I wonder how many videogame companies have actually asked the consumers this question.
In your opinion, What makes a great First Person Shooting Game?
Printable View
I wonder how many videogame companies have actually asked the consumers this question.
In your opinion, What makes a great First Person Shooting Game?
Atmosphere and setting.
Their will never be a great FPS game.. Well BF 3 is good. And no one mention CoD That game sucks horribly.. Wait i just mentioned it, No one mention it other than me!
Mention what?Quote:
Originally Posted by KyouFalls
Story,Atmospheric gameplay, Co-op,variety of weapons and attachments,equipment and of course multiplayer.
You have to be able to feel yourself in the role of the main character. A great story around that character has to draw you in, the actions taken to advance the story makes for an interesting game. Plus, it has to have some great action. If you cannot get into the story then why bother playing? It have awesome graphics, great weapons, cool abilities...but if nothing else, that's all you have...a pretty game.
Explain the popularity of team fortressQuote:
Originally Posted by Jacob's Ladder
or counter strike
you see, story was never that important in FPS games. it's all about gameplay and atmosphere
Of course good team play factors in, but Im going on the single player experience.Quote:
Originally Posted by nathanromml:2728349
Well, the only titles I have for reference are of the Metroid Prime and Resident Evil kind, and then, technically they might not fall under fps. Metroid Prime is an fps in the sense that the game character (Samus Aran) wields a firearm and is presented in first-person view. In effect however, Metroid Prime is more a mix of platforming (you have to collect a lot of stuff), adventure and puzzle solving (not that the puzzles are particularly taxing, but meh...). Resident Evil would fall under survival horror, although the series of late seems to have taken a new direction in the form of arcade-ish, fps's with less emphasis an suspense and horror, much to my dissapointment.
Anyways, imo:
> Entertaining weapons and fast weapon select system:
I used to play Turok 2: Seeds of Evil back in the day, and despite the framerate rendering the game barely playable at times and the save points being few and far between, I was most impressed with the weapon select system and imaginative weapons. Like before you had to cycle through a number of weapons to draw out what you need, but in Turok 2, all you needed was to press a single button to bring up the weapon select "wheel", and then simply use the D-Pad (or maybe the analog stick...) to directly select your weapon. This was very handy as there were plenty of situations in T2 that called for quick weapon exchanges. Yeah, I know that some fps's have similar weapon select systems these days, but there are still many that use that dreaded weapon cycling system, especially when it comes to gaming systems lacking keyboards.
> Imaginative visuals
By imaginative, I don't mean that they have to complement the latest hardware; a texture can still be high res and lifeless. Bioshock is one game that I'd rate highly in terms of imaginative visuals, especially in terms of artistic style and throwaway detail. The Crysis games I like much less... the graphics here seem to smack of advertising, which I despise in a game. Yes, it all very well that the latter yields lots of polygons, volumetric clouds and generous draw distances... but such features have little to do with imagination, and essentially there's nothing in the Crysis visuals that I haven't seen before. Also there are many games that are almost as visually stunning, yet a lot less demanding in terms of system requirements.
> Progressive storyline and challenges
I like an fps that generally leaves a sense of journey and progress. I hate it when an fps throws everything at me all at once (which again, smacks of blatant advertising), and before I know it, the game's out of ideas. I'd rather prefer an fps that starts out kinda meh, then overwhelms me with some stunning scenery or boss character, each one better than the last. It doesn't really bother me if an fps is blatantly formulaic (Metroid Prime 2: Echoes being one of them); like, I might know when to expect a boss or something, but that doesn't mean that it (or whatever it is) can't still blow me away. The general rule is, impress me, but by all means leave me curious.
> Logically placed items
Don't put items like energy, food and (especially) quest objects in unlikely places (like ornamental jars). Nuff said...
> An inventory screen that doesn't magically freeze time
Yeah, I know--in some games it can't really be helped, but other games, like Resident Evil games... Well, surely the whole point of such games is to scare the living crap out of you, so why make it so that you don't have to worry about enemies charging after you while you're selecting your ammo and health?
> Anti-crude model updating
I get that all fps's need polygon budgets... but it's freaky and distracting when I see something like a building or landscape set-piece update as if it's having an allergic reaction to an advancing game character, and this only serves to defeat the object of otherwise, realistic graphics (at least as far as they're advertised). There are better model updating algorithms out there (such as fade-in and morphing algorithms); it's just that many developers don't bother to program them into their game engines.
> Real-time cut-scenes
Pre-rendered videos may look prettier than real-time graphics when it comes to cut-scenes. Still, there is a thing called continuity, you know? And when a pre-rendered cut-scene looks like it's been created by an entirely different department to that of the in-game graphics, it spoils consistency, and with that, my sense of involvement. Pre-rendered cut-scenes based on in-game graphics aren't so bad though.
> Consistent Framerate (or all-around game engine)
More of a personal preference than a necessity this but, to me there's nothing worse than playability and fluidity being hampered by framerate problems. I'd rather play an fps running at a consistent, locked 30fps than one running at a choppy 60fps. One of the reasons I enjoy older games like Metroid Prime is because it runs at a consistent 60fps; in it's time it also had one of the best general purpose fps game engines.
> No respawning enemies
Although games like Metroid Prime would come under fire for this, it has to said that it was probably for hardware and memory card limitation reasons that respawning enemies were common, since in this case, having to remember which enemies were killed would undoubtedly affect the precious 43MB of RAM in the console it was designed for, not to mention the size of save file on the memory card. This sort thing is less excusable with PC fps's however, and here respawning enemies send out the negative impression that game developers are simply trying to pad out their games as opposed to creating fresh content.
> Out with the camera lens flare effect! (besides, it's so last last gen!)
If an fps by definition is supposed to give a realistic person's eye-view of an environment, why is it that game developers still insist on including stupid camera lens flare effects? This makes me feel less like the game character I'm supposed to be and more like a cameraperson following the game character.
Not another generic story in the campaign. MoH: Warfighter, another generic one.
BF3, generic.
Modern Warfare 3, obviously.
Black Ops 2 won't have a generic one I belive.
Since Treyarch actually dares to do something other than the "Evil guy has gotten his hands on some bomb, gonna blow the earth sky high".
To the future :D
I'm excited for BLOPS2. Though I can't afford any new games atm, so I'll have to wait awhile :|
-
Multiplayer wise:
I prefer CoD. I'm a casual fps player, I only play them a few times.
When I do, I want to be able to kill someone :P
Though I don't like the overpowered killstreaks. But I think I heard a rumour that the killstreaks in BLOPS2 won't be overpowered, there won't be the damn MOAB aka mini nuke.
MoH: Warfighter seems to be a mix of CoD and BF3.
Big maps, CoD graphics(color filters at least).
For me it's all about storyline and how the gameplay keeps me enthralled with that storyline.
Thus is why I enjoy the Killzone series, the BioShock series, and the Battlefield: Bad Company series. Though having humor is great like in the Bad Company series and Duke Nukem.
id have to say the ability to exchange wepions with n.p.cs