What makes a good F.P.S

[TallestGargoyle]

Snipsnip

You have missed so many points, and made up so much bollocks it's unbelievable.

Let's take plot... Deus Ex, Half Life series, Portal series, Call of Duty 4, Bioshock, Metro 2033, STALKER, System Shock, FEAR, the original Unreals, Vampire The Masquerade... All great FPS games with some amazing storylines, and they're just the ones I recall from the top of my head. While I dislike the Halo series, many claim it to have a great story.

Timesplitters is one I'd throw in their too, but the first didn't have a story, the second didn't have much of a story, and the third's story was... Eh. But as far as FPS games go they were pretty unique, had a lot of charm and character, and did so many things right by having a big variety of maps, a map maker, a load of different weapons and game modes, four player split screen, eventual online play in the later games, I mean fuck, besides the obvious age of the games, they got everything damn near perfect.

Let's look at RTS games... Dawn of War is the only one I've played with any kind of decent story, and they had to do something with the ridiculously bloated Warhammer 40k universe. It is also one of the few to make me care about any of the characters, thanks to the large numbers of hero units that all have their own unique sayings and position in battle.

The rest fall victim to the whole having little closure thing, considering RTS game stories have to take into account for players who want to play as each faction. I would also argue Command and Conquer was waaay better than half the RTSs that came out during its peak era (Since 3, 4 and Red alert 3 were total poo, and Generals, while being my favourite of the series, was literally just trying to be Starcraft with its three factions, builder units and rock paper scizzors style gameplay) but that's more of a personal preference, considering I hate Starcraft, and I hate most of the other ones you mentioned. Then again, RTS isn't really my genre of choice, it's Action RPG for me as my favourite genre, FPS as a veeeery close second.


Secondly, you have a very stereotyped view of the FPS player. FPS Doug lookalikes? I'm sorry, but if we're going on Pure Pwnage stereotypes, RTS is looking a whole lot worse, considering now all of you RTS players don't get out the house, can't run for more than four metres without having a heart attack, stuff your face with bacon sandwiches on a daily basis, constantly twitch your hands practising your uber micro while you're out and about, still live with your mother at such a late age (depending on which series you are taking your stereotypes from, since the TV one was a lot more stereotyped than the internet one)... I mean fuck me, you really think you have a valid argument the moment you bring the term "FPS Doug lookalikes" into it?

You're talking about a character who only plays either Counter Strike: Source (From the internet series) or Call of Duty 4 (From the TV series), and in both cases it was the standard, highly played FPS of their eras. Just because they're the only two FPS games you've heard about, and FPS Doug is the only person you've ever known to play an FPS (because obviously, as an RTS player, your FPS playing friend, your film making brother and some magic dude in a ninja suit are the only people you actively talk to) doesn't mean the millions of people who play FPS games are all the same way, darting around town like they're a commando, losing grip of reality as they pretend to be in a violent warzone in a public park...


Thirdly, so what if I don't go and meet up with friends made from FPS games? We don't need to meet up to play and know we're badass at our games, we've got online play and Steam for that. Tournaments are generally held online too, so it's easy to get involved in tournament play. Plus, most of us realise the only thing we have in common is our love for FPS games, so keeping distant is generally a good thing. I imagine there would be a lot of awkward conversation once the game talk dries up.

You just sound butthurt that FPS is the current most popular genre, and RTS in its current form is a stagnating breed (I mean Starcraft 2 look set out to be amazing, and in the end they scaled it back to be yet another tourny RTS just to appease the 15 year old fanbase, horray).

You seem to be asking for the formula of a perfect game, or at least a perfect FPS game, and unfortunately there isn't one. Most of what has been mentioned throughout this thread (Tight controls, non-glitchy gameplay/graphics, good story, lots of weapon and enemy variety) are damn near mandatory for ANY game these days, and none of them, even combined will suddenly make the perfect FPS since there's level design, good music, interesting characters, art design, the way the story is presented to the player, the game mechanics themselves, all of these are necessary aspects of the game to think about to make a good one. And even then some games can get away with missing one or two of those components because they do the rest so damn well (Timesplitters in variety despite having some poor, heavily auto-aim assisted shooting mechanics, Painkiller for it's level and weapon design despite terrible enemy AI).

But even after all that, different people will obviously have different opinions on what is a good FPS, and some will enjoy a game for the exact same reasons others dislike a game. I find MW1-3 all good FPS games, at the very least because they have tight controls and good shooting mechanics. The multiplayers have always been a little tedious, especially 2 and 3 having DLC map packs and all that shite, but that's more a problem with the game's marketing and its evil publsher, more than a problem with the game itself. I hate Elder Scrolls games for the same reasons my friend loves them. I probably hate a lot of RTS games for the same reasons you like them.


But then what would I know? I'm just an FPS Doug lookalike. It's not like I actively play FPS games or anything, or know anything about them...

 

[Snotnarok]

Your list is confusing, you say things should change like basic controls. What would you change WASD to? It was once the arrow keys and then it moved to WASD when things got more complicated. Would you rather move with the number pad? These things are configurable on PC regardless so what are you trying to say there?

Not all shooters are the same, there's similar ones but lets be honest you'd be an idiot to say Team Fortress 2 and Call of Duty have anything remotely similar beyond killing enemies. Or Timesplitters, Quake, Doom, Borderlands. They have guns but they all function differently.

 

[kingthrall]

Im tired of my own thread, probally the last thread I post. Full of trolls so why bother.

 

[Kahunaburger]

Oh and I like how some people take this as a reason to bash CoD some more. CoD is a good game, guys. It's well-designed, fairly balanced and offers fluid movement. And it's hella satisfying.

I'll give it that. Say what you want about CoD being a Skinner box, it's really well-designed as a Skinner box.

The reason why I think the criticism is justified is that there are in fact several crippling design flaws in (recent) CoD as a multiplayer shooter. CoD is designed around being easy to pick up and play, and while it is successful at accomplishing that, it accomplishes it by severely lowering the skill ceiling. In other words, although the game is easy to learn, there isn't very much to master. This detracts from its value as a multiplayer shooter pretty severely.

Add that to a list of issues with hosts, ping, spawns, balance, and the community, and you have a recipe for a legitimately hated shooter.

 

[josemlopes]

Variety on weapons, slick controls (after your brain process what it wants to do next the controls need to be up to the task and be able to deliver the command as fast as possible) and solid gameplay (after some time with the game and knowing its game logic rules the player should know what is possible to do and what isnt, some games break these rules with glitches and other unexpected situations that dont make sense to happen).


The rest depends on what the game wants to be (realistic, arcade, atmospheric, cartoony, etc...)

Snipsnip

Timesplitters is one I'd throw in their too, but the first didn't have a story, the second didn't have much of a story, and the third's story was... Eh.

Sorry for going off-topic with this one but c'mon, Timesplitters 3 story was good (although short) for what it was (its a game to make you laugh), it was a hell of a good suprise after the second game story.

 

[Kahunaburger]

I'll give it that. Say what you want about CoD being a Skinner box, it's really well-designed as a Skinner box.

From what research I've done on skinnerbox mechanics, CoD isn't a skinnerbox. Skinner's experiment emulated random rewards with a very low chance of happening (the hamster was awarded a treat every few times he pressed the button, with the frequency of rewards decreasing over time). CoD gives you instant gratification and small rewards that pile up over time. And unless MW3's completely changed its design philosophy, I don't remember any CoD game being dependent on random item drops. Very different from a skinnerbox.

Yeah, it's not a pure skinner box in the same way that something built on random drops is. I'm just talking about how satisfying the game is - kill a dude, get a sound and a big number as an instant reward.

And a low skill ceiling doesn't necessarily make a game bad. It makes it more casual, and I could argue it reduces the discrepancy between long-time players and relative newcomers. Not inherently a bad thing.

Plus, any FPS in which you need to aim for precise spots will always have a sufficiently high skill ceiling by default.

Although the beauty of CoD is that you don't really have to aim much at all. Auto-aim, grenade launchers, and slow enemy movement speed have your back.

And I definitely agree CoD was clearly designed to be a more casual type of FPS. I don't think this makes it very good as an FPS for the same reason that tic-tac-toe isn't a very good strategy game. TF2 is a better example of a well-designed FPS that works well for casual players, because skill ceilings and floors vary between classes. A newcomer (or someone with rusty skills) can play something like heavy, medic, or engineer and do very well, while a veteran can play something like demoman, scout, or sniper and be rewarded for mastering the game.

 

[GoaThief]

It's best to try and avoid most platforming elements.

Strongly disagree.

One of the best games of recent years, Mirror's Edge is a first person shooter/platformer.

Not to mention the many, many defrag/jump/movement modes and mods of a large number of FPS.

 

[TorqueConverter]

Ok After reading that "least horrible company post" and mention of mediocre First person shooting games. I would like to break down what actually makes a good first person shooter. The reason?...

First Person is just a camera angle. I like to think the novelty of a video game based solely around a camera angle has largely worn off. A good multilayer FPS needs to have enjoyable game play, balanced weapons and weapon variety. Mulitplayer FPS is only FPS game where I think the novelty of a firearm attached to a FP camera angle has not grown old. It works.

I don't like to view FPS as some sort of genre. Make a good game first and foremost. Choose whichever camera angle you like. If the camera happens to be FP then that is no excuse to make a generic, uninspired single player game and hide under the FPS blanket. Give me a sandbox RPG FPS, a FPS MMO or an excellent linear, story-driven FPS game.

 

[TorqueConverter]

Im tired of my own thread, probally the last thread I post. Full of trolls so why bother.

Where?

1. You create a thread that seems to falsely claiming to give a shit about FPS games for the sake of discussion, but it looks very much like you were just trolling the FPS gamers.

2. The FPS gamers then proceed to ignore your provocative tones and contribute to the discussion in a meaningful way.

3. You then claim their contribution to the discussion is trolling.

Maybe I've got it all you all wrong. I hope so as I like this discussion.

 

[Lugbzurg]

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.

Ey. Arma is great shit screw you.

Excuse me? Did you somehow take my compliment as an insult?

Your list is confusing, you say things should change like basic controls. What would you change WASD to? It was once the arrow keys and then it moved to WASD when things got more complicated.

Personally, I've always used the arrow keys. "WASD" feels so strange to me. Generally, how I have things set up goes as Arrow Keys to move, Ctrl to jump, Right Shift to crouch, Mouse to aim/turn, Left-Click to fire and Right-Click for alternate fire. Other games will require other keys, like I might use "R" to reload and either "E" or "Enter" for interactive actions. It's a system that can work. Just... whatever it is you're used to. But it can work out. I've been configuring controls on PC for years, so, I can often figure out pretty quickly what would work for me. But, I can see why some people might use something like the WASD System, instead.

It's best to try and avoid most platforming elements.

Strongly disagree.

One of the best games of recent years, Mirror's Edge is a first person shooter/platformer.

Not to mention the many, many defrag/jump/movement modes and mods of a large number of FPS.

I said "most". Plus, Mirror's Edge isn't exactly much more of a platformer than, say, [Prototype]. Try something Mario-like and play it in first-person view. Precise jumps aren't a specialty in that camera view, is what I'm saying.

 

[Kahunaburger]

@poimuty: a big reason why TF2 works as well as it does is that several classes (medic, heavy, engineer) have a very low skill floor. Someone who is new to shooters can hop in, heal people, and be credit to team.

And no, tic-tac-toe being a good teaching tool does not make it a good strategy game. Which, really, is something you can say about CoD as well. Sure, it might be a passable way to teach shooter controls to new players, but that doesn't mean it holds up as a shooter.

 

[kingthrall]

Im tired of my own thread, probally the last thread I post. Full of trolls so why bother.

There are no trolls in this thread. People who disagree with you are not trolls. If you can't take criticism of your own views and get "tired" of people having different opinions, maybe you should never visit a forum again.

no just that douche who said I was blind and wrote all in red font just to provoke me reading half a page. I also was reading this at 1:30am and wasnt in the mood for crap

Oh and I dont mind most of these comments really do not mind at all, in fact on the subject of COD and why its not a great fps game, is because of the unlimited amount of times you can die, the hide behind a wall and instantly heal from gun shot wounds and the limitless supply of grenades getting thrown everywhere as if the battlefield is impervious to any damage.

@Torque

Camera angles are interesting but the only real way to get good is to have the camera angle firing from the hip. Ive never seen any tournament players not win this way and although the aesthetics are nice from other vantages, firing from the hip the classic way so to speak is the only true way to play a f.p.s on a difficult A.I setting.

 

[Lugbzurg]

@poimuty: a big reason why TF2 works as well as it does is that several classes (medic, heavy, engineer) have a very low skill floor. Someone who is new to shooters can hop in, heal people, and be credit to team.

And no, tic-tac-toe being a good teaching tool does not make it a good strategy game. Which, really, is something you can say about CoD as well. Sure, it might be a passable way to teach shooter controls to new players, but that doesn't mean it holds up as a shooter.

Exactly. Call of Duty seems pretty much like first-person-shooting on training wheels. So many rewards for the simplest of things, so little difficulty for a number of reasons... I just don't understand the popularity. It doesn't even seem to hold anything significant that makes it different from other shooters.

Far Cry has it's sandboxness, complex AI, weather conditions, etc.
Halo has it's fairly good exploration without being loaded with constant enemies, weaker teammates to look out for and not accidentally kill, it's unusual atmosphere, etc.
007 has it's mission objectives, covert gadgetry, spying coolness, etc.

Call of Duty, I now realize, seems kind of like an FPS template, in a manor of speaking.

 

[kingthrall]

Snipsnip

You have missed so many points, and made up so much bollocks it's unbelievable.

Let's take plot... Deus Ex, Half Life series, Portal series, Call of Duty 4, Bioshock, Metro 2033, STALKER, System Shock, FEAR, the original Unreals, Vampire The Masquerade... All great FPS games with some amazing storylines, and they're just the ones I recall from the top of my head. While I dislike the Halo series, many claim it to have a great story.

Timesplitters is one I'd throw in their too, but the first didn't have a story, the second didn't have much of a story, and the third's story was... Eh. But as far as FPS games go they were pretty unique, had a lot of charm and character, and did so many things right by having a big variety of maps, a map maker, a load of different weapons and game modes, four player split screen, eventual online play in the later games, I mean fuck, besides the obvious age of the games, they got everything damn near perfect.

Let's look at RTS games... Dawn of War is the only one I've played with any kind of decent story, and they had to do something with the ridiculously bloated Warhammer 40k universe. It is also one of the few to make me care about any of the characters, thanks to the large numbers of hero units that all have their own unique sayings and position in battle.

The rest fall victim to the whole having little closure thing, considering RTS game stories have to take into account for players who want to play as each faction. I would also argue Command and Conquer was waaay better than half the RTSs that came out during its peak era (Since 3, 4 and Red alert 3 were total poo, and Generals, while being my favourite of the series, was literally just trying to be Starcraft with its three factions, builder units and rock paper scizzors style gameplay) but that's more of a personal preference, considering I hate Starcraft, and I hate most of the other ones you mentioned. Then again, RTS isn't really my genre of choice, it's Action RPG for me as my favourite genre, FPS as a veeeery close second.


Secondly, you have a very stereotyped view of the FPS player. FPS Doug lookalikes? I'm sorry, but if we're going on Pure Pwnage stereotypes, RTS is looking a whole lot worse, considering now all of you RTS players don't get out the house, can't run for more than four metres without having a heart attack, stuff your face with bacon sandwiches on a daily basis, constantly twitch your hands practising your uber micro while you're out and about, still live with your mother at such a late age (depending on which series you are taking your stereotypes from, since the TV one was a lot more stereotyped than the internet one)... I mean fuck me, you really think you have a valid argument the moment you bring the term "FPS Doug lookalikes" into it?

You're talking about a character who only plays either Counter Strike: Source (From the internet series) or Call of Duty 4 (From the TV series), and in both cases it was the standard, highly played FPS of their eras. Just because they're the only two FPS games you've heard about, and FPS Doug is the only person you've ever known to play an FPS (because obviously, as an RTS player, your FPS playing friend, your film making brother and some magic dude in a ninja suit are the only people you actively talk to) doesn't mean the millions of people who play FPS games are all the same way, darting around town like they're a commando, losing grip of reality as they pretend to be in a violent warzone in a public park...


Thirdly, so what if I don't go and meet up with friends made from FPS games? We don't need to meet up to play and know we're badass at our games, we've got online play and Steam for that. Tournaments are generally held online too, so it's easy to get involved in tournament play. Plus, most of us realise the only thing we have in common is our love for FPS games, so keeping distant is generally a good thing. I imagine there would be a lot of awkward conversation once the game talk dries up.

You just sound butthurt that FPS is the current most popular genre, and RTS in its current form is a stagnating breed (I mean Starcraft 2 look set out to be amazing, and in the end they scaled it back to be yet another tourny RTS just to appease the 15 year old fanbase, horray).

You seem to be asking for the formula of a perfect game, or at least a perfect FPS game, and unfortunately there isn't one. Most of what has been mentioned throughout this thread (Tight controls, non-glitchy gameplay/graphics, good story, lots of weapon and enemy variety) are damn near mandatory for ANY game these days, and none of them, even combined will suddenly make the perfect FPS since there's level design, good music, interesting characters, art design, the way the story is presented to the player, the game mechanics themselves, all of these are necessary aspects of the game to think about to make a good one. And even then some games can get away with missing one or two of those components because they do the rest so damn well (Timesplitters in variety despite having some poor, heavily auto-aim assisted shooting mechanics, Painkiller for it's level and weapon design despite terrible enemy AI).

But even after all that, different people will obviously have different opinions on what is a good FPS, and some will enjoy a game for the exact same reasons others dislike a game. I find MW1-3 all good FPS games, at the very least because they have tight controls and good shooting mechanics. The multiplayers have always been a little tedious, especially 2 and 3 having DLC map packs and all that shite, but that's more a problem with the game's marketing and its evil publsher, more than a problem with the game itself. I hate Elder Scrolls games for the same reasons my friend loves them. I probably hate a lot of RTS games for the same reasons you like them.


But then what would I know? I'm just an FPS Doug lookalike. It's not like I actively play FPS games or anything, or know anything about them...

1. Stalker is so similar to fallout 3 in terms of rpg elements and being single player, its probally why I enjoyed it a lot. Fear and Portal are not what I would consider F.P.S in the traditional sense as one is about problem solving and another is more towards the stealth aspect similar to theif or even assassins creed.

I only mentioned F.P.S doug not as a derogatory reference but as a simple sort of player reference who gets excited + enjoying playing the game, nothing more.

Also I must mention that the ironic thing ,calling me butthurt and then generalising about rts players. The joke is on you when you consider the same views of doug in that video you starting to sound similar. You accuse my own personal life of being some sort of recluse which is by the way reportable because its a personal attack. F.P.S doug lookalikes is not a bad thing anyway I find it quite amusing and the guy cracks me up.


Please stay on the damn topic, as if you actually bothered to read anything I first posted it has nothing to do with the comparisons to strategy or F.P.S its to do with the F.P.S mechanics being in most cases usually the same. With that now firmly read
now insert this extra quotation into your brain - but this does not make f.p.s a bad type of game.

As all your argument is almost for nothing for the simple fact that all the games you mentioned to me still use W.S.A.D format and nearly all have exactly the same points ive listed on my first post in this topic ie cross-hairs, cover to hide ect.

And as a final repost to this fraudulent attempt to generalise about how butt hurt I apparently am. You have even stated that strategy games you hate and are completely different type of game. So why are you even comparing the two to this topic??

P.S, I play all kinds of games and for you to say that strategy games are a stagnating breed. It is not even a breed for starters and I find it yet again insulting that you even rate genres as some kind of popularity race to be the biggest seller. Its all what you like, Play Panzer General 2 or even Empire Earth 1 if you want a good strategy to start with as a start. You may enjoy it once you start winning a few battles for a change.