Where do FPS games go from here?

[PurpleRain]

Well with more and more physics and engines being made for FPS's, they seem to be getting more and more realistic. Valves physic engine, Hells Highway's First Person Acting, and so on. Hopefully all these will make the experiance more life like so then they'll be able to do more with them. The Doom days were very limited.

 

[PurpleRain]

Also, in particular, a control scheme where you can move in one direction but look in another. And more options than Run, Walk, Crouch; maybe using an analog controller. For unarmed to work, you'd have to be able to take quick steps, weave your torso, move your legs, adjust your guard etc and all that would have to be visible as more than just floating camera movements.

Hell's Highway is working towards that. It's called (well they call it) First Person Acting.

 

[Hypothic]

I didn't read anyones posts and I dont care to, I only made this account because I wanted to say that the only FPS worth playing in the near future is HUXLEY... if you haven't heard of it start reading up on it.

The game is an MMOFPSRPG twitch action shooter (they seriously call it a twitch shooter lol) I went to LA and play tested this game and its now seriously my favorite game and we didn't even play a completed version! There is going to be vehicles, abilities, leveling, clan battles for territory, full PVP and PVE, massive battles... It will basically have everything you want and it looks friggen awsome!

Go to this website:
www.huxley-evolved.com

And watch the gameplay trailer:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6PCfe6QlzVo&feature=related

And check out what we the testers thought of the game:
http://youtube.com/watch?v=RYf5tvCGsrE

Im the one who shouts "THIS IS HUXLEY" lol

 

[raankh]

Hell's Highway is working towards that. It's called (well they call it) First Person Acting.

Wow, had missed out on that, just watched the Developers Commentary on ign. Looks real good; if it plays like it looks it's going to be smashing I think. Just hoping all that coolness and interaction isn't strictly scripted but IA or even AI.

 

[Tetsu_Kijo]

For me, the next step in the evolutionary process of the FPS is the succesful implementation of squad based combat. To date I've yet to play a game that's really encouraged teamwork (Battlefield 2 perhaps). The implementation of squad benefits, classes, formations etc; would increase immersion for me.

 

[rawlight]

I agree with the OP on mostly all points. I almost never buy FPS games anymore just because they are all the same. I either play them at someone else's house or wait for someone to buy it for me (there is also a third unmentionable option).

I think that people misunderstand the difference between realism and immersion. Crysis is very realistic because of its graphics. A tree looks remarkably like a tree in real life. Water looks pretty close to the real thing.

However, graphics and physics do not make an immersive game by themselves. A fact that many devs would catagorically disagree with given all the derivative crap that gets released. I think some devs wish every genre was like sports games. Where they can just release the exact same game with minor improvements to the engine every year. Deviating from the standard formula is frowned upon it would seem. The best we can get these days is half-assed attempts like Bioshock.

For immersion you need to draw the player in, give them something to do, and make them want to do it. I don't think FPS games are very immersive. You get a couple of hours when you first start a game where you are amazed by all the graphics, but inevitably you get back to the same old tasks and the same old goals.

 

[raankh]

For immersion you need to draw the player in, give them something to do, and make them want to do it. I don't think FPS games are very immersive. You get a couple of hours when you first start a game where you are amazed by all the graphics, but inevitably you get back to the same old tasks and the same old goals.

This I second wholeheartedly. An excellent example imo was the first Call of Duty, the first part of the game I found amazing; when the sh*t hit the fan in the game's first mission I was completely stunned, a truly massive experience as the game suddenly erupted in all hell. A few missions later, I found my eyelids drooping and I was thinking "where's the t-shirt already".

Many reviews of COD hailed its immersiveness, although the meaning of that technical term perhaps has shifted meaning since '03.

I experienced a very similar thing playing Far Cry, up until the mutants appear I more or less cared about what was going on, but then I felt like I was playing Doom all over again -- admittedly it looks a helluva lot prettier, but one slavering monster in a tunnel is another slavering monster in a tunnel to me.

 

[JamesW]

For me, the next step in the evolutionary process of the FPS is the succesful implementation of squad based combat. To date I've yet to play a game that's really encouraged teamwork (Battlefield 2 perhaps). The implementation of squad benefits, classes, formations etc; would increase immersion for me.

Again, I'd say that the problem there is that the FPS system just isn't suited to squad-based combat: you can't see enough of the playing field to keep tabs on your men properly, operating a point-and-click system in a hurry is a pain because it forces you to rotate your character to mark positions, and a ground-level viewpoint makes it difficult to properly put together a decent battleplan.

The exception is in multiplayer, because at least there your teammates have (in theory) the intelligence to react to ever-changing battle conditions themselves while still working as a group. Thus, the player can just get on with focusing on his role in the battle and squad without having to worry about if his men have sufficient cover, or have become stuck in scenery or whatever.

 

[CyberAkuma]

I disagree.
I thikn what you are looking for is a First-Person-Enviroment Interactive game, and not a First Person Shooter.
The main core of a FPS-game is just the action shooting at its core - not the interaction with the enviroment.
This has been tried before, and ended up with disasterous results. (anyone remember Jurrasic Park: Trespasser?)

As far as the future of FPS-games I think that the Far Cry 2 Engine looks promising.
Nothing breathatking or amazing, but it might be a small step forward.

 

[Kieran210]

I knew someone was going to mention that Jurassic Park game, I just couldn't remember what it was called...

Wonderful posts, by the way, thank you. Actually, possibly I am looking for a First Person Environment Interactive game (or FPEI for a particularly awful acronymn) I'm not advocating the end of gun play, by the way, because I love a good shooter as much as anyone.

But....

Is FPEI not the way forwards? Blending genres so you just have an immersive first person experience, rather than a first person shooter? I haven't seen Hells Highway videos, but the idea of First Person Acting sounds exactly right for moving the genre along. Also the inclusion of RPG elements I believe is a good step forward because every game is fundementally a roleplaying game at some level.

One of the small advancements I did enjoy was FEAR's inclusion of the characters legs... I got a very strange look when I was heard to proclaim loudly 'I've got legs! Legs!'

But with gameplay and control advances in other genres, such as the puppeteer context specific method of control in Assassin's Creed, for example, or the context specific cover system in Gears of War, surely FPS's can push the boundaries, as TankX mentions?

Even break with convention and try and create a viewpoint with peripheral vision...

K

 

[rawlight]

I think Trespasser is an excellent example for what I was saying before. They went wild advertising the "realistic physics" in the game. Stack boxes like never before! My point is exactly that they invested too much time in trying to make it realistic and not enough time making it a good game.

I agree that the core of the FPS is shooting stuff, and the story takes a back seat to that. But I don't think you need to choose between "core FPS gameplay" and interaction with the environment. Shooting stuff is a form of interaction with the environment after all.

I also don't think that making up terms for every little sub-genre is useful either. I think it limits how we think of games. So many games stick to conventions because of the cowardice of the publishers. They look at what sold well, inform their peons to copy it down to the bone, change the character names, and off you go.

This is always how it goes with the game industry though. Some game achieves success in the market, and next Christmas there are a dozen copies of it. None of the newcomers achieve the same level of success and the industry moves on to the next flavour of the year. These days everything has to be "squad-based" or "massively multiplayer" or have "episodic content".

I think the recent mergers (Mythic/EA and Blizzard/Activision) are a sign that a crash is incoming. Their sales are flagging and mergers are a classic way for a large bureaucratic mammoths to hide losses and make it appear as though their cash flow is larger than it really is. They are hoping that the MMORPG genre will continue to surge the way it has been in recent years and buying EA and Mythic is like buying a license to print money. I think they are in for an unpleasant surprise.

Woah, went on a tangent there. Bringing it back to FPS games, I think the next step forward will come from an unknown low-key game, not one of the big publishers.

 

[dannyodwyer]

I remember having one of those "wow" moments when playing the FPS "Call of Cthulhu: Dark Corners of the Earth". There were long segments of that game where you were performing environmental tasks that didn't involve shooting. There were levels which involved information collection involving stealth and navigation, and amazing chase levels which saw you running from the townspeople, closing and barricading doors as you went, and scampering across rooftops as your characters fear (and fear of heights) distorted your view, and petrified your fingers. I'm quite disappointed it wasn't received well, and no other designers picked up on some the amazing mechanics.

To be honest though, i enjoy hammering through games like Deus Ex as much as i did Half Life and Call of Duty. As much as i enjoyed Deus Ex (and i really do) i think it didn't so much do anything revolutionary, rather it did a lot of tired ideas correctly. Something you can see with the luke-warm response to its sequel.

I agree with raw light about compartmentalizing genres too. I think categorizing is something thats inherently human, but it does tend to limit peoples perspectives of games, designers and much as gamers.

Final though, Graphics and Physics are amazing. If they're getting tired now, thats just because were used to them, but both are important steps in the evolution of the genre, and lets be honest, without First Person Shooters, graphics and physics would have taken a backseat in the evolution of over genres.

No portal? No Loco-Roco? No thanks!

 

[Lightbulb]

Pfft you don't wanna try hitting that flint against that steel. Its been tried before...

FPS = Shooter. Fine.

If thats truye then I don't want to play any more FPS games. The sooner this genre based games making ends the better. Confining yourself to one genre, one style of play just leads to stagnation, boredom and crap games.

The only FPS i enjoyed recently was STALKER. Its bleakness, its pointlessness elevated it far above CoD4, Bioshock and the like. It also tried, and i would say partly succeeded, to implement something a bit different. It wasn't different in the mechanics it employed but rather in the tone in which it was delivered. When was the last time that at the end of the game you get a slap in the face instead of a pat on the back? I will say no more to avoid spoilers but even the 'best' of the multiple endings are at best ambiguous...

If they can get ALife and the faction system running in the prequel then it could be something very very special.

I agree further interaction with the game world would be good. Imagine a game where you can pick up a chair throw it at some ones legs and have them fall over before running out the door and locking it behind you, choosing to snap off the key in the lock... Far fetched? Maybe but it could be done. As stated above making it possible to CONTROL is the hardest part.

For melee combat i think that the system used in The Witcher might be the way forwards. Instead of clickclickclickclickclickclickclickclickclickclickclickclick to fight you have to click at the right moment to launch into a series of hits. That way you can make the thrust and parry of combat look so much better. Look at Guild Wars or WoW - not exactly realistic looking just randomly waving your sword around while your opponents do the same...

 

[propertyofcobra]

Call of Cthulhu and F.E.A.R., I have to say, are probably the most inventive first person games in recent years.
F.E.A.R. had you have legs. LEGS! You existed; aside a floating camera and a levitating gun!
How stunning is that, when even mighty Half-life 2 never bothered to actually draw Gordon's Mesh in beyond the arms?

And CoC really was immersive. It's a true pity that it had forced stealth that was...very bad. I loved some parts. Like desperately mashing the "use" button to try and hit the little lock on a door; to buy you a few precious seconds of time before the villagers attack. You can just imagine desperately fumbling with the stupid lock before sliding it into place.
Aside that, our hero is also afraid of heights (his vision blurs and goes gray, and his breathing quickens whenever he looks down from a rooftop or similar). And he actually has to take time to use medical equipment. More so than any game since Deus Ex itself I think Call of Cthulhu actually managed to perfectly combine body part damage, first aid kits and self-healing.
You don't magically self-heal from every injury in the game, and you don't just walk over first aid kits to heal. You have to sit down, take it out, apply it and THEN you can start going back to normal. And even after all that, you're still shaken up so you better take a shot of morphine to keep yourself in tip-top condition.

And in CoC, that's how you go through a lot of the levels. Bandaged up and down, high on morphine and fear. Delirious from dozens of more or less bad injuries and the insanity surrounding your character. He hallucinates. His vision blurs and changes. His hands, and legs, and body exist.
CoC gave you a true feeling of BEING your character, like no game before it.

I think that is where FPS games should go from here. Immersion is the main reason FPS games are so effective. So we need to add onto it.
Rarely in CoC will you be reminded that you're in a videogame. There are no ammo bars, no health meters. No HUD of any sort. The menu screen, and save points, is the only reason you'll ever be reminded that you're in a game.

Now compare that to, say, Crysis or Halo. It's almost worth crying over what a big step back in everything but graphics they feel like.

 

[Chilango2]

Call of Cthulhu and F.E.A.R., I have to say, are probably the most inventive first person games in recent years.
F.E.A.R. had you have legs. LEGS! You existed; aside a floating camera and a levitating gun!
How stunning is that, when even mighty Half-life 2 never bothered to actually draw Gordon's Mesh in beyond the arms?

I'm not criticizing you, and I liked FEAR too, but its really kind of sad, isn't it, when "fully realized anatomy" is strikingly innovative. Granted, my preferred genres (RPG, Strategy) aren't necessarily doing any better (it tends to come in fits and spurts).

But yeah, I think that, by and large, the entire equation of how FPS's are imagined is a problem right now, I think we either have to scale them down or up, in some way. To give an example of what I mean, let's take what I think might demonstrate some glimmers of better FPS innovation, Bully and the Call of Duty Franchise.

In Bully, you play a GTA like game, which can function as a roaming FPS of sorts. You don't have to agree with this point to get at what I am going here, which is mainly that there are few weapons in Bully per se, most fights (and there are alot of fights) are fist fights, you don't go through corridors or tunnels or instillations shooting at hostile moving obstacles to progress, but rather either find yourself dragged into or picking random fights with characters you can grow to know on sight, or constrained into situations (the missions) where you engage in a logical fight against multiple opponents but the fights are still meaningful, individual, satisfying. By limiting the outer boundaries of potential violence, each fight becomes something more than a quick and meaningless affair.

COD, on the other hand, hints at the larger direction, wherein the fight is not the point, but a means to an end, World War Online, for all the buggy mess it was, captured hints of this too, and I think the goals common to TF and CS may be part of the reason of the success, it gives meaning and purpose to the slaughter, it forces strategy, it creates situations where you may choose *not* to kill an enemy in one location.

But so long as the basic goal and equation of an FPS is "go though X number of environments and kill X things, with some puzzles and an escort quest thrown in perhaps" there's only so much you can do.

 

[JamesW]

I remember having one of those "wow" moments when playing the FPS "Call of Cthulhu: Dark Corners of the Earth". There were long segments of that game where you were performing environmental tasks that didn't involve shooting. There were levels which involved information collection involving stealth and navigation, and amazing chase levels which saw you running from the townspeople, closing and barricading doors as you went, and scampering across rooftops as your characters fear (and fear of heights) distorted your view, and petrified your fingers. I'm quite disappointed it wasn't received well, and no other designers picked up on some the amazing mechanics.

Actually, that sounds great. I'll look into picking that one up. What lpatforms is it for?

 

[Arbre]

The problem with the FPS is that no-one is trying to change the game mechanics. Take the impressive visuals away from Crysis. Do you you really have anything that was impossible five years ago? Not really. As long as developers continue this graphical cock comparison in favour of doing something interesting, the FPS will eventually end up a niche market.

I disagree. Top of the pop graphics and easy gameplay are, actually, going to keep people coming in. And if some additional new functions are added, all the better.

All genres that have fallen into niches did so because they were just too hardcore, on every possible meaning, and even, for some of them, kept their 90' styles, like shmups.

the_carrot's idea intrigues me. An FPS crossed with GTA could be very interesting but easily destroyed by a poor developer. I remember when Doom came out I thought how amazing it was to be able to view the action from the first person. It was so immersive even when it was just corridors. I'm bored of corridors now and want something a bit bigger and less linear. I'd be happy if they gave GTA 4 a first person perspective option.

Many multiplayer geared FPSes tend to include mini missions, vehicle driving and large open areas. Some of them even include more and more tactical play.

That said, I didn't cry out for scandal when Doom 3 came out.

 

[PurpleRain]

Hell's Highway is working towards that. It's called (well they call it) First Person Acting.

Wow, had missed out on that, just watched the Developers Commentary on ign. Looks real good; if it plays like it looks it's going to be smashing I think. Just hoping all that coolness and interaction isn't strictly scripted but IA or even AI.

It's a great leap forward because now you have arms legs a body and all the rest instead of being a mounted gun on a screen. I'm really looking forward to playing this game.

 

[ZippyDSMlee]

Hi.
The whole alone thing, you agisnt the world is nice,its also nice to you a chance to save charatcers or lose them and still advance the story.
I am a gullton for punishment I will replay a sector on Halo 1-2 just to keep as many marines as I can alive.


This is my first ever post, so, please make allowances. Secondly, it's nice to finally find a group of eruite, well informed games players, who actually discuss things!

On with the question I'd like to pose: Where do FPS games go from here?

FPS gaming is really rather stylised, and I think that each generation of FPS games are headed up an evolutionary dead end. If you compared Doom II to Crysis, what would you see?

Almost unbelievable graphics improvements. Physics engines. Improved AI. All of this are impressive technical achievements, and all improve the genre. However, what you see as different is merely the details, and the actual fundemental issues of the genre are still there.

Zero interactivity with the environment. Crysis, the most up to date shooter around, still has the same problem Doom did. Look around the environment, see it, enjoy the visuals and then....blow it up. That's all you can do, the only way to interact. You can't touch or hold anything, you can't pick anything up and put it down softly, you can't knock a friendly NPC out of the way of a bullet. FPS gaming is possibly the most immersive form of gaming, but it still lacks that basic tenet of an experience. The player is not a person in the game world, just a floating gun with eyes. They are the most limited of the games characters, when they should be the most enabled (pressing the 'E' key at the correct moment isn't what I mean.)

Awful, awful stories. The next FPS game that says to me 'you are the elite member of a secret military...' or 'you are the only survivor of...' is going straight out of my window. Please, something more thought through than that. HL2 + episodes are my favorites because they attempt to do something different, epic almost. I still have moments where I get annoyed, however.

And finally, why do most FPS gamers want to be on their own? Most NPC characters (with exceptions) are normally there to aid you, or die to prove the situation is serious. There is never any engagement beyond the help me/warn me by dying relationship. Nothing like a real relationship that builds up between people.

So, is FPS gaming getting too cultured into just refining the details, or am I being overly harsh (or dreaming too much about what could be achieved) about the genre?

Cheers.

K

Mmmmmmmmmm lets look at this the zippy way or at least in designs
been working on a evolution of FPSs on and off here are some of my "thoughts".

DOOM 2

Simple see it shoot it game play(the basis for FPSs)

Well laid out levels(most games/FPSs now adays lack the depth DOOM,Duke,Unreal and the rest of the mid/late 90s games had in level design)

Simple weapon/monster design

Moving to say Quake or Duke 3D we see a advance in AI and monster design,levels are built in full 3D(almsot in dukes case) the layout is some of the best of FPSs, weapons have more effects (grenades,frezzing,ect) over all designs have improved.

Then moving to Doom 3 and Quake 4....where everything gets kicked back to overly simplistic designs, sure AI might be alil more polished but other than that the games are a throw back to before DOOM, graphics and even story mean sht if the gameplay is flawed or broken(see FF12 and DOOM 3).


What do we have in Cryisis well it dose push interaction up "some"
You can pick up stuff they let you,you can shoot down a tree in parts unsure if falling trees damage or if you can pick them up, the only glaring error in interactivity is the lack of the ability to pick up a dead body and toss it and prehaps tree parts you an pick up a live solider and give im a toss, that is nice.

It has open and minmuaily pathed level design meaning its a sandbox enviroment, you are open to attack a problem way you want and that can be boring if you stick to routines.

The story doesn't advance FPSs any the gameplay perhaps marginally the open enviroment sand box is cute but so far the game has provided lil progression in powers and abilities and I am left alil bored.


FP/FPSs games of note

DOOM 1-2
Duke 3D and Blood (same game type so I put them together)
Jedi knight 1-3
Undying
Unreal+ UT99
Time spliters(just for the full button remapping)
Halo 1(great AI for the time)
Strife
Hexen/Hertic
Giants:CK
Quake 1-3
Dues ex
System Shock 1-2
HL1 and maybe 2(the level design of HL2+ lacks depth IMO and I hate the nerfy weapons)
Metroid Prime1(despite their anal retentive lack of FPS controls)
Daiktana (just cuase of the hate, this game is no "worse" than Halo 2-3+)

Call of Cthulhu is not really a FPS, its a FP adventure game, shooting is 2ndry and they keep it as that for most of the game, but despite its issues it was a very deep game.

F.E.A.R is repetitive as all hell but has solid level design and neat AI, and fear dose not have corridor level design the expansions might but not the first game.

And no bioshock(D3 and Jericho...even Q4..) is mainstream trash...do not get me started on that lackluster POS Dark messiah might be lacking but offers far more advancement in gaming than BS ever could dream,to this date Dark messiah is still the newest FPS with the most innovation in it IMO, Crysis is nice but is lacking some detail that would put it over DM in terms of gameplay innovation.

The trouble with gaming right now its all about trends and deadlines not so much polish and detail.


I like my shooters with depth the common gun and run in a corridor theme is just boring as hell its bad when Daikatana or qauke1 can be more fun than most of them....

 

[p1ne]

I mostly play FPS's, and I agree that their design is in a state of serious stagnation. So:

Sandbox designs are sort of what I'm hoping for, at least in the (relatively) short term.

Yes. YES!! If I could design my perfect game, here's what I would look for:

1. The option to switch between first and third person perspective. I don't know if this just isn't possible in Half Life or something, but the Unreal engine does this quite easily. I just don't like third person combat very much, but for everything else I want to be able to see my character.

2. Character customizability. This is one of my biggest issues with the Half Life series - there is none.

3. Open environment. I think the recent Morrowind games are a good model. You could have a large overall world that the player travels around and learns about in mostly RPG style, and more linear modular missions that your character undertakes as s/he progresses through the game. Ideally mission areas, and most parts of the game, should have some sort of ongoing usefulness or reason to visit after "beating" that part, rather than just being inaccessible after you've moved from point A to point B.

4. RPG elements. Not too heavily so, but I honestly don't think this would be such a hard thing to do. System Shock 2 did it so damn well, and no other game has even attempted that since. Deus Ex to a certain extent, but it just wasn't as deep. Still, even that much would be amazing.

Take a game like Deus Ex, and put it in a more open world with less of a linear plot and progression and some modular quest-style "missions" within the larger world, vehicles, real physics, and convincing characters and environments and you'd have pretty much my perfect game.

I realize this is probably too ambitious/too much to hope for, but damn it would be sweet.