What makes a good F.P.S

[kingthrall]

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?

Well, I think all first person shooters are 90% all the same with a different colour meshed object without the slightest hint albeit minimal plot. If you think i'm wrong please read more

So what makes a good fps which is also the reason why they are all the same?

1. Good Clipping with walls and magic dirt as I like to say, when you are stuck in a glitched wall. It is perhaps the worst thing in a f.p.s game to succumb to this.

2. Variety of weapons- close, medium and heavy weapons. Pretty much the stock standard of all f.p.s games regardless of its label, oh you can throw in the B.F.G gun for the occasional on-line death-match.

3. Walls to hide under- pretty standard stuff to crouch or ambush to and from.

4. Easy to use w,s,a,d format. (most games use this but you do come across the rare breed who want to attempt to be different)

5. a cross-hair to shoot from, and a slider bar for your mouse sensitivity


What they Try to do in an attempt to cover up the exact same game

1. Bullet time mode- This is like the new obsession or craze at the moment to create a matrix simulation that makes my blood boil

2. Zombie games- as said on some of these video's zombie games are a great way of expanding the products diversity using different colored enemy objects, also known commonly as zombies.

3.DLC/Selection of heroes- This is the biggest fraud of them all, download the ultimate weapon that kills every enemy as you paid for its overpowered statistics with real money.

Heroes are also another thing they try to create by letting you play the slack jawed Arnold type or the buxom redhead, regardless you never actually look at your character other than the hand holding the gun or maybe the odd screenshot you send your friend.

Thats all I have to add, this is not a hate thread about F.P.S as I do enjoy the occasional fallout 3 or Css but Id like to just point out that gamers are being ripped off money wise for something you can find in the special sale section in your retail store.

 

[Kahunaburger]

Single-player: as OP mentioned, weapon variety is important. The emphasis should be on guns that are entertaining to use, like the basic shotgun from Doom (dat sound), the sticky launcher from TF2, the spinfusors from Tribes, and the weird legendary guns from Borderlands.

Enemy variety is similarly important - most shooters, unfortunately, have two kinds of enemy: man with gun, and man with rocket launcher. (Helicopters and tanks that you take out in a scripted segment don't count.)

Also, pacing is important. An endless string of fights is less interesting than interspersed segments of attack, exploration, evasion, etc.

Multi-player: I think, broadly, two things are important from a multiplayer perspective: skill floor and skill ceiling.

Skill floor is basically how easy a game is to get into - lower is easier. Chess, Team Fortress 2, and Modern Warfare 2 have a low skill floor. Tribes: Ascend and ArmA 2 have a high skill floor. I think a low skill floor is a good thing for a multiplayer shooter to have, but it's also nice to have some complex and/or hardcore shooters with a high skill floor from time to time. Not as important as:

Skill ceiling is basically how difficult a game is to master - higher is harder. Modern Warfare 2 and Tic-Tac-Toe have a low skill ceiling. Chess, Team Fortress 2, Tribes: Ascend, and ArmA 2 have a high skill ceiling. IMO, it is absolutely vital for a good multiplayer game (including multiplayer shooters) to have a high skill ceiling unless it's something like a party game. A low skill ceiling makes the game feel shallow, unrewarding, and monotonous at high skill levels.

 

[GoaThief]

Well, I think all first person shooters are 90% all the same with a different colour meshed object without the slightest hint albeit minimal plot. If you think i'm wrong please read more

I did and you're wrong.

Perhaps you should actually attempt playing a game like Quake Live for a month, then go back and compare it to CoD and it's ilk that you seem to think are the be-all and end-all of FPS. Your list is laughably off base.

 

[Smithburg]

Guns. Guns make a very good F.P.S. because without them the shooting part does not work very well.

Also, don't have it take too long for enemies to die. I kinda like how COD does it with just a few shots as opposed to games like rage which take about a whole clip

 

[krazykidd]

Well, I think all first person shooters are 90% all the same with a different colour meshed object without the slightest hint albeit minimal plot. If you think i'm wrong please read more

I did and you're wrong.

Perhaps you should actually attempt playing a game like Quake Live for a month, then go back and compare it to CoD and it's ilk that you seem to think are the be-all and end-all of FPS. Your list is laughably off base.

This is interesting , can you elaborate? Also how old is quake live btw?

OT: i think what you said is true ... For military shooters . I personally thing we should move away from the serious shooters and have things more wacky and fun like serious sam. Games in general , in my opinion have to stop being so serious all the time and just have fun with it and be imaginitive . Now that doesn't mean fps can't be serious . Look at metro 2033 for example . It's serious and pretty grindark but at the same time it's different . The atmosphere , the stress , the despair . It wasn't just a spectacle a la call of duty . It wasn't a powertrip , you were fighting for your survival .

 

[OldDirtyCrusty]

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?

Well, I think all first person shooters are 90% all the same with a different colour meshed object without the slightest hint albeit minimal plot. If you think i'm wrong please read more

So what makes a good fps which is also the reason why they are all the same?
...

Hmm, most things you listed are basic gameplay mechanics. It`s a bit like listing jump and run features and then saying "you all get ripped of. Dust of your C64 and play Giana Sisters".


The FPS is a bit of a stagnating genre (for the last ten years i guess) but most developers try to implement something new at least (yeah, it may be these little 10%). Just leave CoD and BF on the shelf if you want something different (i`m still enjoying these titles but i can understand that they seem to be to repetetive for some gamers).

I`m having to much fun with these games and it doesn`t sound like you`re a fps player (you listed Fallout 3?)or someone who likes the genre at all. For someone who doesn`t want to create a hate thread there`s some kind of bad vibe in your post (at least to me).

btt
A talking main character. I don`t identify with a mass murderer anyway so why not give a personality? I don`t like voiceless characters. It feels stupid when your character doesn`t answer (i`m not even expecting a choice) when npcs are talking to him/her.

 

[repeating integers]

You need a host of simple mechanics which combine together into something very fun, and preferably challenging.

The only other requirement I have is no over-the-top railroading. Beyond that, almost anything goes.

Currently playing through the Halo series again, in order of release. Actually, saying that reminds me of just one more very personal requirement: please, lots of checkpoints, or a manual save function. CE is great in most respects, but its checkpoint allocation is frustrating.

 

[Fieldy409_v1legacy]

This might sound strange...but I think the speed you move at is very important. I like to be able to move fast, fast enough to get back to the action and flank on the fly without planning it minutes In advance and whatnot. Halo is about my minimum happy point for movement speed. Though I really loved games that let me move a lot faster than that, like being an alien in AVP(is that a shooter? I mean theres guns in it if your the other races but you dont shoot as an alien...)

 

[CleverNickname]

Projectile weapons, especially for the enemies. and all the design choices that logically result from them.

and a fucking quicksave key

 

[Flac00]

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?

Well, I think all first person shooters are 90% all the same with a different colour meshed object without the slightest hint albeit minimal plot. If you think i'm wrong please read more

So what makes a good fps which is also the reason why they are all the same?

1. Good Clipping with walls and magic dirt as I like to say, when you are stuck in a glitched wall. It is perhaps the worst thing in a f.p.s game to succumb to this.

2. Variety of weapons- close, medium and heavy weapons. Pretty much the stock standard of all f.p.s games regardless of its label, oh you can throw in the B.F.G gun for the occasional on-line death-match.

3. Walls to hide under- pretty standard stuff to crouch or ambush to and from.

4. Easy to use w,s,a,d format. (most games use this but you do come across the rare breed who want to attempt to be different)

5. a cross-hair to shoot from, and a slider bar for your mouse sensitivity

All of these don't make FPS's the same game. The arguments you made about their being walls to hide behind, WASD controls, and clipping are all irrelevant. These are almost requirements for any 3D game. They are also there for a reason, clipping is bad, WASD controls give you access to more buttons on hand, walls are good for balance and not dyeing. Not to mention, a lot of games have a habit of dropping the crosshair. Also, a mouse sensitivity slider does not make a game even slightly similar to any other, thats just too general.
Those same arguments you just gave can be easily be given to any subgenre. We have to remember that FPS is not a large group, its popular, but not large. When it comes down to it, every game in a subgenre is similar to its others (JRPGs, adventure games, MMORGP's, RTS's, etc.). Similarity doesn't make it the same or copy and pasted. I can tell you that playing a game like Deus Ex and MW3 is very different. As is HL2 and Bioshock. In the end, if what your saying is true, then all videogames, from every genre, and every period of time, is the same.

 

[Vkmies]

What I look for is generally something that it does either different (Reason why I play BF, I feel it offers me stuff nothing else does and I looove it) or something it does new and innovating. Almost the same thing. Generally, what I look for in every game, is something new other games cant offer me. That's on reason why I love Half Life so damn much. And the original Deus Ex

 

[paislyabmj]

i guess that is is different depending on the fps in particular.what made system shock or deus ex great istt going to be the same thing that could make cod or moh great.

 

[Kahunaburger]

Single-player: as OP mentioned, weapon variety is important. The emphasis should be on guns that are entertaining to use, like the basic shotgun from Doom (dat sound), the sticky launcher from TF2, the spinfusors from Tribes, and the weird legendary guns from Borderlands.

Enemy variety is similarly important - most shooters, unfortunately, have two kinds of enemy: man with gun, and man with rocket launcher. (Helicopters and tanks that you take out in a scripted segment don't count.)

Also, pacing is important. An endless string of fights is less interesting than interspersed segments of attack, exploration, evasion, etc.

Once again, I have to respectfully (emphasis on respectfully) disagree with you.

Games like COD 1, MOH Allied Assault and Metro 2033 had virtually nothing in terms of weapon variety and "fun", but the atmosphere and pacing in those 3 games was so outstanding, they were great anyway. Theres more than one way to make a great single player FPS.

I love both ways. Hard Reset, the older Serious Sam games, Doom, all crazy games with crazy weapons. But COD 1? Also amazing. Being thrown into battle in Stalingrad without even having a gun - thats something only a military FPS can do.

OT: For me personally a FPS game needs to have a great setting that it takes full advantage of, a good challenge and good pacing. Note: hiding behind a wall for 10 minutes is not good pacing.

I like games like Ghost Recon too, which are very slow and weighted, but most of them are third person shooters now so they dont really count.

^That's a good point - my criteria definitely overlook shooters that use limitations to create atmosphere, immersion, and a sense of place.

 

[cswurt]

Scantily clad female characters are all you need to make a good FPS.

 

[TrevHead]

SP - Fast paced gameplay or a intresting location is a must. Story alone cant carry a FPS

 

[kingthrall]

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?

Well, I think all first person shooters are 90% all the same with a different colour meshed object without the slightest hint albeit minimal plot. If you think i'm wrong please read more

So what makes a good fps which is also the reason why they are all the same?

1. Good Clipping with walls and magic dirt as I like to say, when you are stuck in a glitched wall. It is perhaps the worst thing in a f.p.s game to succumb to this.

2. Variety of weapons- close, medium and heavy weapons. Pretty much the stock standard of all f.p.s games regardless of its label, oh you can throw in the B.F.G gun for the occasional on-line death-match.

3. Walls to hide under- pretty standard stuff to crouch or ambush to and from.

4. Easy to use w,s,a,d format. (most games use this but you do come across the rare breed who want to attempt to be different)

5. a cross-hair to shoot from, and a slider bar for your mouse sensitivity

All of these don't make FPS's the same game. The arguments you made about their being walls to hide behind, WASD controls, and clipping are all irrelevant. These are almost requirements for any 3D game. They are also there for a reason, clipping is bad, WASD controls give you access to more buttons on hand, walls are good for balance and not dyeing. Not to mention, a lot of games have a habit of dropping the crosshair. Also, a mouse sensitivity slider does not make a game even slightly similar to any other, thats just too general.
Those same arguments you just gave can be easily be given to any subgenre. We have to remember that FPS is not a large group, its popular, but not large. When it comes down to it, every game in a subgenre is similar to its others (JRPGs, adventure games, MMORGP's, RTS's, etc.). Similarity doesn't make it the same or copy and pasted. I can tell you that playing a game like Deus Ex and MW3 is very different. As is HL2 and Bioshock. In the end, if what your saying is true, then all videogames, from every genre, and every period of time, is the same.

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?

Well, I think all first person shooters are 90% all the same with a different colour meshed object without the slightest hint albeit minimal plot. If you think i'm wrong please read more

So what makes a good fps which is also the reason why they are all the same?

1. Good Clipping with walls and magic dirt as I like to say, when you are stuck in a glitched wall. It is perhaps the worst thing in a f.p.s game to succumb to this.

2. Variety of weapons- close, medium and heavy weapons. Pretty much the stock standard of all f.p.s games regardless of its label, oh you can throw in the B.F.G gun for the occasional on-line death-match.

3. Walls to hide under- pretty standard stuff to crouch or ambush to and from.

4. Easy to use w,s,a,d format. (most games use this but you do come across the rare breed who want to attempt to be different)

5. a cross-hair to shoot from, and a slider bar for your mouse sensitivity

All of these don't make FPS's the same game. The arguments you made about their being walls to hide behind, WASD controls, and clipping are all irrelevant. These are almost requirements for any 3D game. They are also there for a reason, clipping is bad, WASD controls give you access to more buttons on hand, walls are good for balance and not dyeing. Not to mention, a lot of games have a habit of dropping the crosshair. Also, a mouse sensitivity slider does not make a game even slightly similar to any other, thats just too general.
Those same arguments you just gave can be easily be given to any subgenre. We have to remember that FPS is not a large group, its popular, but not large. When it comes down to it, every game in a subgenre is similar to its others (JRPGs, adventure games, MMORGP's, RTS's, etc.). Similarity doesn't make it the same or copy and pasted. I can tell you that playing a game like Deus Ex and MW3 is very different. As is HL2 and Bioshock. In the end, if what your saying is true, then all videogames, from every genre, and every period of time, is the same.

To a certain extent most F.P.S games are the same. I agree that MW3 is different to Deus Ex however Deus Ex is more of an RPG like Fallout 3 than a FPS.

Also my arguments about walls and W.A.S.D are still valid, so many times ive seen games neglect to revise the basic principles in games and fail miserably. Ever play Hexen or even fallout new vegas and see the bad meshes merging together? Or what about my favourite when Empire total war came out there was no Naval invasions which rendered England useless. The 5th instalment of a total war series you would of expected the devs to get it right?

I will admit I am not the hugest fan of F.P.S because it is usually 12 year old kids who play them and I have rarely if ever seen any real social interaction between players in comparison to starcraft or even my favourite game Myth II. Ive been to Ukraine and met in clubs in italy with people online from my Team that ive been with for seven years. You do not get that kind of interaction in an F.P.S which is the reason why F.P.S is also not a popular choice as you have said more of a sub-genre of choice.