Will FPS return (somewhat) to form

[Phoenixmgs_v1legacy]

Which games are you using to support that assertion? Because I am fairly sure you're not talking about Deus Ex and System Shock 2, two games that had later instalments that were simplified for console audiences (I mean Bioshock ditched the inventory altogether). If you're talking about games like Doom and Duke Nukem which are extremely simple, even THEY don't reach anywhere close to their full potential on consoles because of modding. How many people do you think still play Doom on PS1?

There's nothing inherently simplistic or complex about first-person shooters, but when they are complex they tend to work less efficiently on consoles. And even when they're more simplistic, the limitations of consoles works against them. So because developers can't make complex shooters or fun, arcade-y shooters with great user support and modding capabilities, they're generally limited to a very restricted template (which is the Halo/Call of Duty one). Sure you have Borderlands ported to consoles too, but with games like that it's usually a rarity.

I played Deus Ex on PS2, it played just fine. I just did a quick Google of the difference between PC & PS2 and the main changes were some alterations to the levels on PS2. Nothing about controls.

A 3rd-person shooter can have more mechanics (control-wise) at play due to the 3rd-person camera like say cover-swapping, dive rolls, etc.

 

[Dizchu]

I played Deus Ex on PS2, it played just fine. I just did a quick Google of the difference between PC & PS2 and the main changes were some alterations to the levels on PS2. Nothing about controls.

A 3rd-person shooter can have more mechanics (control-wise) at play due to the 3rd-person camera like say cover-swapping, dive rolls, etc.

Ahh I forgot that Deus Ex was ported to PS2, thanks for reminding me. But even though it was ported to that console, it wasn't designed with that console in mind (the port came two years later).

You say that a 3rd person shooter can have more mechanics, but that's purely from a combat perspective. In the late 90s and early 00s first-person shooters were moving away from a solely combat-focussed experience to a more explorative one (which the much-hated Gone Home and Dear Esther deconstructed to its core elements). In Deus Ex and System Shock 2, combat was entirely optional (and in similar games like Thief, was actively discouraged). With the rise of popularity in FPS games on consoles, this diversity took a nosedive. Sure it might have recovered a bit by 2010, but we've yet to see a return to the eccentricity of the FPS "golden age".

 

[nomotog_v1legacy]

I played Deus Ex on PS2, it played just fine. I just did a quick Google of the difference between PC & PS2 and the main changes were some alterations to the levels on PS2. Nothing about controls.

A 3rd-person shooter can have more mechanics (control-wise) at play due to the 3rd-person camera like say cover-swapping, dive rolls, etc.

Ahh I forgot that Deus Ex was ported to PS2, thanks for reminding me. But even though it was ported to that console, it wasn't designed with that console in mind (the port came two years later).

You say that a 3rd person shooter can have more mechanics, but that's purely from a combat perspective. In the late 90s and early 00s first-person shooters were moving away from a solely combat-focussed experience to a more explorative one (which the much-hated Gone Home and Dear Esther deconstructed to its core elements). In Deus Ex and System Shock 2, combat was entirely optional (and in similar games like Thief, was actively discouraged). With the rise of popularity in FPS games on consoles, this diversity took a nosedive. Sure it might have recovered a bit by 2010, but we've yet to see a return to the eccentricity of the FPS "golden age".

Deuse Ex was redesigned for console. It's actually rather striking playing one then playing the other. It's not just the levels that are changed (in actual content not just loading screen chop.) The mechanics are altered. A big one important thing to this talk is that they added an auto aim. That was a rather common add to console ports at the time. Like half life included a lock-on button.

 

[MHR]

FPS with dual stick aiming is practically an abomination.

Learn2aim. Aiming is just fine with a controller.

Hardly. There's a reason these games don't let mouse and controller players play together. Mouse humiliates controller every time.

The best they can come up with is giving controller players aim assist, or just outright separating them into different match lobbies. It's pathetic.

 

[Dizchu]

Hardly. There's a reason these games don't let mouse and controller players play together. Mouse humiliates controller every time.

The best they can come up with is giving controller players aim assist, or just outright separating them into different match lobbies. It's pathetic.

I'll say that while it's not impossible to get really, really good at FPS combat with a controller, it will always lack the precision of a mouse and keyboard. Analog sticks work really well for third-person platformers because they are focussed solely on movement, and the tilt of the stick determining running/walking speed? Genius. But I can't say I agree when it comes to first-person shooters.

 

[Phoenixmgs_v1legacy]

You say that a 3rd person shooter can have more mechanics, but that's purely from a combat perspective. In the late 90s and early 00s first-person shooters were moving away from a solely combat-focussed experience to a more explorative one (which the much-hated Gone Home and Dear Esther deconstructed to its core elements). In Deus Ex and System Shock 2, combat was entirely optional (and in similar games like Thief, was actively discouraged). With the rise of popularity in FPS games on consoles, this diversity took a nosedive. Sure it might have recovered a bit by 2010, but we've yet to see a return to the eccentricity of the FPS "golden age".

I thought the thread was mainly about FPSs in regards to them being shooters, first and foremost, like getting rid of 2 weapon carry limits, regen health, etc. Not only were many older FPSs more "fun" but there were plenty with bigger levels with more exploration, and more player agency with regards to combat. I think the main thing wrong with FPSs is the lost creativity, corridor shooters with set-pieces basically while having even more simplistic controls and mechanics. I say the FPS has mainly devolved. Deus Ex is an RPG, it's asking too much for the FPS genre as a whole to basically be equals in terms of complexity to a Deus Ex. FPSs like BulletStorm and the remade Shadow Warrior are, I think, better examples for where the FPS genre should strive for. I really loved Dishonored as it had a lot in common with Deus Ex (good level design, optional combat, etc.) but it's not something I'd consider an FPS either.

A big one important thing to this talk is that they added an auto aim. That was a rather common add to console ports at the time. Like half life included a lock-on button.

I'm a console gamer and there's no reason for auto-aim or aim-assist in any shooter. Aim-assist only hurts my aim vs helping it.

Learn2aim. Aiming is just fine with a controller.

Hardly. There's a reason these games don't let mouse and controller players play together. Mouse humiliates controller every time.

The best they can come up with is giving controller players aim assist, or just outright separating them into different match lobbies. It's pathetic.

I never implied a controller is better, I said you can aim just fine with a controller. Aim-assist only hurts your aim instead of helping it. Like I said, I hit on over a third of my fired bullets with a controller. All you do is center the camera on the enemy, hit aim and shoot.

 

[Fieldy409_v1legacy]

Original Halo was amazing, but its too bad the effect a game like that has on the industry. Everyone copies the features but miss that it wasnt having two weapon carrying and slow pace that made Halo good, it was just the unpinnable down magic spark of it being fun as hell.

 

[nomotog_v1legacy]

I never implied a controller is better, I said you can aim just fine with a controller. Aim-assist only hurts your aim instead of helping it. Like I said, I hit on over a third of my fired bullets with a controller. All you do is center the camera on the enemy, hit aim and shoot.

Am I the only one reading that and thinking 1/3 is a really low number. I don't know if I can say one form is really better. Controllers have very good fluidity of movement well a mouse lets you aim much much faster.

There is more to the old school FPS then aiming though. There are tons of big and small subtleties to it. Like dodging bullets. That was a very huge thing back in the day you never had to take damage (and really couldn't because health.) Now your really expect to take damage and its more how much you take. (Is it better?)

 

[Phoenixmgs_v1legacy]

Am I the only one reading that and thinking 1/3 is a really low number. I don't know if I can say one form is really better. Controllers have very good fluidity of movement well a mouse lets you aim much much faster.

There is more to the old school FPS then aiming though. There are tons of big and small subtleties to it. Like dodging bullets. That was a very huge thing back in the day you never had to take damage (and really couldn't because health.) Now your really expect to take damage and its more how much you take. (Is it better?)

Over a third of your bullets hitting is really good. I actually got invited to clan just based off the fact that I was only 1 of 3 people that had a higher accuracy rating than the leader. There's always so many bullets you purposefully waste as well. In Ghost Recon, the game says my accuracy rating is like 0.4 - 0.5 (depending on the gun) but I'm not sure if that's a straight percentage or what. Just think of all those players that hold down R1/R2 with an automatic instead tapping it and controlling the recoil or all those sprayers just trying to get lucky. That's why I don't care for shooters with low health (2-3 body shots killing) as that doesn't force players to stay on their target and actually aim. I feel the mouse is actually too accurate as the controller is already way way more accurate than someone shooting a gun in real life, how many fired bullets actually land in real life (I'm pretty sure it'll be down to percentages in the single digits)? That's why I totally don't get why so many people want real life bullet damage in shooters because aiming (with a mouse or controller) in a game is way easier than real life thus having realistic bullet damage actually makes the game less realistic.

You really can't dodge bullets in real life and games use hitscan (undodgeable) to replicate that in shooters, and several old shooters didn't have enemies shoot bullets so their projectiles were much slower and dodgeable. There are ways to have ways of allowing to player to not get hit like having bullet time or invincibility frames to "dodge" bullets and Vanquish went that route (and had bullet time as well). Vanquish is a really skilled-based shooter making the player properly know the ins-and-outs stuff like invincibility frames, animation cancels, etc.

 

[nomotog_v1legacy]

Am I the only one reading that and thinking 1/3 is a really low number. I don't know if I can say one form is really better. Controllers have very good fluidity of movement well a mouse lets you aim much much faster.

There is more to the old school FPS then aiming though. There are tons of big and small subtleties to it. Like dodging bullets. That was a very huge thing back in the day you never had to take damage (and really couldn't because health.) Now your really expect to take damage and its more how much you take. (Is it better?)

Over a third of your bullets hitting is really good. I actually got invited to clan just based off the fact that I was only 1 of 3 people that had a higher accuracy rating than the leader. There's always so many bullets you purposefully waste as well. In Ghost Recon, the game says my accuracy rating is like 0.4 - 0.5 (depending on the gun) but I'm not sure if that's a straight percentage or what. Just think of all those players that hold down R1/R2 with an automatic instead tapping it and controlling the recoil or all those sprayers just trying to get lucky. That's why I don't care for shooters with low health (2-3 body shots killing) as that doesn't force players to stay on their target and actually aim. I feel the mouse is actually too accurate as the controller is already way way more accurate than someone shooting a gun in real life, how many fired bullets actually land in real life (I'm pretty sure it'll be down to percentages in the single digits)? That's why I totally don't get why so many people want real life bullet damage in shooters because aiming (with a mouse or controller) in a game is way easier than real life thus having realistic bullet damage actually makes the game less realistic.

You really can't dodge bullets in real life and games use hitscan (undodgeable) to replicate that in shooters, and several old shooters didn't have enemies shoot bullets so their projectiles were much slower and dodgeable. There are ways to have ways of allowing to player to not get hit like having bullet time or invincibility frames to "dodge" bullets and Vanquish went that route (and had bullet time as well). Vanquish is a really skilled-based shooter making the player properly know the ins-and-outs stuff like invincibility frames, animation cancels, etc.

Real life accuracy is something like 1000 to 1. No where near what it's like in a game.

No you can't dodge bullets in real life. (You also can't regen health, but lets just set that aside.) That is one of the bigger caveats of old school shooters. They didn't much care for realism. They were very much game play first and realistic second.

 

[DrownedAmmet]

The only problem I have with modern FPS's is regenerating health. Turns most games into pop out of cover, shoot some guy, then pop back into cover and wait, which makes every fight the same.
I miss having to scrounge around for healthpacks

 

[Phoenixmgs_v1legacy]

No you can't dodge bullets in real life. (You also can't regen health, but lets just set that aside.) That is one of the bigger caveats of old school shooters. They didn't much care for realism. They were very much game play first and realistic second.

To me, if enemies have guns and are shooting bullets, it would be really weird if the bullets where slow enough to dodge. There are ways to not get hit without making bullets so slow like invincibility frames. I'm all for fun shooters coming back.

 

[Fieldy409_v1legacy]

The only problem I have with modern FPS's is regenerating health. Turns most games into pop out of cover, shoot some guy, then pop back into cover and wait, which makes every fight the same.
I miss having to scrounge around for healthpacks

See I have always preferred the regenerating health, in singleplayer I feel like it encourages me to play more in the realistic firefighting style, using cover and corners. In multiplayer its even better, I hate it when I see matches turn more into a issue of who can lock down and control resources and win through attrition rather than player skill vs skill. I feel that adding another resource, medkits, only makes that problem worse. I just miss the speec of oldschool shooters.