Is the evolution of FPSs moving backwards?

[XavierMcV]

I was lying awake in bed, thinking about all the great time I've had with Goldeneye and Perfect Dark on N64. I've been a fan of FPS since I first discovered Wolfenstein 3D, and when Duke Nukem 3D came I knew that it was love.

The games just got better and better, and I was really impressed by both Goldeneye and Perfect Dark. I've never played FPS (or possibly an game) with the same replay value as those.
Th levels were varied and fairly challenging. After you beat the levels you could increase the difficulty and try them again in any order. They weren't as straight forward as in most other FPSs where your only goal was to reach the end of each levels. In GE and PD you had a set of objectives you had to accomplish before moving on.
If the difficulty levels weren't enough, you could give the various challenges a go to unlock secrets and new game modes. (I'm tempted to add AvP as well)

Then there was the multiplayer modes (including coop, yeah!). Proximity mines and laptop guns have provided hours of fun. The multiplayer in PD is still the best I've ever seen. Fun weapons, a great number of different modes, all the different skins, a number of other options (including which weapons to allow in the game), and even bots with a decent AI (not great, but decent enough) gave me a lot to toy with. You could create a lot of different games with the available options, and I used to create my own stories to play out on the many great maps.

I never really got tired of these games. There was always something more for me to do. Another challenge to beat or another unique multiplayer game to set up (I've always been a sucker for killing people in slow motion. Especially with explosives. Never get tired of it.)
Even the single player campaign was good enough that I could play through it several times just to enjoy the story.

I've tried hard to think of games with the same replay value, with the same amount of options and the same amount of entertainment I've found in the games mentioned, but I can't.
There are some great games that I really did enjoy, Quake, Deus Ex, Half Life, Hexen, Metroid Prime etc. But except for Deus Ex and Metroid they are very straight forward. The game is divided into several levels where the object always is the same: Reach the end!
Replay value? Nah, every time you play the game, it's exactly the same as the last time. You can increase the difficulty to make it more challenging, but you still have to go through all the levels in the same order and to exactly the same objective. Some of the games are great for multiplayer, there is very little variation to be found (and to me, multiplayer is just an added bonus anyway. It's the single player mode that attracts me. That's the problem with the Halo games. Good multiplayer, but the single player campaign is bland and boring).

It seems that most FPS are stuck in a formula. The very same formula that was used in the very first FPS games. You rarely see anything new. As soon as you've finished a single player campaing, you've seen all it has to offer and done all there is to do. Unless you really enjoy multiplayer, you might as well uninstall the game and move on to the next one. Perhaps you'll return to play through it again after a few years if you really enjoyed.

What happened to games like Goldeneye and Perfect Dark (and AvP)? I could play those games for months and I still wasn't finished. I can still pick up those games and have just as much fun as I did when they were new. Why did they abandon such a great formula and move back to the old-fashioned, straight forward "run from point A to point B and you're done"?

 

[ComradeJim270]

Certainly a sound observation, but I don't think there is anything new going on here. Games like the one you're talking about are still around, they're still being made... they just get lost in the hype-storms that surround a lot of A-list titles.

 

[Swerve]

Agree - though Portal took fps into another dimension. There's hope still

 

[firestomp23]

Agree - though Portal took fps into another dimension. There's hope still

Portal isn't really an FPS. It does have a first-person viewpoint, but the gameplay and requisite mental skills are much closer to puzzle than shooter. However, it's so innovative that it feels almost pointless to try to place it into a category.


And, to reply to the original thread:

Due to some unfortunate cranial lesion that seems to affect only game developers, the idea of nonlinear, sandbox-style FPS gameplay was swallowed up, digested, shat out, and pissed on back around, ooh, let's say 2000. Instead, the "innovation" started showing up in storyline and graphics. I say "innovation" in quotes because there simply isn't any. None of the major gaming corps have the balls to put out anything truly innovative, except Valve, and as I said, Portal still doesn't count. Instead of ingenuity and creative design, many game developers, especially FPS designers, are engaged in a massive, world-wide, electronic dick-waving competition about who can make that headshot look so realistic you pee your pants or who can concot more world-spanning conspiracies or who can make the snappiest bone-dry dialogue. What nobody seems to notice is that there are plenty of people who would settle for graphics that are merely okay or a storyline that's not novel-quality if they'd just let us make the game more interactive. The way it is, developers act like a game is a movie in which you can change the camera angle, but it's not. Sandbox gameplay, flexible storyline, intuitive controls, andcustomizeable characters; now that, I believe is what FPS gaming should be.

Now go spray-paint that on the side of Bungie HQ.

 

[Keet]

I believe that it has more to do with the mindset of the people buying FPS games in the first place. There is a reason that the XBOX 360 has done so very, very well with its massive FPS collection on the console. Many people are simply looking for a title that they can put in, call alot of people over who have never played the game before, then spend the next ten hours playing the same stage to death.

To demonstrate my point, simply fire up Unreal Tourney 2004 and do a quick search on maps. The map that shows up more than any other map is TORLAN and RED PLANET on "onslaught" and if you are very lucky and actually find an assault stage, it's always the desert one.

SAND. GUNS. Sounds alot like Counterstrike doesn't it?

Altough there is a vast variety of pre-installed maps, maps where you can play wing-commander before landing in to capture a base, or go island hopping using carefully placed artillery and and sniping from sand dunes, people like the generic, flat surface with maybe a few decorations here and there to throw liven the place up. They don't want to be challenged, they don't want to be inspired, and above all else, they don't want to look like an idiot when they charge in randomly with no strategy or stealth. And if it doesn't look nice, then they really don't care what the gameplay is like. (How many of us actually have full hd 37-inch 1080p tvs anyway?)

We've become a bunch of pussies when it comes to difficulty.

I remember trying to finish the final Goldeneye stage on 00 agent difficulty, and having to fire at this precise point in the horizon where you can only see a black dot, two to three pixels wide, of a person to avoid getting mowed down within the first few seconds of the stage.

What we're witnessing is only the mass marketization of another previously underground niche.

 

[HotPotato]

I wouldn't say that the FPS genre is moving backwards but more so that its pretty much come to a halt. swanson pretty much nailed it with the fact that majority of FPS games seem to focus too much on how pretty they can look and how many players they can have on a single map. The focus instead should be directed towards what aspects of the genre these developers can improve upon or even add to as well as looking into writing and creating much more interesting and compelling stories for these games.

The more I think about it however I also tend to think that the problem with the FPS genre may not be the developers as much as it is the gamers. The fact of the matter, as much as most of us here would like to deny it, is that the gaming industry has become a money first quality second business. Why bother making changes to something if it is making you millions of dollars and millions of gamers are online playing it right now? I honestly think this came about in the late 90s early 2000s when the "l33t" generation of gaming exploded. These idoits don't care about how realistic bullet damage can be or how accurate a weapon can fire...and they could care even less about the depth of character or interesting plot progression you would find in a great story. As long as they can head shot someone and then T-bag them to look cool in front they're other 13 year old idiotic friends improving the quality of the FPS genre is non-existent.

However I strongly believe that there is still room for improvement and evolution left in the FPS genre and hopefully some developer will come along and make said improvements a reality. I don't think much can be added on a FPS in terms of the player themselves, perhaps improving bullet wound and battle damage realism is a possibility as well as including fatigue and other factors can bring about a new level of depth to combat both on and offline but the biggest advances can come from the environments that the FPS genre has to offer.

Say for example your playing a game in the middle of the desert and the wind is blowing strong, theres the strong possibility that the gun could get jammed then. Now I'm not saying that the gun is permanently jammed for the rest of the game but it adds a little depth and strategy that wasn't there before. So now you are going to have to most likely find cover and rely on your pistol or secondary weapon while you attempt to repair the jam in your primary weapon, it would make combat more exciting and intense as well. The elements can drastically change the progression and outcome of a real life battle so theres no reason why they shouldn't in a video game. Take Call of Duty 4 for example, the one misson where you had to snipe from such a great distance was a brilliant addition to the game simply because of all the different factors involved. If sniping became more like that in regular gaming it would make it much more strategic to accomplish as well as rewarding when you finally got that perfect shot.

So I don't think the genre is moving backwards, we're just a standstill right now and too lazy to go over that next hill of progression. Hopefully someone pushes the genre in the right direction though cause I would love to play a game like the one I mentioned ha ha ha

 

[sapient]

Enemy Territory: QUAKE Wars was a huge breath of fresh air for me. Brilliant sandbox-style class based missions, awesome AI and the game had a hugely RTS feel to it, you couldn't just run in, plant explosives and walk out, you needed to ask your team for backup, have someone give you covering fire, and take a guy in with a rocket launcher to drop those pesky tanks or obliterators.

Crysis was strictly linear progression wise, but you could go through it any way you wanted - it was quite fun for me going through the camps invisible, then shooting a car inside a shed to blow it down, cause a distraction, jump on to the nearest tower and play vengeful-god-with-a-rifle.

 

[Renoath]

I've wondered the same thing many times. (Whether the first person shooter genre had become rather stale), maybe not necessarily going backwards but just not evolving. Pretty much after Perfect Dark I hadn't touched a FPS for ages, until Halo came out and for me it was slightly different, mainly the story was interesting for me and the concept of only only two guns to pick up, and while I'm sure its been done before, I found it somewhat refreshing and slightly strategic. Plus the addition of vehicles sections was a nice change, even if the Warthog handled like a mule with 3 legs.

However I'd say they're evolving at a very gradual pace, with each title bringing a single innovative concept. FarCry showed we could have expansive environments and not just the strict corridors we were used to, the Metroid Prime series showed that you could implement puzzle elements into the genre, Red Faction had an interesting idea of destructible environments (but the technology at the time was somewhat limited) Portal .... well its Portal and while it isn't really a FPS, it did show that even the simplest ideas can be implemented into enjoyable, replayable gameplay and Half Life a brilliant example of story telling and gameplay integration.

Anyway the point...I think i had a point...is that the FPS genre is evolving, and while a lot of the 'hyped' and 'A-List' titles haven't opened up something revolutionary in and of themselves, they have each brought a single aspect that shows that some game designers out their can evolve the genre.

It would be cool if we could see a single, revolutionary title that blends story, character arcs, gameplay and replayability into a single game without any aspect feeling tacked on, or not meeting our expectations but then that would be the PERFECT game. However I'd say a hope lies in the new FarCry as from what I've been reading and watching it looks to definitely kick the sand in Crysis' face. Expansive environments, choice, dynamic and reactive environment, AI, etc and well maybe story wise it isn't epic, but it doesn't need to be in this case as it should be fun and replayable nonetheless.

On a final note with the RTS genre I think they're moving forward more so than the FPS genre. Company of Heroes being a great example of strategic depth, while Warhammer 40K just absurd and well crazy fun.

Anyway with games like Call of Duty 4 out, and with FarCry 2 on the distant horizon things might be looking up somewhat.

 

[Romag]

I consider Portal an FPS, and with Portal I see new hope in the FPS genre. Portal is First-Person... and you shoot portals... when a portal gun. Puzzles or not how is shooting things from a first person perspective not a first person shooter? You defeat a freaking boss in it when the portal gun and the use of explosives.

I think Valve has put some kind of innovation in every iteration of the Half-Life Series.

Half-Life - Basically invented FPS story telling through cutscenes actually happening in the game that you weren't forced to pay attention to.

Half-Life 2 - Physics and the use of them in puzzles.

Half-Life 2: Episode 1 - The effective use of an AI companion that for the most part didn't get in your way and didn't make you want to kill her (usually) Plus the first good use I've seen of episodic content.

Half-Life 2: Episode 2 - It didn't get much attention but I thought the level with the striders and the ... anti-strider sticky bombs... Was pretty amazing. That was a pretty innovative use of open ended combat. (Episode 2 is the middle child of the Episodes, Not much there) Did anyone else sort of freak out when Alyx got pwned? That was weird I never cared about a Marine in Halo dying...

Half-Life 2: Episode 3 - The use of the portal gun in a game with an actual story?

There are developers who routinely try to push the FPS Genre forward. Then there are some who just want to push the limits on how much you can milk a franchise with nothing new what-so-ever(halo).

I actually get excited when a developer causes a media storm by "pushing the limits" on violence, sexy, or... what else is there???

BTW does anyone remember SOE II with the bodies that graphically deformed with weapons damage (yes I know there were others but these looked particularly gruesome)... I miss being able to cut enemies arms off with a machine gun... Or Unreal Tournament when you got a headshot, the head would pop off and bounce away- it was actually featured on the box. How did that stuff make it past the media?

 

[Chalee]

Stalker anyone? I don't recall any FPS quite like it..

 

[Vegenoid]

STALKER is probably the best FPS game I´ve played since System Shock 2, I was instantly reminded of Fallou1&2 during the first 10 minutes, and I was hooked, line and sinker. I can´t recall (apart from STALKER) any FPS game since SS2 and Deus Ex that I´ve been really, truly impressed by, except maybe for FarCry... oh and yes, Chronicles of Riddick: Escape from Butcher Bay.

I can think of only two (one fairly) recent titles that I´ve truly been excited for: Doom3 and BioShock, and both these titles were a let-down. Apart from the great graphics, fantastic atmosphere and b-grade story, Doom3 was just, well, Doom with a flashy ribbon and bigger weapons. Whoopee. And BioShock cut most of the good parts from SS2, like the ever so fantastic option of having an inventory. And why, please someone tell me why game developers think that gamers don´t appreciate leaning left or right to check out if any baddies are around the corner... Damnit, BioShock reminded me a bit of Deus Ex 2:Invisible Wars and that game, sorry to say, sucked, instead of continuing on the same lines of DE the bastards dumbed it down, it was insulting.

Mah first post.

 

[LordLocke]

I dunno. One of my favorite FPS games came out this year in the form of Team Fortress 2, so I can't say I'm too unhappy with the genre right now. Call of Duty 4 and Unreal Tournament III both came out and polished their respective formulas to a mirror shine.

Innovation is in places, but the fact of the matter is, two of the most unoriginal series around are two of the top sellers in gaming today- Halo and Call of Duty. As long as people are lapping there games up and not the occasional stab at real innovation (Before there was S.T.A.L.K.E.R., there was Stranger's Wrath, and before that was No One Lives Forever 2, and before that Deus Ex, etc- all of which got critical acclaim for their attempts at innovation... and rather crummy sales to show for it.) that's going to be what people will make and market. It's not like this is the first time an over-saturation of one formula of a genre has occurred: Two of the better examples is the 2D Fighter from 1991-1998 and the 3D Collect-a-thon Platformer for most of the 32/64 bit generation. And with Halo 3 making more money then any other form of media this year, we can only assume this trend is going to continue.

That said, this was a good year for the FPS shooter. We DID get some really good, really well-designed creative content (Team Fortress 2, Bioshock, S.T.A.L.K.E.R.) alongside some of the best 'formula' FPS titles we've ever seen. (CoD4, UT3) So... I guess what I'm saying is that this is a rather silly time to complain about the quality and direction of FPS titles, especially if you HAVEN'T gone out and supported the ones that are pushing the genre in directions other then straight forward. If you own a copy of Halo 2 for your X-Box, and lack a copy of Stranger's Wrath, congratulations- you are partially responsible for the current state of the genre. And considering the sales numbers for the two games, that'd be about 97% of you.

(P.S.- Portal isn't mentioned because it's not a shooter. It is, however, one of the freshest ideas to come out of gaming in the last five years.)

 

[Maxpayne5th]

I've been a huge fan of FPS games as well, (Surprise Surprise, didn't see that one coming did you. ) ever since the 1990's when I was able to get Duke Nukem 3D. My dad just finished installing the Windows 98 upgrade disk. So I sat down, played, and thought it had awesome humour, cool guns, hot babes, (Ok maybe not in that one, but later I obtained the Atomic Edition and so there was hot babes) and somewhat different level design, meaning no level was ever the same or similar. Sure there were parts we thought we saw before, but then you'd get to the next bit and see something different.

Then I got my N64 and I was hooked on Goldeneye and Perfect Dark. They were awesome for SP and MP, especially me and my dad playing against each other using ONLY Proxy mines, fun times!

Then on my Xbox I was able to get a game called Timesplitters 2, now according to many reviews, this game was between average to poor, but in all honestly, I found it fun, easy, and different. It had its comic appeal, but felt like it was trying to be serious at the same time. Its kind of like if Osama bin Laden talked on the TV about the destruction of America while he wore a huge novelty set of sunglasses, and didn't even seem to notice, you know? That kind of funny.

Then, like the OP has said, the games started becoming fully linear. Go here, then here, then here. I can't exactly say "Yawn" but I can say "Ok I think I'll go play something else". Sure, like Yahtzee said before about Fable, some people think that saying a game is non-linear is like saying you have a machine that gives free pudding and pufferfish. Now I don't mind non-linear, but then it needs to start off with giving me a recommended direction. Telling me to just "Go with the flow" will leave me with a feeling of "So your just dumping me here? In the rain? On a late night? Wearing nothing but a mini-skirt and a shirt?" I'd get the feeling they just kinda felt lazy.

What we need is a game that is semi-linear. So the way you play the game decides where you go, but there is still a line. Play Lylatwars (Or for you NTSC boys, Starfox 64) on the N64 and you'll see what I mean by semi-linear. So what you do (or dont do) will effect the place around you, but not make you deter from a final objective. WoW seems to do this with relative ease, by giving you a couple of places to train up and become better you can then go to more places. It is semi-linear, even though you can go anywhere, you'll most likely end up dying, so you may as well train up. The Objective is the same (Get to 70 and get the best gear) but to do that requires you to train and do quests and the like. So lets say I'm Level 20, I could go to Duskwood, I could go to Ashenvale, I could go Redridge Mountains, I might just stay in the Barrens. You can go higher from any of these places and it wont matter. Your objective stays the same. It makes the objective more interesting because there are many ways to reach it.

Ok so I kidna went off into RPG territory, but maybe FPS need to look at MMORPG's and see some of the finer details as to why it is working so well. Forget the combat mechanics, forget the way the netcoding is made, forget all that, worry about what makes the game popular. I'm sure you'll get alot of responses, but main ones would be:
* It's Fun
* I feel like I'm achieving something
* My Friends can get into it
* Easy to play
* Lots of variety

This is also why MP of CoD4 is working. It doesnt take a whole lot to get to Level 55 and get everything, but when you do, you feel like you have done an awesome deed. And then you still have all those challenges to do. Plus 1 to you Infinity Ward.

I guess the point I'm trying to make is that games need to be less about how good that M16A4 looks, and start looking at new ways to take a game. Timeshift was a nice idea, playing with the space-time-continuum but just needed some better AI and a couple more guns. Other than that, it was quite a good experiment. Well if alot of these game developers have Miller's Storage for brains, then maybe I can help them. Why don't we have a FPS where we can get weapons that mould into each other to make superweapons, like if we molded a shotgun with a sub-machine gun, we should get something of a shotgun that holds 30 shells and fires on full auto!

Or why not a gun that takes women's clothes off? Too raunchy? Alright what about one that makes them go "ooh"? Still kinda raunchy? Damn, well then replace women with men, how about that? Good? Ok then, same deal, except taking men's clothes off, that'll make all the gamers happy right? Good!

 

[Knight Templar]

valve.

 

[EzraPound]

Half-Life 2 and Bio-Shock are hardly formulaic, and TimeSplitters has effectively carried the RareWare torch.

 

[Easykill]

The levels were varied and fairly challenging. After you beat the levels you could increase the difficulty and try them again in any order. They weren't as straight forward as in most other FPSs where your only goal was to reach the end of each levels. In GE and PD you had a set of objectives you had to accomplish before moving on.
If the difficulty levels weren't enough, you could give the various challenges a go to unlock secrets and new game modes.

Sounds like Halo to me, although the level design of the Library can go to hell.

 

[broadband]

i readed somewhere that farcry 2 will be someway asandbox fps, but theres a problem, is settles in a plane africa sabana, with some that another base of bad guys in some places.