Top 10 Most Revolutionary First-person Shooters

I didn't say it was revolutionary. I said it was a next-gen leap from what came before it. You're trying to nitpick every little thing about Half-Life 2 instead of actually looking at it as a package.

Eggimannd

I am looking at it as a package. You're the one trying to dissect it by saying wow physics, wow puzzles, wow Alyx Vance.

Despite all that, it still plays incredibly similar to the original Half-Life, therefore not being a next-generation leap. It was a next-generation leap in technology though. Make that two generations maybe.

[QUOTE="Eggimannd"]

I didn't say it was revolutionary. I said it was a next-gen leap from what came before it. You're trying to nitpick every little thing about Half-Life 2 instead of actually looking at it as a package.

FrozenLiquid

I am looking at it as a package. You're the one trying to dissect it by saying wow physics, wow puzzles, wow Alyx Vance.

Despite all that, it still plays incredibly similar to the original Half-Life, therefore not being a next-generation leap. It was a next-generation leap in technology though. Make that two generations maybe.

Wrong. I was just replying to your comment of it "just being a graphical update". I wasn't dissecting it.

And because it plays almost the same as it's prequel (obviously Sherlock) it's not next-gen? What kind of logic is that?

Wrong. I was just replying to your comment of it "just being a graphical update". I wasn't dissecting it.

And because it plays almost the same as it's prequel (obviously Sherlock) it's not next-gen? What kind of logic is that?

Eggimannd

There's no significant enhancements to the game to warrant it a next-generation sequel. What has it done, gameplay wise, that's oh-so-different from the original Half-Life? Dude it almost sounds like you haven't even played the original Half-Life.

Everyone knows despite Half-Life 2 being a damn good game, it's barely changed from the original. It's just got a few more characters and more pretty physics. Essentially the presentation changed, but the gameplay really didn't.

[QUOTE="Eggimannd"]

Wrong. I was just replying to your comment of it "just being a graphical update". I wasn't dissecting it.

And because it plays almost the same as it's prequel (obviously Sherlock) it's not next-gen? What kind of logic is that?

FrozenLiquid

There's no significant enhancements to the game to warrant it a next-generation sequel. What has it done, gameplay wise, that's oh-so-different from the original Half-Life? Dude it almost sounds like you haven't even played the original Half-Life.

Everyone knows despite Half-Life 2 being a damn good game, it's barely changed from the original. It's just got a few more characters and more pretty physics. Essentially the presentation changed, but the gameplay really didn't.

It's a sequel. Why would you expect gameplay to really switch unless you're going from a 2D game to a 3D game?

It's a sequel. Why would you expect gameplay to really switch unless you're going from a 2D game to a 3D game?

Eggimannd

Halo 2, within 3 years, was able to add small additions such as dual-wielding, recharging health, and hijacking vehicles, as well as tweaking existing weapons, and of course A.I advancements. They added up to make the game faster and rather different. It actually didn't feel like Halo until you got used to it. That was three years.

Half Life 2, in six years time, could not do the same. It had the same health system, the same weapons with same damage, no significant leaps in A.I (in fact it felt like a step back) etc etc.

Look you know what I'm done tryna convince you bra. I played Half-Life back in the day and played it to death. I was floored by Half-life 2, but after playing it several times through it became apparent it did not make any significant advancements. It was pretty much in the same boat as Doom 3. These games which yearned for nostalgia were swamped by the likes of Far Cry and F.E.A.R.

If you're a PC gamer you'd know these things. But hey, whatever believe what you want?

None,they all do the same thing.Just aim and shoot. It cant be any more complex then that.

None,they all do the same thing.Just aim and shoot. It cant be any more complex then that.

slipknot0129

Half Life 1 is my definition of a innovative shooter. Most shooters released after borrow something from it.AgentA-Mi6

This is gonna sound like a good beef against the Half-Life series in general, and I don't, it's mainly beef with Half-Life 2.

Anyway, the only thing the original Half-Life really did was its cinematic sequences. Before it, there was no sense of a cohesive story. But when you play Half-Life, it's the first time you watch something unfold in real-time, and the threat seems very real. The other significant thing Half-Life boosted was the mod community.

Apart from that, Half-Life has done little else. Its gunplay is straight up like Quake, Doom, and Wolfenstein before it. It's puzzle/platforming was derivative of other genres (and not many shooters take after the action/puzzle balance of Half-Life).

But apart from that, I think Half-Life is the single most important shooter, and arguably the greatest shooter ever made.

HALO:CE can be there, but not halo 3. Halo 3 has dont nothing special from CE that should make it "revolutionary". COD4 shouldnt be there either.

Halo 2, within 3 years, was able to add small additions such as dual-wielding, recharging health, and hijacking vehicles, as well as tweaking existing weapons, and of course A.I advancements. They added up to make the game faster and rather different. It actually didn't feel like Halo until you got used to it. That was three years.

FrozenLiquid

And let's be honest...Episode 2 (specificaly Ep2, not previous HL2 entries) plays quite a bit different from original Half-life, the difference between Halo and Halo 3 are smaller, altough of course to Bungie's defense Valve had a lot more time for changes

It's OK. I expect these comments from you. I'm aware that you're one gigantic PC enthusiast, but let's be realistic here. If it were not for its gorgeous and revolutionary graphics, Crysis would have received a 7.

Propaganda_

Crysis is the only pure FPS this gen that actualy pushed the core FPS gameplay forward, every other FPS either stagnated at last gen level (like Halo 3, Half Life 2 Episodes or Killzone 2) or actualy regressed two gens back (CoD4 and WaW are on the level of late 90s FPSes)

[QUOTE="FrozenLiquid"]

Halo 2, within 3 years, was able to add small additions such as dual-wielding, recharging health, and hijacking vehicles, as well as tweaking existing weapons, and of course A.I advancements. They added up to make the game faster and rather different. It actually didn't feel like Halo until you got used to it. That was three years.

AdrianWerner

And let's be honest...Episode 2 (specificaly Ep2, not previous HL2 entries) plays quite a bit different from original Half-life, the difference between Halo and Halo 3 are smaller, altough of course to Bungie's defense Valve had a lot more time for changes

The point was that it took three years for Bungie to arguably do more for its franchise than what Valve did in six. Valve may have spent those six years setting up the Source Engine and Steam, but it doesn't help when Half-Life 2 is dated from the outset. I forgot about vehicles in Half-Life 2,but that's maybe only one other thing in their six year development period. I still don't feel physics was really much other than a graphics upgrade. It did not add or tweak the Half-Life formula in any way. It was just another way to do puzzles and shoot people, and it looked pretty. Far Cry was a game that used physics at its core, not as a showcase. The big players Doom and Half-Life made it into a bullet point on their graphical upgrade list.

Episode Two didn't play different until the last third of the game, and even then for the most part it is an illusion (but a very good one). From the retrofitted Charger onwards, you're given the same linear path like in every Half-Life game with the option of taking a detour from the main path to get those ammo caches. What Valve did in that last third was sort of combine all the elements of the gameplay - vehicle, on-foot shooting, and puzzle-solving into one, and that's when the game started to shine; no separate vehicle section; no isolated platforming/puzzles; no simple corridor shooting. They were all there simultaneously, and that's when it rocked. That's cool - they finally caught up to Halo in 2001, Far Cry in 2004 etc in terms of design :P

I only hope Valve has more epiphanies when it comes to Episode Three. Adding portals to Episode Three might be a bit too much at this point, but trying to find synthesis between gunplay, vehicle sections, and platform/puzzles should be key.

[QUOTE="Propaganda_"]

It's OK. I expect these comments from you. I'm aware that you're one gigantic PC enthusiast, but let's be realistic here. If it were not for its gorgeous and revolutionary graphics, Crysis would have received a 7.

AdrianWerner

Crysis is the only pure FPS this gen that actualy pushed the core FPS gameplay forward, every other FPS either stagnated at last gen level (like Halo 3, Half Life 2 Episodes or Killzone 2) or actualy regressed two gens back (CoD4 and WaW are on the level of late 90s FPSes)

Maybe S.T.A.L.K.E.R isn't a "pure" FPS, but it also did a lot in the FPS genre. I'm particularly impressed with its A.I and sandbox gameplay.

[QUOTE="AdrianWerner"]

[QUOTE="FrozenLiquid"]

Halo 2, within 3 years, was able to add small additions such as dual-wielding, recharging health, and hijacking vehicles, as well as tweaking existing weapons, and of course A.I advancements. They added up to make the game faster and rather different. It actually didn't feel like Halo until you got used to it. That was three years.

FrozenLiquid

And let's be honest...Episode 2 (specificaly Ep2, not previous HL2 entries) plays quite a bit different from original Half-life, the difference between Halo and Halo 3 are smaller, altough of course to Bungie's defense Valve had a lot more time for changes

The point was that it took three years for Bungie to arguably do more for its franchise than what Valve did in six. Valve may have spent those six years setting up the Source Engine and Steam, but it doesn't help when Half-Life 2 is dated from the outset. I forgot about vehicles in Half-Life 2,but that's maybe only one other thing in their six year development period. I still don't feel physics was really much other than a graphics upgrade. It did not add or tweak the Half-Life formula in any way. It was just another way to do puzzles and shoot people, and it looked pretty. Far Cry was a game that used physics at its core, not as a showcase. The big players Doom and Half-Life made it into a bullet point on their graphical upgrade list.

Episode Two didn't play different until the last third of the game, and even then for the most part it is an illusion (but a very good one). From the retrofitted Charger onwards, you're given the same linear path like in every Half-Life game with the option of taking a detour from the main path to get those ammo caches. What Valve did in that last third was sort of combine all the elements of the gameplay - vehicle, on-foot shooting, and puzzle-solving into one, and that's when the game started to shine; no separate vehicle section; no isolated platforming/puzzles; no simple corridor shooting. They were all there simultaneously, and that's when it rocked. That's cool - they finally caught up to Halo in 2001, Far Cry in 2004 etc in terms of design :P

I only hope Valve has more epiphanies when it comes to Episode Three. Adding portals to Episode Three might be a bit too much at this point, but trying to find synthesis between gunplay, vehicle sections, and platform/puzzles should be key.

Maybe Bungie had more money/backing from Microsoft?

Maybe Bungie had more money/backing from Microsoft?

longtonguecat

So without money, Valve weren't able to realize they should combine puzzle/platforming, on foot shooting, and vehicle sections all into one?

Money sounds pretty powerful then :)

[QUOTE="longtonguecat"]

Maybe Bungie had more money/backing from Microsoft?

FrozenLiquid

So without money, Valve weren't able to realize they should combine puzzle/platforming, on foot shooting, and vehicle sections all into one?

Money sounds pretty powerful then :)

(You can back off with the oncoming wit, I'm just thinking of possibilities here :P)

I was more suggesting that Halo had a greater push and a greater pool of resources to get it done more quickly. After all it was keeping the Xbox afloat. :)

The point was that it took three years for Bungie to arguably do more for its franchise than what Valve did in six. Valve may have spent those six years setting up the Source Engine and Steam, but it doesn't help when Half-Life 2 is dated from the outset.FrozenLiquid

Sure...Valve might be stuck in the past, but so is Bungie and pretty much every pure FPS designer aside from Crytek. And really, considering just bad the FPS design got today, not improving much means at least not going backwards with game design, which can actualy be seen as a huge acomplishment compared to how the genre is doing as a whole

Maybe S.T.A.L.K.E.R isn't a "pure" FPS, but it also did a lot in the FPS genre. I'm particularly impressed with its A.I and sandbox gameplay.

FrozenLiquid

Except Bungie didn't make more changes in 3 years, or even in 5. I don't see Halo 3 as more of improvement over Halo than HL2 was over Halo1.

Sure...Valve might be stuck in the past, but so is Bungie and pretty much every pure FPS designer aside from Crytek. And really, considering just bad the FPS design got today, not improving much means at least not going backwards with game design, which can actualy be seen as a huge acomplishment compared to how the genre is doing as a whole

AdrianWerner

Yes, they did :). Did you not hear the Halo CE fans crying over Halo 2? Did you not hear the Halo 2 fans crying over Halo 3? I wouldn't know where to start.

Maybe we'll talk the health system first. Once Halo got rid of its old health system and brought in complete regenerative health, the gameplay became a fair bit more aggressive and faster; less tactical, more run in and out without the need to search for health packs. What was once dreaded to face a Wraith or a Ghost on foot you could easily dispatch via vehicle-jacking. And lastly the countless weapon revisions Bungie kept doing because they're incredibly anal about weapon balance might just be a bit too pedantic. Once there was the multi-purpose Halo 1 pistol, then that gets removed. There use to be a mid-range, high-velocity assault rifle, which gets split into the SMG and Battle Rifle in Halo 2. Plasma rifle and the Shotgun effect the Flood variably between all Halo games (especially the shotgun who's spread keeps changing throughout the games). That happened between Halo and Halo 2. It happened again with Halo 2 and 3. I think everyone remembers the first time they tried to take on a Warthog in Halo 3 like they did in Halo 2 and got completely annhilated.

It's these little things that, while not exactly game-changing, refresh the experience. I've always thought Half-Life 2 was built upon nostalgia. I mean, how many developers make a sequel to a shooter without really shaking up the weapon roster? A fair chunk of Half-Life's arsenal is a carbon copy of the original (and I believe it's done purposefully). Now I've personally played Half-Life 1 and Half-Life 2 back-to-back, and they're achingly similar. The only real difference I'd say the games have is that the earlier title had a few more boss fights, and atmospherically speaking the first provided a bit more of an escapist feature than the second one, which was a little more gritty, a little more realistic, and a little more subdued.

At the end of the day, if you want to see changes, take the Magnum from both Half Life 1 and 2, and shoot a headcrab with it. Notice how it works in exactly the same way. You can even try the difference between the MP5 (HL1) and MP7 (HL2), though they each have a different number of grenades. Anyway, try the pistol in Halo 1 on the Flood, and use the pistol in Halo 2 and Halo 3 on the Flood too. All act totally differently.

Yeah, there were a lot more changes in Halo ;)

Half Life 1 is my definition of a innovative shooter. Most shooters released after borrow something from it.AgentA-Mi6

Well, countless shooters have tried to follow Halo, as well. ;)

[QUOTE="Propaganda_"]

[QUOTE="Zensword"]

Far Cry, CRYSIS

Zensword

Crysis, my friend, was only graphics.

I'm really tired of hearing people say Crysis is only about teh grafix.

Its gameplay is very fun, mainly due to the nanosuit which is awesome. If it weren't for the nanosuit then it's just anotherFPS. But IMO, far Cry and Crysis were revolutionary FPS's since they have open world which is unlike any other linear FPS's.

I've already agreed that it's not a low-quality game, but is it worthy of a score in the region of 9.5? No.

You'd need to possess an exceptional story line, engrossing characters and a skillfully produced multiplayer to achieve that.

The nanosuit, nevertheless, was really great!

You'd need to possess an exceptional story line, engrossing characters and a skillfully produced multiplayer to achieve that.

Propaganda_

[QUOTE="Propaganda_"]You'd need to possess an exceptional story line, engrossing characters and a skillfully produced multiplayer to achieve that.

Danm_999

Then, I assume that's my opinion.

You should not attain a 9.5 by just possessing marvelous graphics. :x

[QUOTE="Danm_999"]

[QUOTE="Propaganda_"]You'd need to possess an exceptional story line, engrossing characters and a skillfully produced multiplayer to achieve that.

Propaganda_

Then, I assume that's my opinion.

You should not attain a 9.5 by just possessing marvelous graphics. :x

Where is Unreal?

The game was not only a technical masterpiece in both visuals and sound -the music was utter memorable, specially some moments as the way out from the Vortex Ryker-, but also because the I.A. of the enemies -strafing, flanking-, the implement of two modes of fire in each weapons, the originality and iconic nature in some of them as the Shock Rifle, Bio Rifle and the Ripper, and the superb balance between indoor and outdoor environments.

There's too much fail in the list. At least Doom, Quake, Unreal, Q3A and UT deserves the most prominent slots. Then, Half-Life, Counter Strike, Battlefield 1942 and only rest 2 slots. Maybe Halo deserves a slot because his huge implication in the fps success in consoles and the other one can be to Deus Ex.

[QUOTE="Propaganda_"]

[QUOTE="wapahala"]

That list is so flawed. Where is Quake 3, System Shock 2, Perfect Dark.. *sigh*

washd123

Those were not revolutionary for their time.

how were halo halo 3 and COD4?

seriously list one revolutionary thing they did.

LOL WUT.

I am serious, this list is fail.

one of the worst lists i've ever seen akif22

agree... and no HL..no bioshock...

Where is Unreal?

The game was not only a technical masterpiece in both visuals and sound -the music was utter memorable, specially some moments as the way out from the Vortex Ryker-, but also because the I.A. of the enemies -strafing, flanking-, the implement of two modes of fire in each weapons, the originality and iconic nature in some of them as the Shock Rifle, Bio Rifle and the Ripper, and the superb balance between indoor and outdoor environments.

There's too much fail in the list. At least Doom, Quake, Unreal, Q3A and UT deserves the most prominent slots. Then, Half-Life, Counter Strike, Battlefield 1942 and only rest 2 slots. Maybe Halo deserves a slot because his huge implication in the fps success in consoles and the other one can be to Deus Ex.

Ondoval

[QUOTE="AgentA-Mi6"]Half Life 1 is my definition of a innovative shooter. Most shooters released after borrow something from it.Propaganda_

Well, countless shooters have tried to follow Halo, as well. ;)

Yeah, there were a lot more changes in Halo ;)

FrozenLiquid

I think you're blowing the petite Halo tweaks out of proportions. The fact is that while deconstructing Half-life 2 (especially episodes) might bring you small changes the whole experience felt very different from the original. Starting from the setting changes, through much bigger focus on puzzles, vehicle sections, incredible jump ahead in storytelling etc.

Halo 3 on the other hand feels and plays exactly like Halo 1, including even the art. Just upgraded.

I think the biggest difference is multiplayer, if one plays MP mode for years then even petite modifications might seem huge, while for Half-life which is all about SP there's no such thing

If I would be mean I would also say thatthe fact that pistol behaves differently in Halo 3 isn't good, it just means Bungie's world building lacks consistency . Valve doesn't have to do this because they can get it right the first time :P

But since I'm not mean I won't say that :P

[QUOTE="Propaganda_"]

[QUOTE="AgentA-Mi6"]Half Life 1 is my definition of a innovative shooter. Most shooters released after borrow something from it.Birdy09

Well, countless shooters have tried to follow Halo, as well. ;)

I hate the influences Halo had on the genre, to me they were mostly for the worse, but one would have to be fool to ignore just how much influence it had on the genre.

of course Halo itself also was hugely influenced by Half Life anyway

Your kidding right? I can see why Halo would be on the list but #1?!?! Here is one (no real order:very rough but I would not put Halo or Golden Eye anywhere near the top)

10)Halo:Combat Evolved (made FPS in console known widely)

9)Golden Eye (showed an FPS could be done on a console)

8)HeXen (mixed FPS/RPG/Puzzle in a way I have yet to see tried again)

7)Descent (first 3D shooter and 6 axis of movement in 3D)

6)Duke Nukem 3D (added character to a lifeless genre)

5)Half-Life (made an entire arch-type for the genre to follow that is still used today)

4)Quake (first real deathmatch game)

3)Doom (made the FPS widely known)

2)Deus Ex (put everything together so perfectly that it set a very high standard for the FPS/RPG genre)

1)Wolfenstein 3D (made the FPS known)

Someone explain why so many people bow at the alter of Valve? :?musicalmac

What do you mean? Perhaps you don't like the series, but you can't question the influence of the franchise. :P

Someone explain why so many people bow at the alter of Valve? :?musicalmac

:P

What do you mean? Perhaps you don't like the series, but you can't question the influence of the franchise. :P

Propaganda_

I would rather see people explaining why they bow at the altar of Bungie :?

:P

AdrianWerner

[QUOTE="AdrianWerner"]

What do you mean? Perhaps you don't like the series, but you can't question the influence of the franchise. :P

musicalmac

I would rather see people explaining why they bow at the altar of Bungie :?

:P

AdrianWerner

your quoting failed :)

And really..what's the point of that question anyway? It will only lead to yet another silly Valve vs Bungie flamewar. People like both because they like their games, that's it, nothing more.

But since you've asked

And how did Valve influence things? You can see their influences in pretty much every FPS right now, they've pioneered the FPS storytelling, scripted interactive sequences, made modding what it is today, spearheaded the Digital downloads revolution etc.

I also see Bungie's influences on the genre, except unlike Valve's they're all bad and just made the genre worse (I'm confident that for the genre it would be far better if Halo never was made in the first place). I consider Halo to be the most overrated game of last generation personaly and that Bungie didn't make enjoyable game in decade. Well, that's my personal feelings about them only though.

Someone explain why so many people bow at the alter of Valve? :?musicalmac