90 réponses à ce sujet

[KenKenpachi]

Lucos, if you can take a look at WH40 Space Marines, Singularity, Rage, And the Halo's. The later tends to have open enviroments. Then you got mixed games like Fallout and Half-life.

There are plenty of great shooters, just don't buy anything that has CoD, Tom Clancy, or Some sort of American Soldier on the front cover. Or Duke Nukem Forever.

FPS's just get harped on more as they are a huge market, but I've seen just as many ****ty RPG's over the years as I have FPS's. You just have to look around. All games are like that. For each Gem you'll have five turds, no matter the market.

Some developers are crappy as they just focus on the compition and the Teenage Multiplayer crowd who most likely never play the SP anyways. Games like that I skip. But well this is all examples from the 360, as to the PC I cant really mention any good shooters, short of RTS I don't keep up with the happenings of the PC crowd.

Modifié par KenKenpachi, 25 novembre 2011 - 01:38 .

[xCirdanx]

The only shooter i would call "innovative" was the Unreal Tournament series who made game modes like capture the flag, assault etc popular in other games, even non shooters. Though they did not came up with these ideas.

I just can´t stand all these COD and BF games, i always get talked into playing them with friends and they are all the same.

[Dominus]

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!

Most developed games, First-Person Shooter or not, usually do not take ambitious strides in innovating their own genre. Most either try to refine a previously made formula that inspired them or otherwise try to view previous games with a fresh vision. In otherwords, reincarnating old ideas.

Also, a good question to ask while we're here: How much innovation is enough for a video game?

[ObserverStatus]

I already have MW2, and I'm not buying any more modern shooters until they make one where you can shoot your enemies' legs out from under them from behind a drywall.

[Dominus]

An awful lot of that was borrowing from the previous title. As interesting as the awwww spoiler WUT No russian flashback was, it felt like an afterthought. The same thing goes for the 2-minute family "mission", which was trying to be a more emotionally pulling scene, but felt more like "Yeah, I get where this is going..." It was a great game, but will be remembered as the weakest of the 3.

Modifié par DominusVita, 25 novembre 2011 - 10:59 .

[Il Divo]

DominusVita wrote...


Also, a good question to ask while we're here: How much innovation is enough for a video game?

Great question, and not particularly easy to answer. For my own part, I think it's dependent on how many "predecessors" any game is forced to contend with in its own genre. In the Modern Warfare 3 example, it doesn't feel innovative in the slightest, especially when compared to MW1 and 2, and fps style games are a dime a dozen at this point.

On the other hand, take something like Assassin's Creed: Revelations. You could argue that, like MW3, the game isn't particularly innovative compared to past installments, but I personally am willing to give Revelations a pass on this, as there aren't many games period with that style of free-running. It's highly dependent on preference. At this point, Revelations feels less stale because, relatively speaking, there are far less games with that kind of free-running and genre stagnation hasn't really set in.

Modifié par Il Divo, 25 novembre 2011 - 11:19 .

[Gabriel S.]

"Are FPSs not innovative?"

Does the pope not sh** in the woods?

[SOLID_EVEREST]

After Goldeneye, the first and only good FPS I've played was Resistance: Fall of Man. I have played others afterwards like Rainbow Six: Vegas, Halo, and a few others. I got sick of shooters after Resistance that I couldn't even play R: 2 but for a few hours. I'd say, yes, FPS are not innovative.

[KenKenpachi]

Gabriel Stelinski wrote...

"Are FPSs not innovative?"

Does the pope not sh** in the woods?

Why yes, yes he does. So suck it haters, suck the popes turds.

Modifié par KenKenpachi, 26 novembre 2011 - 03:46 .

[Gabriel S.]

KenKenpachi wrote...

Gabriel Stelinski wrote...

"Are FPSs not innovative?"

Does the pope not sh** in the woods?

Why yes, yes he does. So suck it haters, suck the popes turds.

Thou shalt not lie, muthafuggah!

[Warheadz]

Play Origins already, haters! D:<

Wait, what was this thread about?

[Oooh shiny]

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.

^I like this human, he understands 

I would add that there's an issue with what I consider gameplay being sparated from story increasingly in all genres of games. There are good games that separate both but FPS seem to produce wildly unfeasible plots combined with poor execution and little to no gameplay that reinforces story.