Improving the FPS Game, Obvious Solutions To A Now Stale Genre

I think we need the braindead shooters. Nothing more fun than just having fun shooting things. Yes i love getting into a deep, adventure style game with an intense plot, atmosphere and characters and the bull**** but still you need those games that are just fun. FPS is that genre. Hell, play Bulleststorm for a few hours and tell ne FPS's are stale.

I think we need the braindead shooters. Nothing more fun than just having fun shooting things. Yes i love getting into a deep, adventure style game with an intense plot, atmosphere and characters and the bull**** but still you need those games that are just fun. FPS is that genre. Hell, play Bulleststorm for a few hours and tell ne FPS's are stale.

Ilovegames1992

[QUOTE="Ilovegames1992"]

I think we need the braindead shooters. Nothing more fun than just having fun shooting things. Yes i love getting into a deep, adventure style game with an intense plot, atmosphere and characters and the bull**** but still you need those games that are just fun. FPS is that genre. Hell, play Bulleststorm for a few hours and tell ne FPS's are stale.

Palehorse2211

I wouldnt want them to become something else. FPS's are what they are. And they sell very well because of it. If you want something different try something else.

1 bullet kills do nothing for me. It's a video game, I don't need realism. I'd rather be able to take some damage and have a fighting chance. As far as teamwork...get some people to play with? Problem solved.

If you're expecting big things out of randoms, you're asking for too much.

My problem with FPS games is they start to get boring. Your character isn't evolving. I need to be earning things, tons of weapons/attachments, customization etc...FPS games with RPG elements are my favorite. So I agree with your Fallout theory. I also don't like the feel of being pushed down a linear path from one set piece to the next, the open world idea like Farcry is a good one.

FPS's don't need large open areas to explore. It will get boring and the player will often not know where to go, unless the game gives perfect directions to help them out. But not every game needs to offer choice to the player. It's cool to be able to choose what you want to do, but we have Fallout 3 for a reason. There are also other games that are set up in a similar way (I hate Fallout 3 by the way)

Perhaps a better option is Crysis 2. Open up the linear areas so players can have different options on how to perform their objectives. Do you want to sneek past the enemy? Or how about sniping? If not, just go guns blazing and shooting rocket launchers. Open worlds are great for some genres like RPG's, but many players don't like those kinds of games and prefer FPS's. Some players don't like open worlds and the FPS genre is one that doesn't rely on open worlds (usually) so it makes a great fit for those players (like me).

I like your ideas. The only suggestion I have is regarding how to get people to stick together- it's simple, really: no respawns. And a HEAVY penalty for quitting a match. If you're talking about 50 people on a side and no respawns, people are going to be scared of dying. That makes for good teammates.El_Zo1212o

Pretty much like Gears then.

And 50 people on one team on Xbox live, whhaaaaaa??

[QUOTE="El_Zo1212o"]I like your ideas. The only suggestion I have is regarding how to get people to stick together- it's simple, really: no respawns. And a HEAVY penalty for quitting a match. If you're talking about 50 people on a side and no respawns, people are going to be scared of dying. That makes for good teammates.Ilovegames1992

Pretty much like Gears then.

And 50 people on one team on Xbox live, whhaaaaaa??

[QUOTE="Ilovegames1992"]

[QUOTE="El_Zo1212o"]I like your ideas. The only suggestion I have is regarding how to get people to stick together- it's simple, really: no respawns. And a HEAVY penalty for quitting a match. If you're talking about 50 people on a side and no respawns, people are going to be scared of dying. That makes for good teammates.El_Zo1212o

Pretty much like Gears then.

And 50 people on one team on Xbox live, whhaaaaaa??

Why would you want to play a video game on multi player where if you die, say get spawn killed, you cant play for the whole game? Nobody would buy it. I dont know what people expect from an FPS but i think they're doing just fine for me atm.

Why would you want to play a video game on multi player where if you die, say get spawn killed, you cant play for the whole game? Nobody would buy it. I dont know what people expect from an FPS but i think they're doing just fine for me atm.El_Zo1212o

Me and my friends LOVED Socom 1, 2, and 3 back on the PS2. You couldn't just run around like a jackass and then mash a button to be up and running again after you die. A few shots could kill you and you got this awesome rush while playing. It was like playing chess with guns, but any wrong move would take you out of the game.

I remember sitting for minutes at a time in the dead room while watching the last guy on our team play his hardest to outsmart the last remaining players on the other team. When playing with friends there wasn't anything like it. Spectating from the dead room was actually pretty cool most of the time. You had time to discuss the next round and what tactics to try next. We even had plays that we would run for certain levels, because you could actually anticipate the enemies moves. It wasn't just a hodge-podge of random spawning madness that we have in most FPS's today.

Honestly, I'm very biased on the whole matter. These days, if it isn't a Battlefield game it pretty much sucks.

[QUOTE="El_Zo1212o"]Why would you want to play a video game on multi player where if you die, say get spawn killed, you cant play for the whole game? Nobody would buy it. I dont know what people expect from an FPS but i think they're doing just fine for me atm.chasingmaynard

Me and my friends LOVED Socom 1, 2, and 3 back on the PS2. You couldn't just run around like a jackass and then mash a button to be up and running again after you die. A few shots could kill you and you got this awesome rush while playing. It was like playing chess with guns, but any wrong move would take you out of the game.

I remember sitting for minutes at a time in the dead room while watching the last guy on our team play his hardest to outsmart the last remaining players on the other team. When playing with friends there wasn't anything like it. Spectating from the dead room was actually pretty cool most of the time. You had time to discuss the next round and what tactics to try next. We even had plays that we would run for certain levels, because you could actually anticipate the enemies moves. It wasn't just a hodge-podge of random spawning madness that we have in most FPS's today.

Honestly, I'm very biased on the whole matter. These days, if it isn't a Battlefield game it pretty much sucks.

But this hardcore tactical game wouldnt work anyway if you had 20 plus guys and only 3 of you had a mic. Me personally, i like both, i like a bit of tactical, slow paced realistic shooters and the run and gun shooters. Both have their strengths and weaknesses. But i know i couldnt wait the whole game until i get another go that is pretty silly.

But this hardcore tactical game wouldnt work anyway if you had 20 plus guys and only 3 of you had a mic. Me personally, i like both, i like a bit of tactical, slow paced realistic shooters and the run and gun shooters. Both have their strengths and weaknesses. But i know i couldnt wait the whole game until i get another go that is pretty silly.Ilovegames1992

Well the thing was that Socom was the first shooter to come with a mic and really use it well for consoles, so everyone was talking back then. That, coupled with the necessity of tactics in the game, made for some good matches and clans.

Back then it was normal to do the waiting. When trying to play it now (a few months ago with my buddies who haven't updated themselves), the flawed controls and weak response time made it unplayable.

actually, I miss the good old days when people talked in games and tried to socialize and have some teamwork, nowadays it's all parties everywheredoubalfa

Yeah, Socom was awesome at first. Then people would just hold the button down to speak and just blurt out crap. That is when I learned that the gaming population really has some whacko's in it.

Wall of text. Smaller paragraphs friend...

Off of your title alone I'd say Crysis 2.
(it just needs some polishing)

Call of Duty has ruined the FPS Genre, now its such a cash cow all companies want their FPS Product to appeal to the COD-Player Demographic, This means most FPS games have been Arcad-e-fied. I want a gritty down-to-earth FPS with a long SP, Good Multiplayer and with weapons that don't kill in 3 Bullets(BF got that right). But heck, maybe my requirements for a perfect game are too steep...especially with Bobby Kotick in the game industry.DeX2010

Not really COD's fault. Blame Activision if anything.

I'd like big games with no respawns, but only if there was a way to revive people, and no penalty for quitting once you were dead. I'd also like there to be AI teammates (think Battlefront) so that one camper couldn't sit in an obscure corner for two hours.

Wow, that's a long read. I was beginning to think I was the only one who thought the genre was in desperate need of change. I'm more disappointed by every game that comes out that just has the same CoD-style multiplayer. I'm really tired of small maps packed with campers, everyone only using assault rifles because it's too small to snipe and shotguns have stupidly unrealistic range. I love using vehicles, and sniping, and for either of those you have to have a big map. I think Battlefield 2 did a great job of balancing multiplayer. The maps were just the right size. Every weapon and every vehicle was useful if you knew how to use it.

What if instead, they had just designed a large map much like Fallout 3 and filled it with points of interest? Instead of going on missions to vanquish the enemy the player can just find an abandon building to hole up in. At that point the player must struggle to survive. Find fresh water and food and gather weapons. Of course the landscape of the map would be regularly patrolled by KPA military and there would be military strong holds at various locations. The player could survive by ambushing unsuspecting KPA units and taking their weapons and food. There might be human slavers living an old abandon department store and the player might decide that they need to be dispatched. Of course that would also mean collecting more equipment to make life a little easier. You could program the game so that a small group of followers live, work and survive with the player, but I would say no more than five. Together they could take out KPA or other various bad guys around the world in which they live. In essence the game becomes open ended and while there would still be a storyline to follow if the player wanted to, there would also be countless hours of roaming the war torn suburbs in search of food, weapons and friends, even still functioning vehicles.Palehorse2211

I think this is a great idea for a game, and I've had a few similar ideas myself. It seems like this is what Red Faction: Guerilla was trying to be, but it didn't quite work out. There wes just too much open space and not enough to fill it. I'd like to see this type of game in a large, modern city. The idea also kind of reminds me of Freedom Fighters.

Either eliminate sniper rifles altogether or limit them to say 1 sniper per team during an online match.Palehorse2211

Removing sniper rifles entirely would suck. I love sniping, as do many people. I would be really disappointed if I got a large, open world shooter and there was no sniper rifle. If there was only one sniper, how is it decided who it is? The real solution for this problem is map design. If a team of snipers can dominate the map, it's a bad map. You have to make the map so that sniping spots can be flanked, so a sniper would need a teammate to watch their back while they snipe. Even with a teammate, a well placed grenade could take care of the problem.

What about 50 per team? What if you had 100 guys in a single online match at a time, none of them could snipe you and the map was an equivalent to say 600 acres of land? Now that would be some interesting online play. Of course, given my fondness for Battlefield 2, I would be in favor of vehicles. Everything from ATV's to main battle tanks and of course helicopters. I could even see including troop carrying helicopters like the Blackhawk so that a team could carry 8 or 10 guys to the far side of the battlefield in a hurry. Watch out for those shoulder fired missiles though.Palehorse2211

I think that's what MAG for PS3 is supposed to be, but I don't really know anything about it. I'm sure I would if it were half as epic as that sounds. I don't think this is even possible to do well yet with how slow internet is in most places. There would be too much lag. When 50+ mb/s connections are widely available, maybe.

what if one team was in a convoy of vehicles and their mission was to cross the map from one side to the other and the other team had to ambush and stop them from reaching their objective. Sounds easy right? Ambush the convoy, no problem. But the convoy is all M1 Abrams tanks and a couple Humvees and they have three helicopters flying air cover for them. Not so easy now. This forces teams to work together and in my opinion makes the online play more interesting than just run and gun. This is just one scenario. Others might be things like taking down an enemy fuel depot but the depot is heavily fortified and massive in size. You could rescue a downed American pilot but it's not certain where he is being held and the location changes from one time to the next so players are not always sure where to go. The idea is to give both teams a collective goal to achieve and in so doing encourage them to work as a team. As I said, not everyone will be a joiner but the game could be designed in such a way that the lone wolf guys find it very difficult to be dominant at online play. Sooner or later they will wise up and work with their team members.Palehorse2211

Hell yes. One thing fps's really need is original new gametypes like this. It would be so awesome, hiding in a building on the side of the road with a rocket launcher, waiting for the convoy to get close. Or using vehicles to make a roadblock, and trap them in the street while teammates hit them from all sides. Just thinking about it makes me realize how boring run-aimlessly-and-shoot-everything-that-moves type games are. Even objective gametypes are boring. Static objectives mean there can only be so much variation between matches. If it's in a different place every match, or, moves during the match like a convoy, it would add variation that is desperately needed in the genre.

P.S. Please use the Enter key more often. Makes it a lot easier to read.

couldnt agree more - this stale genre is just eating the industry - we are in dire need of some reinvention