Why modern fps aren't fun, or rather why some people feel they aren't.

[pyrosaw]

FPS's aren't going to be that bland for that long. Brink's coming out, Bodycount, don't know about Bulletstorm, Tribes Ascend, Serious Sam 3. There will always be games like Crysis 2 and Homefront, that's just the genre. But I think developers are starting to realize that you don't need stark realism in today's market.

Crysis 2 is realism embodied?!?! Have you even seen it?

I never said realizism embodied. But you will spend most of the game behind chest high walls shooting at aliens or giant robots.

 

[Bags159]

FPS's aren't going to be that bland for that long. Brink's coming out, Bodycount, don't know about Bulletstorm, Tribes Ascend, Serious Sam 3. There will always be games like Crysis 2 and Homefront, that's just the genre. But I think developers are starting to realize that you don't need stark realism in today's market.

Crysis 2 is realism embodied?!?! Have you even seen it?

I never said realizism embodied. But you will spend most of the game behind chest high walls shooting at aliens or giant robots.

Strange, I don't remember hiding behind chest high walls. All I remember from Crisis 1 / Warhead was jumping onto buildings, stealthing through forests, and kicking ass.

Sure it's similar to COD... but it's nowhere near realistic or bland.

 

[bushwhacker2k]

Honestly, it isn't that FPSs aren't fun, if they were no fun they wouldn't sell, duh.

The actual problem is the total lack of creativity or innovation, tiny little advances in a dozen games that are ultimately the same is NOT progress.

I actually DO recognize FPSs as fun, and sometimes play them (mostly S.T.A.L.K.E.R. tho) but will I play all 30 of them released in the last few years? No. Hell no.

Make something new and interesting! xO

 

[Psycho Cat Industries]

I really can't deal with the plot now a days.I don't really understand Halo past Forge is fun and the covenant are bad except the elites who only attack you in 3 games.For CoD,I used to love them but that was when it was history.Now a days,it is hate Russia because we say hate Russia.I know some Russians and honestly,I can see Russia as our biggest ally if not for the fact of nuke threat ties.It is just plot and reasoning.This new game Homefront looks interesting but that is just because I know that if a emp were to be set off over the U.S.,we would be royally screwed.

 

[crop52]

You want my opinion on FPS like CoD and MoH suck? Simple:

REALISM. DOES NOT. BELONG. IN. VIDEO GAMES.

Does anyone honestly believe that they'll be able to blow the heads off of a thousand terrorists, and single-handedly save the entire fucking world?

I'm not saying that you're wrong about realism not belonging in video games, (though i'm also not agreeing with you,)

but ShatterPalm, your argument about why FPS like CoD and MoH suck, is invalid.

 

[MR T3D]

You want my opinion on FPS like CoD and MoH suck? Simple:

REALISM. DOES NOT. BELONG. IN. VIDEO GAMES.

free market suggests otherwise.

For your COD and MoH, I play games such as Project Reality (its name is rather appropriate) ARMA2, Crysis, and STALKER series.

All of these create worlds that are quite realistic, and have relatively realistic gameplay.
and they're all fun as hell, the key comes from being able to do more than move down a corridor and follow an AI squadmate.

They all have a lot more freedom to the player, rather than the borderline-rail shooterness of COD and MoH

I hope you mean MW2. Call of Duty 4 was great, maybe even better than 2. It's the games after that ruined it.

Singleplayer-wise, CoD 4 and MW2 are the same thing. Except MW2 is better. And has coop.

Look at my avatar image. that's my reaction to what you just said. You must not have paid any attention to what was going on in COD4, as that game was borderline Good Tom Clancy-thriller in videogame form, and MW2 was just stupid.

9 and a half kinds of stupid in that game's singleplayer.
and the co-op was a joke compared to previous games, had no real story other than recycling campaign maps and assets, unlike how W@W let you play through almost the whole campaign with a friend and it lacked the fun-factor on fascist undead. (the one mission where you have 1 guy fly the AC-130 and the other on the ground came close, but it was just one linear mission, and as such pretty lame)

 

[Tony2077]

i don't mind modern other then the fact is there too bloody short i can beat most on normal in 3 days(homefront was the last one). i like the sci fi ones more but some of them aren't that long or that many.

 

[JourneyThroughHell]

Look at my avatar image. that's my reaction to what you just said. You must not have paid any attention to what was going on in COD4, as that game was borderline Good Tom Clancy-thriller in videogame form, and MW2 was just stupid.

Oh, I'm sorry, I forgot that we were judging Call of Duty games by their story now, and not gameplay. 'Cause who gives a shit about mechanics and controls an impovements?

and the co-op was a joke compared to previous games, had no real story other than recycling campaign maps and assets, unlike how W@W let you play through almost the whole campaign with a friend and it lacked the fun-factor on fascist undead. (the one mission where you have 1 guy fly the AC-130 and the other on the ground came close, but it was just one linear mission, and as such pretty lame)

Oh, we judge additional coop game modes by their story, too. That's great. That means Firefight and Horde Mode suck.

If you think that playing through the campaign with all of the cutscenes, watching them over and over again and getting absolutely nothing new from the game since you've already defeated it in SP is really good, that's awesome.

Don't present your opinion as fact. And don't ridicule the opinion of others, especially if you have nothing to counter it with.

 

[MR T3D]

Look at my avatar image. that's my reaction to what you just said. You must not have paid any attention to what was going on in COD4, as that game was borderline Good Tom Clancy-thriller in videogame form, and MW2 was just stupid.

Oh, I'm sorry, I forgot that we were judging Call of Duty games by their story now, and not gameplay. 'Cause who gives a shit about mechanics and controls an impovements?

What gameplay improvements? They play the EXACT SAME, with IDENTICAL controls, and the visuals are pretty much the same (though they did eek out a little more out of Q3 engine in the 2 years between games, but nothing significant or useful from gameplay perspective), so that leaves level design and story to separate them. You might be able to argue that the removal of infinite-spawns in MW2 made it better, but I'll counter that it removed a challenge aspect, and removed the coolest set-pieces in COD4 (defending injured Macmillan in Pripyat and that fall back and then break through to the evac chopper mission)

Going back to the main topic for a bit, funny enough, those are two times it almost breaks free of linearity formula, and lead credence to it being one of the better modern FPS games.

and the co-op was a joke compared to previous games, had no real story other than recycling campaign maps and assets, unlike how W@W let you play through almost the whole campaign with a friend and it lacked the fun-factor on fascist undead. (the one mission where you have 1 guy fly the AC-130 and the other on the ground came close, but it was just one linear mission, and as such pretty lame)

Oh, we judge additional coop game modes by their story, too. That's great. That means Firefight and Horde Mode suck.

If you think that playing through the campaign with all of the cutscenes, watching them over and over again and getting absolutely nothing new from the game since you've already defeated it in SP is really good, that's awesome.

hold up there champ, I'm a little tired, it seems I failed to make it clear enough that I like W@W's zombies mode (much more so than co-op aspects of MW2) It's bloody excellent in that it provides excellent gameplay for you and a friend, AND it has depth to it through the easter eggs EVERYWHERE (especially as they expanded on it in the DLC) that almost form a plot.

Being able to share the experience of the SP campaign is also awesome.

Don't present your opinion as fact. And don't ridicule the opinion of others, especially if you have nothing to counter it with.

I don't feel like going into flamewar mode, so I'll just let this thinly veiled jab slide with the arguments I've presented, and a reminder for you that I'm not hating, I'm just saddened by the opinion you hold.

 

[Brawndo]

The debate, at least as I've read it, isn't necessarily about the "fun-ness" of the FPS genre, but more about how quickly a game gets stale, or whether it simply turns into a long and drawn-out grinding mess as you strive to just unlock little decorations for your tags.

The Call of Duty series is simply built around selfish play. It encourages you to look out for just you and only you, and the reward system (both in-match and out-of-match) is designed to give you props for doing well individually. There is little to no incentive to help your teammates, and frankly, you're competing against them almost as much as you're competing against your opponents, because at the end of the match, whomever got the most kills tops the leaderboards.

The unfortunate trend that has been occurring since the massive release of the original Modern Warfare is the the genre has yet to truly break itself out of this paradigm. Most every FPS since 2007 has focused on this aspect of rewards, providing incentives almost solely to benefit the individual player.

There are some notable exceptions, however. The Battlefield series, especially in Bad Company, has focused more on team-based operations. Medicine, ammo, and vehicles help to encourage aspects of teamwork, especially when your team is trying to push towards objectives.

Killzone 2 and now 3 have some minor teamwork elements, but getting together to work as a team is not as easy as some other games. The series still suffers from self-enrichment quite a bit, and as a consequence of games like Call of Duty and Halo, players will not wait to be revived when fallen, but will instead respawn because there is no real consequence to it. (Especially when you know that another spawn point has just been captured nearby.)

MAG. This is a game that, while not necessarily the most-praised game ever, has truly created something remarkable in the FPS genre. MAG is a team-centered, focused game that encourages players to focus, not necessarily on their own stats, but on helping the team to win. This is one of the few games, especially on consoles, that promotes teamwork in an environment that was designed to do so. Large-scale, objective-focused infantry battles that almost REQUIRE teamwork to succeed.

If developers would stop simply cloning "what has been successful" and take some risks, perhaps we would start getting games that aren't "like Modern Warfare but..."

I also would prefer the FPS genre push the envelope with new mechanics and features, but we are in the minority. Compare the sales and numbers of online players for MAG and BF:BC2 with Black Ops... not even close. It just goes to show you that at the end of the day, the average gamer prefers an online experience mainly focused on individual skill instead of team effort. It also explains why CS 1.6 and CS:S are still popular years after release.

 

[JourneyThroughHell]

What gameplay improvements? They play the EXACT SAME, with IDENTICAL controls, and the visuals are pretty much the same (though they did eek out a little more out of Q3 engine in the 2 years between games, but nothing significant or useful from gameplay perspective), so that leaves level design and story to separate them. You might be able to argue that the removal of infinite-spawns in MW2 made it better, but I'll counter that it removed a challenge aspect, and removed the coolest set-pieces in COD4 (defending injured Macmillan in Pripyat and that fall back and then break through to the evac chopper mission)

Infinite spawns are never a fair challenge. There were plenty of cool set pieces in MW2, you could argue that there were far more of them then in MW2.

The graphics are obviously better. The soundtrack's excellent. But, most importantly, there are no parts in the campaign that fall apart, don't work or annoy. Even the Estate mission is highly bearable.

I don't feel like going into flamewar mode, so I'll just let this thinly veiled jab slide with the arguments I've presented, and a reminder for you that I'm not hating, I'm just saddened by the opinion you hold.

What? Thinly-veiled? I'm outright telling you I disagree and am annoyed at the feeling of superiority present in your previous post. "Oh, you must have not paid attention to CoD 4".

Sure. It's only my second favorite game in my favorite series.

 

[StormShaun]

I dont like the ordinary FPS like MW2 and Medal Of Honour and etc, duke nukem and Crysis 2 will be more fun.....actually they ARE more fun

 

[spartan231490]

First of all let me say that I am not claiming that either camp is right in this argument, this is just my analysis of peoples opinions and my theory as to why these are prevelant.

I enjoy fps'es and I always have but just recently I've started to feel like I'm not as interested in the new realeases as I used to be. I was wondering if there was something to the idea that shooters have shot down in quality in recent years however looking at the recent crop objectively, or at least as much as you can, I don't feel that's the case.

If you look at the major gaming genres, rpg's, shooters, 3p action games, the thing I notice is a major difference in the diversity of the control system. other genres have far more varied controls, rpg's come in all shapes and sizes and even if many use a similar action-bar based control system it plays differently based on how the abilities are designed. Shooters dont have quite this variety.

You push button to select weapon, point it at an enemy and push fire, the biggest variety seems to be whether or not you have to push aim before you shoot. Now there are subtle variations, abviously setting changes dramatically and the pacing varies game to game but at its core its always the same base control system.

I think that gamers who've been gaming fro a while probably find that even if there are good shooters on the market after you've played so many they start to feel like they're all blending into one another. The older games, the ones we grew up with still have an appeal based on nostalgia, we remember how fun they were when we first played them and they are still genuinely fun, we play through in anticipation of the defining moments we remember. However the new games feel like they aren't adding anything to our experience.

I'm sure that this isn't a universal rule, there are definitely poeple out there who appreciate newer shooters as much as the old classics and I doubt there's a set number of games you have to play before they start to seem overly familiar. So how does this sound in relation to your experience of the genre, do you think this has happened to you? Are you convinced that older shooters really are better? Are you new to the genre and feel this could happen to you in time? Thanks for listening escapist.

I suspect that most of us like the similarity of controls. That said, I think the thing that's hurting the fps genre now is the shear number of titles. This year, we're getting what, 4 fps titles? And that's just the ones that I know of, it'll probably be twice that. I only know of 2 rpg's coming out, maybe 3 depending on when ME3 drops, and that's almost a shooter in and of itself. There's too much drive to have the newest fps, not the best, or even a good one.

 

[Ladette]

I've been disintrested in the faux realistic shooters for a long time now. I'm sick of regular marines, i'm sick of regular guns, i'm sick of shooters were you die in 3 shots from any gun. I'm sick of this effort to pass everything off as "realistic".

That's why i've always prefered Unreal Tournament and Halo games to Medal of Honor and Call of Duty. Aliens, lasers, you can jump 9 fight in the air, and you don't go down in one shot from a crappy starter pistol.

I'm going to go play Reach now.

 

[MR T3D]

What gameplay improvements? They play the EXACT SAME, with IDENTICAL controls, and the visuals are pretty much the same (though they did eek out a little more out of Q3 engine in the 2 years between games, but nothing significant or useful from gameplay perspective), so that leaves level design and story to separate them. You might be able to argue that the removal of infinite-spawns in MW2 made it better, but I'll counter that it removed a challenge aspect, and removed the coolest set-pieces in COD4 (defending injured Macmillan in Pripyat and that fall back and then break through to the evac chopper mission)

Infinite spawns are never a fair challenge. There were plenty of cool set pieces in MW2, you could argue that there were far more of them then in MW2.

The graphics are obviously better. The soundtrack's excellent. But, most importantly, there are no parts in the campaign that fall apart, don't work or annoy. Even the Estate mission is highly bearable.

sometimes you can't sit back and pick them off until they stop coming, an infinite spawn forces a weaker-willed player to grow a pair and be aggressive for once.

SHOCK AND AWE BABY, GROW SOME HAIR ON THAT CHEST PRIVATE!

From a pure gameplay perspective, the MW2 campaign fits together, nothing especially bad in it, but also nothing especially challenging, nothing to make me want to be a better player.


I argue that a good singleplay experience is not made solely on gameplay, but instead on a combination of good mechanics, good visuals (to help draw you in on a base level) and a good reason to play, such as story, characters, or just an overarching objective.
COD4 has:
-Solid gameplay, with a couple of especially challenging, but still beatable, sections
-Good visuals that do their job, pretty good for a 2007 game that isn't crysis.
-Great story that keeps you invested in the game, making you want to really persevere though the more challenging parts
MW2
-kept the gameplay, but smoothed out any really tough parts so its all pretty similar.
-Refined some lighting effects and textures, but in 2009 its really showing the engine's age.
-Story that slaps you in the face for getting immersed in the previous game, with shock-value events made just to sell more copies with no regard to the continuity some fans of the previous game rather liked.


In the end, I suppose if you're the kind of guy that just skips all cutscenes, and doesn't like getting "stuck" on a hard part, MW2 can be seen as better than COD4. Coming to that conclusion, my face does resemble my profile picture, however.

 

[5t3v0]

Dammit, WHY DOES EVERYONE THINK THAT COD IS FUCKING REALISTIC?

Sorry, just needed to get that off of my chest. Call of duty is a joke compared to games with an actual goal for realism, such as Milsims like ArmA or Operation Flashpoint. However, these games DEFINATELY arent for everybody and they are still a far cry from realism.

But OT, FPS's are the current trend at the moment. Personally Im not affected by it, as I havent been playing much else other than minecraft recently or Fallout: New Vegas... so meh. Cant wait for BF3 though.

 

[Stavros Dimou]

-snip-

There where many changes happened in the genre,with some of them considered by many people bad,and mostly by older gamers who started playing FPSs from the early 90s.
I will try to sum up some changes,but there might be some that I forget.

1) The first thing is that IMO I think originality is rare nowdays.
Back in the days,the settings of FPSs where more varied and unique.
In Doom you would be a space marine fight against Hell's forces,in Quake another space marine against mutants and aliens,and in Wolfenstein a western soldier against nazis and zombies.
Later Goldeneye came up and brought the setting of a spy against Soviet Union.
These 4 settings are used again and again until today.
In Halo you are a space marine against aliens.
Call of Duty and Medal of Honour series started as series with the playable character being a western soldier against nazis...
And there are numerous other shooters where you fight against aliens or in ex-soviet union countries.
The same roles and enemies are recycled in every game.
The stories and settings of FPSs today have become cliche.

2) The second thing I found changed in modern FPSs is that they become more and more shorter.
Wolfenstein 3d and Doom had 30+ levels,with each one of them stuffed with stuff to keep you interested in replaying the game again and again. Today FPS games have less levels and they last less than older ones,while the replay value isn't as big and good as in older games.
Today developers add achievements in their games to keep the player interested by getting high scores.
Back in the day,developers would create in-game content like unlockable levels or guns to keep players interested.
Today developers keep extra levels and guns out of the game to sell them seperately as DLCs.
People who played games back in the 90s feel ripped off with today's games,and it's a reason they dislike or hate them.
I can say that at least for me in-game content did a better job to keep me interested than achievements.

3) Gameplay was dumbed.
The gameplay of FPS games have changed.
In older times you could find secret rooms and special power ups in the levels of the games,spending some time relaxed without gunfights.To find those secrets you had to explore the levels,and today's FPS games lack exploration.These games also had puzzles that needed you to think in order to advance further.Now you don't need to use your brains anymore.
You only have to point your sight on the enemy's body and that's all.
The things you can do while playing a level have decreased,and that has an impact.
Except that,games today have become generally easier.Today's "hard" mode is like the "medium" mode of the past.Older gamers don't find most of modern shooters challenging.
Another thing is the spread of health regeneration.
At older shooters you had to be more carefull if you wanted to advance,and that was something most people found engaging.
The thrill,excitement and reward feelings a gamer would get by surviving a firefight he engaged having only 20% health and then finished the level are gone.
Killing everybody while having regerating health just doesn't make the fact of survival that rewarding any more.

4) Inovation is missing.
Yup that's right.
There was a time when almost every new FPS game would bring something new to the genre.
Wolfenstein 3d is the game that started it all.
Quake was the first game that used actuall 3d models instead of sprites.
Duke Nukem 3D was the first game that focused in interactivity,and you could blow things up,or use various objects like toilets.
Goldeneye 007 was the first game that brought the gameplay mechanic of having to complete missions in the levels you play,since in any other FPS until then all you had to do was to travel from point A to point B,and it was the first FPS that had multiplayer in which you could choose which chataracter to play with.
Perfect Dark was the first game that brough dynamic music,and music could be changed in the level you would be depending on the situation,and it also brought new multiplayer gameplay modes like "King of the Hill".
Half Life was the first game that focused in providing realistic physics.
All these are things that became standards,and the industry adopted.
The latest things that was fresh and good enough (?) to become standards where health regeneration and iron sights,that both appeared in 2003 with Halo and Call of Duty.
For 8 years we haven't see any game bringing an innovation to the genre.
Innovation is absent for 8 years.

 

[NoCure]

-Regenerating Health: Con = Removes ALL of the tactics.
-Map Design: Con = See Image Quote

And the biggest reason

-Ignorant Teammates: I am not talking about micspammers or people who cannot play the game. I'm talking about people who play Objective based rooms/servers and go for Highest Kill Count or stay 50 miles from the objective just to snipe for 15 minutes and only get 1 kill. YOU ARE NOT HELPING THE TEAM. Go into Deathmatch or Team Deathmatch.

/rant

 

[JourneyThroughHell]

In the end, I suppose if you're the kind of guy that just skips all cutscenes, and doesn't like getting "stuck" on a hard part, MW2 can be seen as better than COD4. Coming to that conclusion, my face does resemble my profile picture, however.

And that is the wrongest conclusion you could possibly make. I NEVER skipped the cutscenes in any CoD game and I played all of them since number 1. I'm probably the most frequent surfer of the CoD wiki on the site. I breathe with that franchise.

Yeah, CoD 4 had a better overall story. Yeah, it was more Black Hawk Down to Modern Warfare 2's The Rock / Red Dawn.

Boo-hoo. I don't play CoD games for the story. I play them for the moments. You could take out any individual mission in Modern Warfare 2 and have it be one hell of an experience.

-The rooftop chase on Favela
-The shower shootout in the Gulag level
-The snowmobile chase thing
-The stealth part in the beginning of the last level
-Arguably the best mission in the history of the franchise, "The Enemy of My Enemy".

Every mission has something about it. I can't say that about CoD 4 - great overarching story, sure, characters that are much more memorable, eh, disputable, more subtlety, yeah.

So? For every annoying sequence in CoD 4, Modern Warfare 2 responded with pumping, jaw-dropping action with Infinity Ward throwing everything at you. If that's too much for people, fine by me, but don't criticise a CoD title for being too exciting.

May also be another factor in why most seem rather... boring.

Think I'm going to go play DOOM now.

Because keycard hunting and running around the map looking for levers to push is fun.

Come on, man.

I'd take the second half any day of the week over the first one.

 

[Pearwood]

Messing around with control schemes for no other reason than to be different annoys people though. X is jump, square is reload, circle ducks behind cover, R1 shoots, R3 centres camera, this is the way it should be. Replace with 360 controls as needed.