Support NeoGAF

[nbthedude]

mainstream contemporary FPS design is never, ever going to get better or more interesting as it's entire purpose is to appeal to a wide audience

I understand. And if walked into Transformers 3 expecting brilliance, I should feel stupid about my high expectations.

But Ken Levine is a smart guy and the game is showered with critical acclaim about achieving new landmarks in the genre and writers go so far as to call him a "visionary." And, in fact, in the past he has been involved with games with unique designs that broke molds, defied expectations, and demanded the player approach scenarios in unique and smart ways: System Shock, Theif, Deus Ex, etc.

That is what makes this more depressing. This is not supposed to be some boiler plate lowest common denominator summer blockbuster experience. Bioshock Infinite is not supposed to be a Michael Bay joint. It's to be a Martin Scorsese cross over appeal.

 

[Bitmap Frogs]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kXnoW2SvQrQ

popular games ( i.e. those that sell 3 million+) cannot demand too much of the player because most people, not just gamers, do not like the following:

• Learning
• dealing with frustration
• losing
• practicing a new skill until you are good at it
• reading
• unfamiliarity

Seriously, have any of you played with a non hobbyist gamer?

I know a long time Mainstream FPS fan who couldn't get trough bioshock's demo (the first game).

 

[Booshka]

Cyril Kowaliski, play the Stalker games.

 

[NullPointer]

Seriously, have any of you played with a non hobbyist gamer?

This is the problem with comparing games to movies, and not to things like chess, cooking or playing a musical instrument. Learning and challenge and experimentation need to be seen as a natural part of the process - having the same expectations for gaming as other passive entertainment media loses the plot entirely.

 

[ViewtifulJC]

I understand. And if walked into Transformers 3 expecting brilliance, I should feel stupid about my high expectations.

But Ken Levine is a smart guy and the game is showered with critical acclaim about achieving new landmarks in the genre and writers go so far as to call him a "visionary." And, in fact, in the past he has been involved with games with unique desig s that demanded the player approach them in unique and smart ways: System Shock, Theif, Deus Ex, etc.

That is what makes this depressing. This is not supposed to be some boiler plate lowest common denominator summer blockbuster experience.

I think Infinite is more like a very well-crafted summer blockbuster experience. I'm done my fair share of nitpicking and complaining about it this past week, but I've honestly not been this impressed with a narrative-driven shooter since Half-Life 2: Episode Two.

 

[j_k_redtail]

Problem: FPSs have become bland and derivative.

Solution: Revive the space flight shooter.

 

[nbthedude]

I think Infinite is more like a very well-crafted summer blockbuster experience. I'm done my fair share of nitpicking and complaining about it this past week, but I've honestly not been this impressed with a narrative-driven shooter since Half-Life 2: Episode Two.

I am extremely impressed with the art and sound design. No qualifications needed there. Flat out some of the best in any game ever made.

It is the other stuff that is a bummer given the game's lineage.

 

[Loxley]

This guy comes off as an armchair game developer. This part in particular:

Hell, why couldn't they have players decide how the story plays out? But no, that's all too much to ask. Studios and publishers seem to have forgotten that game's are supposed to be games, not CG films with playable cutscenes.

Oh really, guy? How many design meetings for modern shooters have you sat in on? Implying that developers have no creative ambition with no knowledge of the reasons the developers made the design choices they did is pretty damn presumptuous.

Tell you what, you go and pitch a game exactly like System Shock 2 to any of the big FPS developers out there and let me know how far you get into your pitch before they stop you and offer you a job because - holy shit - you just blew all their minds by mentioning all of these great ideas that they most assuredly had never thought of (having no desire to make something original after all).

Sorry to sound like a dick, but you have to accept the fact that consumers are also partially responsible for shooters being what they are today. Developers and publishers pay attention to these things called "market trends", and if COD-like shooters are what's selling, then publishers and developers are going to try and capitalize on that, and hopefully make their own stamp on the genre if they can.

Also, blame over-inflated game budgets, the more a publisher is spending on a game, the more copies they need it to sell. The more copies they need to sell, the more accessible the game needs to be to appeal to the widest possible audience.

I completely agree with most of his points (although I can tell I enjoyed Infinite much more than he did), but to place the blame solely at the feet of developers and their supposed lack of any desire to make something truly challenges the player is pretty ignorant of the everything that developers have to consider when developing a $15-$50 million dollar shooter.

 

[MormaPope]

oh please, tell me more about your narrow perspective on what games can and should be.

This is without stating that the modern military shooter has a great or even a good campaign.

I still remember the fervor and disdain over The Walking Dead and Journey winning so many GOTY awards. It feels like people are afraid of where this medium can head, even though there's been noticeable advancements in both narrative and gameplay mechanics.

Being a gameplay snob must be tiring for some of those people.

 

[NullPointer]

Solution: Revive the space flight shooter.

I like you.

 

[ViewtifulJC]

The nice thing about 2007 was they had those big sandbox/non-linear style of shooters like S.T.A.L.K.E.R. and Crysis, and the more focused, "cinematic" experiences of Half-Life 2 and Call of Duty 4(with Halo 3 kinda sitting in the middle there). I think everybody was happy then...

 

[orznge]

I still remember the fervor and disdain over The Walking Dead and Journey winning so many GOTY awards. It feels like people are afraid of where this medium can head, even though there's been noticeable advancements in both narrative and gameplay mechanics.

Being a gameplay snob must be tiring for some of those people.

there's basically no games that have advanced gameplay mechanics in any significant way and there's been like a dozen games ever with a passable story

 

[Mindlog]

Solution: Revive the space flight shooter.

Motion carries. Commence funding immediately.

 

[rohlfinator]

Which also makes higher difficulties pointless since they aren't really demanding anything more of the player just a longer war of attrition where you spam, cover, spam, cover etc.

Yeah, kinda. So far on 1999 mode, it seems like you really have to have your ass stuck to cover, since you die in a couple seconds if a few enemies are focusing you. I'm hoping things change once I get more vigors like Charge and Return To Sender (since I didn't use either of those much on my first run).

Seriously, have any of you played with a non hobbyist gamer?

I know a long time Mainstream FPS fan who couldn't get trough bioshock's demo (the first game).

Well, that's what difficulty levels are for.

 

[MormaPope]

there's basically no games that have advanced gameplay mechanics in any significant way and there's been like a dozen games ever with a passable story

Blanket statements are always the funniest. The character based action genre/action genre for example has exploded with mechanical advancement and polish, games such as

Devil May Cry 4
Bayonetta
Metal Gear Rising
No more Heroes
Anarchy Reigns
Demon Souls
Dark Souls
Batman Arkham Asylum/Arkham City

I can go on and do list wars, but list wars are always lame.

 

[Tellaerin]

Shooters could be so much more. Instead of trivializing combat, they could make fights less frequent, longer, and more memorable. They could reward players for acting rationally when outnumbered—hide, flee, or die. Shooters could, when appropriate, encourage problem-solving and exploration over brute force.

I don't want any of that.

I want frequent fights. (Though I have no problem with making those fights more memorable.) I don't want to spend half the time running away from combat - if I wanted that, I'd play a survival horror game. I don't mind exploration or problem-solving in addition to "brute force", but solving puzzles as a substitute for action? No thank you.

I guess what I really want is a return to the Doom/Quake/Unreal-style single-player experience.

 

[CaptainGyro]

Not really.

Yeah that part is like a blatant lie. I don't know what he is talking about

...so why the HELL did Bioshock Infinite get 9s and 10s everywhere? For the ten minute ending?

Game reviews perpetuate the very problem this article is about. They only have to blame their low standards and moneyhats.

You say this as if the article was the final accurate word on the game

 

[Apath]

I miss FPS games like the original Turok, where a big component of the game was platforming and exploration. This is sort of lost on modern day shooters.

 

[orznge]

Blanket statements are always the funniest. The character based action genre/action genre for example has exploded with mechanical advancement and polish, games such as

Devil May Cry 4
Bayonetta
Metal Gear Rising
No more Heroes
Anarchy Reigns
Demon Souls
Dark Souls
Batman Arkham Asylum/Arkham City

I can go on and do list wars, but list wars are always lame.

those are all good games and some of them are really good but I'm not sure I would say any of them brought a "noticeable advancement in gameplay mechanics" to the table

 

[MormaPope]

those are all good games and some of them are really good but I'm not sure I would say any of them brought a "noticeable advancement in gameplay mechanics" to the table

Advancement doesn't just mean new, those games either expanded on existing mechanics and are better games for doing/attempting that or they introduced new design philosophies or mechanics to the genre itself.

 

[nbthedude]

those are all good games and some of them are really good but I'm not sure I would say any of them brought a "noticeable advancement in gameplay mechanics" to the table

Maybe Batman. The fast action stealth sections anyway, where you were predator rather prey. That dynamic was fairly new. But even Demon Souls had Kings Field before it and Kings Fiedls was even more demanding of attentiveness in some ways.

But you aren't going to get anywhere in that debate, anyway. Look at the dude's avatar. There is a segment of GAF that have dedicated themselves to attacking any and all criticisms of Infinite, no matter how mild, and they all have adopted Infinite avatars in solidarity. It is almost ironic. If Levine wanted to establish a utopian society in the sky, they'd be the first to sign up.

 

[Trickster]

Article in OP made me go buy System Shock 2 on gog.com, install a few texture mods and start playing. Haven't really played it enough to comment on what the guy in the article says. But it's definitely a fun game, and really serves as a contrast to modern shooters, infinite included.

System Shock 2 = ugly graphics for todays standards, but deep and interesting gameplay.

Modern shooters = Pretty graphics, but shallow shoot bang gameplay that puts me to sleep

 

[MormaPope]

Maybe Batman. The fast action stealth sections anyway, where you were predator rather prey. That dynamic was fairly new. But even Demon Souls had Kings Field before it and Kings Fiels was Ben more demanding of attentiveness in some ways.

But you aren't going to get anywhere in that debate, anyway. Look at the dude's avatar. There is a segment of GAF that have dedicated themselves to attacking any and all criticisms of Infinite, no matter how mild, and they all have Infinite avatars. It is almost ironic. If Levine wanted to establish a utopian society in the sky, they'd be the first to sign up.

Based on your avatar, you're dedicated to nothing. How about you argue against my points instead of using pictures to debate.

 

[nbthedude]

Article in OP made me go buy System Shock 2 on gog.com, install a few texture mods and start playing. Haven't really played it enough to comment on what the guy in the article says. But it's definitely a fun game, and really serves as a contrast to modern shooters, infinite included.

System Shock 2 = ugly graphics for todays standards, but deep and interesting gameplay.

Modern shooters = Pretty graphics, but shallow shoot bang gameplay that puts me to sleep

I think it is true that our collective skills at shooters have improved somewhat in the last decade so that System Shock 2 probably won't seem quite as hard as it did for those of us who played it on release. But those elements he describes are definely still present.

I recall starting the game over because my situation felt so dire after a few encounters went wrong. Especially if you set off too many alarms.

 

[Booshka]

It's threads like these that make we wish the 2007 Shadowrun would have had a single player campaign in it. The game mechanics in it are so amazingly unique and innovative, especially for consoles. But, it is MP only, so a lot of people ignored it, and tons of games have awesome MP mechanics, but so few utilize all that amazing gameplay and craft a single player experience around it. It's obviously really hard and the demand isn't strong enough for most devs to try and do it.

 

[RockmanWhore]

I don't think the modern FPS formula is terrible or anything. The problem is that every damned FPS franchise is aping Call of Duty, and it's getting very tiring. FPS in the 90's and early 2000's were so much more varied, each sequel is less unique and original than its predecessor (Bioshock, Resistance, Crysis, Killzone, Halo, all of them!). I miss the challenge and difficulty of the single player campaign too. Nowadays with the health regen and checkpoints every minutes, it's hard to get any sense of tension.

 

[GoddyofAus]

I absolutely disagree with the article in the OPs comparing BI to standard cookie cutter shooters. Clearly, the author never bothered with 1999 mode, which fits his description of a challenging shooter to a tee.

Even mentioning BI in the same breath as every COD after COD 4 is just an insult.

 

[Thug Waffle]

I don't want any of that.

I want frequent fights. (Though I have no problem with making those fights more memorable.) I don't want to spend half the time running away from combat - if I wanted that, I'd play a survival horror game. I don't mind exploration or problem-solving in addition to "brute force", but solving puzzles as a substitute for action? No thank you.

I guess what I really want is a return to the Doom/Quake/Unreal-style single-player experience.

He's not saying you'd be spending half the time necessarily running away from combat. The games you mentioned - Quake and Unreal especially, even in their single-player campaigns - feature basically the same movement mechanics as the multiplayer component. You can move to a more advantageous position with relative quickness and a good deal of skill and map knowledge in Quake and Unreal much more quickly than you can in Call of Duty. This forces players to naturally (depending on their experience with shooters) focus more on the likelihood that someone will just fly around the next corner with a rocket launcher. The slower kill times (compared to CoD) balance this so it's not TOO fast-paced, and it gives the victim of that ambush the opportunity to put their own weapon/movement skill to the test in their attempt to evade or challenge their opponent. The fighting isn't necessarily less frequent, either, you just have to work a little harder for each kill. You gotta spend more time on it and it makes you value each kill more. People always say the reason CoD is so popular is because "anyone" can pick it up and play kind of successfully. It's because "noobs" don't have the sense to pay as close attention to their map placement or search for ways to exploit or experiment with the movement system. Many of the popular modern shooters do not work like Unreal or Quake where you have to learn these things to get kills against better skilled players. They work like CoD where all you need is the jump on someone, a bit of aiming, and a general idea of how to pull the right trigger on the controller.

 

[zoukka]

Shit games sell, so the publishers churn out a lot of it!

Besides 3rd person shooters have surpassed FPS's more than a decade ago so that's where it's at now.

 

[Dennis]

Currently playing Crysis 3.

It is a great game and while it is no Crysis 1 the gameplay is very solid.

SS2 was shooter-RPG hybrid and that is a different beast. If the criticism is that BioShock is a pale and dumbed down version of SS2 then I am aboard.

 

[IdreamofHIME]

Bioshock Infinite's a funny one, the Vigors are boring and the combat is super wonky. I'd think these guys are not really up to the task of making engaging shooter mechanics, but Bioshocks combat was super fun most of the time.

....the game is amazing nonetheless though.

 

[Lime]

It's frankly embarrassing that people have to point this out to professional veteran game developers!

 

[nbthedude]

This guy comes off as an armchair game developer. This part in particular:



Oh really, guy? How many design meetings for modern shooters have you sat in on? Implying that developers have no creative ambition with no knowledge of the reasons the developers made the design choices they did is pretty damn presumptuous.

Tell you what, you go and pitch a game exactly like System Shock 2 to any of the big FPS developers out there and let me know how far you get into your pitch before they stop you and offer you a job because - holy shit - you just blew all their minds by mentioning all of these great ideas that they most assuredly had never thought of (having no desire to make something original after all).

Sorry to sound like a dick, but you have to accept the fact that consumers are also partially responsible for shooters being what they are today. Developers and publishers pay attention to these things called "market trends", and if COD-like shooters are what's selling, then publishers and developers are going to try and capitalize on that, and hopefully make their own stamp on the genre if they can.

Also, blame over-inflated game budgets, the more a publisher is spending on a game, the more copies they need it to sell. The more copies they need to sell, the more accessible the game needs to be to appeal to the widest possible audience.

I completely agree with most of his points (although I can tell I enjoyed Infinite much more than he did), but to place the blame solely at the feet of developers and their supposed lack of any desire to make something truly challenges the player is pretty ignorant of the everything that developers have to consider when developing a $15-$50 million dollar shooter.

You are right that he is being presumptuous in assuming the devs just don't want/care to make anything else. But, for example, Ken Levine's team was working on Infinite for over six years. It seems to me they had a good deal of freedom in terms of development, especially given that the original Bioshock had more of the elements he is referring to. I guess we will never know the reasons it became the game it did unless Levine and others talk about the game mechanic's evolution, but it seems unlikely to me that they changed ti because of publisher pressure.

 

[nbthedude]

It's frankly embarrassing that people have to point this out to professional veteran game developers!

Shawn Eliot recently had a small rant on twitter about writers being myopic because they assume if they play a game dumb then that is the only way to play the game. So as far as Irrational goes, it doesn't seem like the devs are unaware of the problem, they just think it isn't their problem, but the player's problem if they don't want to invest more in the game than it requires.

I love this line of thinking. It no longer requires anyone to make anything demanding; the onus is suddenly on the audience to make their own intellectually engaging media by brining more to the table themselves. I can write a book at a 3rd grade level and then claim that people can read various literary paradigms into it if they want something more sophisticated. Or I could make a really dumb action movie filled with bobbling tits and then claim that it is the fault of their audience if they don't want to enhance their viewing experience by contemplating the concept of beauty while they watch.

I would even debate the idea that using all the tools they give you is "playing smart." Playing smart is playing efficiently and analyzing and relying on what works well. Your "smart" players are the ones that have realized that little is demanded of them.

 

[Riposte]

The same shit I've been reading on this website for years. Blah blah System Shock 2 is the greatest mmm player agency and ammo preservation blah blah linear Call of Duty Michael Bay blah blah why aren't games like I was 14

There a lot to say on how FPS have progressed, but I really do think this conversation is being dominated by people who don't really like FPS much.

Blanket statements are always the funniest. The character based action genre/action genre for example has exploded with mechanical advancement and polish, games such as

Devil May Cry 4
Bayonetta
Metal Gear Rising
No more Heroes
Anarchy Reigns
Demon Souls
Dark Souls
Batman Arkham Asylum/Arkham City

I can go on and do list wars, but list wars are always lame.

Dude, if you are going to list Batman Arkham (EDIT: And No More Heroes, jeez), then it is okay to list DmC for its mechanics.

 

[JimmyRustler]

SS2 gameplay and complexity will never happen on consoles, and maybe never again in all of gaming.

Yeah, true. The irony of it is that we're not getting it on console because the PC elite wouldn't buy it. Thanks.

 

[ThreePiMatt]

This is largely the same thing Jonathan Blow was talking about in his rant about regenerating health. Games are designed these days to make sure the player basically has everything they need all the time. Ammo is never far away, and health is just 15 seconds of hiding behind a box. There's no tension, no real sense of struggle. STALKER was probably the most recent game that really felt like it broke the mold as far as shooters go. Metro is similar, but even then playing on Ranger mode I never felt like I was ever in any sort of real danger.

 

[nbthedude]

There a lot to say on how FPS have progressed, but I really do think this conversation is being dominated by people who don't really like FPS much.



Dude, if you are going to list Batman Arkham (EDIT: And No More Heroes, jeez), then it is okay to list DmC for its mechanics.

On the contrary, I think, like the writer of this article, many of us are people who have played literally hundreds if not thousands of them. We have seen all the mechanical tropes of the genre a hundred times and want to see developers do something different.

A 15 year old girl who has only seen the latest romantic comedy is likely to be very happy with it and think it involves a sophisticated romance story. But that is because unlike the film critic, she does not realize that what she sees as genuine and fresh is actually trite, has been done hundreds of times before, and relies on formulas that are filled with holes.

This is actually a point the writer brings up himself in the article when he talks about the kinds of games he liked when he was 14.

 

[ViewtifulJC]

So all the people who really enjoyed Bioshock Infinite, there the little naive 15-year old girl who doesn't know any better in this analogy, yes?

 

[nbthedude]

So all the people who really enjoyed Bioshock Infinite, there the little naive 15-year old girl who doesn't know any better in this analogy, yes?

It is an extreme example to make the point clear.

Rather maybe they are gamers in their early to mid twenties who have not yet consumed enough of the formula's mechanics to have yet grown tired of them.

 

[Leckan]

There needs to be a shooter in the same style as the Soul's series where every encounter matters instead of brain-dead waves of enemies.

 

[Fracas]

So all the people who really enjoyed Bioshock Infinite, there the little naive 15-year old girl who doesn't know any better in this analogy, yes?

Shut up man, Twilight: Breaking Dawn Pt. 2 has plot subtleties that most people don't even understand

edit: Also, while I personally feel Infinite's gameplay is nothing to write home about, why focus on just this game? Shooting mechanics haven't advanced in years.

 

[Slayven]

This article reminds me of the one kid that would snatch the controller out of your hand and say " you playing it wrong!!". If you were just goofing off in the game.

 

[aeolist]

i just want to play a modern single player first person shooter which takes mouse and keyboard dexterity to the very limits of what i'm capable of.

That would require careful design and balancing instead of just throwing waves of poorly written AI instances at you from every direction

 

[Riposte]

On the contrary, I think, like the writer of this article, many of us are people who have played literally hundreds if not thousands of them. We have seen all the mechanical tropes of the genre a hundred times and want to see developers do something different.

A 15 year old girl who has only seen the latest romantic comedy is likely to be very happy with it and think it involves a sophisticated romance story. But that is because unlike the film critic, she does not realize that what she sees as genuine and fresh is actually trite, has been done hundreds of times before, and relies on formulas that are filled with holes.

This is actually a point the writer brings up himself in the article when he talks about the kinds of games he liked when he was 14.

Without getting into it, I'm just going to say having an insatiable desire to relive "newness" as your 15 year old did is quite different from thinking certain games are failing to meet an established standard of depth and immersion. Playing a lot of games (btw you haven't played a thousand FPS) helps you identify which these games are, yes, but the conversation always takes a turn for wanting something we do not currently have ("survival" shooters, as if they were inherently more sophisticated) or condemning all of what we have because we already have it ("another game where you shoot things?!"). I see this thought process as detrimental to understanding any genre or videogames as a whole. The odd dislike for sequels can be included here. Novelty < Quality.

 

[nbthedude]

Shut up man, Twilight: Breaking Dawn Pt. 2 has plot subtleties that most people don't even understand

edit: Also, while I personally feel Infinite's gameplay is nothing to write home about, why focus on just this game? Shooting mechanics haven't advanced in years.

I don't think the article is limiting the discussion to Infinite. But I think it is the focus because:

1) It is the most topical since it is the latest instance

2) It is considered some kind of pinnacle of AAA design.

 

[rosaceadude2112]

RIP S.T.A.L.K.E.R. 2

 

[aeolist]

Really so much depends on AI quality which seems to have actually taken a steep decline since Call of Duty became the biggest influence in action games

 

[Y2Kev]

Without getting into it, I'm just going to say having an insatiable desire to relive "newness" as your 15 year old did is quite different from thinking certain games are failing to meet an established standard of depth and immersion. Playing a lot of games (btw you haven't played a thousand FPS) helps you identify which these games are, yes, but the conversation always takes a turn for wanting something we do not currently have ("survival" shooters, as if they were inherently more sophisticated) or condemning all of what we have because we already have it ("another game where you shoot things?!"). I see this thought process as detrimental to understanding any genre or videogames as a whole. The odd dislike for sequels can be included here. Novelty < Quality.

Haha, I want to read the whole thread more carefully but this stood out to me as immediately absurd.

 

[aeolist]

Shut up man, Twilight: Breaking Dawn Pt. 2 has plot subtleties that most people don't even understand

edit: Also, while I personally feel Infinite's gameplay is nothing to write home about, why focus on just this game? Shooting mechanics haven't advanced in years.

Actually the Twilight series overall has a lot of themes involving religious morality and abusive relationships that aren't all surface level

Stephanie Meyer's mind is a scary place