what modern shooters are missing

[shootthebandit]

im sure we all feel abit underwhelmed by most modern shooters and i know exactly why. i recently purchased the metal gear collection i thought id play MGS3 first with it being my favourite and first in date order. anyhow i was playing and i realised something, MGS3 empowers the player by striping them down to the bare essentials. the game puts the player at a position of inferiority and the player is forced to find their own equipment and food, the player feels more empowered by overcoming this adversity.

however in modern shooters the player starts at a position of power with powerful guns and equipment, when the player starts at a position of power its difficult to feel satisfied. 100 kills in a modern shooter with powerful guns and an endless supply of ammo is nowhere near as satisfying as one perfectly executed CQC takedown or tranq shot in MGS. The adversity in MGS also creates a feeling of tension which is something that you dont really get in modern games.

another thing is cutscenes, ill admit as a huge fan of MGS the cutscenes can get alittle tedious but they add narative and you actually learn about snakes character and you can actually connect more with him as a person. in modern games cutscenes just detach you from the action they dont provide narrative but just big meaningless explosions

to conclude; the player needs to overcome adversity, there needs to be a feeling of tension and cutscenes need to tell a story rather than just showing off the graphics engine

 

[Terminate421]

Modern Shooters wouldn't work like that unfortunatly.

Scrambling for ammo and god knows what else is done well in a game like say...Bioshock or Fallout 3.

Military Shooters are supposed to go for the realistic route and give you enough ammo to last.

Want a game that gives you guns but they will only work with proper skill? Play Halo: Reach. And before anyone pulls the Rocket Launcher trump card, you only find them available to you in like 4 chapters and they run out of ammo quickly.

 

[krazykidd]

Focus more on story than explosions . And what OP said about being the underdog and fighting an uphill battles . Also get rid of regenerating health please.

 

[Michael Hirst]

Modern shooters lack depth of gameplay, when we look at Call of Duty's basic mechanics the result is that we have a shooter in which a player has no defence for once the enemy is firing at him, Auto aim/aim assist mean that shaking an already aiming enemy is near impossible and the resriction of movement in general makes dodging a non option. The only response left is to go prone and return fire. This might seem like how things have to be on the surface but it isn't.

Look at Unreal Tournament 2004, the player has the ability to execute double jumps and dodges by tapping the movement keys, there is also no auto aim function which results in being able to dodge a player that is aiming directly at you. There was also a very wise decision to take all the most powerful weapons in the game (Flak Cannon, Rocket Launcher, Link Gun Primary etc) and make them have to travel before hitting the enemy as opposed to the weaker wepaons (Shock Rifle Primary, Link secondary, Minigun) which didn't have to travel before hitting, this resulted in players having to favour either reliability of hits or the damage of those hits meanwhile having to compensate for the unpredictable movement of players who had a wide array of dodging abilities. The only exception to the rule was the Electric gun/Sniper Rifle which was an instant hit and a one shot kill if you hit the head but then the amount of wild movement made headshots rather difficult to pull off.

These basic mechanics greatly affect the skill curve in both games. What Call of Duty is VERY successful at doing is making sure everybody gets to play the game and isn't completely outclassed whereas Unreal Tournament encourages players gaining a higher skill level and being a more competative shooter overall for those who master the mechanics.

Don't get me wrong I'm not saying there isn't a place for Call of Duty in the gaming world, in fact I'd say it's one of the best entry level shooters for people who aren't already familiar with the genre and especially with online play. If you're new to online shooters and you joined a game like UT or Quake you'd get hammered and most likely rage quit before you could get good at the game.

My lament is that we're running out of games like Unreal Tournament 2004, we're sliding into a sea of games that copy Call of Duty's success and basic mechanics resulting in games that have very little depth and don't challenge its userbase to become more skilled. On Call of Duty there are definitely good players and bad players but I miss the days when I felt like I was really mastering an online shooter.

In effect classic shooters had a skill level that created pros at that game, the likes we only see in Starcraft 2 and League of Legends nowadays. The advanced mechanics of Unreal Tournament made for some extremely skillful players and interesting matches unlike Call of Duty which nearly always feels the same to me regardless of who I'm playing against.

 

[Manji187]

I think that MGS3 is a stealth game first. If you're good, you won't have to do a lot of shooting.

Even though both MGS3 and games like MW2 feature guns and shooting, they are fundamentally different at the gameplay level. So, apples and oranges. Both fruit, just very different fruit.

What modern shooters (modern as in modern warfare?) are missing? In general, an interesting and long single player campaign.

 

[Jesse Billingsley]

ODST did something similar, stripping the player of power armor and limiting their weapons to just a few CQB weapons. I personally found the game to be quiet enjoyable.

Another thing games in general are missing is a sort of "Oh shit how am I going to survive this?" moment. Anyone who played Mechwarrior 4 Mercenaries may know what I mean.

 

[CleverNickname]

Modern shooters lack depth of gameplay, when we look at Call of Duty's basic mechanics the result is that we have a shooter in which a player has no defence for once the enemy is firing at him, Auto aim/aim assist mean that shaking an already aiming enemy is near impossible and the resriction of movement in general makes dodging a non option. The only response left is to go prone and return fire. This might seem like how things have to be on the surface but it isn't.

Look at Unreal Tournament 2004, the player has the ability to execute double jumps and dodges by tapping the movement keys, there is also no auto aim function which results in being able to dodge a player that is aiming directly at you. There was also a very wise decision to take all the most powerful weapons in the game (Flak Cannon, Rocket Launcher, Link Gun Primary etc) and make them have to travel before hitting the enemy as opposed to the weaker wepaons (Shock Rifle Primary, Link secondary, Minigun) which didn't have to travel before hitting, this resulted in players having to favour either reliability of hits or the damage of those hits meanwhile having to compensate for the unpredictable movement of players who had a wide array of dodging abilities. The only exception to the rule was the Electric gun/Sniper Rifle which was an instant hit and a one shot kill if you hit the head but then the amount of wild movement made headshots rather difficult to pull off.

These basic mechanics greatly affect the skill curve in both games. What Call of Duty is VERY successful at doing is making sure everybody gets to play the game and isn't completely outclassed whereas Unreal Tournament encourages players gaining a higher skill level and being a more competative shooter overall for those who master the mechanics.

Don't get me wrong I'm not saying there isn't a place for Call of Duty in the gaming world, in fact I'd say it's one of the best entry level shooters for people who aren't already familiar with the genre and especially with online play. If you're new to online shooters and you joined a game like UT or Quake you'd get hammered and most likely rage quit before you could get good at the game.

My lament is that we're running out of games like Unreal Tournament 2004, we're sliding into a sea of games that copy Call of Duty's success and basic mechanics resulting in games that have very little depth and don't challenge its userbase to become more skilled. On Call of Duty there are definitely good players and bad players but I miss the days when I felt like I was really mastering an online shooter.

In effect classic shooters had a skill level that created pros at that game, the likes we only see in Starcraft 2 and League of Legends nowadays. The advanced mechanics of Unreal Tournament made for some extremely skillful players and interesting matches unlike Call of Duty which nearly always feels the same to me regardless of who I'm playing against.

Agreed on the dodging and travel-time weapons - two things that require one another, made old shooters fun and gave even the shallowest dumb run&gun ripoff have more depth than the assault-rifle-centric subgenre of today. (we require more projectile weapons [http://www.escapistmagazine.com/forums/read/9.326531-Why-bullets-have-ruined-the-FPS-genre] and everything that comes - and goes! - with it)

 

[skywolfblue]

Modern shooters lack depth of gameplay, when we look at Call of Duty's basic mechanics the result is that we have a shooter in which a player has no defence for once the enemy is firing at him, Auto aim/aim assist mean that shaking an already aiming enemy is near impossible and the resriction of movement in general makes dodging a non option. The only response left is to go prone and return fire. This might seem like how things have to be on the surface but it isn't.

Look at Unreal Tournament 2004, the player has the ability to execute double jumps and dodges by tapping the movement keys, there is also no auto aim function which results in being able to dodge a player that is aiming directly at you. There was also a very wise decision to take all the most powerful weapons in the game (Flak Cannon, Rocket Launcher, Link Gun Primary etc) and make them have to travel before hitting the enemy as opposed to the weaker wepaons (Shock Rifle Primary, Link secondary, Minigun) which didn't have to travel before hitting, this resulted in players having to favour either reliability of hits or the damage of those hits meanwhile having to compensate for the unpredictable movement of players who had a wide array of dodging abilities. The only exception to the rule was the Electric gun/Sniper Rifle which was an instant hit and a one shot kill if you hit the head but then the amount of wild movement made headshots rather difficult to pull off.

These basic mechanics greatly affect the skill curve in both games. What Call of Duty is VERY successful at doing is making sure everybody gets to play the game and isn't completely outclassed whereas Unreal Tournament encourages players gaining a higher skill level and being a more competative shooter overall for those who master the mechanics.

Don't get me wrong I'm not saying there isn't a place for Call of Duty in the gaming world, in fact I'd say it's one of the best entry level shooters for people who aren't already familiar with the genre and especially with online play. If you're new to online shooters and you joined a game like UT or Quake you'd get hammered and most likely rage quit before you could get good at the game.

My lament is that we're running out of games like Unreal Tournament 2004, we're sliding into a sea of games that copy Call of Duty's success and basic mechanics resulting in games that have very little depth and don't challenge its userbase to become more skilled. On Call of Duty there are definitely good players and bad players but I miss the days when I felt like I was really mastering an online shooter.

In effect classic shooters had a skill level that created pros at that game, the likes we only see in Starcraft 2 and League of Legends nowadays. The advanced mechanics of Unreal Tournament made for some extremely skillful players and interesting matches unlike Call of Duty which nearly always feels the same to me regardless of who I'm playing against.

QFT. It's a little sad to see complex dodging go the way of the dodo bird.

 

[bpm195]

Modern shooters lack depth of gameplay, when we look at Call of Duty's basic mechanics the result is that we have a shooter in which a player has no defence for once the enemy is firing at him, Auto aim/aim assist mean that shaking an already aiming enemy is near impossible and the resriction of movement in general makes dodging a non option. The only response left is to go prone and return fire. This might seem like how things have to be on the surface but it isn't.

Look at Unreal Tournament 2004, the player has the ability to execute double jumps and dodges by tapping the movement keys, there is also no auto aim function which results in being able to dodge a player that is aiming directly at you. There was also a very wise decision to take all the most powerful weapons in the game (Flak Cannon, Rocket Launcher, Link Gun Primary etc) and make them have to travel before hitting the enemy as opposed to the weaker wepaons (Shock Rifle Primary, Link secondary, Minigun) which didn't have to travel before hitting, this resulted in players having to favour either reliability of hits or the damage of those hits meanwhile having to compensate for the unpredictable movement of players who had a wide array of dodging abilities. The only exception to the rule was the Electric gun/Sniper Rifle which was an instant hit and a one shot kill if you hit the head but then the amount of wild movement made headshots rather difficult to pull off.

These basic mechanics greatly affect the skill curve in both games. What Call of Duty is VERY successful at doing is making sure everybody gets to play the game and isn't completely outclassed whereas Unreal Tournament encourages players gaining a higher skill level and being a more competative shooter overall for those who master the mechanics.

Don't get me wrong I'm not saying there isn't a place for Call of Duty in the gaming world, in fact I'd say it's one of the best entry level shooters for people who aren't already familiar with the genre and especially with online play. If you're new to online shooters and you joined a game like UT or Quake you'd get hammered and most likely rage quit before you could get good at the game.

My lament is that we're running out of games like Unreal Tournament 2004, we're sliding into a sea of games that copy Call of Duty's success and basic mechanics resulting in games that have very little depth and don't challenge its userbase to become more skilled. On Call of Duty there are definitely good players and bad players but I miss the days when I felt like I was really mastering an online shooter.

In effect classic shooters had a skill level that created pros at that game, the likes we only see in Starcraft 2 and League of Legends nowadays. The advanced mechanics of Unreal Tournament made for some extremely skillful players and interesting matches unlike Call of Duty which nearly always feels the same to me regardless of who I'm playing against.

Agreed on the dodging and travel-time weapons - two things that require one another, made old shooters fun and gave even the shallowest dumb run&gun ripoff have more depth than the assault-rifle-centric subgenre of today. (we require more projectile weapons [http://www.escapistmagazine.com/forums/read/9.326531-Why-bullets-have-ruined-the-FPS-genre] and everything that comes - and goes! - with it)

Read through that giant wall of text you linked... agreed.

 

[Nyaoku]

It needs more focus on stealth. Every map in MW3 seems (to me at least) to be just a bunch of hallways and close combat areas with little (if any) places to wait and ambush someone without standing out in the open for every other path that goes through there. As a sniper, this forces me to focus on quickscoping and camping flag locations. Traps are limited to claymores, c4, and bouncing betties but all of those can be seen with a simple perk, also showing your location in the process. Another perk basically lets them walk right through, the device activating a while afterwords. Also, it all seems to be "who has the best offense wins" lately. Tactics with most of the online community is "everyone go to the spot we don't have control of yet." I see flags left unguarded as soon as they're captured, the whole team rushing off to the other side of the map. In team deathmatch, Looking at the map just shows a wave of icons going back and forth from one side to the next as the spawnpoints switch around. They seem to have been getting alittle better adding some vertical gameplay but 2-layers is still kind of low. We need more versatile levels. Bring back some of the underwater fighting, making the surface murky to hide those beneath. Also, let teamless chat be optional. I want to be able to hear someone rage after breaking a killstreak. I'd also like having the ability to climb walls back. >_>

 

[kommando367]

Wackiness (like the new Gotham City Imposters game) and variety of melee weaponry

Give me a competitive multiplayer mode with completely random settings. You might get 300% speed or 200% HP or 10% gravity or vampire mode (hit enemies to regen HP) or meteors raining from the sky which forces everyone to dart between buildings or stay inside (kind of like Gears 2 Razorhail). You may get any combination of the above and more with a max of 3 modified settings.

Competitive multiplayer mode with random bosses that appear and make the opposing teams work together or kill the other team while they're distracted and have a harder time killing the boss.

 

[Korten12]

It needs more focus on stealth. Every map in MW3 seems (to me at least) to be just a bunch of hallways and close combat areas with little (if any) places to wait and ambush someone without standing out in the open for every other path that goes through there. As a sniper, this forces me to focus on quickscoping and camping flag locations. Traps are limited to claymores, c4, and bouncing betties but all of those can be seen with a simple perk, also showing your location in the process. Another perk basically lets them walk right through, the device activating a while afterwords. Also, it all seems to be "who has the best offense wins" lately. Tactics with most of the online community is "everyone go to the spot we don't have control of yet." I see flags left unguarded as soon as they're captured, the whole team rushing off to the other side of the map. In team deathmatch, Looking at the map just shows a wave of icons going back and forth from one side to the next as the spawnpoints switch around. They seem to have been getting alittle better adding some vertical gameplay but 2-layers is still kind of low. We need more versatile levels. Bring back some of the underwater fighting, making the surface murky to hide those beneath. Also, let teamless chat be optional. I want to be able to hear someone rage after breaking a killstreak. I'd also like having the ability to climb walls back. >_>

Call of Duty has never had stealth. So using Call of Duty is a horrible example of Stealth.

 

[LobsterFeng]

This is a problem that has probably existed with most shooters, but I'd like to be able to choose my own guns, let me explain.

In CoD's Multiplayer (using this as example because it's the most famous modern shooter)there are tons of guns to choose from and you basically have the ability to choose a weapon layout that fits your personality. In the single player campaigns it's a totally different story. You start out with two guns that the game gave you, and if you find a gun that's different then the one you had that an enemy dropped, then you can pick that up.

I want to be able to choose my own guns every time I start the game, and I want to unlock weapons as the game progresses just like you can in Multiplayer. I want to start out weak but get better and better, kind of like what OP said.

 

[LittleJoeRambler]

I think a lot of it comes down to the movement mechanics. As the OP in the "bullets have ruined the genre" post stated, it's a problem of the player not being able to dodge around projectiles because they are instant muzzle-to-flesh damage dealers instead of true projectiles, i.e. requiring time to reach the target (giving the player time to dodge).

In most modern shooters, you have essentially two movement speeds: walk and sprint, neither of which are fast enough to save you from enemy fire. That's one of my favorite things about Crysis 1, it gives you more interesting ways to move around than just plodding around. And Max Speed sprinting can actually save you from enemies in many cases (not all though). It's not a perfect example because the bullets still travel extremely fast, but it's a step in the right direction in my opinion.

Plus it's just fun to sprint extremely fast and jump really high. Different movement options make things much more interesting.

 

[Popeman]

I think modern shooters need to bring back having no weapon limit.

A 2 weapon limit has it's place but I find it is too prevalent.

And an overhaul of the health system. I can live with regenerating health not going anywhere but having no consequences of taking enough bullets to be on 10% hp is a bad joke. Somewhat like the system from Just Cause 2.

Resistance: Fall of man did that.

 

[SL33TBL1ND]

ODST did something similar, stripping the player of power armor and limiting their weapons to just a few CQB weapons. I personally found the game to be quiet enjoyable.

Another thing games in general are missing is a sort of "Oh shit how am I going to survive this?" moment. Anyone who played Mechwarrior 4 Mercenaries may know what I mean.

I never had that moment in MW4:M. I really liked that game, but I can say that there was never any challenge in it whatsoever. Just jump as fast as you can into an Assault mech and you've won at that point.

 

[Michael Hirst]

The whole regenerating health thing is a big annoyance in modern shooters as well, It started as a device for devs to make gameplay balance, they knew at any point how much health you had when you walked into a room and balanced encounters accordingly, in the old days there were times we went into a big room on Doom with only 12hp and got out balls rocked.

The problem with regenerating health is what the mechanic encourages from the player, security and cover, if your health regenerates all you have to do is find a sturdy place to hide and sit behind it popping off the enemies 1 at a time, in most games they can do very little to stop you, in COD it's too easy to throw grenades back, Uncharted 3 kinda had the problem fixed or at least it seemed like I had to move around a lot to prevent flanking attacks.

Anyway, when a game uses a standard health bar with medkits strewn around, it encourages the player to leave his piece of cover and grab his health, forcing a choice between health and saftey, makes for a much more exciting encounter when you have to jump out your cover to make a mad rush for health (or ammo for that matter) Don't think those health kits are placed haphazardly, in a good game they will make you think about this in your head and seriously consider the value of runnning to get health all in a decision that you only get a few seconds to make. Regenerating health, oh no my screens covered with jam better crouch for a few seconds and pretend I'm not here...okay back in action, kill 2 guys, oh no more jam, duck again rinse repeat.

I'll throw in an idea I had for Duke Nukem as well, we all know Forever was disappointing blah blah blah but what if the health system actually was Dukes Ego, instead of it regenerating from hiding behind a wall that actually slowed it down whereas going out in the open and blowing a pigs face off gave you a health boost, likewise for pulling out the chaingun and cutting waves of enemies into gibs. Reward the player for being aggressive and reckless in the face of extreme odds stacked against them.

EDIT: IMO Max Payne 1/2 have one of the best health systems around, letting the player regenerate the smallest bit of health when they're in critical condition but anything over 15% requires Painkillers to heal.