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

  • 121 results
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3

This topic is locked from further discussion.

Avatar image for FrozenLiquid
FrozenLiquid

13555

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 22

User Lists: 0

#102 FrozenLiquid
Member since 2007 • 13555 Posts

[QUOTE="FrozenLiquid"]

[QUOTE="ramealdabest"]

Halo? For the better? lol. Agree with cod though.

kuraimen

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.

That's like saying the Beatles suck for influencing a whole host of crap rock bands. Or Michael Jackson sucks for what he did to today's pop stars.

Avatar image for kuraimen
kuraimen

28078

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#103 kuraimen
Member since 2010 • 28078 Posts

[QUOTE="kuraimen"]

[QUOTE="FrozenLiquid"]

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

FrozenLiquid

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.

That's like saying the Beatles suck for influencing a whole host of crap rock bands. Or Michael Jackson sucks for what he did to today's pop stars.

Still IMO Halo is not a very good shooter and its influence was harmful overall.
Avatar image for drinkerofjuice
drinkerofjuice

4567

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 20

User Lists: 0

#104 drinkerofjuice
Member since 2007 • 4567 Posts
[QUOTE="FrozenLiquid"]

[QUOTE="kuraimen"]

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.

kuraimen

That's like saying the Beatles suck for influencing a whole host of crap rock bands. Or Michael Jackson sucks for what he did to today's pop stars.

Still IMO Halo is not a very good shooter and its influence was harmful overall.

Halo was like an instructional video to other developers on how you go about making an FPS on a console that stands toe to toe with PC exclusive shooters. Can't see how that influence is harmful in any way.
Avatar image for FrozenLiquid
FrozenLiquid

13555

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 22

User Lists: 0

#105 FrozenLiquid
Member since 2007 • 13555 Posts

[QUOTE="FrozenLiquid"]

[QUOTE="kuraimen"]

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.

kuraimen

That's like saying the Beatles suck for influencing a whole host of crap rock bands. Or Michael Jackson sucks for what he did to today's pop stars.

Still IMO Halo is not a very good shooter and its influence was harmful overall.

Uh no, it's a very good shooter. People don't copy bad games. They copy good games.

Avatar image for DarkLink77
DarkLink77

32731

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 3

User Lists: 0

#106 DarkLink77
Member since 2004 • 32731 Posts

[QUOTE="kuraimen"][QUOTE="FrozenLiquid"]

That's like saying the Beatles suck for influencing a whole host of crap rock bands. Or Michael Jackson sucks for what he did to today's pop stars.

FrozenLiquid

Still IMO Halo is not a very good shooter and its influence was harmful overall.

Uh no, it's a very good shooter. People don't copy bad games. They copy good games.

Obligatory "Then explain Call of Duty" post. :P
Avatar image for DarkLink77
DarkLink77

32731

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 3

User Lists: 0

#107 DarkLink77
Member since 2004 • 32731 Posts

[QUOTE="kuraimen"][QUOTE="FrozenLiquid"]

That's like saying the Beatles suck for influencing a whole host of crap rock bands. Or Michael Jackson sucks for what he did to today's pop stars.

drinkerofjuice

Still IMO Halo is not a very good shooter and its influence was harmful overall.

Halo was like an instructional video to other developers on how you go about making an FPS on a console that stands toe to toe with PC exclusive shooters. Can't see how that influence is harmful in any way.

Didn't you know? Regenerating health is something that Bungie pulled out of Satan's bunghole.

Jeez. Get with the times, man.

Avatar image for FrozenLiquid
FrozenLiquid

13555

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 22

User Lists: 0

#108 FrozenLiquid
Member since 2007 • 13555 Posts

Obligatory "Then explain Call of Duty" post. :PDarkLink77

CoD 4 was good.The rest are dog s***.

Avatar image for DarkLink77
DarkLink77

32731

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 3

User Lists: 0

#109 DarkLink77
Member since 2004 • 32731 Posts

[QUOTE="DarkLink77"]Obligatory "Then explain Call of Duty" post. :PFrozenLiquid

CoD 4 was good.The rest are dog s***.

This is a lie, but I forgive you.

Avatar image for Lexter45
Lexter45

1204

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#110 Lexter45
Member since 2011 • 1204 Posts
I still maintain Timeplitters and Halo are the best FPS Franchises, You can't really get any better than those two gems.
Avatar image for WhiteKnight77
WhiteKnight77

12605

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#111 WhiteKnight77
Member since 2003 • 12605 Posts

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.

FrozenLiquid

I can think of a game that will be a bit evolutionary. It tosses out traditional game design and mechanics to follow as closely as possible a different set of rules concerning gameplay, the Natural Order of Realistic Gameplay. While not definitive, it does give one a set of guidelines to game design.

One thing people tend to forget is that there will always be some tradeoffs in game design. The engine may not allow a developer to do something that people want done.

Avatar image for kuraimen
kuraimen

28078

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#112 kuraimen
Member since 2010 • 28078 Posts

[QUOTE="drinkerofjuice"][QUOTE="kuraimen"] Still IMO Halo is not a very good shooter and its influence was harmful overall.DarkLink77

Halo was like an instructional video to other developers on how you go about making an FPS on a console that stands toe to toe with PC exclusive shooters. Can't see how that influence is harmful in any way.

Didn't you know? Regenerating health is something that Bungie pulled out of Satan's bunghole.

Jeez. Get with the times, man.

Only if Faceball 2000 is Satan himself!! :shock:

Avatar image for FrozenLiquid
FrozenLiquid

13555

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 22

User Lists: 0

#113 FrozenLiquid
Member since 2007 • 13555 Posts

[QUOTE="FrozenLiquid"]

[QUOTE="DarkLink77"]Obligatory "Then explain Call of Duty" post. :PDarkLink77

CoD 4 was good.The rest are dog s***.

This is a lie, but I forgive you.

No, CoD 4 is actually good. Its campaign was on the level of CoD 2, and it's MP was as fun as United Offensive. It was only after the runaway success of CoD 4 when Activision decided to kill any integrity the series had.

Avatar image for DarkLink77
DarkLink77

32731

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 3

User Lists: 0

#114 DarkLink77
Member since 2004 • 32731 Posts

[QUOTE="DarkLink77"]

[QUOTE="FrozenLiquid"]

CoD 4 was good.The rest are dog s***.

FrozenLiquid

This is a lie, but I forgive you.

No, CoD 4 is actually good. Its campaign was on the level of CoD 2, and it's MP was as fun as United Offensive. It was only after the runaway success of CoD 4 when Activision decided to kill any integrity the series had.

Campaign was short with no replyabaility because of how scripted it was and the MP was broken and exploitable as all hell. That does not scream "good game" to me.
Avatar image for FrozenLiquid
FrozenLiquid

13555

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 22

User Lists: 0

#115 FrozenLiquid
Member since 2007 • 13555 Posts

Campaign was short with no replyabailitybecause of how scripted it wasDarkLink77

It's what made CoD 1 and CoD 2 great to play through. I could have done with less doorman spawns, though. Killed the smoke-and-mirrors effect.

and the MP was broken and exploitable as all hell. That does not scream "good game" to me.DarkLink77

I'm no expert at CoD multiplayer, but from what I played back in the day, the whole CoD4 unbalancing issue was about as flimsy as someone bringing up Counter-Strike's balancing issues. I mean, people complain about Bungie's multiplayer, and it's one of the most balanced around this side of Team Fortress 2.

Every other CoD that's been since is just a caricature of CoD 4, that's for sure. But CoD 4 was definitely legit for its time.

Avatar image for kiddoom93
kiddoom93

838

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 2

User Lists: 0

#116 kiddoom93
Member since 2006 • 838 Posts

[QUOTE="DarkLink77"]Obligatory "Then explain Call of Duty" post. :PFrozenLiquid

CoD 4 was good.The rest are dog s***.

No Call of Duty 2 was actually an excellent game also

Avatar image for ristactionjakso
ristactionjakso

6118

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 39

User Lists: 0

#117 ristactionjakso
Member since 2011 • 6118 Posts

there are a lot of things they could be doing with first person shooters but for some reason they all want to be mediocre games.

Avatar image for mitu123
mitu123

155290

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 32

User Lists: 0

#118 mitu123
Member since 2006 • 155290 Posts

[QUOTE="FrozenLiquid"]

[QUOTE="DarkLink77"]Obligatory "Then explain Call of Duty" post. :Pkiddoom93

CoD 4 was good.The rest are dog s***.

No Call of Duty 2 was actually an excellent game also

Loved the campaign in that game.

Avatar image for 1oh1nine1
1oh1nine1

779

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#119 1oh1nine1
Member since 2007 • 779 Posts

There are some good and innovative shooters nowadays (S.T.A.L.K.E.R.) has been mentioned, but for the mainstream, I feel in the last decade or so, they have been declining. This feeling comes mostly whenever I compare the features of past shooters to the features of newer ones. For instance, take Perfect Dark.

Perfect Dark's singleplayer was excellent. It was not on rails. It was split into a series of missions, and each mission had objectives that you had to actively carry out, such as hacking, escort, setting a bomb, assassination, etc. When you changed the difficulty level (there were I think four options), not only did the enemies become tougher and better at killing you, but the mission objectives changed. What game does that today? Plus, there was co-op. Nowadays, it everybody makes a big fuss whenever co-op is available, but it should be standard. An N64 game had it!

Perfect Dark's multiplayer is also more or less unparalleled to this day (features-wise, and of course, discounting online functionality, given the time period). The players had total control over every aspect of the game. There were multiple game types, every rule of the game could be tweaked, the map chosen by the player, the music chosen by the player, the exact weapons available and their locations chosen by the player, and bots. The bots' behavior and skill level was customizable, as well as appearance. Players could make themselves appear as any skin in the game, and switch the heads of the skins as well.

I can't think of any shooter, mainstream or otherwise, with single and multiplayer, that matches Perfect Dark to this day. What happened?

Avatar image for mitu123
mitu123

155290

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 32

User Lists: 0

#120 mitu123
Member since 2006 • 155290 Posts

Perfect Dark's singleplayer was excellent. It was not on rails. It was split into a series of missions, and each mission had objectives that you had to actively carry out, such as hacking, escort, setting a bomb, assassination, etc. When you changed the difficulty level (there were I think four options), not only did the enemies become tougher and better at killing you, but the mission objectives changed. What game does that today? Plus, there was co-op. Nowadays, it everybody makes a big fuss whenever co-op is available, but it should be standard. An N64 game had it!

Perfect Dark's multiplayer is also more or less unparalleled to this day (features-wise, and of course, discounting online functionality, given the time period). The players had total control over every aspect of the game. There were multiple game types, every rule of the game could be tweaked, the map chosen by the player, the music chosen by the player, the exact weapons available and their locations chosen by the player, and bots. The bots' behavior and skill level was customizable, as well as appearance. Players could make themselves appear as any skin in the game, and switch the heads of the skins as well.

I can't think of any shooter, mainstream or otherwise, with single and multiplayer, that matches Perfect Dark to this day. What happened?

1oh1nine1

This is an excellent post and all of this is true. That's why I gave the game a 10 and it's still the highest rated FPS on Gamespot(9.9).

Avatar image for deactivated-61cc564148ef4
deactivated-61cc564148ef4

10909

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 1

User Lists: 0

#121 deactivated-61cc564148ef4
Member since 2007 • 10909 Posts

[QUOTE="FrozenLiquid"]

[QUOTE="DarkLink77"]

This is a lie, but I forgive you.

DarkLink77

No, CoD 4 is actually good. Its campaign was on the level of CoD 2, and it's MP was as fun as United Offensive. It was only after the runaway success of CoD 4 when Activision decided to kill any integrity the series had.

Campaign was short with no replyabaility because of how scripted it was and the MP was broken and exploitable as all hell. That does not scream "good game" to me.

But when the campaign was so memorable ( i admit, gameplay wise it's nothing breathtaking) and addictive Mp that is somewhat exploitable but really enjoyable...

I know it's a sin to like COD, but I like MW1 and MW2. They were good fun for me! Black Ops was boring though.