What makes a great FPS?

Every platform is stacked with great FPS's this Christmas, but i want to find out what makes one FPS better than another.

I've listed 7 key elements of a good FPS and ranked them. 1 obviosuly being the most important

1. Multiple 'cause and effect' objectives (decisions change final outcome)
2. Expansive open maps (not linear)
3. Gaming environment/atmosphere (setting, action, horror, fear)
4. Interactivity with environment (weapons, vehicles)
5. Good multiplayer option
6. AI
7. Graphics

Anyone else rank these different?

You are missing story.

Great FPS's also have a great story. One that makes you *need* to play to see what happens. Merly going through the motions to get to the next level is not enough. For me, that is.

No vita chambers.shalashaska88

AMEN

a good singleplayer caimpaign, great multiplayer, big and open maps, vehicles,graphics,good AI,teambased multiplayer, well in the end Bf 2 has it all (except for the campaign)

Just combine crysis stalker GTA COD and hitman

[QUOTE="shalashaska88"]No vita chambers.Spindry69

AMEN

yeah certainly

You are missing story.

Great FPS's also have a great story. One that makes you *need* to play to see what happens. Merly going through the motions to get to the next level is not enough. For me, that is.

belboz

1. Long singleplayer. I feel developers are using "multiplayer is the strength of this game" as an excuse to put less effort into games. Its just not right to pay 50 bucks for less than 10 hours of offline entertainment.

2. A penalty system. Bioshock totally fudged this one up with their vita chambers, as did Prey with its system as well. Personally, I am a big fan of checkpoints if theyre done right: if you die, youre punished, but its not that bad. It can be a detriment, however, as in Far Cry.

3. Creative (and smart) enemies. I dont have a problem with zombies who run at you with weapon in hand, but if thats all a game has then that is a problem. We need creative and neat enemies that we actually enjoy fighting, as opposed to seeing them solely as an obstacle to overcome. I cant count how many times I've reloaded FEAR saved games just to experience a good gun battle with what are, imo, some of the best AI opponents in a long while.

4. Neat, beefy weapons. Coming up with creative weapons doesnt seem to tough, but matching sounds to those weapons is what really makes a weapon memorable. The spin-up before a minigun fires off rounds, the pk-ow! of a large caliber sniper rifle...these things all make me feel warm and fuzzy inside.

5. Decent story and storytelling mechanism. It doesnt have to be great, just decent. FEAR has a decent story, Halflfife has a decent storytelling mechanism(although its actual story is questionable...I like it tho).

6. Comfortable in its shoes. A lot of games nowadays claim to be "free roaming" but they just lack the focus of a linear game. Some have linear gameplay but the stories just dont take advantage of it. I dont have a preference over linear or free roaming, but I just want each type to be competent: if youre linear, have an awesome story with multiple endings; if youre free roaming, have side quests that actually make a difference and count for something (STALKER did not do this well imo).

You are missing story.

Great FPS's also have a great story. One that makes you *need* to play to see what happens. Merly going through the motions to get to the next level is not enough. For me, that is.

belboz

Well, my favourite FPS games:

Doom I & II: Utterly crazy insane firefights that are completely hectic. Beautiful and iconic weapons and enemies.
System Shock 2: Magnificent horror and atmosphere, an intelligent story that is well told, cool character development. Credible world.
Half Life: Great gunplay, great AI, an immersive and self-contained world that is credible.
Half Life 2: A focus on constantly shifting gameplay orientation, lots of set pieces. Awesome visuals, creative use of physics. Credible world.
Escape from Butcher Bay: Credible world, expert blend of genres, awesome visuals, tightly paced narrative structure.
F.E.A.R: Awesome AI, awesome visuals, awesome firefights.
Call of Duty 2: Crazy good firefights, lots of action.
Team Fortress 2: Great visualstyIe lots of wonderful humour, some simply awesomely fun gunplay, an extremely high level of polish.
Portal: Unique, original, intelligent,hilarious.
Crysis: Brilliant AI, awesome non-linearity, wonderful gunplay, astounding visuals.

There are many others, of course, but this is my short list of the best of the best.

The most frequrntly occurring thing on the above list of greats is a world, an environment, that feels authentic - credible. I'm wondering if that's the single most important thing for an FPS. That it is believable. That all the individual elements add up and contextually make sense within the world, and that there are lots of little touches that make the places we visit, and the people with whom we intereact, feel real.

Whether it's the way there are friendly scientists in Half Life who beg for assistance, or Alyx's wry, knowing smiles in Half Life 2, or just some dudes working out in Escape from Butcher Bay, or the way System Shock 2 tells us that Xerxes is checking the authenticity of our game disc when we fire it up. Those minor, often unnoticable touches are, I think, possibly the most important thing about the genre. Immersion, getting us into the character, making us feel like more than a disjoined camera with a gun hovering in front of it.

Solid gunplay is second on the list. Which really makes sense, seeing as how shooting people is what FPS is all about. There are a lot of individual elements that add up to make gunplay good or bad, and I won't bother trying to think what they are, but simple old fashioned killing the baddies - it has to be good. Different games go about it in different ways, but all of the best FPS games out there have solid gunplay.

Fantastic visuals seems to be a common element too. This sort of runs contrary to my beliefs, but many of my favourite FPS games have awesome visuals. It might be claimed that this is mere coincidence as the FPS genre is consistently the best looking so some of the great FPS games are bound to be good looking, but it might also be claimed that you can shut up. FPS games are a lot more immersive than other games - the simple first person element ensures that. Improved visuals go a long way to helping the player believe he or she is truly experiencing the game first hand. Great looks are important.

Great AI. This is kind of an off-shoot of gunplay, seeing as how AI only really affects the gunplay in most - probably all - FPS games. Most of the best FPS games had great AI, which in turn improves the gunplay, gunplay being one of the key elements of a quality FPS, in my opinion. We're all always looking for the next milestone in AI technology. With good reason.

After that, it gets kind of hazy. I think the above are the only things truly needed to make an FPS great (and one is highly debatable). One thing I definitely don't think an FPS needs to be great is a story. I love experiencing a fantastic story as much as anyone else, but the fact is that most FPS stories suck, both in styIe and content, and yet FPS games are awesome. For better or worse, we are used to FPS games having a junk story. When they're great it's great, but when they're not... well, it just doesn't matter.

Credible world, awesome gunplay, great visuals. That's a holy trinity right there.

1. Long singleplayer. I feel developers are using "multiplayer is the strength of this game" as an excuse to put less effort into games. Its just not right to pay 50 bucks for less than 10 hours of offline entertainment.

2. A penalty system. Bioshock totally fudged this one up with their vita chambers, as did Prey with its system as well. Personally, I am a big fan of checkpoints if theyre done right: if you die, youre punished, but its not that bad. It can be a detriment, however, as in Far Cry.

3. Creative (and smart) enemies. I dont have a problem with zombies who run at you with weapon in hand, but if thats all a game has then that is a problem. We need creative and neat enemies that we actually enjoy fighting, as opposed to seeing them solely as an obstacle to overcome. I cant count how many times I've reloaded FEAR saved games just to experience a good gun battle with what are, imo, some of the best AI opponents in a long while.

4. Neat, beefy weapons. Coming up with creative weapons doesnt seem to tough, but matching sounds to those weapons is what really makes a weapon memorable. The spin-up before a minigun fires off rounds, the pk-ow! of a large caliber sniper rifle...these things all make me feel warm and fuzzy inside.

5. Decent story and storytelling mechanism. It doesnt have to be great, just decent. FEAR has a decent story, Halflfife has a decent storytelling mechanism(although its actual story is questionable...I like it tho).

6. Comfortable in its shoes. A lot of games nowadays claim to be "free roaming" but they just lack the focus of a linear game. Some have linear gameplay but the stories just dont take advantage of it. I dont have a preference over linear or free roaming, but I just want each type to be competent: if youre linear, have an awesome story with multiple endings; if youre free roaming, have side quests that actually make a difference and count for something (STALKER did not do this well imo).

mrbojangles25

Hmm nice points. only thing i would add is that to it is that a good fp should not be reptitve and should not make you do same thing over and over again .

btw just wondering, what was wring with save points in far cry ?

I can agree with most of the points mentioned.

First of all, I'm not somebody who likes to share his game experience. So no multiplayer for me (I prefer to meet people in person and shoot them). Therefore, a long single player campaign would be the greatest asset for me.

Second, A game needs atmosphere! It just needs that little extra that gives me a feeling I'm playing something special. Games like Half-Life (1 & 2), Crysis andSTALKER give me that feeling that I'm actually somewhere else.

Third, I want some diversity. I don't like games like Serious Sam, where all you do is blast enemies. Neither do I like games like Splinter Cell, where you basically just sneak around all the time. I really like a game like Deus Ex, where I can either CHOOSE to be stealthy, or just blast away. A good game incorporates more than one way of playing.

Fourth, good graphics. I think FPS are THE games where visuals are important. When I zoom in on an enemy, I want to see the sweatdrops on his skin. Games like Half-Life 2 and Crysis really give me that little extra when it comes to visuals. An averagegame like Hellgate:London does not.

Fifth, good development and honest marketing. I hate games that are full of bugs, or that are over-hyped and don't deliver. A good example is STALKER, a game where the developers promised much, but thosepromised features weren't included. AND the game was incredibly buggy.

The best FPS games I've played are: Half-Life 1 & 2, Deus Ex, Duke Nukem 3D, Doom 1 & 2, System Shock 2, and the not so well received Rogue Trooper. All have great atmosphere that made them a thrill to play. I might add Crysis to that list, but the game loses much appeal when the aliens come into play.

[QUOTE="mrbojangles25"]

1. Long singleplayer. I feel developers are using "multiplayer is the strength of this game" as an excuse to put less effort into games. Its just not right to pay 50 bucks for less than 10 hours of offline entertainment.

2. A penalty system. Bioshock totally fudged this one up with their vita chambers, as did Prey with its system as well. Personally, I am a big fan of checkpoints if theyre done right: if you die, youre punished, but its not that bad. It can be a detriment, however, as in Far Cry.

3. Creative (and smart) enemies. I dont have a problem with zombies who run at you with weapon in hand, but if thats all a game has then that is a problem. We need creative and neat enemies that we actually enjoy fighting, as opposed to seeing them solely as an obstacle to overcome. I cant count how many times I've reloaded FEAR saved games just to experience a good gun battle with what are, imo, some of the best AI opponents in a long while.

4. Neat, beefy weapons. Coming up with creative weapons doesnt seem to tough, but matching sounds to those weapons is what really makes a weapon memorable. The spin-up before a minigun fires off rounds, the pk-ow! of a large caliber sniper rifle...these things all make me feel warm and fuzzy inside.

5. Decent story and storytelling mechanism. It doesnt have to be great, just decent. FEAR has a decent story, Halflfife has a decent storytelling mechanism(although its actual story is questionable...I like it tho).

6. Comfortable in its shoes. A lot of games nowadays claim to be "free roaming" but they just lack the focus of a linear game. Some have linear gameplay but the stories just dont take advantage of it. I dont have a preference over linear or free roaming, but I just want each type to be competent: if youre linear, have an awesome story with multiple endings; if youre free roaming, have side quests that actually make a difference and count for something (STALKER did not do this well imo).

naval

Hmm nice points. only thing i would add is that to it is that a good fp should not be reptitve and should not make you do same thing over and over again .

btw just wondering, what was wring with save points in far cry ?

oh they werent that bad, but I just remember that they wouldnt save right after or before an extremely challenging part, and they wouldnt save except every 10 minutes or so depending on how fast you were going. They weren't very forgiving.