What makes or breaks a First Person Shooter?

Basically I mean what makes a Fps great or what makes a Fps bad. Thanks:)

60fps

and a big budget for advertising

What makes one? Interesting and rock solid gameplay. Versatility. Freedom of choices.

What brakes it? Bugs. Broken gameplay/engine. Pointless and boring rail shooting (CoD campaigns. Also BFBC2's campaign. Both good online). Lack of features.

Being good.

Most important thing is shooting mechanics if that's what you're wondering. Next to level/map design.

What makes a FPS good? A game in a series that comes out every 4+ years and does something to improve and move the genre forward with every iteration. So basically, not very many released this generation (STALKER, Crysis, Portal and TF2 and a bunch of those community-built mods like Red Orchestra being the only ones that come to mind).

heavy scripting breaks for it me, infinite spawning enemies etc

60fps

and a big budget for advertising

HaloinventedFPS

Worst answer ever...

But to answer your question.

I think in FPS it all boils down to the feel of the gunplay. You need to feel that it is awesome to handle the weapon, aim and shoot with it. You to get a semi sadistic feeling of satisfaction when you take your enemies down with a barrage of bullets.

Not to say that story, AI, level design (and all that good stuff) is not important but if the basic gunplay is dull an FPS is doomed.

heavy scripting breaks for it me, infinite spawning enemies etc

kate_jones

agree on scripting, but infinite spawning depends on a game. in Far Cry 2 it sucked big time, but it works in L4D.

One thing that breaks the enjoyment factor for me nowadays is the whole unlock /leveling/shorten classes. Bring back the sniper class, the assault class, the support class, the medic class and the engineer class. It seems today they just remove them and anybody can be a sniper with medic packs or ammo packs. There doesn't seem to be anymore games that require certain team functions.

The unlock/leveling system I think is also hurting FPS games now with getting bonuses or unlocking more powerful weapons. You either get the default gun or like older titles you run around in the levels picking up the more powerful gun.

I guess I've been spoiled with Counter Strike, Day of Defeat and early Battlefield titles over the years that most games today don't seem to bring that fun factor anymore or I loose interest more quickly.

One thing that breaks the enjoyment factor for me nowadays is the whole unlock /leveling/shorten classes. Bring back the sniper class, the assault class, the support class, the medic class and the engineer class. It seems today they just remove them and anybody can be a sniper with medic packs or ammo packs. There doesn't seem to be anymore games that require certain team functions.

The unlock/leveling system I think is also hurting FPS games now with getting bonuses or unlocking more powerful weapons. You either get the default gun or like older titles you run around in the levels picking up the more powerful gun.

I guess I've been spoiled with Counter Strike, Day of Defeat and early Battlefield titles over the years that most games today don't seem to bring that fun factor anymore or I loose interest more quickly.

xXDrPainXx

i personally love unlocks and leveling. it's not like those basic weapons are useless in BC2 for example and you can collect those unlocks pretty fast anyway. i agree that class balance is a bit off in it, though...

it does suck that key class items are unlockables like med kit, defibs, repair tool and stuff. that's just wrong.

What makes a fps? Linear heavy scripting and good story. What breaks an fps? Big enviroments with big maps, nonlinearity and health packs.dakan45

A good multiplayer to resort to once you have strolled through the SP campaign.

Sword Fighting makes a FPS.

Honestly i think abit of variation matters most to what we expect off a FPS. If it plays like every other FPS then it feels generic. This is probaly why i liked the Sword Fighting in Redsteel 2and its probaly my FPS of this year (buying Bioschock soon so might change). Multi-player doesnt matter to much to me as i prefer single player games the majority of the time but i can see why people have preference to Multi-player with FPS. Controls matter also, If it controls like Stephen Hawkins attempting a mexican wave then i'd rather not play the game at all. if the game has too many cutscenes i get bored easiely *cough* black ops.

What makes a fps? Linear heavy scripting and good story. What breaks an fps? Big enviroments with big maps, nonlinearity and health packs.dakan45

What makes a fps? Linear heavy scripting and good story. What breaks an fps? Big enviroments with big maps, nonlinearity and health packs.dakan45

What makes a fps? Linear heavy scripting and good story. What breaks an fps? Big enviroments with big maps, nonlinearity and health packs.dakan45

[QUOTE="dakan45"]What makes a fps? Linear heavy scripting and good story. What breaks an fps? Big enviroments with big maps, nonlinearity and health packs.foxhound_fox

Oh and for the record i liked cod4's Pripyat far more than anything i saw in stalker's version of Chernobyl.It felt so weak with such big lack of atmopshere.

Oh and for the record i liked cod4's Pripyat far more than anything i saw in stalker's version of Chernobyl.It felt so weak with such big lack of atmopshere.

dakan45

[QUOTE="dakan45"][QUOTE="mo0ksi"] It's highly unfortunate that you're not joking.mo0ksi

Again its highly unfortunate that you choose to reply in such dissrespectfull way but with some of the replies here, i wouldnt bother so much. One guy said that sword fighting makes a fps beter. Why dont you choose to quote him instead of me?

Really? Is that why people buy those games? Because of the "sad state" the fps are nowadays or simply because they like them and you dont like it so you have to argue about it? As for the fps nowadays, there is a reason fps have changed to the way they are.That certainly is not because health packs>health regeneration and so on with the rest of the points. Who are you to argue on the opposite when THAT type of fps sell and not the ones you are pointing out.

That being said i have nothing else to say to you till you learn to respect the poster you quote rather mocking him.

Really... STALKER, lacking atmosphere? :lol:

foxhound_fox

Well, yeah, cod4's version of chernobyl certainly had a better atmosphere and feeling. That is a fact. Now on stalker, cant say i find anything impressive in the series including atmosphere.

dakan45

[QUOTE="mo0ksi"][QUOTE="dakan45"] It highly unfortanute that you think that and choose to reply in that way. Anyway with some of the replies i am reading and the irony in those replies, i cant possibly take any of this serious.dakan45

Again its highly unfortunate that you choose to reply in such dissrespectfull way but with some of the replies here, i wouldnt bother so much. One guy said that sword fighting makes a fps beter. Why dont you choose to quote him instead of me?

Really? Is that why people buy those games? Because of the "sad state" the fps are nowadays or simply because they like them and you dont like it so you have to argue about it? As for the fps nowadays, there is a reason fps have changed to the way they are.That certainly is not because health packs>health regeneration and so on with the rest of the points. Who are you to argue on the opposite when THAT type of fps sell and not the ones you are pointing out.

That being said i have nothing else to say to you till you learn to respect the poster you quote rather mocking him.

Sword Fighting in Redsteel 2 was good, It added a new dimension to FPS. Rather than just blowing away an enemy you can hack'em to death.

He can quote me if he likes but his opinion wont matter if he hasnt played the game to give a opinion.

[QUOTE="dakan45"]Well, yeah, cod4's version of chernobyl certainly had a better atmosphere and feeling. That is a fact. Now on stalker, cant say i find anything impressive in the series including atmosphere.

foxhound_fox

From what i have been told (not played the game) that Stalkers atmosphere rivals my favourite games ever which is Metroid Prime Trilogy. So i have to say the person doesnt know what hes on about.

From what i have been told (not played the game) that Stalkers atmosphere rivals my favourite games ever which is Metroid Prime Trilogy. So i have to say the person doesnt know what hes on about.

Dibdibdobdobo

[QUOTE="Dibdibdobdobo"]

From what i have been told (not played the game) that Stalkers atmosphere rivals my favourite games ever which is Metroid Prime Trilogy. So i have to say the person doesnt know what hes on about.

foxhound_fox

Too poor to buy a good pc to find out myself lol. Heard its quality game with brilliant atmosphere.

Again its highly unfortunate that you choose to reply in such dissrespectfull way but with some of the replies here, i wouldnt bother so much. One guy said that sword fighting makes a fps beter. Why dont you choose to quote him instead of me?

Really? Is that why people buy those games? Because of the "sad state" the fps are nowadays or simply because they like them and you dont like it so you have to argue about it? As for the fps nowadays, there is a reason fps have changed to the way they are.That certainly is not because health packs>health regeneration and so on with the rest of the points. Who are you to argue on the opposite when THAT type of fps sell and not the ones you are pointing out.

That being said i have nothing else to say to you till you learn to respect the poster you quote rather mocking him.

dakan45

Now you're implying that popularity = quality, and that it's okay for the genre to remain in complete stasis because, you know, it's what the general audience wants, right? Pardon me, but that mindset is absurd.

I highly doubt you played STALKER long enough to even see its version of Pripyat.

You clearly have no idea what "atmosphere" entails.

foxhound_fox

I finished all games. and i KNOW what atmosphere is. Condemned had the best atmosphere ever in game. Hell if you had a good sound system you could hear some whispers that you cant hear with normal speakers. That alone increased the atmosphere. Stalker on the other hand...not impressive at all. Neither visually or in sound. Isnt it awesome how you can disregard someones opinion because his experiance on what is good and what is not is completly diffirent thant your own? Besides gameplay is just a feeling. There is no best and worst as fact. I tend not to argue with people with your perspective. I find it closed minded and disrespectfull. I like having and open mind and understand and respect the other user's opinion on what is what.

From what i have been told (not played the game) that Stalkers atmosphere rivals my favourite games ever which is Metroid Prime Trilogy. So i have to say the person doesnt know what hes on about.

Dibdibdobdobo

Gunplay. If it's a modern or historic FPS, then weapons list comes after that.

[...]. and i KNOW what atmosphere is. Condemned had the best atmosphere ever in game. Hell if you had a good sound system you could hear some whispers that you cant hear with normal speakers. That alone increased the atmosphere. Stalker on the other hand...not impressive at all. [...]

dakan45

[QUOTE="foxhound_fox"]Really... STALKER, lacking atmosphere? :lol:

dakan45

[QUOTE="dakan45"]

Again its highly unfortunate that you choose to reply in such dissrespectfull way but with some of the replies here, i wouldnt bother so much. One guy said that sword fighting makes a fps beter. Why dont you choose to quote him instead of me?

Really? Is that why people buy those games? Because of the "sad state" the fps are nowadays or simply because they like them and you dont like it so you have to argue about it? As for the fps nowadays, there is a reason fps have changed to the way they are.That certainly is not because health packs>health regeneration and so on with the rest of the points. Who are you to argue on the opposite when THAT type of fps sell and not the ones you are pointing out.

That being said i have nothing else to say to you till you learn to respect the poster you quote rather mocking him.

mo0ksi

Now you're implying that popularity = quality, and that it's okay for the genre to remain in complete stasis because, you know, it's what the general audience wants, right? Pardon me, but that mindset is absurd.

[QUOTE="dakan45"]

[QUOTE="foxhound_fox"]Really... STALKER, lacking atmosphere? :lol:

Verge_6

Link

also remember that COD4 also came out that year and didnt even make it into the Best Atmosphere category

Are we talking about SP or MP?

Mostly it comes down to the shooting mechanics. If the guns are fun to shoot, Id say thats a good start. As for SP, atmosphere definitely makes a difference (Half Life 2, Bioshock, Metroid Prime)

[QUOTE="dakan45"][...]. and i KNOW what atmosphere is. Condemned had the best atmosphere ever in game. Hell if you had a good sound system you could hear some whispers that you cant hear with normal speakers. That alone increased the atmosphere. Stalker on the other hand...not impressive at all. [...]

foxhound_fox

Stalker on the other hand...not impressive at all. Neither visually or in sound. Isnt it awesome how you can disregard someones opinion because his experiance on what is good and what is not is completly diffirent thant your own?

dakan45

Saying COD4 has better atmosphere than STALKER is pretty much proof there is such a thing as a bad/wrong opinion.

"To hell with progression" Kinda what gamedevelopers did once they realized that the amazing ai in fear was not what pushed the genre further and pretty much the same with "non linearity" on games such as far cry 2.

Yet even EA decided to make the nex moh game as a linear scripted generic game rather a nonlinear non generic game like airborne. See a pattern here? Its mostly what the market want. Which equals to what gamers want. You may make the most advanced game ever but if people dont like it, then you have failed as a developer. Besides most of us pc gamers are stuck back in the 90s and disregard all the new games.

Yes i like playing doom and half life more than say cod or hl2 or crysis or stalker or whatever new fps is outhere but endlessly hyping those "old kind of shooters" we have been playing all those years and refuse to like enjoy the new ones, does not really do anything. We just praise old forgotten games, and games will never be like them again. So we can might as well try to enjoy the "Bad state" fps are nowadays.

I think this argument is settled.dakan45

I must say, I admire how you desperately defend your warped opinions.

[QUOTE="dakan45"]

Stalker on the other hand...not impressive at all. Neither visually or in sound. Isnt it awesome how you can disregard someones opinion because his experiance on what is good and what is not is completly diffirent thant your own?

Juken7

Saying COD4 has better atmosphere than STALKER is pretty much proof there is such a thing as a bad/wrong opinion.

That is a difficult question actually, it dephends on the game to be honest. But the one most important thing for any shooter is the gunplay, but that doesnt mean a FPS is bad if the gunplay is bad. Half Life 2 had pretty poor gunplay and yet that is considered to be one of the best games of all time.

For me, I cant stand insultinginly linear, generic campaigns with an uninspired multiplayer.

I believe linear well scripted fps are better than nonlinear borring ones and there is nothing wrong with that.dakan45

no, nothing wrong with that, but i also disagree.

for story and scripted action scenes, i go see a movie. when i'm gaming, i wan't to play myself not having someone holding my hand all the time.

CoDs' and BFBCs campaigns suck, but i don't care; they are more about multiplayer. that's where they shine.

for singleplayer, i prefer games like Crysis and Stalker.

And tell me, how well was Medal of Honor recieved? It was criticized for those exact same reasons.

I must say, I admire how you desperately defend your warped opinions.

mo0ksi

There is a thing called quality that most people like you seem to dissregard just because a game has big maps, nolinearity, etc,etc and be convinced that linearity and scripted gameplay is always what is the bad gameplay. But the truth is a game can be good or bad for what it does. Take boiling point for example, its a perfect example of a game with alot of stuff but so horribly made that its not a good game not even in the slightest. Thats how moh was. It tried to copy cod's greatness but it was done so badly. I believe thats the problem with you. You cant understand "quality" you can only understand the amound of features rather how well they are done and this how well a game is.

That is a difficult question actually, it dephends on the game to be honest. But the one most important thing for any shooter is the gunplay, but that doesnt mean a FPS is bad if the gunplay is bad. Half Life 2 had pretty poor gunplay and yet that is considered to be one of the best games of all time.

For me, I cant stand insultinginly linear, generic campaigns with an uninspired multiplayer.

Maroxad

[QUOTE="dakan45"]I believe linear well scripted fps are better than nonlinear borring ones and there is nothing wrong with that.groowagon

no, nothing wrong with that, but i also disagree.

for story and scripted action scenes, i go see a movie. when i'm gaming, i wan't to play myself not having someone holding my hand all the time.

Yet it did so much better than the previous moh game, and besides, it was criticized for the same reasons but because it tried to copy cod and it did it terrible while cod is the best in what it does. We talking about a deathboring camapain and filled with script holes and bugs. It did what cod did but terribly. Pretty much like saying that Boiling point did what stalker did but soooo terribly.

There is a thing called quality that most people like you seem to dissregard just because a game has big maps, nolinearity, etc,etc and be convinced that linearity and scripted gameplay is always what is the bad gameplay. But the truth is a game can be good or bad for what it does. Take boiling point for example, its a perfect example of a game with alot of stuff but so horribly made that its not a good game not even in the slightest. Thats how moh was. It tried to copy cod's greatness but it was done so badly. I believe thats the problem with you. You cant understand "quality" you can only understand the amound of features rather how well they are done and this how well a game is.

dakan45

I love how you what I regard and or disregard. Mind you, I liked Modern Warfare, World at War, Black Ops, and even Modern Warfare 2. But they're still part of the reason why the genre is at a standstill, because the complete lack of progression in its core game.

Crysis & STALKER are the only two games this gen to progress core shooter gameplay, not necessarily because of their non-linearity, but also through the introduction of unique elements and mechanics that are well-incorporated into its core game. Those extra features are nice contributions to the overall result. But they're not what makes their respective games progressive.