FPS's MOST important qualities.

[omega 616]

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

the one thing above all else the entire genre must have is variable light levels? It can have to worst guns, worst maps and feel awful but as long as that light changes it's at least an ok game?

For me the biggest things are balance, take out things like noob tube and quick scoping. In COD you will never need a noobtube, you can't blow stuff down and your not going to be taking out a helicopter/harrier with one. Quick scoping is nothing more than aim assist abuse and gives a massive advantage over genuine players.

A little bit on maps, don't make a "waste land" map 'cos snipers dominate it, on the other hand don't make a tight maze 'cos corner campers will dominate it. I have only played MW2 and Black ops but I like the vast majority of both.

My own personal thing, get rid of hand guns and make shotties a secondary. Hand guns make you feel like a bad ass when you get a kill but running at a guy with a semi auto 9 mm and he has an AK47, you feel boned. When I have a shottie as a secondary I can equip it in close ranges and equip my AR for long range stuff. If people like being out classed in weapons, use the FAL and think of it like a handgun with a massive barrel.

last thing, let me customise everything I can! I want my own face paint, (gun) camo, I want to put stuff on the gun and choose were it is on the gun. If I want to run around like the flash or superman I should be allowed to ... of course I would stick out like a sore thumb But thats my choice.

You seem to have read my own heart. I didn't want to outright say this because I thought I may get a lot of flak for it but I love CoD. I know, I know... everyone can now pour on the insults and hate. But my style of play matches CoD almost perfectly and it seems like you are coming from the same direction as me. I was incredibly disappointed when they took shotguns away from secondaries. I almost cried. Not only did they do that but they made the pistols (in my opinion), kinda lame.

I agreed with the second part of your paragraph as well. I think that the more choice a gamer has with his/her character, the better! I want my guy on CoD to look, think, and act like I would with the corresponding paint, guns, and tactics. I believe that nothing should be taken away from a player to favor another. Let me explain...

In MW2, quickscoping is rampant and I DESPISE it. Nothing aggravates me more. But do I think they should've banned it from Black Ops? No. Because let's just say, God forbid, that I LOVED to quickscope. Well guess what, due to all the quickscoping haters, the option is now gone. So I suppose I'm out of luck. But that's MY style of play! Who's to say that any style is more right or wrong than somebody else's? If you want to camp, (another thing I despise) then I think you should have the freedom to do it just as much as I have the right to run around with my tactical knife/bling/warlord/whatever. Whenever you take something away from a player, you are always going to favor another. So just leave ALL the options open to let players best find their niche. And once you do, rock it, but don't hate on other people who are different and possibly better than you. (I'm not saying YOU, it's just theoretical.)

I also wish that in a realistic shooter they'd have realistic gun attachments. Why can't I put a silencer, flamethrower, AND red dot sight on my gun? It's not like they get in the way of each other. (E.G. Flamethrower and grenade launcher.) If this WAS real war, heck, I'd trick my gun out as much as I possibly could.

Actually QSing is bullshit and should never be in any game. If you don't know what it is, it's the aim assist snapping onto an enemy, so on MW2 you had a one shot rifle that aimed quicker than most AR/LMG guys, killed quicker (1 shot compared to 4 or 5 from AR/LMG) and had much greater range (especially if you used the scope properly).

QSing is akin to cheating, maybe hacking. Ever watch a video on youtube and somebody got a 360 no scope across map and through a wall, then thought "holy shit! that was a lucky shot!"? The reason he got that kill is 'cos the aim assist kicked in and directed the bullet.

I have a video, saved in my favorites on youtube, that clearly shows there is no way the bullet could have killed him, due to the cross hairs not being over the guy that died. (you have to pause the vid as soon as you hear the shot)

Another example is, ever be aiming somewhere with an AR/LMG when an enemy walks infront of you and your crosshairs follow him for half a second? Thats what lets QSing players be so good.

I guarentee if you totally removed aim assist from MW2 or black ops, the QSing players would be up in arms so quick the treyarch/IW/activision forums would explode!

I don't have a problem with camping, sure they ruin a kill streak but 'cos COD maps are made so there is atleast 1 other path to get to the camper, you can get revenge on the guy easily.

 

[Grond Strong]

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

the one thing above all else the entire genre must have is variable light levels? It can have to worst guns, worst maps and feel awful but as long as that light changes it's at least an ok game?

For me the biggest things are balance, take out things like noob tube and quick scoping. In COD you will never need a noobtube, you can't blow stuff down and your not going to be taking out a helicopter/harrier with one. Quick scoping is nothing more than aim assist abuse and gives a massive advantage over genuine players.

A little bit on maps, don't make a "waste land" map 'cos snipers dominate it, on the other hand don't make a tight maze 'cos corner campers will dominate it. I have only played MW2 and Black ops but I like the vast majority of both.

My own personal thing, get rid of hand guns and make shotties a secondary. Hand guns make you feel like a bad ass when you get a kill but running at a guy with a semi auto 9 mm and he has an AK47, you feel boned. When I have a shottie as a secondary I can equip it in close ranges and equip my AR for long range stuff. If people like being out classed in weapons, use the FAL and think of it like a handgun with a massive barrel.

last thing, let me customise everything I can! I want my own face paint, (gun) camo, I want to put stuff on the gun and choose were it is on the gun. If I want to run around like the flash or superman I should be allowed to ... of course I would stick out like a sore thumb But thats my choice.

You seem to have read my own heart. I didn't want to outright say this because I thought I may get a lot of flak for it but I love CoD. I know, I know... everyone can now pour on the insults and hate. But my style of play matches CoD almost perfectly and it seems like you are coming from the same direction as me. I was incredibly disappointed when they took shotguns away from secondaries. I almost cried. Not only did they do that but they made the pistols (in my opinion), kinda lame.

I agreed with the second part of your paragraph as well. I think that the more choice a gamer has with his/her character, the better! I want my guy on CoD to look, think, and act like I would with the corresponding paint, guns, and tactics. I believe that nothing should be taken away from a player to favor another. Let me explain...

In MW2, quickscoping is rampant and I DESPISE it. Nothing aggravates me more. But do I think they should've banned it from Black Ops? No. Because let's just say, God forbid, that I LOVED to quickscope. Well guess what, due to all the quickscoping haters, the option is now gone. So I suppose I'm out of luck. But that's MY style of play! Who's to say that any style is more right or wrong than somebody else's? If you want to camp, (another thing I despise) then I think you should have the freedom to do it just as much as I have the right to run around with my tactical knife/bling/warlord/whatever. Whenever you take something away from a player, you are always going to favor another. So just leave ALL the options open to let players best find their niche. And once you do, rock it, but don't hate on other people who are different and possibly better than you. (I'm not saying YOU, it's just theoretical.)

I also wish that in a realistic shooter they'd have realistic gun attachments. Why can't I put a silencer, flamethrower, AND red dot sight on my gun? It's not like they get in the way of each other. (E.G. Flamethrower and grenade launcher.) If this WAS real war, heck, I'd trick my gun out as much as I possibly could.

Actually QSing is bullshit and should never be in any game. If you don't know what it is, it's the aim assist snapping onto an enemy, so on MW2 you had a one shot rifle that aimed quicker than most AR/LMG guys, killed quicker (1 shot compared to 4 or 5 from AR/LMG) and had much greater range (especially if you used the scope properly).

QSing is akin to cheating, maybe hacking. Ever watch a video on youtube and somebody got a 360 no scope across map and through a wall, then thought "holy shit! that was a lucky shot!"? The reason he got that kill is 'cos the aim assist kicked in and directed the bullet.

I have a video, saved in my favorites on youtube, that clearly shows there is no way the bullet could have killed him, due to the cross hairs not being over the guy that died. (you have to pause the vid as soon as you hear the shot)

Another example is, ever be aiming somewhere with an AR/LMG when an enemy walks infront of you and your crosshairs follow him for half a second? Thats what lets QSing players be so good.

I guarentee if you totally removed aim assist from MW2 or black ops, the QSing players would be up in arms so quick the treyarch/IW/activision forums would explode!

I don't have a problem with camping, sure they ruin a kill streak but 'cos COD maps are made so there is atleast 1 other path to get to the camper, you can get revenge on the guy easily.

Well, this is going to be one long thread for a short reply but I really don't know of any other way to do it.

In all of my typing I forgot to ad that in a perfect world, no videogame would have aim assist. That always confused me. Isn't that like, cheating? Hm. I always turn it off when there is an option to because I can't live with the fact that a computer is "helping" me with my kills. Drives me crazy. If one could quickscope WITHOUT aim assist, then I could sympathize with its legitimacy. Although I'd still hate it.

 

[BENZOOKA]

Ah, pardon my simplemindedness (I also strayed a bit too much to competitive gaming in my points)...

That kind of a difference in FPS sounds like an enormous advantage for COD. Haven't got much experience on consoles, but I've been surprised on how effortfully some games run on them. In the same situation you'd decrease graphics settings on a PC for a smoother gameplay; which is more important than flashy graphics.

Yeah, exactly. And that's the funny thing.... as good as Crysis 2 looks on my 360, it's marred by choppy frame-rates and so in a way COD often looks better to my eyes due to its fluidity, if that makes any sense.

Now to see Crysis 2 in 60FPS or above.... that would make my day.

That makes perfect sense. Fluidity and smoothness are really important factors along the actual graphical fireworks. And those become all the more important in relation to the speed of the game. I can handle some slower moments when I'm playing Civilization V, for example, where I have all the time I need with the calm and collected turn-based gameplay, and the constant decisions anyways take from several seconds to minutes.

In a fast paced first-person-shooter though, like CS:S, the FPS must be in the smooth area. I have the FPS limited in a constant 120 FPS, and recently have gone back to a smaller resolution, where my monitor can work with 75 Hz refresh rate, rather than the default 60 Hz on a native resolution. Because it's very much more fluent than. And usually have some FPS configurations so my system can reach that performance.

I'm still somewhat puzzled how only CoD is the only one on the console side to keep such a fine FPS, and in comparison how many console games "settle" with being a bit choppy, and not finding the best balance between graphics and fluidity. It's easier on a platform that always has the (practically) same hardware, unlike PC. Developers ought to fix that.

 

[Chewster]

I suppose I'm talking about anytime your point of view is on eye level with the Main Character's and you have some sort of weapon poking out from the corner of your screen. I think I'm starting to realize just how diverse the genre is! I never knew that so many different issues existed. But with a lot of people, there are A LOT of different tastes and styles. Which is great! This is how new stuff is created with the mixture of everything good taken from different types of games. Sooner or later, someone will find the perfect formula. Or maybe not and we will continue to live in searching for the "perfect" FPS shooter.

Well, I don't know that any perfect formula exists for any game or genre, or really, any media at all. With media fragmentation being what it is, everyone can find something they like specifically, and trying to make a game for everyone is bound to fail as people's tastes are too diversified these days. We are long gone from the days of three television channels, if you know what I am saying.

Assuming that you just want to sell units, the best you can do is target a specific audience and tailor your game to them. If creating something artistic is your goal, well, good onya and best of luck.

 

[HandfulofWolf]

Fun. The most important thing. Get rid of all the attempted realism and make it fun.

Games all too often forget about imagination in favour of anything else.

So summing up, fun and imagination.

 

[Grond Strong]

Fun. The most important thing. Get rid of all the attempted realism and make it fun.

Games all too often forget about imagination in favour of anything else.

So summing up, fun and imagination.

Thanks! This is also a popular response it seems and for good reason too! After all, isn't that what we play videogames for in the first place? Somehow, somewhere down the developing line people thought it would be better if it was left out. But games ARE supposed to be fun! I suppose it's up to the individual to decide whether that fun is worth the cost of it being "unrealistic." Not that it has to be. But I can say this, if a game WAS too realistic and perfectly mimicked life in all its aspects I don't think it would be as entertaining at all. Imagination! It's what's for dinner!

 

[RuralGamer]

[IMO]
Multiplayer is of equal or lesser importance to an excellent, replayable story mode; in my case CoD 4, compared to say, Modern Warfare 2 (grrrrrrrr)

Guns aren't magical point-and-click death machines, but require some form of aiming, accuracy and short, controlled bursts; in my case Battlefield 2, compared to say, Modern Warfare 2 (WTF!?!?!)

The weapons handle viscerally, so they operate clumsy, heavy, but deadly; in my case, Battlefield: Bad Company, compared to say, Modern Warfare 2's 'air particle weapons' (GAHHHHHH!)

There is some form of balance and one team doesn't get constantly mauled by teh supr proz wth ther awsm gunz! I prefer when shooters have some form of balancing... which Modern Warfare 2 certainly didn't have (AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAARGH! *thump*) A good server on Battlefield 2 would do this. Also, guns and such should not be OP compared to others (see Modern Warfare 2 for how not to do it).

Obviously if my three good examples were mashed together through some kind of super game, I'd be happy. And it wouldn't even know what the words 'kill streaks' were; CoD 4 was fine, WaW was a bit much (come on, instakill dogs?) and since then its been a farce of balancing.
Oh yeah, and I like shooters that try something new, rather than just copy Call of Duty, even if its not as good. I may not play it long, but brownie points for being creative/original/not going with the flow.
[/IMO]

EDIT: so long as you're going for some realism, else let us take six guns, like Timesplitters: Future Perfect and allow us to port around a nuke launcher (Fallout 3 anyone?)

 

[Someone Depressing]

FPS' are in, I guesse you could say in their "Realism" state. Right now, they're choosing :

Graphics > Gameplay
Graphics > Story
Graphics > Character Developments
Graphics > Plot
Graphics > Good Exectution

Realism > Fun
Realism > Sensibility
Realism > Stealth
Realism > Mindless fun
Realism > Puzzles

 

[ninthtj]

Excitement. Pure excitement. The ability to make the players hairs stand up on the back of his/her neck as a squadron of fighter jets roars above their heads shaking the screen intensely and causing members of your platoon to fall over. That's what makes an excellent FPS in my opinion.

 

[Grond Strong]

FPS' are in, I guesse you could say in their "Realism" state. Right now, they're choosing :

Graphics > Gameplay
Graphics > Story
Graphics > Character Developments
Graphics > Plot
Graphics > Good Exectution

Realism > Fun
Realism > Sensibility
Realism > Stealth
Realism > Mindless fun
Realism > Puzzles

Hm, you know, I don't foresee a problem in any part of your plan except for maybe the difficulty of executing it. To me, it would seem that realism and some of the things you mentioned pushed aside by graphics would be hard to balance. E.G. A good story or character development would seem like they need some sort of realism to keep their feet on the ground and their legitimacy. Mindless fun is great! But it's super hard to have mindless fun, sensibility, plus a good plot/story to boot. I'm not saying it's impossible because I'm sure it is. However, the difficulty of finding the balance between all of these things would be a daunting task. I DO agree with what you said however. It's good to be picky because it doesn't leave room for any compromise.

 

[Grond Strong]

[IMO]
Multiplayer is of equal or lesser importance to an excellent, replayable story mode; in my case CoD 4, compared to say, Modern Warfare 2 (grrrrrrrr)

Guns aren't magical point-and-click death machines, but require some form of aiming, accuracy and short, controlled bursts; in my case Battlefield 2, compared to say, Modern Warfare 2 (WTF!?!?!)

The weapons handle viscerally, so they operate clumsy, heavy, but deadly; in my case, Battlefield: Bad Company, compared to say, Modern Warfare 2's 'air particle weapons' (GAHHHHHH!)

There is some form of balance and one team doesn't get constantly mauled by teh supr proz wth ther awsm gunz! I prefer when shooters have some form of balancing... which Modern Warfare 2 certainly didn't have (AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAARGH! *thump*) A good server on Battlefield 2 would do this. Also, guns and such should not be OP compared to others (see Modern Warfare 2 for how not to do it).

Obviously if my three good examples were mashed together through some kind of super game, I'd be happy. And it wouldn't even know what the words 'kill streaks' were; CoD 4 was fine, WaW was a bit much (come on, instakill dogs?) and since then its been a farce of balancing.
Oh yeah, and I like shooters that try something new, rather than just copy Call of Duty, even if its not as good. I may not play it long, but brownie points for being creative/original/not going with the flow.
[/IMO]

EDIT: so long as you're going for some realism, else let us take six guns, like Timesplitters: Future Perfect and allow us to port around a nuke launcher (Fallout 3 anyone?)

Lol, so you like CoD MW2 huh? Ah, I kid... Yep, as realistic as MW2 is supposed to be there is an outrageous amount of things that have no resemblance to what we mere mortals are limited to. It's like watching Clash of the Titans but instead of watching it, your playing it, with guns instead of swords and the ability to do sueprhero things and walk away in slo-mo from it, claiming that because it's modern day it's realistic. False.

If one makes a game that is supposed to be real, make it real, make it hard.
If one makes a game that is supposed to be far-fetched, then go all-out and crazy.

The only thing that I might disagree with you a little about is the multiplayer taking a back seat to campaign. I think that the campaign should be great! But that doesn't necessarily mean it has to take away from multiplayer and vice versa. The thing that makes a game great for me is the ability to keep on coming back and playing it, over and over again. It's the multiplayer that makes me put so many hours into a game, not playing the campaign 67 times over. I get bored just the second time around mostly.

 

[Trolldor]

Immersion, Atmosphere, a quality story-driven single-player campaign.
Even Bulletstorm managed what CoD never could - I gave a shit about the characters. Admittedly playing as Wolverine helped, but still.

Also - Use the fucking hands for something. If I'm climbing a ladder then show me climbing it. I'm not a goddamn hoverbot. I don't glide up ladders.

 

[Azure-Supernova]

Doesn't this entirely depend on the kind of FPS you're playing?

Sure Call of Duty benefits from a really easy to use control scheme; it's action orientated and takes on a poor attempt at gritty overblown (but somehow passes itself off as an example of 'realism') warfare. If you step outside of the campaign it's essentially just a big bag of nerd rage and hating. It's fast, it's frenzied and if you don't know the maps and use spray fire then you're bollocksed. So if that's the kind of FPS then great. The multiplayer is a bit of dumb fun. I personally think Borderlands did it better, but hey.

But then you can flip over to the likes of Bioshock. Near enough a polar opposite to Call of Duty. The game is heavily story driven; the guns use is strategic and are most effective when combined with Plasmids; stealth is possible and there are tense moments when you know you won't survive another hit so you tread carefully. Try going in guns blazing against your first few Big Daddies and I can guarantee it won't be the cakewalk you'd make out of Call of Duty.

Then you've got your tacticals. S.W.A.T. 4 and Rainbow Six. It's kind of a mish mash between action and stealth; but the main focus is on squad tactics. I found my first run through Rainbow Six Vegas 2 was abysmal because I kept trying to gun everything down (apparently my character was squishy and mortal). My second playthrough on Realistic was a tad harder, but I learned to use my squadmates to clear rooms, flashbang and smoke enemies into vulnerability. Again you just can't play it like you would CoD or even as you would Bioshock. You choose weapons and armour according to the situation.

They can all be equally as fun. Point is that you might need to narrow it down.

 

[Kortney]

Right now I'd love to see a FPS that doesn't turn into something that resembles a B grade action movie. Slower pacing wouldn't hurt either. What is the point of action when it is ALWAYS IN YOUR FACE LIKE THIS! I'm looking at you, Call of Duty. I also would like to see more "realistic" action. I don't want to fight my way through hundreds of enemies. Make the combat more intimate and believable.

That's what I want!

 

[Zantos]

Number one question i ask when buying an FPS (suprisingly moreso than other genres): Is it fun? If the answer to that is yes then it can get away with murder.

 

[bbad89]

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

I will use another user's post to explain this.
gameplay>realism

 

[bbad89]

I have a video, saved in my favorites on youtube, that clearly shows there is no way the bullet could have killed him, due to the cross hairs not being over the guy that died. (you have to pause the vid as soon as you hear the shot)

Another example is, ever be aiming somewhere with an AR/LMG when an enemy walks infront of you and your crosshairs follow him for half a second? Thats what lets QSing players be so good.

About the crosshairs-not-being-on-him, that's called "bullet magnatism", developed because controllers are damn bad for FPS's

 

[omega 616]

I have a video, saved in my favorites on youtube, that clearly shows there is no way the bullet could have killed him, due to the cross hairs not being over the guy that died. (you have to pause the vid as soon as you hear the shot)

Another example is, ever be aiming somewhere with an AR/LMG when an enemy walks infront of you and your crosshairs follow him for half a second? Thats what lets QSing players be so good.

About the crosshairs-not-being-on-him, that's called "bullet magnatism", developed because controllers are damn bad for FPS's

Is there a reason you brought PC elitism to this thread?

It isn't called "bullet magnitism", just aim assist snapping on to it 'cos your spinning to quickly for the aim assist to keep up.

 

[HandfulofWolf]

Fun. The most important thing. Get rid of all the attempted realism and make it fun.

Games all too often forget about imagination in favour of anything else.

So summing up, fun and imagination.

Thanks! This is also a popular response it seems and for good reason too! After all, isn't that what we play videogames for in the first place? Somehow, somewhere down the developing line people thought it would be better if it was left out. But games ARE supposed to be fun! I suppose it's up to the individual to decide whether that fun is worth the cost of it being "unrealistic." Not that it has to be. But I can say this, if a game WAS too realistic and perfectly mimicked life in all its aspects I don't think it would be as entertaining at all. Imagination! It's what's for dinner!

Amen.

A game can be both realistic and fun. But it's a difficult task and I think often companies attempt this, find it too difficult and just kind of drop it. Which causes both the realism and fun to suffer for it.

Another two things I would add are, get rid of the artificial game lengtheners.
I'm talking about that specific section of the game where you're forced to backtrack or you're forced through a section or three with such severe difficulty spikes it would make the cheapest Arcade games blush. I would rather play a polished four hour game that I thoroughly enjoyed than a 16 hour game which I only enjoyed for the first 4 hours.

The second thing is a two parter: Balance and attention to detail. A FPS needs both of these in spades. Nobody will enjoy an unbalanced game as it negates the use of tactics and skill and turns it into a game of "My gun/class is more overpowered than your gun/class!". Attention to detail proves that the developer understands both their fans and the world they're creating.

Cheers.

 

[DaHero]

A good FPS:

Multiplayer based
Named "Call of Duty" or "Halo" (otherwise nobody will buy it)
Have plenty of "exploitable engine bugs" so you can make it more "skill based" (like quickscoping and bunnyhopping in CoD, makes sense in UT/Doom games though)
Must...MUST have plenty of overpowered weapons that are completely cheap and require little to no skill.
Must have a very short singleplayer campaign
Must be ported to the PC, instead of starting on it.
Must charge 1/4th of the games price for a couple extra maps
Requires that noobs start with nothing, while pros can kill everything.
Have easily memorized maps so snipers can shoot behind cover knowing someone is there because they've been there for years, also allows for easy game beginning tubing.
Must all be really tiny maps that a sniper wouldn't be caught dead in, yet now is full of them.
No large maps, ever...and no customized ones, that'll just piss the "pros" off.

You have to follow these criteria to make a sellable game in today's market...in other words...you need to make Modern Warfare 3. A good FPS? Never gonna happen.