Are FPSs (First Person Shooters) not evolving as much as they used to?

How can they when everything has been done before? Now we are just getting variations of FPSs as there really isn't much to change at the core.

I actually think they've gone backwards, in single player at least. With the majority of FPS games having weapon limits, less thought seems to have been put into battles. You can tell when you're about to fight something big and dangerous because there is a rocket launcher or some other heavy weapon placed before that part of the level.

With the way most shooters handle health (regenerating straight to 100%) the developers don't have to work as hard to balance the enemy placement, because you can just hide behind something for a few seconds.

Level design has gotten lazy with levels just being straight lines with set pieces between. I actually liked looking for keys and things to progress, because it encouraged exploration.

The only way elements that they can really improve on is maybe parkour. Brink tried to add some parkour but ended up sucking. I think if implemented properly (like Mirror's Edge) an FPS with parkour could be really fun online

I think there is room for change in settings, certain mechanics, etc. But so far, the basics are already as good as they can get. Point and shoot, hide behind cover to avoid gunfire, with changes in health and settings and polish and all that.

Cause they're all wana-be's COD nowMonsieurX

Dont blame them, they all just wanna follow the king of FPS that is CoD :oops:

The last two times the FPS really and truly evolvedwas in 2001 and 2007. The former was for the better, and the latter is slowly destroying the genre.

They're moving backwards.

No FPS has still matched Tribes :twisted:

If you want a "forward thinking" FPS, go play Red Orchestra 2. It will throw you off, force you to adapt, and you'll love it.

maybe its because most of them that do evolve or push the envelope get **** upon and panned in favor of games like "black ops" and "halo reach" that arent progressing the genre further.

No FPS has still matched Tribes :twisted:

NoodleFighter

No FPS has still matched Tribes :twisted:

NoodleFighter

Or Fear 1. Section 8 has great ideas, but is budget limits it. Heavily. Brink had great ideas, but turned out to be kinda crap. They are around, but it's always hit or miss. Sometimes both.

[QUOTE="NoodleFighter"]

No FPS has still matched Tribes I agree. But Halo comes so close for me. Im really excited about Tribes: Ascend.

I remember how people used to trash Half-Life 2 when The Orange Box came out, and fans would say in response, "Well, it's three years old. Of course it's not as good as it used to be." But now I continually see people holding games like Crysis, Call of Duty 4: Modern Warfare, and STALKER in high regard, and all four of them are about four years old now. Heck, even the first Resistance game still gets a good amount of praise, and it's almost five years old. And when I say "hold in a high regard," I mean that people still like and play them a good deal, as if they hold up to first person shooters that are being released today. What do you guys think?Plamino

I agree with you, nothing great has been done since Crysis on PC. That's a shame, you'd think that PC+3consoles should be able to provide great innovation... Is the genre plateauing? Or are devs over-cautious? Is COD to blame? I don't know the reason, but there is a glimmer of hope, and you mentioned it : STALKER

Now that game is really different; in fact it's hard to put it in the same category as other FPS games. The atmosphere is awesome, the RPG elements bring more depth, and even the gunplay is better than you'd think at first (yeah, the first weapons you get suck, but they are meant to. When you get better ones, suddenly it's a different game, and that progression is a gamer's bliss).

I'm from Western Europe, and I really think that Eastern Europe is were the creativity is right now. Those guys have brought us a few gems over the last 3 or 4 years, and I hope they continue to do so.

Having played the hell out of Crysis and STALKER, and due to the lack of any real progress in the genre, I am presently having a blast with an indie sorta-old school FPS called "Hard Reset".. made by Poles!

So I hope the next big thing will come from that part of the world, because they deserve it.

Fact #1 - The FPS genre has been mostly stagnant for a few years. Fact #2 - Valve haven't released a Half-Life game for a few years. Coincidence? I think not.Planeforger

killzone 2 actually tried to change it up by actually giving the character weight and that added to the realism, well for me at least.

They are stagnating if you ask me. Someone should redefine the genre but it seems it won't happen anytime soon (if at all).

I blame CoD to an extent. With CoD4 they set the standard that all other modern online console FPS would be held to. Then they just stopped. If the biggest in the industry isn't going to bother progressing why should anyone else?meetroid8

Rage? well we will see.... but it hasnt changed anything as far as im aware.Birdy09

Rage will feature racing though.

I think we'll just be seeing more of games which merge fps with other genres as we've seen with deus ex:hr. Other than that, there isn't much you can change.

Where else do you want the FPS's to go? What changes do you guys want? mrmusicman247

I don't believe there's much room left for them to evolve, atleast not with our current technology. Still, there's no excuse for them devolving, thanks to CoD and other FPS of that crap ilk. Games like Halo and Crysis were taking us in the right direction, but they seem to have taken a back seat to generic garbage.

[QUOTE="MonsieurX"]Cause they're all wana-be's COD nowfinalstar2007

Dont blame them, they all just wanna follow the king of FPS that is CoD :oops:

It's really only just CoD.

[QUOTE="mrmusicman247"]Where else do you want the FPS's to go? What changes do you guys want? jun_aka_pekto

If you have to ask that question, I can tell you to check out the Blackfoot Studios forums to see what gamers are wanting in game. Two days ago, the owner of the studio asked the members if they wanted to return to the engaged mode if switching from rifle to the pistol. Almost unanimous agreement showed that the character should return to the same engaged stance verses low ready. The reason for the question was he was working on the animations for the transition and wanted to know what people wanted.

FPS's are not evolving due to the CoD syndrome all companies have relating to the genre. Take a look at Rainbow Six and Ghost Recon, they both have succumbed to that syndrome as most others have if all the complaints leveled at other games are true. That is why I am looking forward to what the former lead level designer from RSE is working on (the above mention studio owner). He wants to take what was done with R6 and GR and advance the genre he helped define.

As far as other developers not advancing the FPS genre, they apparently feel that unless they can match the sales of a CoD with their clone, why try, is what I take from it. They are afraid to take on the elephant in the room to try and unseat it so they just follow it's lead, even if they fail at it.

I'd like to see more of a combo system like Bulletstorm.

FPS shooters haven't evolved since N64's 007. Every FPS been the same after 007.PSP107

Some would argue differently. R6 defined a genre and many think it was more about the planning verses the actual shooting.

[QUOTE="PSP107"]FPS shooters haven't evolved since N64's 007. Every FPS been the same after 007.WhiteKnight77

Some would argue differently. R6 defined a genre and many think it was more about the planning verses the actual shooting.

[QUOTE="NoodleFighter"]

No FPS has still matched Tribes I agree. But Halo comes so close for me. Im really excited about Tribes: Ascend.

Plagueless

The only thing that I see in common with Tribes and Halo is that they're Sci-fi and both FPS. The speed that you move with in Halo will get you killed in tribes especially if your on the ground. Tribes maps are pretty much open fields with unleveled terrains which you are supposed to use as a way to build to up velocity and take off in the air so you aren't an easy target. Halo is more cover based and ground hugging.

I continue to play Halo CE, SW Battlefront II, and Rainbow Six Vegas.

There is just so much you can do with a pure genre. You can always start mixing genres but some one will always whine anyways because the are focusing on other stuff that isn't shooting in first person and who knows what else, so it would be the same as you whining that they don't change, someone always whining, meh, it is what it is.

How can they when everything has been done before? Now we are just getting variations of FPSs as there really isn't much to change at the core.

Wasdie

[QUOTE="WhiteKnight77"]

[QUOTE="PSP107"]FPS shooters haven't evolved since N64's 007. Every FPS been the same after 007.PSP107

Some would argue differently. R6 defined a genre and many think it was more about the planning verses the actual shooting.

I can't say how it played on the N64 or PS1 as I only played the PC version of Rainbow Six (it was the only reason why I wanted a PC to begin with). R6 gave you an objective to complete though if I remember right, Goldeneye did too, but that was a rail shooter, you were kept to one path compared to the open world or multiple path/multiple team model of R6. I also remember being a bullet sponge in Goldeneye (I never owned the game but the ex-gf's son had it) compared to in R6. I think that part of the difference with R6/GR was the fact that you played the team and not just one character. What other FPS games allow you to play as any member of the squad you are supposed to be leading?

[QUOTE="Planeforger"]Fact #1 - The FPS genre has been mostly stagnant for a few years. Fact #2 - Valve haven't released a Half-Life game for a few years. Coincidence? I think not.vashkey

Perhaps I should have thrown a ':P' on the end of that, since I wasn't being serious.

Although hm, HL2 did make huge strides in terms of in-game cinematic presentation and what they call 'digital drama' (and physics, sure), and Valve do generally try to push out new concepts every year or so.

Anyway, there have been 'innovative' shooters out there over the years, but they just can't compete with the giant that is COD. The masses want COD, other developers want to cash in on COD's success, and it's all one big pool of homogenising crapness.