FPS's MOST important qualities.

[Grond Strong]

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.

You know, I thought you were being serious for a second, and then I smiled at your ironic sarcasm because I am much the same way, but then I realized that in a way, you WERE being serious. Well, maybe I just found something seriously disturbing about it.

It seems as if the blockbuster mentality has caught the gaming (not only gaming but we'll keep it here for example's sake) world by storm. Developers, through trial and error have found a formula that works with the general, stereotypical, casual gamer. And they have worked hard to perfect this formula into a profit-making behemoth. What this did was cut down on the originality and focuses on game sales rather than customer satisfaction. Like it or not, videogaming is a business to most of the developers out there, not a recreational hobby to perfect their videogame fantasies. And the ones who DO want to make a risk-taking, rule breaking game are shot down by the CEO's who don't want to take the risk of losing money when they could be dumping their massive budget into CoD 17. The "nice" developers who extend a helping hand to those new artists looking to expand the market with new ideas send a budget cut that might fund a decent Barney episode.

Sad thing is, I sometimes enjoy these big production hits. I mean, they have redeeming qualities, they're beautiful to look at and not entirely evil. They're like Darth Vader. Almost completely shallow and robotic but yet just redeeming enough to pull it off in the end and make everybody love them for it. But I do wish that the money was more spread so that we'd get a better selection of games to choose from instead of being fed the same explosion, cut-scene riddled games of these times.

 

[veloper]

#1 accurate and responsive controls

 

[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.

You know, I thought you were being serious for a second, and then I smiled at your ironic sarcasm because I am much the same way, but then I realized that in a way, you WERE being serious. Well, maybe I just found something seriously disturbing about it.

It seems as if the blockbuster mentality has caught the gaming (not only gaming but we'll keep it here for example's sake) world by storm. Developers, through trial and error have found a formula that works with the general, stereotypical, casual gamer. And they have worked hard to perfect this formula into a profit-making behemoth. What this did was cut down on the originality and focuses on game sales rather than customer satisfaction. Like it or not, videogaming is a business to most of the developers out there, not a recreational hobby to perfect their videogame fantasies. And the ones who DO want to make a risk-taking, rule breaking game are shot down by the CEO's who don't want to take the risk of losing money when they could be dumping their massive budget into CoD 17. The "nice" developers who extend a helping hand to those new artists looking to expand the market with new ideas send a budget cut that might fund a decent Barney episode.

Sad thing is, I sometimes enjoy these big production hits. I mean, they have redeeming qualities, they're beautiful to look at and not entirely evil. They're like Darth Vader. Almost completely shallow and robotic but yet just redeeming enough to pull it off in the end and make everybody love them for it. But I do wish that the money was more spread so that we'd get a better selection of games to choose from instead of being fed the same explosion, cut-scene riddled games of these times.

Believe me, I'm a very disturbing person. I enjoyed Halo more than CoD (even though ultimately I prefer the PC) because of the single player. I dislike multiplayer down to an utter hatred...

Know what I miss the most? Innovation and co-op...I gave up being a gamer when those died.

 

[MrShowerHead]

For me? Teamwork.

That's why I don't play COD that much.. Really hard to find good teamwork there. Don't get me wrong, I've been in few good teams and I had a great time.

Also, for single player, unscripted battles. Now, COD games have great moments, but since they're scripted, they always happen. Gets kinda boring. I love great moments, that just happen by themselves.

And yes, I'm releasing my inner ArmA II fanboy here and showing this pic from my little game session today

Spoiler

[http://img715.imageshack.us/i/arma22011042822310914.jpg/]

So, I want more of that

 

[Grond Strong]

#1 accurate and responsive controls

There are few things on my list of most hated things in the universe that top a sluggish control set-up. I think this particular entrée on my list comes somewhere in between spiders and spontaneous combustion... I hate it when that happens. So yes, extremely important and critical for FPS's. Thanks for your opinion.

 

[Onyx Oblivion]

Solid core mechanics and controls, and a good framerate.

I can take or leave a good story.

 

[Grond Strong]

Obviously the gunplay and the basic mechanics surrounding it, without a solid shooting mechanic your game will be poor. Take for example one of my favorite shooters STALKER; really solid gunplay with a great system of wirght limitations, inventory and sprint dependat directly on what you are carying. I think "Speed" isn't really important at all if you are making a certain type of game, there are loads of different kinds shooter, and so there are lost of things that can be important depending on the game.

For exmaple something like CoD feels like it is "too slow" because you are basically a floating gun ala quake but with a lot of 'realsiitc' mechanics shoe-horned in. Rather than being more geared towards throughtful, longer range and much more sedate tactical gameplay ala ARMAII where your weapons are genuinely tweaked to feel as realisitc as possible with all the impications that has.

The mistake many modern shooters make is having a very arcade verity of gunplay but weighing it down with a whole lot of other sudo-realism mechanics like slower movement etc.

Hm, I can agree with you. A first person shooter, I heard one person say earlier on, is "ALL about the guns", to which I agreed on a certain level. It's like the dashboard of your car, the outside can be as shiny and glimmering as it wants but it's the inside that you'll be looking at all the time. And if it ("it" meaning the gunplay mechanics and visuals) stinks then it kinda makes the rest of the stuff look bad too.

As for speed? Well, my opinion still stands, although speed is just ONE of the many things I would implement in my own FPS were I to make one. And to be honest, I recently came across a game with too much speed, at least for me. I've been trying to branch out a little bit with my gaming as to get a feel for games that I wouldn't normally play and came across a game called Vanquish which I rented. The whole game felt like it was on some type of illegal stimulant. I found myself reacting with faster reflexes than before which I thought was cool but also immensely tiring. The game was not worth the effort I was putting forth and I felt obligated to beat it more than desiring to and that is never a good sign.

Thanks for your input, btw!

 

[Hyper-space]

Well, i find it hard to pin-point something specific down that i would want in a game, the main reason being that there are lots of different types of shooters. You wouldn't compare a game like Battlefield: Bad company 2 to Call of Duty: Black Ops, they are two different types of shooters. Same with Bioshock and Halo, one is dependent on good story and atmosphere, the other on fun gameplay and pacing.

So, what i look for in a game is that the main areas of focus be good, that is, something like Bioshock has good atmosphere, Just Cause 2 be fun and the set-piece action of CoD be epic and tense.

@godofallu: So you want Call of Duty... another clone of that is exactly what we need.

Now lets be fair, quality multi-player isn't "CoD-only" territory, it applies to any game with multi-player and the thing with regen-health: it serves a different purpose than the health-pack system.

Let me explain: the health-pack system worked well with games such as doom and unreal tournament (or TF2), because they were not gunning (no pun intended) for realism, as you could carry as many guns as you wanted and a few bullet to the face didn't budge you. Now, for games such as Call of Duty, Battlefield and others, anything that seeks to remind you that this is in fact a game, is replaced with systems that are dynamic (that is, they are not visible). Things such as UI is kept to a minimum as they want the player to become more immersed into the environment, what with realistic graphics and combat.

Now you might say that regenerative health is just as realistic as health-packs, but that would be missing the point, namely, one system is always visible (health-packs) and the other is hidden (regen-health). So its not a choice of which system is more popular (at least not to the developers), but of design.

 

[Grond Strong]

Solid core mechanics and controls, and a good framerate.

I can take or leave a good story.

Ah, you're a brave soul indeed for arguing that point in this forum. It seems to be what everyone is hating against. I cannot with you though. Everyone to his own.

Besides, videogames in their most simple description are an art. And art is in the eye of the beholder. Nobody is really wrong here. Which is a good thing because it leaves it open for discussion. Every game has their place. I've put many hours into Black Ops, MW2, and Halo. But I've also put just as many into Mass Effect, KOTOR 1 and 2, Dragon Age, and the like. Ah, the dilemmas of life...

 

[Above]

Not hyped to much before release
Good,solid controls
Good MP
Good SP
Dont sacrifice ANYTHING For realism :/

 

[Amishdemon]

story. for godssake story. i want a reason to be fighting aliens or terrorists other than that a lot of modern FPS's have the rest of the formula down.

 

[Grond Strong]

Not hyped to much before release
Good,solid controls
Good MP
Good SP
Dont sacrifice ANYTHING For realism :/

Hm, not hyped before release... This is something not anybody has really made into a point before although now that I think about it, it makes perfect sense. I despise when I'm lead into a purchase believing that I'm getting a great game when really I'm not. It's like going to see a movie and then realizing that you've seen all the funny parts already in the trailer. Totally uncool. Totally agree.

 

[badgersprite]

Good level design. Maps have to guide you the right way without making you feel forced or confined or distracting you from your goal. They also shouldn't become dull, dreary or repetitive, neither dragging on too long, or being so lazily short that it's not memorable.

 

[Kohake]

I kinda feel like the question isn't specific enough, because imo, what makes a singel player FPS good is very diffrent from a multiplayer FPS. And then there is TDM vs FFA if multiplayer and a lot of other stuff. I mean, if the game is suposed to be played in teams I would say the most important aspect is how the players can help eachother as a team. I don't play CS myself, but I've heard that one of the most important skills is to play as a team, and that sounds really cool.

Not being a big fan of the FPS genre, I'm more into Time Splitters. The game has a ton of guns, hilarious characters, insane story, a bunch of game modes and not an ounce of balance. The map maker makes it even better. I rember playing virus(Basically tag, except you can kill the guy who's hunting you and if he tags someone they both become hunters) in a really small room but made one of the strongest weapons the start gun. So you had to put you back against the wall and kill as many as you could. With some skill you could time you reloads so that others were covering you while you did it.

So yeah, crazy stuff, crazy stuff is awesome. Unless you're making a game for "serious" people.

 

[godofallu]

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.

While I agree that COD is the best multiplayer shooter on the market, I don't think responsive controls is the reason. Honestly in every game that I push a button, it responds.

Damage/health, maps, killstreaks, weapons/perk customizations. I love Halo but I always feel like the weapon spawns + too much health keep it a peg down. Even if it does have fluid controls and a great framerate.

Oh and respawning health is important. It's what kept counterstrike from being one of the best shooters for me.

 

[Grond Strong]

I kinda feel like the question isn't specific enough, because imo, what makes a singel player FPS good is very diffrent from a multiplayer FPS. And then there is TDM vs FFA if multiplayer and a lot of other stuff. I mean, if the game is suposed to be played in teams I would say the most important aspect is how the players can help eachother as a team. I don't play CS myself, but I've heard that one of the most important skills is to play as a team, and that sounds really cool.

Not being a big fan of the FPS genre, I'm more into Time Splitters. The game has a ton of guns, hilarious characters, insane story, a bunch of game modes and not an ounce of balance. The map maker makes it even better. I rember playing virus(Basically tag, except you can kill the guy who's hunting you and if he tags someone they both become hunters) in a really small room but made one of the strongest weapons the start gun. So you had to put you back against the wall and kill as many as you could. With some skill you could time you reloads so that others were covering you while you did it.

So yeah, crazy stuff, crazy stuff is awesome. Unless you're making a game for "serious" people.

I lol'ed at your "serious people" comment. But it's true. It seems that some people DO take their gaming WAY too seriously. Not in a fun way that demands a decent game, but in a way that it envelopes their lives and becomes a part of them that instead of receiving fun from a game, all they see is a way of life. If someone doesn't play THEIR game they way THEY think it should be played then they flip a shizzle and fill the player's communicator with enough profanity to foul the Pacific.

I'm sorry that my question wasn't specific enough. But I think it was meant to be pretty broad. In either MP or SP, there must be ONE thing that makes an FPS an FPS to someone. And it's different for different people. For you, at least what it seems to me, it is diversity and creativity that stands from the rest of the qualities. I can't argue with that. Thanks for the comment too!

 

[Grond Strong]

Good level design. Maps have to guide you the right way without making you feel forced or confined or distracting you from your goal. They also shouldn't become dull, dreary or repetitive, neither dragging on too long, or being so lazily short that it's not memorable.

What's a game without an immersive environment? If one doesn't feel like they are playing in a real world then the game loses all its credibility. With it's credentials gone, it feels tacky and slapped together. Some people may not notice the details of their surroundings in the middle of an intense firefight. But I want to be able to flank, out-maneuver, and surround my enemies using the alley ways and paths that should be there for me to utilize. If nothing but a bush is magically blocking my way around to a better vantage point because some videogame designer thought it would be better for me not to go there then it becomes aggravating and just un-fun in general.

I agree with you with great um... agreeableness... Thanks for posting.

 

[greenitedaze]

Prone.
A quick reload.
A good selection of weapons and destructible scenery.
Varied enemies or different type, strength, colour and creed.
The ability to customise your character.
Levelling up, with the ability, over time to point the proverbial finger of god
at an enemy/multiplayer/your mate and zap them into jam.