FPS's MOST important qualities.

[Grond Strong]

I recently had to come up with a videogame for school to "pitch" for a company that might be interested in publishing it. Naturally I chose the FPS genre because it happens to be my favorite. It also got me thinking. Why do I love FPS's so much? Or, more appropriately, what is the most important thing that I think "makes" an FPS an FPS. So I wanted to ask the community.

Example: In my opinion, the most important aspect/necessity for an FPS is speed. The ability to quickly get from place to place. When one is in first-person mode, they are directly dropped into the action and don't always have the more advantageous view of the battlefield that a third person shooter may be able to give. Therefore when one is getting shot/hurt, it's better not to stick around long and get to cover to regroup and get your bearings of the world around you. Problem is that sometimes one just isn't seem to move quick enough. The lack of being able to dive/sprint/slide in an FPS is missing the point of the genre I think. Isn't the whole reason of making a first person shooter to immerse the gamer into thinking that he/she really is holding that gun and taking out bad guys? Well I can guarantee one thing, it's that if I REALLY was holding a gun in the middle of a firefight and getting shot at. I'd sprint the crap to cover and then slide/dive into it like a madman.

What do you guys think? Don't just agree with me, this isn't a thread about speed, say what you think is most important to be found in an FPS! It might surprise some of you.

 

[Daystar Clarion]

Peripheral vision

Speed is important, like you said. I think a very important aspect are the maps. A great set of maps can make the difference between a good FPS and a terrible one (this applies to multiplayer and single player). For instance, Call of Duty 4 has some very good maps (shipment can fuck the hell off though), while Black Ops has very medicore maps.

 

[Grouchy Imp_v1legacy]

NOT. BLOODY. ZOMBIES.

Ok, ok, I'll try for something a little more thought out. Level design is an important factor, in fact I can't think of another genre where good, well planned levels are more vital. I think, however, that for me the most important thing is a fluid game engine. AvP was pretty much ruined for me because of the clunky control system and an overall feeling of unresponsiveness. Say what you like about the CoD series (and many do) but the interface has always felt very direct and responsive (internet lag notwithstanding).

 

[Tax_Document]

Useless Ai.

 

[Thaluikhain]

Variable light levels. Ever since Doom, that's more or less been a must.

Also, the ability to switch between weapons, with some being better under certain circumstances.

 

[Bags159]

Map Control possibilities. (health kits / armor packs generally do this)
Skill. (Lack of AOE OSOK, no RNG)
No story. (why would you put a story in a shooter... so pointless)
Speed. (it doesn't necessarily have to be fast, but speed is important)
Good maps.

Pretty much look at COD/COD clones and do the exact opposite of what they do.

 

[Gemore]

Inventory space. Explain how i can hold 8 bajillion guns?

 

[AndrewF022]

Good controls (probably what I consider the most important for an FPS). The gameplay must flow with a good speed, not get bogged down moving from place to play or trying to navigate the fucking terrain and then lastly the level design, it needs to be simple enough, but offer multiple methods of moving around it, Modern Warfare, Counter Strike, Halo and Battlefield (not the Bad Company games though) are games I would consider to have excellent maps.

Also in the singleplayer, the opponents AI needs to be at least semi-decent (probably my only criticism for a game like Half Life 2), aswell as having excellent set piece moments that make you sit back and go 'WOW!' at the end. Story is not as important as pacing.

 

[Weaver]

Don't have mouse smoothing or mouse acceleration.

 

[number2301]

Feeling like a bad ass is most important to me, you know when you're playing Doom/Duke Nukem and you're blasting your way through swathes of enemies with a shotgun. Yeah that. Either that, or a properly engaging storyline, I'm currently playing Crysis and honestly don't know why I'm killing these guys and rescuing these others, or why I should care about some guy who's died. It all just washes over me.

Aside from that I'd be getting into my specific likes and dislikes as opposed to generic stuff.

 

[MiracleOfSound]

Solid controls and frame-rate.

This is why COD keeps on performing better than anyone trying to compete - it is more immersive to the eyes at 60FPS and has arguably the most fluid, responsive controls in a shooter.

 

[Shymer]

Rather than speed, I want changes of pace and rhythm. Too fast too much of the time and it's fatiguing. I prefer a variety of tools to overcome obstacles - not just run and gun - there ought to be different ways of approaching 'an encounter' - even if it's a different weapon with different optimum ranges. A unique and compelling style is important. For all its flaws, I enjoyed the cel-shaded XIII. Borderlands had a similar appeal. Achievement - I play FPS games to feel like I have succeeded in something. If it's too easy - I don't feel it. If it's too hard I can't do it.

That's my tuppence.

 

[Chairman Miaow]

A first person perspective and the ability to shoot.

 

[Vern5]

A crouch button. Teabaggers must be catered to, especially if multiplayer is being considered.

 

[Socks and Shoes]

What I think are some most important qualities:

-Fluid and fast-paced gameplay.
-Variety in everything.
-Balance when it comes to maps and weapons.
-FUN. Damn realism as long as the game is fun.

 

[Grond Strong]

Thanks for all the posts guys, I appreciate the feedback. Anybody else reading feel free to leave more! One cannot have too many opinions.

I agree with everyone except a few minor things, but in general I believe we all seem to be leaning towards the same thing and that is this. A whole lot of big explosions, guns, and soundtracks cannot compensate for a lame story. I read a post that stated that in one game he didn't even have a reason to be shooting the people he did nor did he care to save the ones he was "supposed to save." For all he knew, he was shooting the good guys and saving the bad ones. Obviously the bad guys probably had guns, tattoos, and were mildly hostile while the civilians were in the classic fetal position but still! A game is supposed to evoke emotion and have meaning just like any other type of entertainment we pay for and expect to give us. If I wanted action and no story I'd go down to the arcade and pop in a quarter for Area 51 for goodness sakes. So yes, agreed there.

Another thing I'm seeing is diversity. There is nothing more painful for me to play than a game that has me shooting the same enemies with the same gun the entire game through. It's horrible, like a nightmare. Hopping over the same copied fence/parking block, kicking open the door in the same spot, pushing buttons with the same code, and saying the same one-liners... over and over again. Horror games are made this way. The more variety in maps-(a big one it seems, although it is not extremely high on my list of my priorities, after it has been brought to my attention I can see its legitimacy now), guns, enemies, and interaction with a character's surroundings is vital to a game's success.

Realism! Another one that I saw. It's a first person shooter isn't it? It's supposed to basically be an extension of YOU on screen! So why in the world did I just survive a fifty foot drop into a vat of molten lava?! (Exaggeration) Or how on earth did Mr. Man just survive my two pistol shots to his skull and then turn around only to be completely conscious, cognizant, and able to rip my body to shreds with his concealed machine gun? (Less of an exaggeration) Unrealisticness takes the fun out of a game almost as much as anything can even if it is in your favor. (Playing on super-easy during campaign. Why?) Along with this comes damage which is proportional to said guns as I saw in a previous comment. I love using pistols. I shouldn't have to put five into a guy before he goes down or puts his three fatal machine gun shots in me. Uncool.

A fast frame rate and smooth, unlagging gameplay is fantastic. Not having it is like losing reception to the Super Bowl. People die.

Remedial AI, the inability to crouch, and even the hasty introduction of zombies to an otherwise wisely constructed game can really put a damper on my day too.

Thanks for all your thoughts and time people! We have the making of an amazing new game right here I think. Anybody else please feel free to speak your mind! Like I said before, there can never be too many opinions. Unless there are, in which case there can be...

 

[Grond Strong]

I know there's more...

 

[zerooneeleven]

What do you guys think? Don't just agree with me, this isn't a thread about speed, say what you think is most important to be found in an FPS! It might surprise some of you.

I think you're talking less about speed and more about movement in general. But what exactly do you have in mind to innovate on that isn't on the market? Brink and Bulletstorm are signs that the market is shifting toward more complex movement controls.

Personally, I think that the best FPS games are complemented by tools, which provide a break from the monotony of aiming and shooting as well as adding a tactical layer. Battlefield: BC2 (tracer gun, motion detector, ammo/health kits, repair tool), Black Ops (tactical insertion, Decoy Grenade, Jammer, flashbangs), Homefront (drones) are good examples of using tools to gain an edge over enemies. And I'd really like to see the integration of tools more into FPS games: barbed-wire cutters, det-cord to breach doors, IR beacons to mark enemy locations, etc. Essentially, more interactions with the environment. If you want to pitch a specific idea, I'd go with something along the lines of a "private contractor" (read: mercenary) in the 1970s and 1980s, training soldiers in Africa, Iran, Iraq, China, the USSR satellite nations.

 

[LoFr3Eq]

The most important thing is an engine with 0 errors. Immersion is the most important part of FPS and this must be the thing that is flawless. All the innovation in the world won't count for anything unless the engine is great. Any time you see an enemy walking into a wall and still walking will break how you see yourself actively in the game.

Also as many people have already mentioned, movement and speed is very very important. any time you can't run as fast as you'd like and die will break immersion.

 

[BENZOOKA]

Ahh, I disagree with practically anything about what OP said...

Solid controls and frame-rate.

This is why COD keeps on performing better than anyone trying to compete - it is more immersive to the eyes at 60FPS and has arguably the most fluid, responsive controls in a shooter.

Responsive controls are vital, yes, but what has framerate got to do with game's qualities?

And in the world of Counter-Strike (and UT2004, for example), 60 fps is not enough. Solid 100 fps and 75 hz, at least, and we're talking. But even then it's about hardware, configs and preferences. And I'd argue very strongly against tying those superlative qualities to COD. In fact, I'm sure that could even be proven quite simply.