Support NeoGAF

[EmCeeGramr]

Honestly, I like iron sights in a lot of games, it does seem more 'realistic' than shooting from the hip all the time. Rainbow 6 had a nice variation where crouching or going prone would improve your aim and moving while shooting would make it worse, all nicely shown by an increasing spread on the crosshair.

That's a rather common thing in tons of FPS games.

 

[poppabk]

That's a rather common thing in tons of FPS games.

It was much more apparent in R6 though, to the point that you would often switch to crouch or prone to shoot, in the same way that you switch to iron sights.

 

[Noogy]

Keys and locked doors. Exploration died somewhere.

 

[H_Prestige]

Set pieces. I get so annoyed when I hear that.

Why can't these guys just make pure video games like older shooters? Everything has to be this tightly controlled scripted sequence where you just push the trigger every now and then. Glorified shooting galleries is all they are. I don't know how people enjoy this kind of mind numbing crap.

 

[EmCeeGramr]

It was much more apparent in R6 though, to the point that you would often switch to crouch or prone to shoot, in the same way that you switch to iron sights.

I did that in a ton of FPS games?

But whatever.


It'd be funny if after whatever Next Big FPS comes out and dictates what "modern" is, COD-style shooters in 10 years get referred to as outdated and no longer fun. Like you dug up COD4 and are having fun when suddenly you look at your calendar and go OH SHIT THIS DOESN'T "HOLD UP NOW" OR WHATEVER

 

[Pai Pai Master]

which modern fps games have dedicated cover systems?

Killzone?

 

[Rhazer Fusion]

Evolution?

 

[Zachack]

It'd be funny if after whatever Next Big FPS comes out and dictates what "modern" is, COD-style shooters in 10 years get referred to as outdated and no longer fun. Like you dug up COD4 and are having fun when suddenly you look at your calendar and go OH SHIT THIS DOESN'T "HOLD UP NOW" OR WHATEVER

But what you're describing is likely to happen, particularly with certain game design elements found in the CoD series. Those elements may not be as obvious as some of the 90s dated elements are, but they'll likely be noticeable, similar to watching Babylon 5 when it aired (and the CG was pretty impressive for TV) and watching it now (when the CG would be embarrassing for a kids show).

If you go back and play those old shooters, particularly the ones that weren't in the top tier, it's obvious how things have evolved in even an average modern FPS. Compare the use of large open rooms from Heretic (almost pointless) to Hexen 2 (mostly barren and largely used to provide good-for-then ambiance) to Jedi Knight (better use of space for large unit interaction but tech limited) to Painkiller (extensive battlegrounds that you're required to take advantage of, partly due to the power-up system).

Or scripted elements/set pieces from Unreal (fairly minimal) to SiN (better but still crude) to Half-life (noticeable) to Call of Duty (the first one, extensive) to MW2 (overbearing).

Amnesia is an example of the evolution of eliminating useless areas and tightening levels for atmospheric impact, even though by the game's logic you should be wandering around tons of empty halls and locked rooms. Whereas a game like Oni, which was supposed to be like a kung-fu action movie, dragged and dragged because of too many useless areas and loose levels.

 

[poppabk]

But what you're describing is likely to happen, particularly with certain game design elements found in the CoD series. Those elements may not be as obvious as some of the 90s dated elements are, but they'll likely be noticeable, similar to watching Babylon 5 when it aired (and the CG was pretty impressive for TV) and watching it now (when the CG would be embarrassing for a kids show).

I feel it a little bit already going from the destruction in Bad Company 2 to something like CoD:MW. I replayed most of CoD1 recently and the big thing that stood out over anything else were the indestructible fences, all the geometry is bullet proof - other than that and health packs it is ostensibly the same game as BLOPS, in single player at least.

 

[tiff]

Honestly, I like iron sights in a lot of games, it does seem more 'realistic' than shooting from the hip all the time.

Yeah, the idea in itself is good. It introduces a tactical choice in whether you accept the movement and visibility penalty for increased precision, or you try to spray from the hip. The problem, which has been touched on earlier in the thread, is that developers aren't really smart about it.

 

[alr1ght]

Killzone?

i know kz. he said most modern FPS have a cover system. Jusy wondering what he's referencing.

 

[Freeza Under The Shower]

"You never played Q3A, UT, Painkiller, HLDM, Quake, Quake 2? ... the list goes on."

No, I did. FFA was awful in those games because FFA is always awful. 1v1 or TDM is fantastic. FFA is butt.

I always liked the notion that Half-Life included audible footsteps in its multiplayer, making it possible to have information about player locations beyond mere visual cues or warnings from teammates.

I can get behind the increase in suspence in a full 1-on-1 game as opposed to getting randomly fragged in FFA just when you finally spotted someone who wasn't gunning for you at the same time. I can also get with the idea that teams rectify the lack of information from other parts of the level and what's going on behind you, but I do believe that ultimately it comes down to a lack of experimentation with the stream of information players get while playing.

For instance: I am not familiar with something like blind tag (revealing a player's location for a very short time without the game showing which one to other players and not telling the player in question that this is happening) or say a kind of king of the hill where the hill is actually a radar that will move without players knowing where and so on.
No doubt someone already made these modes, but there are more ways to restructure the flow of information than tossing every game into team deathmatch. That's actually what's so retarded about the Call of Duty's. You get thrown into a "team" where nobody is actually part of any "team" to speak of. That's just FFA MMO disguised as TDM. And that's no way to move forward either.

 

[nexen]

All the different monsters have different personalities, often bolstered by the presence of allies. Grunts are a lot less likely to run away when paired with Elites, etc. It's brilliant and it isn't often you see AI with as much intelligence (or in some causes, intentional lack of intelligence).

Yep. Good AI in these games is not about being smart. It is about putting on a good show and never looking unbelieveably stupid or broken. Halo AI is absolutely excellent in this regard and I'd posit possibly the best that has ever graced a shooter. You have a firm sense of the personalities of each of the beasties. They feel like living entities when you play the game.

While I enjoyed the hell out of Doom, Quake, et al back in the day I really have no desire to return to mazelike, rambling levels hunting for keys and switches. You guys really liked finding all the secrets in these levels? They were almost always some extra health and ammo.

 

[BloodySinner]

FFA is butt.

No u.

I always preferred free-for-all over team deathmatch or team anything. I like TF2 because the team system works in that game versus current shooters out there.

 

[Brimstone]

Why?

Also, how does regen health work in multiplayer shooters? Again, primarily a TF2 player here, so I'm used to health-packs.

In Shadowrun only one race gets health regeneration, the elf, and the rate depends on how full their essence meter is. The other races have to use a Tree of Life to regain health.

The game has an advanced melee system, where damage is based off an awareness system similar to what the Metal Gear Solid games have. There is an icon above enemies heads, and a katana strike on an unaware opponent deals a "bleeding out wound", which results in the player constantly taking a small amount of damage. The only way for the bleeding out to be removed is to have a fellow ally cast resurrect.

A resurrect costs a block of essence to the caster. Some races like human and troll can only maintain one rez under normal circumstances. Although if two or more bodies are grouped together you can rez them at a 2:1 or 3:1 cost. So the team is sort of rewarded for dying together.

 

[desh]

I could've sworn there was location based damage as early as Dark Forces. Am I misremembering?

The first FPS games I can remember having location based damage was SIN. Headshots in SIN were so satisfying. That came out in October of 1998, so I'm sure there was something before that (Goldeneye). Did the original Rainbow Six have location based damage? I know Rogue Spear did, but I can't remember if R6 did.

 

[Seanspeed]

The first FPS games I can remember having location based damage was SIN. Headshots in SIN were so satisfying. That came out in October of 1998, so I'm sure there was something before that (Goldeneye). Did the original Rainbow Six have location based damage? I know Rogue Spear did, but I can't remember if R6 did.

Dark Forces came out in 95. But its been so long since I've played it, I dont remember if there was actually location-based damage or not....

 

[Boerseun]

The first FPS games I can remember having location based damage was SIN. Headshots in SIN were so satisfying. That came out in October of 1998, so I'm sure there was something before that (Goldeneye). Did the original Rainbow Six have location based damage? I know Rogue Spear did, but I can't remember if R6 did.

The original Rainbow Six allowed for headshots. It wasn't a first-person shooter as such though, but rather more of a real-time tactical game played in a first-person perspective. The Tom Clancy games became progressively less methodical and more arcade-like after that.

 

[Saty]

Hand-holding.

Two-weapon limit that supposed to make the player think which is better\more useful to have at every stage but is totally undermined when the games always offer you a specific weapon if you reach a place you must use it. Ammunition is abundant.

Actually having 10 weapons at hand offers more tactics cause you have the option to engage the enemy in different ways using the varied arsenal. Ammo management is more pronounced.

Regen-health and the emphasis of taking cover (be it with a 'coward' system or not) shapes the firefights to be monotonous and quite boring. Almost always it turns to a pop-and-shot 'waiting' game until the enemy raised his head from what ever wall he is hiding behind. They just stick to their places. Hardly a challenge, the player can get away with mistakes,bad choices and etc. just because he can crouch and have his health restored.

On the opposite, devs. use regen health as excuse to bombard the player with waves-after-waves of enemies and other unfair tactics or cheap deaths to make the game hard - but it's hard for the wrong reasons.
To the guy that talked about medkits, most of the fps' never allowed medkit hoarding so the player had to be careful with his way of playing. Placing medkits is part of being good at designing the encounters: pacing, enemy placement, ammo\medkit placements.

And anyow, i don't get why the full-on health regen system is still used when MOH:Airborne and Far Cry 2 among others are using the segmented health-regen where the health bar is divided into parts. The health regenerates only up the same segment while only a medkit can fill the bar all the way.
I can't think of any advantage of a regular regen health that the segmented approach doesn't have and it also negates some of the shortcomings of the classic regen health system.

 

[kpeezy]

More weapons does not equal more tactical. The amount of weapons you carry should be based around the rest of the gameplay. CS 1.6 only lets you carry 1 primary weapon and 1 secondary weapon but I highly doubt anyone will say it's not tactical enough. Since the gameplay is done in rounds and you buy new weapons each round, it works and is one of the most tactical team based shooters ever.

 

[badcrumble]

The biggest problem with ironsights is that games have started to exaggerate things more and more in order to make them more useful - firing from the hip becomes comically inaccurate and pointless, and ironsights basically turn on auto-aim. It's making a game worse in order to make a feature seem better.

 

[XiaNaphryz]

I always liked the notion that Half-Life included audible footsteps in its multiplayer, making it possible to have information about player locations beyond mere visual cues or warnings from teammates.

I could've sworn I was listening for footstep cues in games before HL...was it Q2?

More weapons does not equal more tactical. The amount of weapons you carry should be based around the rest of the gameplay. CS 1.6 only lets you carry 1 primary weapon and 1 secondary weapon but I highly doubt anyone will say it's not tactical enough. Since the gameplay is done in rounds and you buy new weapons each round, it works and is one of the most tactical team based shooters ever.

Key difference right there. CS doesn't let you run through an entire solo campaign, so it's not really a fair comparison.

 

[dyergram]

Pretty sure thats doom. If it was in red, black and yellow it would probably jog my memory as to which exact level lol


No way did Dark Forces 1 have location based damage. Enemies were sprites still. Maybe Jedi Knight.

edit: wow beaten hard on the Doom answer lol

Yea your right I feel like it was one of the first to let you look up and down though. Was ROTT the first to do that?

 

[Dead Man Typing]

I feel like Halo Reach needs to be brought up more in here. It has a cohesive design, that feels like it was built to make the game as good as it could be for it's level design, it's AI and it's player movement speed.

The problem is that a lot of FPS's aren't being built with a cohesive vision of what they want to be. So they lift things like the 2 weapon limit, or aim down the sights, or regenerating health from games like Halo and CoD without thinking about why they're doing it or how those elements will fit in with what they are trying to build.

I want to bring up Starbreeze's games as example of FPS' that are built with their own vision of what their game should be. They aren't trying to copy the blockbuster titles, they have a focus on creating their own style and I think we need more developers who have the ambition to do that. Instead we get games that feel like Call of Duty with a different coat of paint, 10 times a year.

 

[luka]

Yea your right I feel like it was one of the first to let you look up and down though. Was ROTT the first to do that?

Either that or Heretic, which I think came out slightly before ROTT.

 

[darkpaladinmfc]

I feel like Halo Reach needs to be brought up more in here. It has a cohesive design, that feels like it was built to make the game as good as it could be for it's level design, it's AI and it's player movement speed.

The problem is that a lot of FPS's aren't being built with a cohesive vision of what they want to be. So they lift things like the 2 weapon limit, or aim down the sights, or regenerating health from games like Halo and CoD without thinking about why they're doing it or how those elements will fit in with what they are trying to build.

I want to bring up Starbreeze's games as example of FPS' that are built with their own vision of what their game should be. They aren't trying to copy the blockbuster titles, they have a focus on creating their own style and I think we need more developers who have the ambition to do that. Instead we get games that feel like Call of Duty with a different coat of paint, 10 times a year.

You bold your own mistakes?

 

[Sober]

IRONSIGHTS

Call of Duty I think popularized iron sights but there have been UT mods that had it implemented, it possible goes back even further, especially with more realism-based mods. OpFlash certainly had it, but I think it was more of a texture overlay rather than using the actual weapon model.

More weapons does not equal more tactical. The amount of weapons you carry should be based around the rest of the gameplay. CS 1.6 only lets you carry 1 primary weapon and 1 secondary weapon but I highly doubt anyone will say it's not tactical enough. Since the gameplay is done in rounds and you buy new weapons each round, it works and is one of the most tactical team based shooters ever.

If anything, what's more annoying is that especially in MW2, CODBLOPS, and even from CS, ammo is almost universal by calibre. They don't give a hoot it your weapon doesn't accept the same magazine types as another weapon, as long as it's 9mm, all your Glocks, Berettas and MP5s share ammo, or something ridiculous. But that's the realism whore in me talking.

Also, the pinnacle of cover systems IMO is: not too many chest-high walls via conveniently-placed crates or telegraphed arenas (like ME2) - doorways, walls and pillars work just as well. I hate having a room be a series of crates I have to take cover behind -- why can't I use the doorway as my base then either pick them off by attrition or toss a flashbang in or something and run in? Also, blind fire is a MUST if you are going to use TPS cover. I could care less about cool cover maneuvers though I do like the Gears method.

And didn't KZ2 use first-person cover? I swore I saw a video of that but I don't have a PS3, but I wish someone would implement that elsewhere.

In terms of actual shooting gameplay, I feel R6V is the peak: cover system, can blind fire out of cover, iron sights that matter, weapon customization, stances that dont offer immediate crosshairs locking super tight on crouching, reloading by magazine rather than ammo pool (also actually recognizing chambered rounds in your weapon) ... as much as I like VALVe's style of shooting, Vegas was an amazing shooter imo. Hell's Highway was pretty much the same thing too, except with suppression systems (why we don't get more of those in games confuses me).

Also, on the topic of CODs, it had a nice second wind with CoD4, but the real peak was CoD2 when they actually gave you multiple paths to reach an objective and objectives you could pursue in your own order.

 

[Bisnic]

Eh.

You want a maze map from an old fps? Try System Shock

 

[RedSwirl]

Back then games had their share of both corridor and more open-ended games, and the same is true today when you compare the corridor FPSs to sandbox games. The difference I think is in how games expect you to get through situations now:

Old: The game puts you in a situation and expects you to figure out how to solve it. The best games made it easy for you to figure it out on your own. This design continued up until the PS2/Xbox era.

New: The game puts you in a situation and then spells out how to do it for you. Sandbox games just let you do whatever the hell you want.

I think the two major game changers for FPSs were Half-Life and Halo in terms of singleplayer, and to a lesser extent Call of Duty.

Doom Era, Mid 90's: Straight-up action, not even trying to be tactical. Circle-strafe everything to death. Occasional simple puzzles. Duke Nukem 3D was a game at the pinnacle of this design. Prey is also sort of a throwback to this. Bulletstorm might also hearken back to this era a little bit.

Post-Half-Life, Late 90's Early 2000's: More nuanced use of terrain in combat. Better AI. In-game storytelling starts to come into the picture on PC. A prime example I think is the original Red Faction.

Post-Halo Consolization, Early 2000's: Regenerating health to make the challenge simpler. Two weapons and a grenade button because it made more sense for controllers.

Post-Call of Duty Hand-holding, Today: Set pieces. Players are shown the door and pushed through it. RPG-style multiplayer.

Previews are worried about Duke Nukem Forever because it looks like it still plays like a pre-Half-Life shooter. It may seem very banal to today's FPS gamer. I suggest console gamers who want a taste should download the XBLA version of DN3D.

Most hardcore gamers seem to prefer the time period after Half-Life but before Call of Duty. It's the middle ground after shooters started to become more complex but before they tried to become more "accessible".

 

[Version 3.0]

I think the two major game changers for FPSs were Half-Life and Halo in terms of singleplayer, and to a lesser extent Call of Duty.

I loved Half-Life, but little did I know it was to kick off the big wave of linearity that I dislike in the genre. Halo cemented it later on. It's a damn shame that Goldeneye wasn't the template for future games instead of Half-Life.

But of course, as has been pointed out (and ignored), it's not the whole genre that's changed, just a lot of games in it. The afore-mentioned Bioshock is my most recent favortie game using that older, more open level design.

 

[Durante]

i know kz. he said most modern FPS have a cover system. Jusy wondering what he's referencing.

I was probably lumping together TPS and FPS in my mind. I hate cover systems in both
But yeah, they're actually not that common in FPS.

 

[TheSeks]

1993: 2.5D effect that looks 3D, masses of guns. Overpowered weapons. Health packs.
1999: Arena combat shooters (oh how I miss you. ) with numerous mods (FREEZE TAG!), open corridor shooters for the arena to funnel/focus players in areas of the map, power weapons in areas. Respawns.
2002: Console control scheme perfected. Two weapon system. Regen health.
2006: Perk system (fuck you and your shit balance and your infiltration to other FPS, IW), regen health, two weapon system, linear maps.
2008: Destruction 1.0 in Frostbite 1.0, no one but hardcore Battlefield fans give a damn.
2009: Destruction 1.5 in Frostbite 1.0, PSN/XBLA FPS summer fun gamers give a damn.
2010: Destruction 2.0 in Frostbite 1.5. Hardcore shooter fans with taste Sorry, CoD gamers, that isn't you give a damn. Regen health but teamwork for faster health regen in ammo/medikit packs.
2011: Destruction 3.0 in Frostbite 2.0, entire cities can apparently be razed to the ground with better destruction than Bad Company 2. Shooter fans should give a damn for one and only one game and it's Battlefield.

Most hardcore gamers seem to prefer the time period after Half-Life but before Call of Duty. It's the middle ground after shooters started to become more complex but before they tried to become more "accessible".

All I want in a shooter:

Unlocks are okay, can't care, but could go.
Balance.
No perks.
Destruction 2.0 or above from Frostbite in your shooter.

Sorry, guys: DICE showed you the door, it's your turn to go through it. Stale static FPS maps with no variable in gameplay per replay (do I blow that wall again or do I jump through a window and hide and let the enemy pass and sneak further into their base?) is not evolution.

 

[luka]

Doom Era, Mid 90's: Straight-up action, not even trying to be tactical. Circle-strafe everything to death. Occasional simple puzzles. Duke Nukem 3D was a game at the pinnacle of this design. Prey is also sort of a throwback to this. Bulletstorm might also hearken back to this era a little bit.

I disagree with this point. Doom had it's share of tactical sensibilities, but in a different way than people associate the word these days. Doom was all about crowd control, and knowing what weapon to use against which enemies in a given number. Employing the stun properties of certian weapons to whittle down large groups of enemies in small areas when you have little room to navigate, baiting enemies into fighting each other and using your ammo efficiently, there was a lot more to it than just "circle strafe everything to death."

 

[water_wendi]

I disagree with this point. Doom had it's share of tactical sensibilities, but in a different way than people associate the word these days. Doom was all about crowd control, and knowing what weapon to use against which enemies in a given number. Employing the stun properties of certian weapons to whittle down large groups of enemies in small areas when you have little room to navigate, baiting enemies into fighting each other and using your ammo efficiently, there was a lot more to it than just "circle strafe everything to death."

Yes. Weapons played a huge difference depending on the enemy and the amount of them. Its so disappointing to see someone play Doom with just one or two weapons.

 

[Desi]

I was probably lumping together TPS and FPS in my mind. I hate cover systems in both
But yeah, they're actually not that common in FPS.

Medal of Honor: Airborne? I remember it using some style of cover style peek/lean around corners/anywhere bit.

 

[eso76]

FPS never change.

FPS have changed.


seriously though, the changes in the fps genre are basically of the same nature as the changes in most modern games.
More realism to appeal to an older audience AND a more casual audience.
Gamers don't want to get stuck in games.
They don't want to get lost.
They don't want to run out of ammo in a shooter.
They don't want to have to draw maps.
They don't want to replay the level from the start when they die, let alone the game.

The point is we don't really enjoy most games' actual gameplay. And i suspect part of the reason is there's no challenge, which by definition, is a huge part of the concept of 'game' itself. That's why i don't even think videogames should be called 'games' anymore.
We don't play because it's fun, we do to see what comes next.
Exploring a level to find more ammo and medkits ? to kill more guys ? no way, we'd just rush to the next level.
Streamlined experiences which highlights are set pieces.

 

[killdatninja]

I don't really miss the find the red key so you can get past the door... find the blue key so you can get past...etc etc. I do miss armor/health packs and smart level design (for multiplayer).

Personally I don't like the way COD evolved FPS (console at least), it's a pretty brainless design for multiplayer similar to FFA in any game. It's great to just hop on and play, if you don't want to strategize, because there's no strategy in TDM for COD. It's basically just shoot the enemy and stay near spawn camp to kill enemies. Hope you get the most kills, that shits been around for ever but it feels like it's devolved because you already start off with good weapons/items. Doesn't feel like there is any strategy other than camping with a buddy to maximize kill streaks and hoping your team has the most kills at the end of the game. Of course I'm oversimplifying things but it doesn't matter, the multiplayer is brainless either way. Fun distraction, but definitely not the evolution of anything.

 

[subversus]

The point is we don't really enjoy most games' actual gameplay. And i suspect part of the reason is there's no challenge, which by definition, is a huge part of the concept of 'game' itself. .

yes, I agree with you but it's just a natural evolution.

Yesterday I tried Killzone 3 SP demo. It looked so good in motion that I didn't really care about gameplay. It was there, sure but graphics trumpeted it all. I mean I was looking how good Helghan soldier moves, how snow falls etc. etc. Sure the game controls and feels better than KZ3 but it's shallow if we start comparing it to other non-traditional shooter. Shallow and fucking enjoyable. And I then I thought that if they improve graphics a bit more (like next-gen more) I'll care about gameplay much less.

Then I started Magicka on my PC which could have CGA graphics and still be FUN. But it's a pure mechanics-based game.

What we call "games" now is an interactive experience at its core. "Games" are branching out but we're limited by so called gaming platforms. Wide audience is cockblocked simply because you've to be INTO games to buy a gaming platform. You don't have to be INTO movies. You can catch them on TV, stream them on PC, you could go at cinema and you don't have to invest in some piece of hardware (and learn how to use). When your freezer will be able to run any game with no problems THEN we will have enough space for everybody because there will be billions who enjoy COD games and millions who enjoy System Shock games. Also we will have "games" which won't bound themselves to so called standarts or mechanics. I see increasing difficulty as a relic of the past for example. Sure, increasing difficulty is good for fighters or games like Magicka which are strong in their mechanics but KZ3 can provide me with no difficulty spike at all, just varied interesting situations and beautiful setpieces. Also I don't see a reason why a linear shooter can't have branched dialogues if these dialogues are well written or enjoyable. We stick to existing genres just because we're limited by the size of current gaming population.

 

[Enosh]

The point is I don't really enjoy most games' actual gameplay. And i suspect part of the reason is there's no challenge, which by definition, is a huge part of the concept of 'game' itself. That's why i don't even think videogames should be called 'games' anymore.
I don't play because it's fun, I do to see what comes next.
Exploring a level to find more ammo and medkits ? to kill more guys ? no way, I'd just rush to the next level.
Streamlined experiences which highlights are set pieces.

fixed that for you beacose you sure as fuck aren't saying what I think

 

[Freeza Under The Shower]

I could've sworn I was listening for footstep cues in games before HL...was it Q2?

I imagine that's quite likely, but in my experience / memory HL was het first and perhaps still only game where it was specifically there as the only sound that you would hear at times.

In contrast, I have never been able to hear footsteps in Modern Warfare 2. Playing the Killzone 3 open beta, I don't hear them either. They get drowned in all the other noise at the default settings. My hearing is quite alright, should you ask.

 

[tiff]

Yes. Weapons played a huge difference depending on the enemy and the amount of them. Its so disappointing to see someone play Doom with just one or two weapons.

Their fault for making the shotgun so awesome.

 

[PasteyMF]

Here's a video on the last 30 or so years of the FPS genre. You can draw the evolution of graphics from the video at least.

 

[desh]

I could've sworn I was listening for footstep cues in games before HL...was it Q2?

It was definitely Q2. I always thought it slowed the game down (compared to Q1) in 1v1 matches, since if you wanted to be quiet you had to walk.

 

[jambo]

My main issue with FPS games these days is the severe lack of non hit scan weapons. TF2 is good in this regard, but a lot of other shooters are just hit scan weapons that all have slightly different fire rates.

I just wish DM games were still popular, too bad UT3 didn't sell well or sustain it's communit =[

 

[LCGeek]

FPS game design has changed several times since Duke Nukem 3D.

I have no fucking desire whatsoever to get back to the Simple-AI-Having Monster-Packed Labyrinth school of FPS design.

Give me the Half-Life 1 era of FPS design: realistic levels that feel connected to each other, good enemy AI, a huge weapon loadout (in which every weapon is genuinely useful) that has you armed to the gills by the end of the game, and 'set pieces' that are all about clever level design and enemy placement rather than things timed to explode when you walk past an invisible line. The FPS genre was far better in the late '90s than in the middle of the '90s.

Later, post-consolification 'innovations' like ironsights, autoaim, regenerating health, a two weapon limit, and every weapon having a melee attack instead of a secondary fire can go fuck themselves, though.

Those aren't console innovations considering auto aim and regen health have been around since tribes in various forms. Two weapon limit is something counter strike and other shooters had as well. This is the problem with this debate if we are going to talk about the evolution of the genre be right about who did it first and not just who made it popular.

Edit-
Jambo I feel your pain but developers in this genre have sold out big time. UT3 failed because it was trying to please too many groups rather than a solid base that epic knows will follow them if the game is solid.

 

[ameratsu]

I think Left 4 Dead is an evolution in multiplayer FPS design. It has problems, but the core idea of forcing people to work together with events of chance (enemy spawn, item spawn, path variance) that can change each time the game is played is a good departure from FPSs that encourage lone wolf strategies and typically take themselves too seriously.

Versus mode with an infected phase is a great take on competitive gameplay where defeating the opposing team is more interesting than typical guns vs guns combat. I'm just waiting for someone to take this gameplay design a bit further strategically, while having mechanisms to deter raging and promote a level playing field.

 

[Rainier]

Any game let you telefrag like in UT? Wake me when one does.

 

[Demigod Mac]

Any game let you telefrag like in UT? Wake me when one does.

Team Fortress 2

 

[Rainier]

Team Fortress 2

... and I'm UP!

/loads Steam to check this out.

 

[Poimandres]

Let's see...

- The earliest FPS games has very "flat" level designs, because of tech restrictions
- Games like Doom had more complex level designs, but were still restricted by tech
- 3D FPS games were born (Quake) with fully 3D environments and enemies opening up a lot of potential
- Gamers became more interested in why they were doing what they were doing. Story and attempts at recreating realistic environments came to the forefront (Half Life)
- Immersion. In addition to more realistic environments gamers started looking for better AI and more complex objectives
- Physics. Along with other attempts at some sort of "realism" in environments and enemy behaviour developers started being concerned with how physics worked in these worlds
- Consoles. Halo was huge and set a template for console FPS games to follow. 2 weapon limit, recharging shields, vehicles etc.
- COD. Cinematic set pieces, tightly scripted levels, iron sights. All the flavour of the day.

Personally, I feel like Halo gets too much hate. I think it actually bought a lot to the genre. Levels were often large and open, with more of a "sanboxy" approach. Weapons remaining scattered around the battlefield, dropped by enemies, that could be picked up was still pretty rare at that time. It wasn't full recharging health, but the hybrid system removed some of the frustration of the early days (quick save, 3% health and a room full of enemies. Fuck!). Enemies had good AI and didn't respawn.