Where can shooting games go next?
- Thread starter PurpleLeafRave
- Start date
Duke nuken can do and die for all i care. Its simple, in order to get better FPs we need to have more interesting wars. So, when we have ww3, a few years after (should the human race life to tell the tale) we should see games coming out about it. cuase turst me I am sick of ww1/2 games coming out about amircan soulders winning the war, RAWR! get the facts right, AMERICA DID NOTHING UNTILL THE LAST 3 MONTHS OF BOTH WARS!!!!! so yer =D.
Personally, the only fun first-person shooting games are multiplayer in my opinion. I tried Call of Duty 2 and Call of Duty 4, and they might be the only singleplayer modes I actually enjoyed, but they aren't my favorite overall.
I still play Battlefield 2, Counter-Strike, and Halo more often. Why? Because of multiplayer. For me, first-person shooters are basically party games or chat rooms with guns (best kind of chatroom)... oh, and graphics too. Really, just give me a variety of guns, the option to play a ton of different people, and increasingly better graphics for eye candy, and I'll be fine with it. As long as it's cheap ($5 for BF2, yay).
Innovation sounds like a great idea, and I highly recommend gaming companies experiment. But, I'm not buying into a first person shooter unless it has good multiplayer.
I still play Battlefield 2, Counter-Strike, and Halo more often. Why? Because of multiplayer. For me, first-person shooters are basically party games or chat rooms with guns (best kind of chatroom)... oh, and graphics too. Really, just give me a variety of guns, the option to play a ton of different people, and increasingly better graphics for eye candy, and I'll be fine with it. As long as it's cheap ($5 for BF2, yay).
Innovation sounds like a great idea, and I highly recommend gaming companies experiment. But, I'm not buying into a first person shooter unless it has good multiplayer.
Hate to rain on your parade, but some of us REALLY fucking hate multiplayer and feel it hurts more than helps innovation. The only GOOD multiplayer shooter, in my opinion, is Left 4 Dead.sonidraw said:
All the best shooters (Bioshock, Half-Life, Portal, System Shock 2, STALKER, Far Cry) are better in single player anyway.
Hmm, actually, I can't disagree with you. Of the games you mentioned and that I actually played, I also think they were good. It's just, I didn't play any of 'em that long because they didn't have a multiplayer option. It's hard to find replayability when you're facing the same AI in the same situation with the same story all the way through.PedroSteckecilo said:
Left 4 Dead is definitely good, except it's only four humans. If it was, like, sixteen humans, I might be enticed to play it a lot.
I think the simple games with a good amount of depth in the gameplay is best. If you don't what I mean, I'm talking about games like Halo 3. Halo 3 is simple and you never have a moment where the actual gameplay complexity kills you. Sure the more things you have means the more fun you can have...theoretically. Halo became a big hit because of it's simplicity. Before Halo came out, you never really had big multiplyer games except the unreal tournament franchise. You only games like Half-Life which although fun, it was complicated. Myself found the worst part was actually cycling through my weapons during combat when running low on ammo. And I'm not saying it was bad. So when Halo came out, I'd bet most people were like, "how can this simple game be great?" Now look where it has gone. It's higher on the Xbox Live list than games that are far more complicated than it. Hell the top 10 is all games that are simple, CoD 4 and 5, gears, L4D.
I'm not saying complexity is bad but simplicity isn't either, they are about equal but I'd rather have a boring simple game than a fustrating complex game. I'm not saying Halo 3 is the best game either, but it's the best example for my point. So as for as where games go next, they better think about the consequences of complexity before making game be so.
I'm not saying complexity is bad but simplicity isn't either, they are about equal but I'd rather have a boring simple game than a fustrating complex game. I'm not saying Halo 3 is the best game either, but it's the best example for my point. So as for as where games go next, they better think about the consequences of complexity before making game be so.
VIRTUAL REALITY!!!!!!
lol, no seriously, no big changes will come about to FPS until virtual reality is mass-marketed, which could take years. FPS, is essentially a shooting game from first person. we can play around with the "shooting" aspect,and I have no idea how they can improve this or change it any more than they already have. that leaves the "first person" aspect, and the upgraded version of that is virtual reality.
lol, no seriously, no big changes will come about to FPS until virtual reality is mass-marketed, which could take years. FPS, is essentially a shooting game from first person. we can play around with the "shooting" aspect,and I have no idea how they can improve this or change it any more than they already have. that leaves the "first person" aspect, and the upgraded version of that is virtual reality.
I'd like to see a shooter that actually makes use of NOT SHOOTING ALL THE TIME. Something that makes you judge each and every shot, gives every shot more consequence than "wound" or "death". Things like warning shots, or even just aiming your gun at someone, to scare people. Disarming people if they don't have their gun out and you do. A gun is more than an object that goes bang, it is a tool of power, fear, tactics. You don't have to pull the trigger to use a gun.
As I have been saying, bring virtual reality back! People abandoned it, and now that we have the technology to remake it, (I.E. Wii's gimmicks and the "Realistic" graphics) we should get started!
I know! It'd be fucking awesome, though!clicketycrack said:
SPS games are the future! Heck! After that, we'll have an BPS. Where you're blind.
have more weapon variety, have realistic moving parts, jams, etc. and have appropriate customization, i.e. no options for a true AK47, but a lot of options for the M16/M4, like a foregrip would increase accuracy, or upgrade to box magazines would slow you down but more ammo, etc. just stuff like that, and have 2 weapon slots, 2 pistol slots, and have people choose whatever the hell they want, and have different equipment options, like Counterstrike, but with a hell of alot of weaon options, and then have themed matchesm, like WWII, WWI, modern, etc. so basically Counter Strike Source mixed with Unreal Tournament, with the amount of guns that project gotham racing has cars, and lots of customization options
Nowhere. Not anytime soon anyway. In my opinion, the reason that a lot of FPS games are fun, is because they're simple. Shoot bad guys, save good guys, get better weapons, ect. It's the grind that makes them so addicting. If they keep on adding pointless additions to the gameplay, it will get more and more complicated, and won't suit the original fanbase anymore.
I actually will sometimes actively buy a lot of "mediocre games that don't do anything new" (Timeshift, Dark Sector, Wolfenstein, etc.) Because I know they will just be mindless fun, like FPS's should be. Left 4 Dead remains one of my favorite games for that very reason.
I actually will sometimes actively buy a lot of "mediocre games that don't do anything new" (Timeshift, Dark Sector, Wolfenstein, etc.) Because I know they will just be mindless fun, like FPS's should be. Left 4 Dead remains one of my favorite games for that very reason.
I say more shooting should be involved. But what I would like to see is more fps's with mirror's edge type qualities that give you more options then jump crouch kill and more like slide punch or climb. But with good gunplay because mirror's edge messed up in that department.