90 réponses à ce sujet

[chunkyman]

Some FPS games have innovation, I liked it when they added killstreaks in the COD series.

[111987]

I believe the Metroid Prime series are classified as "First Person Adventures". Those were truly great games...

[DukeOfNukes]

They CAN be innovative...but I can't think of a single innovative FPS released in the past 4 years...since fall 2007.

Judging by the OP list of games...neither can he

Modifié par DukeOfNukes, 23 novembre 2011 - 08:03 .

[Bryy_Miller]

chunkyman wrote...

Some FPS games have innovation, I liked it when they added killstreaks in the COD series.

They went to far with that idea, though.

Nukes. Air Strikes. Way to suck the fun out of multiplayer.

[Homebound]

fps's have sort of peaked when it comes to how creative as a genre it can get. from here on out, it will be about a bunch of little tweaks that slightly improves on yesteryear's model.

[Kaiser Arian XVII]

I don't want to talk about new FPShooters after 2005, except that MW1 and World at War were the last good CODs. The old master Shooters are:
The 'Unreal' games which have a single player campaign with a story were so good.
Wolfenstein 3D and Its Remake
Dark Forces, Jedi Knight I and II
Blood
Quake series

I've missed many FPSs. But I think many of them have had good stories and some innovations. I don't think those FPSs which are designed for Multi Player gaming have many innovations, because over a long period almost everything that is desirable for MP is added and almost nothing remains to be considered as innovation.

[bussinrounds]

As far as military shooters are concerned, we need more tactical shooters like we used to have like Ghost Recon 1, Raven Shield/Rouge Spear, SWAT3/4. Something to fill the gap between the COD/BF3s and the military sims like OFP:CWC and Arma2. And don't give me this R6 Vegas or the new Ghost Recon nonsense because UBI ****** up those great series and dumbed them down once they took over full development.

[DeathDragon185]

oh boy get ready to be bombarded by RPG elitists.

[horacethegrey]

Captain Filibuster wrote...
Gears of War: Mainly introduced the duck and cover system that Mass Effect copied.

Um... Why is this here? Gears is a Third Person Shooter or TPS. You asked about First Person Shooters did you not?

Personally I don't play much FPS's, as they make me dizzy. I prefer TPS's like Mass Effect and Red Dead Redemption. The only FPS on the horizon that remotely interests me is Bioshock Infinite.

[KenKenpachi]

A good number of them, dispite what some here think are, Freedom Fighters, Singularity, Prey, Rage, body harvest and Halo, several others come to mind. I will say however short of mercenaries, some Early titles, that that market praticularly state side is stale. (And yes some of the above are TPS, I consider them shooters however)

Its always WW2, or America fighting Russia/Arabs/Chinese. And the leading cause of it is CoD. That game is nothing more than the same game with minor changes for the last 12 years or so.

I mean come on lets have a shooter set in WW1 where you can play as the Imperial German Army, or as the Japanese in WW2 in China and India, or the Chinese resistance versus the Japanese. Or heck the Chinese Civil War. Or something more like "Battle Front" where you can pick a side. Or hell more "What If" like games.

Such as one set in the 1980's with the USSR versus Nato, and you can play as either side and lead them to victory. But games like CoD I honestly don't get how they are popular...

Oh well, least Rainbow Six is coming on strong with its new idea, which has America nearing a full blown civil war based on current events, and you play as the insurectionist, and the rainbow team. And this time they are Americans.

Modifié par KenKenpachi, 23 novembre 2011 - 09:52 .

[Warheadz]

FPS's can be innovative, but big-name mainstream ones rarely are.

[bussinrounds]

The new Rainbow game will just be another casualized cover shooter with health regeneration.

... And quick time events for kissing your wife. I'll stick with Raven Shield.

[The Grey Ranger]

Captain Filibuster wrote...


Thanks for correcting me, it's a third person shooter. Don't know what I was thinking. But none the less it is a shooter, and third person or not it popularized that duck and cover system.

Nuh Uh, duck and cover was popularized by Bert the Turtle.   http://en.wikipedia....Bert_the_Turtle  GOW is just a Johnny come lately with delusions of glory (it's a joke)

[111987]

KenKenpachi wrote...

I mean come on lets have a shooter set in WW1 where you can play as the Imperial German Army, or as the Japanese in WW2 in China and India, or the Chinese resistance versus the Japanese. Or heck the Chinese Civil War. Or something more like "Battle Front" where you can pick a side. Or hell more "What If" like games.

You have to remember who the game is being marketed to. The average American doesn't want to be playing as the enemy to America whom in some cases is even killing Americans. I like the idea of choosing your side though; that solves the issue.

[BatmanPWNS]

jreezy wrote...

DeathDragon185 wrote...

oh boy get ready to be bombarded by RPG elitists.

You mean shooter elitists? I think I've seen one here so far.

Nope, I think he does mean RPG elitists.

[eroeru]

mrcrusty wrote...

No mention of System Shocks, Deus Ex, Wolfenstein 3d or Doom.

Boo.

Also, I feel like the problem of the FPS genre (or games in general) is not that they aren't innovative or w/e, it's the saturation. By definition, an innovative game is a rarity. There are definitely innovative FPS games, or Action games, it's just that the saturation level is becoming a bit overwhelming for people who aren't involved enough in the genre to spot the minute differences and nuances between each game.

So, for every Portal, or STALKER, there's a dozen FPS games that fit into various archetypes that don't add anything to the table. That's true for every genre, RPGs included (let's not forget the Diablo clone craze). It's just that right now, it feels like half the market is FPS and Action games. Comparatively speaking, the long dead Adventure genre, the dying traditional RPG genre, the diminishing RTS genre, the isolated Grand Strategy genre, even the relatively strong Sports genre are becoming buried under a market of Action games, Action Adventure games and Action FPS games.

It's not that FPS or Action genres don't have good and innovative games, they do. It's that the market is disproportionately full of them compared to other genres.

[Gatt9]

Captain Filibuster wrote...

The general consencus around here seems to be that first person shooters or shooters in general lack depth, creativity, and innovation.  And are thus, EVIL!  Now before I go any further, I will grant that there is some validity to the claims that FPS lack innovation. But, I don't think it is accurate to paint an entire genre in that manor.

There have been great FPSs made that are very much so innovative, creative and feature great depth. To name a few...

Half Life 2: Made way with it's Source engine, featureing a great physics engine and gameplay.

Battlefield series: Features great sound design, enviromental destruction, realistic bullet arcs.

Modern Warefare: The folks at Activision have perfected rail shooting.

Halo 2: The best in the series imo, Halo 2 told a very in depth and creative storyline.

Gears of War: Mainly introduced the duck and cover system that Mass Effect copied.

Far Cry: Tosses the player into an open world enviroment to explore, not unlike Skyrim.

Metroid Prime: Open world enviroment with great story and fun/ complex puzzles.

Bioshock: Never played it, from what I hear it had a very good story. 

Halo 3-Reach: Introduced forge editor.

Portal 1-2: I'll let the Portal series speak for it'self.


I could go on to list good first person shooters and not so good first person shooters, *coughMedalofHonorcough*. That said every genre has it's bad games, but what annoys me is the absurd ammount of arrogance and stupidity on these forums. For the most part everyone on here likes to whitewash every thing that isn't an RPG, especially first person shooters, real time strategies. Just look at the VGA thread.

I'm sorry to point out the elephant in the room. 

 Note: Most recent MoH and perhaps I made this little too much directed at the community as oppose to the discutssion at whole.

You're correct in that a few did innovate.

The problem is,  for every 1 you list,  there's 2-3 dozen that were just Copy/Paste whack-a-mole games.  The bigger problem is,  that the last E3 was well over 90% shooters in development,  I wouldn't be surprised if it was north of 95%.  The biggest problem is that both EA and Ubisoft have publicly stated the only game to make today is a Shooter (In defending Syndicate and X-com shooters instead of strategy games)

Honestly,  at this point,  the only way I'll play a shooter is if it has a great story.  I'm so sick of shooters I can't be bothered with playing one just for the gameplay,  especially since the only difference between Shooter X and Y in most cases today are the textures.

P.S.  You forgot No One Lives Forever,  the first FPS to successfully combine humor and Shooter,  while maintaining a decent story.  You could also argueably throw Thief in there,  a Shooter where the point wasn't to shoot everything that moves.  System Shock 2,  a landmark in quality story in gaming history,  and the first "Hybrid".

Modifié par Gatt9, 24 novembre 2011 - 12:35 .

[csfteeeer]

Captain Filibuster wrote...


Half Life 2: Made way with it's Source engine, featureing a great physics engine and gameplay.


Portal 1-2: I'll let the Portal series speak for it'self.

i just remembered this.

But anyway, Portal, is NOT an FPS.

and, as someone who Loves HL2 to DEATH, HL2 did NOT move the genre, if anything it moved the way a story is told in it(Storytelling), not the gameplay.

EDIT: Oooops

took me hours to notice:blink:

Modifié par csfteeeer, 24 novembre 2011 - 05:57 .

[Ghost Lightning]

Man. Now I remember how flippin' awesome Halo 2 is.

[Kaiser Shepard]

They're no less innovative than any other genre.