aescuder said:
Good points all around. Again I'd like to say that I may be just one of those people that are just remarkably unimpressed by nuances, nuances which may mean the world to core players. That being said this may be a personal issue with the "modern-shooter" developers. Tropes might not be bad and new design engines might bring a certain "newness" but I know a cash-in game when I see one and it seems to me that there are a lot more of those then there are developers with an actual "vision" / thesis / authorship / whatever you want to call it, towards a game. Again a lot of these nuances might seem like a big deal to some, but to others (especially non-leets) it might be more of the same. Just like how I am incredibly unimpressed by the evolution of fighting games as a whole despite what SF pros tell me how much it has changed. If the primary objective of two FPS games in comparison was just to shoot at everything that moves then there might not be that much of a difference. So I suppose it's a matter of perspective which may come down to opinion.
Which is why games like Portal, Borderlands, Fallout 3, DXHR, (IMO) is a cut above the rest. Genre defying and built from the ground up with a certain authorship to them.
I would agree with this in totality, but I would also say that it's ultimately subjective. If a consumer thinks that a new game is different enough to be worth their time, they aren't wrong to spend their money. A lot of people make the argument that this stagnates the development of video games. I disagree. The amount of income brought in by gaming has gone up dramatically, so it isn't like mean mr. generic shooter's profit's were all taken from poor Mr. Innovator. Cutting edge games have, for the most part, always had trouble finding an audience. In fact, I would contend the opposite of the prevailing opinion. The great amount of interest in FPSs and (shock) casual games has brought tons of people in to games that would never have been given a glance otherwise.
Look at system shock 2. Everyone likes to praise it so much you might find it hard to believe that the game was a massive commercial flop (sad, but not unexpected). Compare this to Bioshock. Sure it didn't have the depth that system shock 2 had in terms of mechanics, but I would say that, artistically, Bioshock had far more to say. Along with this, Bioshock was targeted at a larger audience. Guess what? The "dumbed down" game was a hit. Companies are starting to accept the idea that a thoughtful game can be commercially viable. Granted, this hasn't always had the best results, but it's a step in the right direction. I haven't seen the sales figures, but I'd guess that HR has sold far more, thus affecting the market far more, than the original Deus Ex. I'd say the original Deus Ex was better designed, but it doesn't mean anything for the development of the genre if no one sees it as a viable market.
So, why was Bioshock a critical success but System Shock wasn't? The same reason a book only available in Latin isn't going to be as successful as a book in english. Sure, certain critics may loath the idea that a book has been soiled by the "common" language, but the ideas aren't going to count for jack if no one is able to access them.
All in all, I'd say that if you don't like seemingly similar shooters, don't buy them. It's not like they're going to hurt you with their mere existence. Some people might say that all of the effort could be put to better use. I can understand the sentiment, but I think it's unfounded. An increase in the number of games over all isn't going to mean an increase in quality. Id est, the "effort" is there because formulaic stuff is profitable, not the other way around. In other words, not every bad game is a good game that was somehow ruined.
Although I personally think that the change in mechanical philosophy in FPS is more due to the fact that fast-paced PC online play needed to be adjusted to the ergonomics of a console and controller more than it being something that they thought was necessary to move the genre forward. (It took a while for early consoles to figure out that the default shoot button should be a shoulder button not x...oddly enough). I see what you mean though and games like the 2nd Halo is groundbreaking in its own right.
I don't think the FPS would have survived as a major genre today if it hadn't expanded. Sure, we could still have games with regenerating health and oppressive difficulty, but I'm guessing that you'd only see one every four or five years at this point. In other words, we would only get a good, intelligent shooter about as frequently as we do today, but unlike now, they probably wouldn't be rewarded quite as well. The genre had to expand.
I can see how games like Gears of War can be similar to most FPSs. But a change in camera angle is a BIG deal. It's as big as writing in FP or 3rd. At the most basic level players project themselves more if they are in FP game (just like in writing), while 3rd person games forces you to look at and control a character but denotes that you are actually not that character/avatar.
I can't say that I agree with the idea that characters are necessarily better written than in a third person shooter. There are several first person games that use fully defined characters. Even then, while it might have stylistic differences, I wouldn't say this makes for a different genre any more than the difference between a WWII and a Futuristic shooter does.
You honestly don't see a distinction between 3rd person games like Ninja Gaiden, Fallout 3, Metal Gear, Resident Evil, etc, etc, etc to FPS games? Games that make use of multiple camera views are genre defying or genre-less, and often times (not always) shouldn't be bunched up with FPS. I wouldn't call Oblivion or even Fallout 3 a First-Person-Shooter despite you being in First Person half the time. I spent more time Role-playing, talking, and stabbing then actual shooting.
If something doesn't fulfill the S part of FPS, I'm perfectly fine with considering it a different genre. Ninja Gaiden and Metal gear both have greatly different mechanics compared to an FPS. While this would also be true of Resident Evil a while ago, the recent games have essentially been shooters that don't allow you to move and shoot at the same time. Fallout three is a sketchy case. I wouldn't call it a pure FPS, but I wouldn't say that it isn't an. It's sort of like System Shock or Deus Ex: genre defying. Infact, I'm wondering if the whole TPS and FPS label should be dropped for FMS: Full motion shooter.
Good Convos Waffle_Man, you're a smart guy. Although my opinion still stands, the day I stop saying "YET ANOTHER..." to new FPS games the more faith I'll have with the genre. I'm completely unexcited about the new COD although I'll prolly end up playing (not buying!) it because of friends. That being said I'm pretty excited for Dishonored.
The thing about the whole "the new call of duty doesn't interest me," I haven't purchased a Call of duty game in a while, but I must say that I don't get (well, I do, but I haven't found it fully rational) the hate (rather than more sensible indifference) that Black Ops or MW2 gets. Sure, the stories are cliche and (in a good number of cases) trashy, but the fact that they exist at all shows that the franchise is making progress (the step back from 4 aside), albeit slowwwwwwwly, at least in terms of single player. I would go as far as saying that, since the series is essentially guaranteed to be a success commercially and there at least seems to be a few team members interested in doing something interesting, the designers
might eventually get bored of making a Michael Bay movie year after year, and something with inklings of artistic merit
might emerge. Multiplayer is another story.
Until that happens, I probably, just like you, won't buy it. In the mean time, I'll simply buy games I see as the future. It's the only thing I really can do to respond to the market over saturated with dullness.
