, in the same way most beat-em-ups are the same, in the same way blah blah blah. Stating similarities between games of the same genre isn't an argument, it's stupidity. It's the similarities that define the subgenre it's a part of. If it ddidn't use WASD/Mouse or Left/Right control stick controls, for movement and aiming in a first person perspective, it probably wouldn't be a FPS. Or it might be an FPS, but it'd be a bad one for neglecting to use a control setup games have been perfecting over the last 20 years.kingthrall said:
Totally non-comparative analogy. Collision detection in 3D games is a very tough process to achieve, and can be incredibly processor intensive to get it right. A little clipping is fine by me, although I do think that developers should make sure that character models do not clip THEMSELVES in any animation. I see this a lot, one of very few instances where the developers have direct and total control over the movement and collision of parts of a model, and they still can't get that right, strikes me as lazy. A little clipping into walls though? So long as the game breaking thing of getting stuck in walls doesn't happen, it's perfectly acceptible. But this goes for any 3D game, not just FPSes.kingthrall said:
Anywho, back to your analogy... Comparing a technical problem and the use of WASD with a developer adding naval warfare content to an RTS game is just... No... If you argued being able to move troops in an RTS onto non-accessible terrain, or talked about a different style of unit movement system, then maybe. But RTS has much more samey games than FPS (at least in the micro-focused, 3 different team, base building exercise that Dune kinda invented, Command and Conquer popularised and Starcraft turned into a sport). The Total War games can be remarkably similar between each other. They all use similar control setups. Y'know why? Fans of the RTS genre, or a particular series of games, won't want to relearn different controls and skills with each new game they play. Same in an FPS. If all of a sudden a game came out with left stick as looking and right stick as movement, that would seem totally stupid, yes?
The amount of 12 year olds I see on FPS games are generally pretty minimal, and the ones I do see are the only ones speaking (read: Yelling and screaming) on mic. Generalisation of the audience of FPS games while you try to critique it is poor form. I've met some good friends on CS:S, TF2 and MW1-3, and regularly play with them. FPS clans are some of the biggest around, since you can't really play as a team all by yourself. RTS games are a silly choice of example since many are 1v1s, especially in any kind of tournament level, since it's the easiest to balance. Just because you haven't had any experience of doing this on an FPS doesn't mean it doesn't happen, it most certainly does.kingthrall said:
Plus, what does your last line even mean? How does limited interaction (which is total bollocks and you should have done more research before making such a ridiculous claim) make FPS a sub-genre? The reasons FPS is a sub genre is a specific list of mechanics (some of which you touched upon on your first post but essentially any game played from a first person perspective where you shoot guns is a First Person Shooter) that make it an FPS. A lack of interaction between players in an FPS probably makes it a single player FPS.
Also, text colour for my captcha: "paint it red" EXCEPT NOT NOW BECAUSE KINGTHRALL CAN'T READ RED TEXT AWWW DIDDUMS SHUT THE HELL UP STOP MOANING AND JUST READ THE TEXT
This. Resistance is quite possibly the most underappreciated expansion ever.Anthraxus said:
While they obviously retain the same core ideas, Shooters are overall a pretty varied bunch so I don't really think they really need anything in particular, just so long as they're fun to play and there's some variety in weapons, enemies, locations etc, especially if they're set in some sort of fictional setting.
However personally I do think there should be a particular focus on sound. The guns should feel like guns. If you're in a warzone the sounds of it should make it feel like a warzone. FPS's really seem to focus way too much on other things instead, and personally I don't think any game has made the feeling of a battlefield through sound as well as the original Call of Duty and it's expansion.
sorry I didnt read all of it because it was in that horrendous red font you used. But I get the drift I think from that first line I barley read about you not agreeing with me.TallestGargoyle said:
1. I am not blind just because I do not like to read a bright red text on a white background.TallestGargoyle said:
2. You have no clue what you are saying about FPS being the same as RTS, about the similarities of W.S.A.D,
ie- Starcraft uses base building, has some micro and a rock paper sissors styled warfare
Empire Earth uses a base building epoch system, you have a base but can either swarm your enemy with lower century units or tech up
Dawn of war II and + has no base building but uses weaponry to determine stratergy, also has a small version of either swarming or teching up to determine victory
C&C is a joke of an rts, you got me good there
Total war does represent 60 units as lets say 1 unit normally on a traditonal rts style game. Depending on what you are refering to there is base building and probally the most detailed of all the stratergy games listed from religon right down to taxes. If not, then you have your armies with all different counters yet terrain assists and so does morale.
These are just 4 different RTS all with different mechanics of gameplay, all stratergy yet you
quote "But RTS has much more samey games than FPS (at least in the micro-focused, 3 different team, base building exercise that Dune kinda invented"
Oh but wait- drum roll, first person shooters have that same kind of detail, with thickets of grass for terrain to hide in and stealth and timing for ambushes. However the difference is there is no moral of enemies and you do not work to obtain your high end weapons 80% of the time. The reason- because in a first person shooter you get respawned so fast you can just spam out your death count for weapons, there is no sense of vital loss.
Finnaly- I didnt say that W.A.S.D should be changed as being a bad thing as the same keys, I never said that it was terrible that it was all the same with different colored objects as your enemy.
I also said that you can have 10 thousand friends on your f.p.s games but how many have you actually met in real life? Ive met heaps because we have our annual yearly gamers Roast for fun with pictures and stuff, but Ive never heard of an F.P.S having a BBQ with a bunch of F.P.S Doug lookalike players talking to each other about that perfect Boom Headshot. At least in stratergy when you talk about games you have real time tactics, stupid fun tactics and different factions with unique unit choices. Also Plot which many F.P,S fail to deliver on. That said I dont just talk about games at the roast but just writing what is to keep on topic
@Kingthrall:
You don`t like fps in general and want to hear arguments what makes it worth playing? It`s a matter of taste. That`s it. You can read a lot of stuff why and what is appealing for a fps in THIS thread. Do you expect a mind change from it? All in all it turns out to be hate thread at all.
example: I haven`t played many rts except warcraft 1 and 2. I`m not interested in shoving small units around a map, it`s all the same to me. It fucking bores me and i just don`t play them. I don`t need to shove it down the throats of people who like rts with creating a thread like "What makes a good R:T:S?" either.
edit:
btt(maybe it should be renamed to "What is your enjoyment in F.P.S at all"):
I love the tension that builds up walking around a corner with ironsights in mp. Getting succesfull out of critical firefights where i gunned down three other players (rarely happens). That`s an example that goes for any fps with mp (works also for sp with good ai).
Working out ambush strategies over headsets and winning the match is also great.
Fps featuring coop are fun too. Sitting with a friend next to each other and helping each other or compete is awesome.
You don`t like fps in general and want to hear arguments what makes it worth playing? It`s a matter of taste. That`s it. You can read a lot of stuff why and what is appealing for a fps in THIS thread. Do you expect a mind change from it? All in all it turns out to be hate thread at all.
example: I haven`t played many rts except warcraft 1 and 2. I`m not interested in shoving small units around a map, it`s all the same to me. It fucking bores me and i just don`t play them. I don`t need to shove it down the throats of people who like rts with creating a thread like "What makes a good R:T:S?" either.
edit:
btt(maybe it should be renamed to "What is your enjoyment in F.P.S at all"):
I love the tension that builds up walking around a corner with ironsights in mp. Getting succesfull out of critical firefights where i gunned down three other players (rarely happens). That`s an example that goes for any fps with mp (works also for sp with good ai).
Working out ambush strategies over headsets and winning the match is also great.
Fps featuring coop are fun too. Sitting with a friend next to each other and helping each other or compete is awesome.
I have thought about these things. I guess I might as well try to lay them out.
DO NOT go the "Run & Gun" route. If all I'm going to be doing is wandering around and shooting things in the face... Well, I'll go play something else. My favorite FPSes so far have been 007: NightFire, Halo: Combat Evolved and Half-Life. Why? What do they all have in common? They all let you do things BESIDES shooting guys in the face. You've got missions, you collect stuff, you solve puzzles, you defend other people, you explore... Make it a nice mixed bag. You don't see platformers only have you jumping around from platform to platform, do you? Not successful ones, anyway. Speaking of which...
It's best to try and avoid most platforming elements. That is, unless you allow the option to play the game in 3rd Person View, as well as 1st. See, 1st Person View is designed specifically for aiming at things. Therefore, it works great for shooting, but, you can barely see your character's body. Not even their feet. That is, unless you look down, in which case, you're not looking the way you should to progress. 3rd Person View works great for platformers because you can see your character's whole body. However, since they're blocking the center of the screen from everything behind them, this camera view is not very good for aiming at stuff. So, know what type of camera system you're using and use it the way that feels natural.
Don't try to be too realistic. Just... don't. We've got way too many games that think they're so realistic, when they have nearly everything displayed in brown and grey, there are walls for cover everywhere and, worst of all, cowardice is rewarded by regenerating your health every time you stop to take a breath. And, yet, you can only sprint for about five seconds? What gives? Half-Life holds some degree of realism, without going overboard. There's enough to make sense, but it also tries to make sure you're enjoying yourself. You don't need to go out getting rations or whatnot and it works just fine. Unless you're trying to make the next Far Cry or, even more extreme, Arma, then, I suggest you avoid any attempts at high levels of realism and not try to be the next Call of Duty.
Allow for customization. Not character skins. It's going to be rather pointless. What you can do is go a route like Serious Sam 3 did. There were five blood modes. There was the standard "Red", a "Green" function, one where you could turn it off altogether and two more where you could replace the blood with either flowers or else candy and sparkles. Now, that's fun! There were also color options that let you play around with the depth and saturation. You could even play in black and white, if you wanted. Though, many people agree there should have been a function that allowed you to play in black and white, but with the blood still in full color, kind of like MadWorld. Also, a content filter helps. Like the blood, you should be allowed to block out language. There probably isn't much else that would need a content filter. But I hear people being rather upset about how their experience is disrupted by all the F-bombs going off every few seconds when they just want to hear some real explosions around them.
Know your weapons. Are you only going to allow a limited amount of weapons on your character like modern shooters usually go for? Or are you going to go like Duke Nukem and Serious Sam by allowing the player to hold every single weapon the game has to offer? If you go limited, don't limit to just two. That is one of the stupidest plagues of modern shooters. You can easily hold more than two guns on you in real life, after all. It's not hard. At least let them hold up to four guns at once. Make sure the weapons are different from each other. Don't have a bunch of repeats. It just eats up extra efforts. If you want to have slightly-different guns like this, allow them to be upgraded and/or modified, like in the Ratchet & Clank series (not an FPS, but a shooter/platformer series). However, going this route is complimented by the "I can hold every single gun" route and really doesn't work if you're going to have to drop one of your guns when you find something you like better. Bombs, grenades, melee weapons... These all work well, too. They've certainly made themselves at home in the genre. So, be sure to include these. Even if your only melee attack is smacking people with your elbow or punching them.
Know your enemy. Or enemies, rather. They can certainly kill you. But, stop making them so weak. They can often be taken down in one shot, while the player can take dozens of hits and still go on (even with regenerating health). However, headshots can really take care of this. Especially, when you're lurking in the shadows. Enemies shouldn't always know where you are. But, they should probably be aware you're around. Just completely in the dark about when you're going to show up and where. They really shouldn't come after you unless you're actually within their line of sight. Or if something mysterious tips them off like the hear a gunshot or someone dies and they happen to notice it. (I'm looking at you, 007: NightFire!) Also, if you really want to go anti-realism, you know what's more more satisfying, humiliating and fun than teabagging? Back in my day, we had this little thing called "pumping so many bullets into your corpse that you explode in a flurry of blood, gore and bones!". If it suits the game's style, make enemies explode. Seriously, the older games had this better. Serious Sam 3: BFE and the fan-made Quake III Arena mod, Generations Arena are excellent examples of this.
Also, you need some form of a "BFG". You just need it. It has to be hard to find and become center stage when someone's got it. And everyone's gonna want to kill the one holding it so they can get to use its firepower before it's burnt out. You've gotta have the "BFG".
DO NOT go the "Run & Gun" route. If all I'm going to be doing is wandering around and shooting things in the face... Well, I'll go play something else. My favorite FPSes so far have been 007: NightFire, Halo: Combat Evolved and Half-Life. Why? What do they all have in common? They all let you do things BESIDES shooting guys in the face. You've got missions, you collect stuff, you solve puzzles, you defend other people, you explore... Make it a nice mixed bag. You don't see platformers only have you jumping around from platform to platform, do you? Not successful ones, anyway. Speaking of which...
It's best to try and avoid most platforming elements. That is, unless you allow the option to play the game in 3rd Person View, as well as 1st. See, 1st Person View is designed specifically for aiming at things. Therefore, it works great for shooting, but, you can barely see your character's body. Not even their feet. That is, unless you look down, in which case, you're not looking the way you should to progress. 3rd Person View works great for platformers because you can see your character's whole body. However, since they're blocking the center of the screen from everything behind them, this camera view is not very good for aiming at stuff. So, know what type of camera system you're using and use it the way that feels natural.
Don't try to be too realistic. Just... don't. We've got way too many games that think they're so realistic, when they have nearly everything displayed in brown and grey, there are walls for cover everywhere and, worst of all, cowardice is rewarded by regenerating your health every time you stop to take a breath. And, yet, you can only sprint for about five seconds? What gives? Half-Life holds some degree of realism, without going overboard. There's enough to make sense, but it also tries to make sure you're enjoying yourself. You don't need to go out getting rations or whatnot and it works just fine. Unless you're trying to make the next Far Cry or, even more extreme, Arma, then, I suggest you avoid any attempts at high levels of realism and not try to be the next Call of Duty.
Allow for customization. Not character skins. It's going to be rather pointless. What you can do is go a route like Serious Sam 3 did. There were five blood modes. There was the standard "Red", a "Green" function, one where you could turn it off altogether and two more where you could replace the blood with either flowers or else candy and sparkles. Now, that's fun! There were also color options that let you play around with the depth and saturation. You could even play in black and white, if you wanted. Though, many people agree there should have been a function that allowed you to play in black and white, but with the blood still in full color, kind of like MadWorld. Also, a content filter helps. Like the blood, you should be allowed to block out language. There probably isn't much else that would need a content filter. But I hear people being rather upset about how their experience is disrupted by all the F-bombs going off every few seconds when they just want to hear some real explosions around them.
Know your weapons. Are you only going to allow a limited amount of weapons on your character like modern shooters usually go for? Or are you going to go like Duke Nukem and Serious Sam by allowing the player to hold every single weapon the game has to offer? If you go limited, don't limit to just two. That is one of the stupidest plagues of modern shooters. You can easily hold more than two guns on you in real life, after all. It's not hard. At least let them hold up to four guns at once. Make sure the weapons are different from each other. Don't have a bunch of repeats. It just eats up extra efforts. If you want to have slightly-different guns like this, allow them to be upgraded and/or modified, like in the Ratchet & Clank series (not an FPS, but a shooter/platformer series). However, going this route is complimented by the "I can hold every single gun" route and really doesn't work if you're going to have to drop one of your guns when you find something you like better. Bombs, grenades, melee weapons... These all work well, too. They've certainly made themselves at home in the genre. So, be sure to include these. Even if your only melee attack is smacking people with your elbow or punching them.
Know your enemy. Or enemies, rather. They can certainly kill you. But, stop making them so weak. They can often be taken down in one shot, while the player can take dozens of hits and still go on (even with regenerating health). However, headshots can really take care of this. Especially, when you're lurking in the shadows. Enemies shouldn't always know where you are. But, they should probably be aware you're around. Just completely in the dark about when you're going to show up and where. They really shouldn't come after you unless you're actually within their line of sight. Or if something mysterious tips them off like the hear a gunshot or someone dies and they happen to notice it. (I'm looking at you, 007: NightFire!) Also, if you really want to go anti-realism, you know what's more more satisfying, humiliating and fun than teabagging? Back in my day, we had this little thing called "pumping so many bullets into your corpse that you explode in a flurry of blood, gore and bones!". If it suits the game's style, make enemies explode. Seriously, the older games had this better. Serious Sam 3: BFE and the fan-made Quake III Arena mod, Generations Arena are excellent examples of this.
Also, you need some form of a "BFG". You just need it. It has to be hard to find and become center stage when someone's got it. And everyone's gonna want to kill the one holding it so they can get to use its firepower before it's burnt out. You've gotta have the "BFG".