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

The FPS games I still play even though I finished the singleplayer are Quake 2*, BF1942/Desert Combat, BF2, Bioshock, ARMA2, and all three of the Crysis games. That's' a pretty dizzying array of differing gameplay types. So, I'm not quite sure where FPS games would evolve into next.

*One of the few games that run at 60fps+ on my netbook.

[QUOTE="vashkey"]

[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.Planeforger

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.

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

Eh? If you look during the 90s there was tons of stagnation in the genre. Shooters were dungen crawlers with guns - that's what they evolved from, right down to obtaining items to progress (those wonderful key cards), and in the 21st century they've become more in line with imitating film, only it's on rails and in the first person. There's still tons that can be done, but at its height was the late 90s and early 2000s of shooter design, in which the genre (and many other game genres) flourished. It's hard to simply predict these things, there's been a bit of a re-emergence of immersive sims recently and the genre looks to be going places with digital distribution. [QUOTE="Wasdie"]

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.

skrat_01

[QUOTE="PSP107"][QUOTE="WhiteKnight77"]

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?

Call of Duty killed the tactical FPS, though thanks to Red Orchestra 2, we somewhat have our fix again. R6: Vegas was too CoD-ified to be a real tactical FPS (though I do like it). I think FPSs need to continue focusing on delivering unique experiences rather than copying each other, that is how you break conventions and set yourself apart while garnering media and consumer attention. Too many games focus on having "that one unique element" though, and in the end just execute badly (like Fracture).

[QUOTE="Wasdie"]

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.

jerkface96

Not for long :D the kings are coming back'

[QUOTE="skrat_01"]Eh? If you look during the 90s there was tons of stagnation in the genre. Shooters were dungen crawlers with guns - that's what they evolved from, right down to obtaining items to progress (those wonderful key cards), and in the 21st century they've become more in line with imitating film, only it's on rails and in the first person. There's still tons that can be done, but at its height was the late 90s and early 2000s of shooter design, in which the genre (and many other game genres) flourished. It's hard to simply predict these things, there's been a bit of a re-emergence of immersive sims recently and the genre looks to be going places with digital distribution. [QUOTE="Wasdie"]

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.

DarkLink77

Fallen Empire: Legion was a tribes clone but was a web browser based game and it died off like a year ago.

I think last generation was extemely overrated to the point that no new FPS will ever be considered innovative or superior. Most FPS during the 90s were directly inspired by Doom and Wolfenstein, when the genre shifted from sprites to 3D animation and models, after Half Life 1, Halo CE, and a few others, anything new and orginial was already thought of. Now we are on the "Every new shooter is like Call of Duty because they both have guns and take place within 50-100 years of each other" phase, which is stupid because Call of Duty invented NOTHING, therefore there is nothing to copy. Also, even though your health can regenerate, you cant just hide a corner for a little bit, the health system greatelycreased the pace of most games, and even on the normal diffcuility if you are caught in the open you will die within seconds. You arent invincible.

Shootmania will most likely freshen up the genre abit.

[QUOTE="skrat_01"]Eh? If you look during the 90s there was tons of stagnation in the genre. Shooters were dungen crawlers with guns - that's what they evolved from, right down to obtaining items to progress (those wonderful key cards), and in the 21st century they've become more in line with imitating film, only it's on rails and in the first person. There's still tons that can be done, but at its height was the late 90s and early 2000s of shooter design, in which the genre (and many other game genres) flourished. It's hard to simply predict these things, there's been a bit of a re-emergence of immersive sims recently and the genre looks to be going places with digital distribution. [QUOTE="Wasdie"]

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.

DarkLink77

The only FPS which i can say that i found that defined themselves against other fps's this Gen is probaly Mirrors Edge and Red Steel 2. Red Steelbecause of the Sword /Shooting and mirrors edge for its variation on what FPS can be with running, jumping, climbingI cannot say i play many FPS (i OwnGolden eye, redsteel 2, Battlefield 2: BC, CoD: 4, BO's, BioShock 2...)

Though i heard Borderlands was intresting but i dont know about evolving the genre though as i have not played it nor am i sure if FPS / RPG have been mixed in the same way as borderlands previously, Was wondering if the community is still alive on 360 if anyone knows.

I think FPS dont need to evolve but instead add alot more variation to the formula rather than copying CoD and Halo. Golden Eye for Wii should have its way of mission set ups cloned to death as its not straight A > B but several side missions and secret missions (You will understand if you play it) which makes it alot more enjoyable and add replayability.

We need more Spy FPSs, those are lacking, where's my No One Lives Forever?

Graphically, FPS games have evolved immensely in the past decade. If you compare Half life in 1998 to Crysis in 2007...the difference is incredible. If the trend continues, games will be practically photorealistic in another 8-10 years. If this happens is another issue. Technologically, a top developer, if allowed to create a FPS game from the ground up to work exclusively only on a top-tier $2000+ PC could make a game today that practically looked like reality at least in screenshots.

However, there is FAR more room for advancement in A.I. and physics. However, the amount of computing power necessary to create AI and physics that actually replicated reality would be astronomical. Rendering and destroying just a single house in an otherwise empty world would be immensely difficult.

The common complaint today you hear from teh "old school hardcore" gamers is that today games "cater to teh casuals". In the past decade, development costs have skyrocketed and the shiny graphics are a large part of it. They need to be able to recoup their investment costs somehow and appealing to a larger audience is the only way, other than charging $100/game.

But more on question, what more is there really to change? FPS games have already covered the gamut from extremely stylized/rediculous to as close to reality as you can reasonably get. Until computer scientists figure out a more efficient method of creating AI and physics, I'm not sure what else can get better except for graphics.

Tried to get into Half-Life. I just couldn't do it. The real deal in The Orange Box was Portal. That was fantastic. I have still yet to play Portal 2.

Shattered Horizon was the only FPS this gen to take place in space :P

I think last generation was extemely overrated to the point that no new FPS will ever be considered innovative or superior. Most FPS during the 90s were directly inspired by Doom and Wolfenstein, when the genre shifted from sprites to 3D animation and models, after Half Life 1, Halo CE, and a few others, anything new and orginial was already thought of. Now we are on the "Every new shooter is like Call of Duty because they both have guns and take place within 50-100 years of each other" phase, which is stupid because Call of Duty invented NOTHING, therefore there is nothing to copy. Also, even though your health can regenerate, you cant just hide a corner for a little bit, the health system greatelycreased the pace of most games, and even on the normal diffcuility if you are caught in the open you will die within seconds. You arent invincible.

Brean24

I think there are still plenty of themes to make a fps of. They just don't wanne risk there full budged to a game that has more chance to flop.

Maybe next gen...

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.

DarkLink77

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

There is, incorporate more RPG elements.. Namely character development that can adversely change way you played the game.. Deus Ex Human Revolution kind of sort of did this.. But it was lazy in many areas.. Where things like hacking wasn't a choice but a necessity for really any one out there just due to the fact of how much you hacked..

[QUOTE="DarkLink77"]

[QUOTE="skrat_01"] Everything done before? Hell no, we haven't scratched the surface. Rougehunter

Not sure if I would classify games like Forsaken and Descent as FPS's..

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

The heck does "everything has been done before" mean?

You could have said the same when Wolfenstein 3D was released :?

[QUOTE="DarkLink77"]

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.

TheShadowLord07

FPS games are evolving just as fast as they used to, there are just more of them now. They change just as much as any other video game genre, as much as people would like to argue.

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.

games5522

And this is exactly my opinion. It's sad to think that some people believes watching cutscenes and scripted events is an evolution to looking for keycards. :(

-I think it has to do with the market. It seems the only FPS games that sell are military FPS games that focus on multiplayer. People will ignore anything that doesn't fit this & since developers have to make money in order to make games . . . . well . . .. you can see why we are where we are.

Half life 2 is still the king of FPS & i wouldn't mention games like cod4 or any other garbage FPS games in the same sentence as HL2 [except this sentence].

By the end of the year pay attention to what are the top selling games. When games like Skyrim,Batman AC, Siants Row3, Rage, Assassins creed, Zelda all get outsold by the military shooters [BF,cod] then you know why gaming isn't evolving. Blame the consumers.

Half life 3 will save us all from these garbage FPS games.

I don't think FPS is evolving as fast as it used to, which isn't surprising. I think it's difficult to make FPSs better than they are at the moment, with the exception of small improvements.

I do hope FPSs don't move to motion control. IMO, at the end of a day, motion control doesn't match up to a nice old-fashioned regular controller.

[QUOTE="TheShadowLord07"]

[QUOTE="DarkLink77"]

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.

mitu123

[QUOTE="NoodleFighter"]

No FPS has still matched Tribes :twisted:

DarkLink77

Have you guys signed up for the Tribes 2 beta?

[QUOTE="DarkLink77"][QUOTE="NoodleFighter"]

No FPS has still matched Tribes :twisted:

OB-47

Have you guys signed up for the Tribes 2 beta?

BF3 is innovating, i mean they are adding destruction elements into the fps genre which hasn't been done before.
shooting buildings and the debris killing enemy players, brings new tactics into gameplay.

BF3 is innovating, i mean they are adding destruction elements into the fps genre which hasn't been done before.
shooting buildings and the debris killing enemy players, brings new tactics into gameplay.

Ribnarak

The destruction is BF3 is not really innovative. It's been done before (Red Faction).

I don't think destructibility is going to come in every FPS game, or even most. It's just a cheap gimmick in most games. The maps in CSS are amazing without any of those things

Planetside 2 will have feature 2000 player battles 8)

Planetside 2 will have feature 2000 player battles 8)

NoodleFighter

Isn't that an MMO? Pretty cool, but will ALL 2000 players be on the same map or like different stages of one massisve map (like in Global Agenda)

[QUOTE="mitu123"][QUOTE="TheShadowLord07"]are you talking about halo ce and modern warfare?

DarkLink77

[QUOTE="DarkLink77"][QUOTE="mitu123"] Pretty sure he is.ramealdabest

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

Not everything has been done before. It's only a matter of time before something comes and blows everything we thought we knew about the genre out of the water.

[QUOTE="NoodleFighter"]

Planetside 2 will have feature 2000 player battles 8)

OB-47

Isn't that an MMO? Pretty cool, but will ALL 2000 players be on the same map or like different stages of one massisve map (like in Global Agenda)

Yes ALL 2000 players will be one huge COLOSSAL map with every single inch of it usable. The players will be spread out throughout the map BUT players can use the many vehicles planetside provides for you to use to travel around to other areas at a much quicker pace.

[QUOTE="OB-47"]

[QUOTE="NoodleFighter"]

Planetside 2 will have feature 2000 player battles 8)

NoodleFighter

Isn't that an MMO? Pretty cool, but will ALL 2000 players be on the same map or like different stages of one massisve map (like in Global Agenda)

Yes ALL 2000 players will be one huge COLOSSAL map with every single inch of it usable. The players will be spread out throughout the map BUT players can use the many vehicles planetside provides for you to use to travel around to other areas at a much quicker pace.

Awesome! I was thinking it was like Global Agenda where they split the players in actual different maps but they still help each other (like say on one map they disable communication, the other map people couldn't send info to artileray) but all 2000 people on one map is freakin epic!

[QUOTE="DarkLink77"][QUOTE="mitu123"] Pretty sure he is.ramealdabest

I agree, both were for the worse.

Saying 'evolution' is almost sounding like you need to force FPSes to change. Evolution should just come from good design. Currently, very few FPSes have good design, and thus, no real evolving.

Take Crysis 2 for example. It had a great concept, but butchered everything by having sub-standard execution. Trust, if that if they actually got all the gears working in tandem with one another, Crysis 2 would have been the new benchmark for FPSes.

[QUOTE="DarkLink77"][QUOTE="mitu123"] Pretty sure he is.ramealdabest

Yeah, Halo was for the better. It doesn't help that other games abuse the things it brought to the genre.

The only innovative shooter as of late was Vanquish IMO. Not FPS though. And if ME2 is counted as a shooter then that one too.kuraimen

As much as I love Mass Effect 2 and consider it a shooter, it's not a very good shooter at all. Whatever the hell it is, it was enjoyable though.

[QUOTE="ramealdabest"]

[QUOTE="DarkLink77"] I thought it was pretty obvious.FrozenLiquid

Yeah, Halo was for the better. It doesn't help that other games abuse the things it brought to the genre.

Halo consolized FPS games effectively paving the way to lure them away from PC and, in parallel, making the console scene overflow with shooters. Halo has been the worse influence ever imagined for both sides.