90 réponses à ce sujet

[Boiny Bunny]

jreezy wrote...

csfteeeer wrote...

jreezy wrote...

Captain Filibuster wrote...

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

First, why is this here? Second, no it didn't.

but it popularized it.

you can't deny that if GoW hadn't done it, ME and MANY MANY MANY others would not have done it.

Popularized yes. Introduced? No. Word choice is important in conversation. As for your second point, we have no way of knowing what the absence of Gears of War would've done to the cover shooter. Another company could very well have done what Epic did with Gears of War. Like I said though, we have no way of knowing.

Popularised is much more important than introduced, in most cases.

A much more obvious example is Halo.

*Regenerating health
*Grenades as a secondary weapon triggered by an alternate button, as opposed to a standard weapon to scroll to
*Melee with every weapon as an important part of gameplay, as opposed to giving a near useless melee weapon to scroll to
*Only being able to carry 2 weapons at once
etc.

It didn't really invent any of these things.  But virtually no FPS games before it used these things, and almost every FPS following Halo has used these features.

Modifié par Boiny Bunny, 24 novembre 2011 - 03:05 .

[Gatt9]

Kaiser Shepard wrote...

They're no less innovative than any other genre.

Actually,  comparitively speaking,  they're on the low end of innvoation.

-RPG's evolved from very simple dungeon affairs like Telengard to massive worlds,  or deep character interaction,  and the ability for player's choices to affect the plot.

-Adventure games evolved from text based parsers to SCUMM to today's varied point & clicks

-TB strategy evolved from simple board games to X-com,  Master's of Orion,  and Total War.

-RTS evolved from "Build base and throw things at other guy" to myriad implementations on a wide number of scales,  from Homeworld's space based 3 dimensions,  to Total War's massive ground wars.

Shooters have really done little more than lose the keys/doors from Wolfenstein/doom.  The gameplay itself isn't really much different from it's original inception,  especially with FPS's.  Of all the genres,  Shooters are the ones with the least amount of innovation,  and what little "innovation" it's made is really insignificant.  There's not a whole lot of difference between blasting imps in Doom,  and shooting the badguys in any given Shooter today.

I mean,  I could do a complete graphical overhaul of Wolfenstein and it would largely play like any "modern" shooter.  Whereas,  no graphics will make Telengard play like Dragon Age Origins.  No graphics will make Zork play like Amnesia.  Risk won't play like modern TB games.  Warcraft 2 would be a weak base-builder compared to today's RTS's,  etc.

The only thing Shooters have ever brought to the table in innovation has been the graphics engines,  other than that,  they're largely interchangable.  They really all play identically.

Which is highly ironic,  given everyone who complains about other genres being stagnant because they're not Yet Another Shooter,  when the truth is,  the only genre more stagnant than Shooters is Platformers.

All it takes is a review of gaming history.  Look at the first games,  and the games of each succeeding decade.  You'll see a progression in everything...except Shooters.  Sure,  they added location based damage,  but it doesn't change the gameplay.  Sure,  the stories are now longer than 3 sentences,  but that doesn't change the gameplay either.  Physics engines have largely proven to do nothing more than make bodies flop around unrealistically,  20 years later and I still can't use that rocket-launcher to blow a hole in a door or wall,  a door locked with a mini-deadbolt will stop me in my tracks.  Weaponry hasn't changed,  it's the same set of weapons game after game after game.  "Hybrids" are just FPS's with the interface intentionally crippled in order to shoehorn in levels,  As soon as the Player's skills can overcome the handicapped interface,  it plays identical to any other Shooter,  the levels cease to matter.

Don't get me wrong,  I enjoy a good shooter as much as the next guy,  I'll be right in line with everyone else for Bioshock Infinite,  I own all the Halos and GoW,  etc.  I'm just being honest about it,  Shooters do what they do well,  but innovation isn't among the things they've ever done well.

[111987]

greengoron89 wrote...

One of the greatest and most challenging gameplay experiences I've ever had was playing the original Halo on Legendary difficulty. I have yet to play a campaign mode in any game since that even came close to rivaling it - perhaps because things have become too easy since then as you said.

Have you played Halo 2 on Legendary. Those damn Jackal snipers...I personally though Halo 2 was far harder than any other game in the series, especially on co-op.

[Funkcase]

There are plenty of good FPS games, but sadly the FPS genre also probably has the most trash to shift through.

[Savber100]

I play FPS games because it's fun. I play games because it's fun. Shooting **** up is fun.
That said having ALL current FPS being modern military shooters with little variation gets a little boring. So I don't hate shooters, I just hate seeing developers recycle games over and over again no matter what genre it is.

Modifié par Savber100, 24 novembre 2011 - 11:14 .

[CroGamer002]

FPS and TPS just can't get more innovative alone.

Only way to get more innovative is to use be a hybrid like Half Life( adventure-puzzle solving shooter), Mass Effect( RPG shooter( TPS)), Fallout( RPG shooter( FPS)), Portal( puzzle solving "shooter"( well, you shoot portals)).




Then again, that's not necessarily a bad thing.

Just, consider pure shooters as popcorn flick for games.
Have fun while it lasts and move on to something else.

[bleetman]

They can be, sure.

The current trend of pumping out a new installment of Duty Duty 4: Now With More Duty? Not so much, no. Unless you class making it more and more restrictive in terms of what the player can even do as 'innovation'.

[AngryFrozenWater]

Nearly every new game technology has either been pioneered or used first in FPSs. These games push the limits of the tech. Other game genres just followed their trends. In terms of gameplay, there is only so much you can do. RPGs usually aren't really showcases of innovation, though. MMOs had to be innovative and dream up new tech to make them work with a massive number of players in real time. What I don't like is the way people are looking down on FPSs or their fans. This usually smells like elitism and RPG "fans" seem to do that the most often.

Modifié par AngryFrozenWater, 24 novembre 2011 - 01:47 .

[KenKenpachi]

The problem with shooters mainly, Halo Short of Reach and parts of two, had a great story and the weapon limits and diversity of enemies forced you to think carefully about what weapon you wanted and how to use it. Half-life was also epic in story, but kept the one man Army concept alive. Duke Nukem 3D/64/other 64 titles, were also good give the exploration and shrink.freeze rays, and other silly gadgets and one liners. Golden Eye was also epic given the multiplayer and scale of the game, for the time. And shooters tend to have varrying difficulty, or options in that reguard. Depends on AI, etc. Warhammer also with its Melee and gun system has taken a neat view on the shooter market.

In the game play and story they can be innovative, but unless a huge technological jump happens, the basics to it are the same as they were in 1992. Not that, that is a bad thing. I mean Most Platformers are still like that and a number of RPGs, and they work like that. I mean think of a microwave...its not changed much from the 1950's. I mean would you want one that used lasers or flame throwers, or some other crazy means of power that can blow up your house?

The problems is alot of shooter developers are johnny come lately's and copy cats, who do a ****** poor job. Like alot of them will copy your more popular titles thinking its the game play that makes them great, such as Turok copying the mechanics of Halo, or Duke Nukem Forever doing the same. People like Halo for the scale, story lore, and tactical planning you have to take into account at times. The comunity and multi player also draw a crowd but the thrid party multimedia market shows it has a fan base that very well may rival Star Wars some day, from books, shirts toys, Halo is and with halo 4, maybe something of a popculture icon. Toruk however, that was about being a crazy indian time traveler killing Dinosuars and trying to get home, its story was lack luster, the CQC minigame didn't belong, and the weapon limits/ halth regen, did not just fit. Duke also much of the same.

Then you have the CoD clones, some stand well own there own, such as Black, which had a good story, smart AI and large scale, and to a point imo in the SP at least was better than any COD. But in each case, and many other shooters you have several fail titles, or people who play unbalanced multiplayer on COD to feel like a bad ass or be a troll, which keeps the market from progressing. Halo is not really in line with this as how it plays works with the "Feel" of the game. And people who play halo multiplayer like its COD tend to never get very far up the ranks and die alot.

And then you have VERY innovative shooters that never get very far or become sleeper hits, such as Prey, Singularity, and to an extent Rage. The shooter market is much like any other minus it has more TV time an attention, when a good game comes people will try to knock it off, while not getting its the "Soul" of a game not its style that makes it a hit. Same with RPGs and even movies.

Also the snobbery from some is silly, I like both RPGs and RTS's the bulk of my collection is made up of both.

Modifié par KenKenpachi, 24 novembre 2011 - 02:00 .

[Boiny Bunny]

It's worth mentioning, another thing Halo did which I thought was excellent, was to relatively balance every weapon in the game against one another.

Because you could only carry two at once, there was a need to make any two weapons viable - whereas in most FPS games prior to Halo, the weapons were usually tiered, from terrible pistols at the start to ultimate laser cannons at the end. Unfortunately, in Halo 2 and the following games, a lot of this balance was removed.

[DarkDragon777]

greengoron89 wrote...

Innovative insomuch as FPS games are concerned - most shooters aren't well known for their complex, gripping storylines. Half-Life 2 came and changed that by providing an intriguing story along with a unique narrative that shows instead of tells (which has been often copied by other FPS games ever since).

I would argue the original Halo also has a pretty gripping plot, even if it's not as rich as Half-Life's. As for Halo 2... no, just no.

Are you kidding? Halo 2 was the best Halo game in the series.

[Il Divo]

Luc0s wrote...

'tis true, FPS games these days are not nearly as innovative as this beauty was back in the days:



(kudo's to the person who recognizes the game from the screenshot without looking at the url)

I feel like more gamers would recognize the screenshot than not.

[Kaiser Arian XVII]

Luc0s wrote...

Heck, FPS games back in the days (such as the game Goldeneye 64, of which I posted a screenshot in my previous post) were not nearly as linear as modern FPS games!

Even every 'Doom II' level has a rich map that you could go anywhere, find the clips, kill the monsters in different places and find the exit.

[bussinrounds]

Jedi Sentinel Arian wrote...

Luc0s wrote...

Heck, FPS games back in the days (such as the game Goldeneye 64, of which I posted a screenshot in my previous post) were not nearly as linear as modern FPS games!

Even every 'Doom II' level has a rich map that you could go anywhere, find the clips, kill the monsters in different places and find the exit.

  Mordern corridor shooters with they're scripted play, 'set pieces' and health regeneration could go **** off, as far as i'm concerned.

Modifié par bussinrounds, 25 novembre 2011 - 11:00 .

[Monica83]

personally i like shooters but they are all the same with some more or some less featires...

In the end the point of those game is.. Shoot at people or monster or things like that...

There'is nothing to innovate