Support NeoGAF

[kvn]

EDGE posted an article yesterday in which DICE general manager Karl Magnus Troedsson tries to give some answers on the question whether the FPS genre is stagnating and what could be done about it.

His answer is basically: technology, spectacle, revolutionary or at least evolutionary steps of rendering with each new game (or people will start to lose interest).

I don't agree with this, but the article is somewhat unclear anyway.

Excerpts:

[...]DICE general manager Karl Magnus Troedsson has criticised the lack of innovation present in many firstperson shooters today, believing that too few studios take the need for technical evolution seriously.[...]

[...]"If they don't see some kind of new, if not revolutionary then at least evolutionary, step of rendering in every game they will start to lose interest.[...]"

Perhaps the most "important" part:

[...]That propensity toward trends at the mainstream end of the market, rather than a greater diversity of themes, is, of course, what many critics of the genre would point to as its major problem. But it's hard to begrudge big-budget teams' need to minimise risk in the face of a cripplingly conservative buying public. And while Troedsson acknowledges that more needs to be done, spectacle remains high on his list of priorites.[...]"I think it's our responsibility as game developers to always push ourselves when it comes to the experience of games," [...]

Experience. I hate that word.

 

[Dabanton]

cripplingly conservative buying public

Right about that. And not just for FPS games.

For me 'experience' can be strung off into other areas I love the full scale sense of battle in BF games but even those need a severe overhauling. Each match is unique in the sense that you can do crazy shit.

But there is a serious lack of teamwork involved in most of these games.

 

[Gravijah]

first person shooters need good gunplay not graphics.

 

[TomJoadsGhost]

gotta have faith...

 

[Fersis]

DICE has been always a technology driven studio. ie: The last BFs being focused on Destruction tech and stuff like that.

 

[Derrick01]

More graphics and tech will only make things worse in the FPS genre. They need to move towards more open gameplay instead of on rails garbage.

 

[Sethos]

first person shooters need good gunplay not graphics.

First person shooters need to be more clean and competitive focused, not like Battlefield 3s clusterfuck lé grande with the worst hit detection in recent gaming memory. Where are all the good Counter-Strike "successors"? where are the games with focus on improving hit detection? where are the games with a gun and a player, not perks, bonuses, streaks, claymores, iWin buttons, helicopters and complete clusterfuck?

 

[Gravijah]

First person shooters need to be more clean and competitive focused, not like Battlefield 3s clusterfuck lé grande with the worst hit detection in recent gaming memory.

i disagree, but i don't play FPS online. i play them nearly exclusively for the single player.

 

[Moaradin]

First person shooters need to be more clean and competitive focused, not like Battlefield 3s clusterfuck lé grande with the worst hit detection in recent gaming memory.

Hit detection in BF3 is great now.

 

[CecilRousso]

The only FPS I play is TF2, and that is a five year old game that constantly suprises me and manages to feel fresh and innovative.

 

[Sethos]

Hit detection is great now.

No, just no. They had great hit detection during the early alpha with Server-side, then it moved to client-side and went downhill from there.

 

[Dabanton]

No, just no.

It does 'seem' better put the game on for the first time in a few weeks and I was nailing most of my shots from distance as well.

 

[Moaradin]

No, just no.

It's true. They recently added an option that improves it greatly. I've been playing BF3 recently after a very long break and there is absolutely nothing wrong with it anymore.

 

[infinityBCRT]

I'd love to see an open-world Call of Duty or Battlefield game.

 

[Goldmund]

The most limiting aspect of an FPS is that last letter: it's a shooter. You interact with the world by shooting it. If you want something other than stagnation, leave out the guns and make the world something more than a destined receiver of bullets. I personally don't think that is necessary. Genres don't have to go somewhere where they stop being their genre.

 

[Sethos]

It does 'seem' better put the game on for the first time in a few weeks and I was nailing most of my shots from distance as well.

Still doesn't make it good because you get a few kills. The game's hit detection is atrocious, even when everyone has a decent ping and you've turned down network smoothing factor to turn down the animation buffer - You'll still regularly see players kill each other simultaneously due to the delay, you'll see shots travel right through players with no damage, delayed death that make it look like you damage a player to death but in reality you died miliseconds earlier making 40% of your shots fired not count and the list goes on. Shooters need to get one thing straight before anything else; the shooting. That means gunplay and netcode related issues. So few shooters get that combo right.

A game like CS became super popular because it was basic but what it did, it got right - Haven't seen a clean, competitive FPS game with a decent hit detection ever since pretty much.

 

[Barack Lesnar]

first person shooters need good gunplay not graphics.

Wrong, they need both. Immersion, which is boosted by good graphics, adds just as much to the game as good gunplay, if not more.

Still doesn't make it good because you get a few kills. The game's hit detection is atrocious, even when everyone has a decent ping and you've turned down network smoothing factor to turn down the animation buffer - You'll still regularly see players kill each other simultaneously due to the delay, you'll see shots travel right through players with no damage, delayed death that make it look like you damage a player to death but in reality you died miliseconds earlier making 40% of your shots fired not count and the last goes on.

Several people have told you the hit detection has greatly improved and is pretty much perfect now. Why keep doubling-down on your stance instead of just acknowledging they're probably right and moving on? You don't always have to be right on the Internet.

 

[Sethos]

Several people have told you the hit detection has greatly improved and is pretty much perfect now. Why keep doubling-down on your stance instead of just acknowledging they're probably right and moving on? You don't always have to be right on the Internet.

Told me? I'm actually playing the game, I'm maintaining an above-average K/D ratio and I've played competitive games for years, at tournament level so I actually know how it feels. Anyone who's actually halfway decent at shooters will attest to Battlefields wonky hit detection, hit up the BF3 OT and ask for yourself. Game has a lot of redeeming qualities sure but that aspect shouldn't be dismissed nor is it very good. It's a new awful trend in shooters after the introduction of client-side hit detection.

And when did they improve this? It's still client side hit detection, still suffers from all its inherent issues ... Only change was the addition of network smoothing factor in the options menu.

 

[Stallion Free]

It's true. They recently added an option that improves it greatly. I've been playing BF3 recently after a very long break and there is absolutely nothing wrong with it anymore.

Did they stealth patch it in the last 3 weeks?

 

[zephervack]

Hit detection in BF3 is great now.

Getting killed after being behind cover says otherwise.

Also, the destruction in BF3 sucks, BC2 was way better.

 

[Sojgat]

Well, a game like Syndicate which had a few new ideas and great execution didn't sell, maybe if it had competitive MP it might have helped. I don't really know the answer to these problems, I'm sure somebody does. Maybe add more flashlights?

 

[Mr. Poolman]

Creative gameplay is against FPS stagnation

 

[Metalmurphy]

First person shooters need to be more clean and competitive focused, not like Battlefield 3s clusterfuck lé grande with the worst hit detection in recent gaming memory. Where are all the good Counter-Strike "successors"? where are the games with focus on improving hit detection? where are the games with a gun and a player, not perks, bonuses, streaks, claymores, iWin buttons, helicopters and complete clusterfuck?

You obviously haven't played the previous Battlefields.

Also some people do enjoy Battlefield 3s "clusterfuck". It's fucking war, not everything needs to be aimed towards eSports.

Also, the destruction in BF3 sucks, BC2 was way better.

No it wasn't.

 

[HocusPocus]

Problem with FPS's is that the storylines normally suck. There is the issue.

 

[Danny Dudekisser]

What's going to "save" the FPS isn't going to be better technology, it's going to be better designers.

Which, based on Battlefield 3's single player... DICE ain't got.

 

[LiquidSolid]

Oh yeah, prettier explosions would totally turn around a now stagnating, repetitive and boring genre.

Prettier graphics is a gimmick and even if it does work, it's only a temporary fix. The problem is with the game design itself. If they really want to beat Call of Duty, how about they try something new.

 

[Stallion Free]

Well, a game like Syndicate which had a few new ideas and great execution didn't sell, maybe if it had competitive MP it might have helped. I don't really know the answer to these problems, I'm sure somebody does. Maybe add more flashlights?

They should have marketed Syndicate as a co-op game rather than a story-based single player FPS. The single-player sucked terribly and the one round of co-op I have played so far already blew it away.

Though pushing co-op would have required ongoing support from EA, something they aren't interested in doing when they send a product out to die.

 

[zephervack]

You obviously haven't played the previous Battlefields.

Also some people do enjoy Battlefield 3s "clusterfuck". It's fucking war, not everything needs to be aimed towards eSports.




No it wasn't.

In BC2 you could level every building in some of the maps, seeing before/after pictures of Arica Harbor after a 1000 ticket match is amazing.

I havent seen anything like that in Bf3, hell only some of the walls are actually destructible

 

[Sethos]

You obviously haven't played the previous Battlefields.

Also some people do enjoy Battlefield 3s "clusterfuck". It's fucking war, not everything needs to be aimed towards eSports.

Battlefield 3s snipers everywhere, tanks with F1 based turret turning, helicopter raping, spawn system hell has fuck all to do with war, go play ArmA 2 for that.

I'm not talking about an eSport game, talking about a game with core mechanics that are spot-in and THEN you can add all the clusterfuck on top in separate modes etc. for the full effect. It's about polishing the core experience instead of putting that on the bottom of the to-do list.

 

[Mr. Poolman]

Problem with FPS's is that the storylines normally suck. There is the issue.

But you can have a FPS with no story and still be a fun, entertaining game. UT99 I'm looking at you.

 

[Metalmurphy]

Battlefield 3s snipers everywhere, tanks with F1 based turret turning, helicopter raping, spawn system hell has fuck all to do with war, go play ArmA 2 for that.

No, I rather play BF3 for that, cause Arma is boring as fuck and BF3 is incredibly fun.


Also, snipers everywhere? What? lol

 

[Visualante2]

Hilarious.. people clamouring for a better singleplayer campaign in Battlefield of all things. They're never going to do anything original there and if they did it should be a different product line.

 

[zephervack]

No, I rather play BF3 for that, cause Arma is boring as fuck.


Also, snipers everywhere? What? lol

Yeah thats wrong, there are barely any snipers in BF3 because they are completely unbalanced, its a no fun to play class unlike BC2 where it was a blast to play with any class.

 

[Stallion Free]

Hilarious.. people clamouring for a better singleplayer campaign in Battlefield of all things. They're never going to do anything original there and if they did it should be a different product line.

I don't need original, I would just like a campaign that has decent scripting (that doesn't break and doesn't look downright crude).

Both singleplayer and co-op felt really half-baked overall.

 

[legacyzero]

Getting killed after being behind cover says otherwise.

Also, the destruction in BF3 sucks, BC2 was way better.

I'm not sure destruction was was really the main focus this time around. Although it's still amazing.

Hilarious.. people clamouring for a better singleplayer campaign in Battlefield of all things. They're never going to do anything original there and if they did it should be a different product line.

Did you PLAY the BF3 campaign? So much promise. Such half assed delivery. They seriously could have put some more thought into it. Not that I want to post something meant for the BF vs COD bullshit thread, but at least COD has some well-thought-out story and pacing.

BF3's campaign was......"what...?"

 

[2MF]

I don't feel that technology prevents stagnation in FPS games these days. There was a time when it did (when Quake 1 and its QuakeWorld client were launched and before that).

Up to Quake 1 there were revolutionary changes such as full 3D maps and models, the ability to mod and robust online play. Quake 2 and Quake 3 were already minor improvements, and the same goes for every new FPS.

In fact I would say that FPs games have been getting worse since Quake 3 came out, as the following video shows:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W1ZtBCpo0eU

 

[Lactose_Intolerant]

Loco, make better single player. You can do it!

 

[Anteater]

first person shooters need good gunplay not graphics.

They need to be more immersive, camera should be more zoomed in so I could take a good look at my buddy's manly chest.

 

[OmegaTreeFish]

Graphics are nice and all but I don't think they immerse me more. BF3 looks better than BFBC2 but I still prefer the latter because its played better and I was just as immersed. I think as long as the graphics look nice enough the rest has to be down to the gameplay. Its a first person shooter.... shootings what its all about and that's what needs to be improved.

New gameplay mechanics (maybe sliding to cover, better suppression mechanics or stuff like that) would add a lot more than nicer visuals. For me at least.

Im also one of the people that prefer the destruction in BC2 over BF3. I don't care if BF3's is more realistic in some ways, BC2's was more fun.

What people need to do is make a shooter that doesn't feel exactly like CoD or BF.

Resistance on vita feels like cod but reskinned. Its fun but only in short bursts. It has a few nice differences but they are simply in the weapon second firing modes which most people ignore anyway.

Also battlefield needs to add more to its team work mechanics as that is what made it good. The BC series with no commander kind of made sense on the consoles but I would prefer they brought that back. BF3 didn't have the same team work feel that BC2 had and so it was a step down for me...... but hay it looked pretty so...........

 

[Sethos]

Also, snipers everywhere? What? lol

Yes, I play something magical called Hardcore mode where snipers are quite powerful thus cover every corner in the game. And before you got some cheeky comment about playing softcore, that's even worse, basically makes the game unplayable.

And you're right, we can't all be patiently inclined to enjoy a tactical shooter - MOAR PEW PEW NAW.

 

[Metalmurphy]

In BC2 you could level every building in some of the maps, seeing before/after pictures of Arica Harbor after a 1000 ticket match is amazing.

I havent seen anything like that in Bf3, hell only some of the walls are actually destructible

You can still completely level some buildings in BF3, the only reason you can't level all of them is for obvious gameplay design choices. But despite that every building has WAY more points of destruction then BC2 did and the destruction is more detailed.

Yes, I play something magical called Hardcore mode where snipers are quite powerful thus cover every corner in the game. And before you got some cheeky comment about playing softcore, that's even worse, basically makes the game unplayable.

Where exactly are you playing? On PC that's absolute bullshit, both hardcore and softcore. I can join any server and there's a 99% chance that sniper is the least represented class.

 

[zephervack]

I'm not sure destruction was was really the main focus this time around. Although it's still amazing.



Did you PLAY the BF3 campaign? So much promise. Such half assed delivery. They seriously could have put some more thought into it. Not that I want to post something meant for the BF vs COD bullshit thread, but at least COD has some well-thought-out story and pacing.

BF3's campaign was......"what...?"

Yeah the destruction is pretty cool compared to any other FPS franchise, its just not better than their old game, which is weird to me.

 

[Stallion Free]

Oh yeah, shit on screen =/= immersion.

I hope someone at Dice figured that out. Sunglass DLC would probably sell amazingly.

 

[Sethos]

Where exactly are you playing? On PC that's absolute bullshit, both hardcore and softcore. I can join any server and there's a 99% chance that sniper is the least represented class.

Oh yes, you got the finger on the pulse for every server worldwide. I have the exact opposite experience on Danish, German and Swedish servers.

 

[mclaren777]

I would love to talk to Karl Magnus Troedsson about this trend...

 

[Fallout-NL]

I love Battlefield 3.

 

[Metalmurphy]

Oh yes, you got the finger on the pulse for every server worldwide. I have the exact opposite experience on Danish, German and Swedish servers.

My filters are set to all countries in Europe, I have no idea which countries I join besides that, I just know that Snipers everywhere is the exact opposite of how I'd describe BF3.

I would love to talk to Karl Magnus Troedsson about this trend...

[]http://i.minus.com/iURYuHArMpY2y.png[/]

BF3 > BC2

 

[Dabanton]

Well this thread certainly went places

In regards to SP, Battlefield Bad Company 1 had what I though DICE and EA would build on an open world play area with objectives to get to. BC2 reined that in a bit and I shudder to think what they'll do if we get a third part.

BF3 SP is an embarrassment and reeks of deadline day. A few inspired encounters but most of it is like a FPS SP parody.

 

[kvn]

Oh god what have I started. A stealth BF3 discussion thread.

 

[JaseC]

This should have been a "roundtable" question: DICE, Valve, id...

What's going to "save" the FPS isn't going to be better technology, it's going to be better designers.

Which, based on Battlefield 3's single player... DICE ain't got.

Feeling the sense of urgency, I leave my teammates behind, blasting everything in my path. Through the dust of war, now blanketing the bloody aftermath, a staircase emerges. I race up to the second floor, not thinking to look back. At the crest, a locked door impedes my progress, and, with no dedicated "use" key, I wait for my allies to pave the way forward. Silence. I backtrack, my eyes darting across the now-derelict office that had once offered a glimpse of hell. "Perhaps they are stuck on geometry?" I ask myself. No, even worse: they had abandoned me.

Yes, by running too far ahead of my teammates, the game decided to dump them, forcing me to restart the level. Suffice it to say that Battlefield 3's grossly over-scripted SP campaign is up there with Fable 3 as one of the worst gaming experiences of my life.