What would/can you do to revolutionize the FPS genre?

jiminator

[H]F Junkie
Joined
Feb 2, 2007
Messages
11,607
all the "clever" enemy attacks only work for a limited number of enemies. add spawning enemies and all that becomes useless as there will be too many enemies to confront in this fashion, and it is just easier to kill them by whatever means necessary.
 

tempo*

Limp Gawd
Joined
Feb 24, 2003
Messages
322
multiplayer is the lifeblood of the fps.
imho.
a good multiplayer outdoes fancy graphics etc - look how many still play CS and CSS.
 

aKrippler

Gawd
Joined
Oct 17, 2007
Messages
770
multiplayer is the lifeblood of the fps.
imho.
a good multiplayer outdoes fancy graphics etc - look how many still play CS and CSS.

Yeah someone needs to sit down and put out a game with good net code like CS.

CS just FEELS so much better than any other shooter out.

The hit detection, the hit boxes, the speed, the fluid controls, it all feels right.

Then you have big name titles like BFBC2 and MW2 that are fun but they feel funky. BFBC2 makes me feel like I am on ice the entire game, and the hit detection is off half the time. MW2 feels good, but its too quick an unrealistic for me, the only smart way to play is: put target on head, hold down button until dead.
 

jiminator

[H]F Junkie
Joined
Feb 2, 2007
Messages
11,607
eh, i'd disagree about MP being the lifeblood. I mean it can certainly enhance play, but many people play SP only, and in other cases the MP just never takes off. Really, how can any MP game compete against the established gamer bases. And then there are endless complaints about lag, balance, and so forth. Devs also spend lots of time making these maps, some of which I have seen and wished they were in the SP game. My preference would be to see coop available in these games, so the SP experience remains, SP gets the *FULL* experience, and MP can enhance that experience.
 

Uncle Humjaba

Limp Gawd
Joined
May 6, 2006
Messages
432
I think they need to do more with the multiplayer aspect. Something along the lines of Battlefield 2 with more players and more gameplay elements. 64 v 64 with troops on land air and sea would be awesome.
Would have to have some kind of command structure.

Hell, make it a RTS/FPS hybrid. A commander tells the troops what to do and organizes the battlefield, with live players carrying it out. That could be cool.

As an aside, I can't wait until the next Valve engine comes out. Source was amazing when it first came out, and I have yet to play anything that feels better. Just something as simple as movement feels right in source games, and I have yet to find that elsewhere.
 

Tolyngee

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Oct 17, 2005
Messages
4,516
Says the non-developer.

I wonder if it's just that devs have seen enough speedruns to understand that making a long SP campaign is in the eyes of the beholder...

Too many of the epic SP games have speedruns of an hour if lucky. Far Cry 1, FEAR, Doom 3, Prey, Bioshock. HL2's admittedly was at least almost two hours, but HL1's is under 30 minutes...

And we all know that if you blink during Quake's speedrun, you probably just missed an entire level...
 

rtd

Limp Gawd
Joined
Jul 11, 2010
Messages
171
eh, i'd disagree about MP being the lifeblood. I mean it can certainly enhance play, but many people play SP only, and in other cases the MP just never takes off. Really, how can any MP game compete against the established gamer bases. And then there are endless complaints about lag, balance, and so forth. Devs also spend lots of time making these maps, some of which I have seen and wished they were in the SP game. My preference would be to see coop available in these games, so the SP experience remains, SP gets the *FULL* experience, and MP can enhance that experience.


There are way more people right now playing multiplayer FPS than single player FPS. I would say that warrants the term "lifeblood".

As was stated the only thing to help FPS is better netcode, matchmaking, demo support and something similar to quaketv built in. A built in ladder that sets up matches or just supports matches would be fantastic too.

Other than that there are only gimmicks or gametype mergers that can be added. FPS games are pretty straight forward.
 

riot8ap

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Feb 17, 2003
Messages
5,509
I think they need to do more with the multiplayer aspect. Something along the lines of Battlefield 2 with more players and more gameplay elements. 64 v 64 with troops on land air and sea would be awesome.
Would have to have some kind of command structure.

Hell, make it a RTS/FPS hybrid. A commander tells the troops what to do and organizes the battlefield, with live players carrying it out. That could be cool.

As an aside, I can't wait until the next Valve engine comes out. Source was amazing when it first came out, and I have yet to play anything that feels better. Just something as simple as movement feels right in source games, and I have yet to find that elsewhere.

That sounds just like a game that was demo'd at E3 this year (I think it was E3). Let me try to find what it is. I do agree with you, it'd be awesome to command a big squad/army or be under command. It would only make sense that an order would have points attached to it, therefore, there is an incentive to follow orders. I've seen way too many times there are rouge players that don't give a shit and do what they want, contrary to orders.
 

Sly

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Aug 17, 2004
Messages
5,747
Painkiller, have that game. Does that work with Surround as well?

Don't know if it supports multi monitor, but it does work with stereo 3D without adjusting anything.

It's what i was playing before nVidia stopped supporting legacy. If you played painkiller before, you'll note that everything flies in pieces. Particularly in the damned village where they throw bodyparts at you. Kinda weird watching the stakes come out of your nose tho.

Shoot the shotgun at the guy point blank while you're running, you'll not only see him being thrown away, but when the blood sprays out, you'll actually expect your forehead to get wet as you run through the bloody mist, it was a weird feeling.

If you want a sense of everything moving around you (body parts falling like rain especially in the train station with all those WWII skeletons), i recommend it.:)
 
Last edited:

thesecond

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
Jan 15, 2010
Messages
1,074
I think they need to do more with the multiplayer aspect. Something along the lines of Battlefield 2 with more players and more gameplay elements. 64 v 64 with troops on land air and sea would be awesome.
Would have to have some kind of command structure.

Hell, make it a RTS/FPS hybrid. A commander tells the troops what to do and organizes the battlefield, with live players carrying it out. That could be cool.

As an aside, I can't wait until the next Valve engine comes out. Source was amazing when it first came out, and I have yet to play anything that feels better. Just something as simple as movement feels right in source games, and I have yet to find that elsewhere.

Like M.A.G.?

If only it was for PC... would be SOOOOOOO much better.
 

harmattan

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Feb 11, 2008
Messages
4,939
Two words: crotchless moose-suit.

Seriously, something that combines the fluidity and required dexterity of Mirror's Edge with the destructive environments of BC2 would be cool.

Also, more dirty toilet seats for blunt trauma like in Condemned 2.
 

Domingo

Fully [H]
Joined
Jul 30, 2004
Messages
20,271
Honestly, there isn't a whole lot that can be done without a technology overhaul and some kind of better 3D implementation.
There are only just so many projectile weapons possible and we're stating to hit the wall already.
Maybe more of an interactive world that isn't entirely geared around killing? I'd think that might be a start. RPG elements, maybe?

I'd say the last truly innovative titles were Portal and the oft-forgotten Prey.

Everything else is just the same old thing with better graphics or more emphasis on team gameplay.
 

Saturn_V

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
Sep 24, 2008
Messages
1,873
This may seem counter-intuitive, but I would focus on bringing better Melee combat to the FPS. Something that's fluid and dynamic like Batman: AA's melee combat, but not arcane and hard to master like Die by The Sword. I've tried Zeno Clash, Age of Chivalry and Mount and Blade- we still have a long way to go until first-person Melee combat is actually fun.

My dream is to have a game with a first person fencing combat engine. Fight as Samurai, Swashbucklers, Musketeers or Jedi.
 

utfreak

n00b
Joined
Nov 22, 2005
Messages
51
I honestly believe good fps games do not need "revolutionizing." A good fps is based on the quality of gameplay. Often, new things can water down the gameplay (noob tubes in cod, certain perks, etc) I enjoy simple, skill based gameplay over gimmicks. That's just my opinion. (I'm the type of guy that liked vcod and cod 2 more than the modern warfares...although i do play a bunch of MW2!)
 

computerpro3

LightningRod
Joined
Mar 29, 2003
Messages
8,705
It's all about feel. There are no other two games on the market that feel as right as Counterstrike Source and UT2004. There is a tactile sensation for these unlike any other - in source, the M4 FEELS like a m4 - sharp, instant. The Shotgun feels like a shotty - full, big recoil, solid. In UT2004, the flak cannon FEELS like a freaking flak cannon would - CRUNCHY.

For previously competitive players like myself, it gets annoying real fast when I play a FPS and it feels like I'm merely clicking a mouse when I shoot (bioshock, I'm looking at you).
 

Sly

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Aug 17, 2004
Messages
5,747
When they say revolutionary, i think they're looking for something more substantial than tweaking variables in a game engine.
 

computerpro3

LightningRod
Joined
Mar 29, 2003
Messages
8,705
When they say revolutionary, i think they're looking for something more substantial than tweaking variables in a game engine.

Making a FPS with good shooting mechanics IS revolutionary in this age of complete crap.
 

Salavat23

Gawd
Joined
Apr 13, 2008
Messages
651
We have alot of focus on destructable environments, but what about destructable players. If you get shot in the leg perhaps your character should limp. Shot in the arm maybe your aim and nade throwing is affected. Stuff like this.

That was already implemented to a certain extent in Fallout 3.
 

Bonafide

n00b
Joined
Jun 30, 2007
Messages
7
Make them fun, truely fun.

MW2 and co. aren't really fun, people get way to competitive with them, where it get's frustration. The most fun I've ever had with a game, was with Solder: Secret Wars (google it). It was a buggy ass game and came out about 5-6 years ago, but god did they get the "fun" part right.
 

overlord20

Gawd
Joined
Feb 5, 2010
Messages
623
Alien Swarm is like that for me as well as L4D. Truly fun without getting competitive. Until you start killing each other ;)
 

Stiler

[H]F Junkie
Joined
Jun 4, 2002
Messages
10,538
I think the next revolution will be when an fps lets you take control of things within the environment.

IE - Think Mirrors edge but on a complete scale with everything in the environment.

For example, a move demo showing a simple thing, the ability to grab onto branches and move around a non-linear way, climb around, up/down,e tc.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9uF_fasPphc&feature=player_embedded

Imagine an FPS game where you can move and manipulate the environment like that, not just simple physics moving things about a la HL or such, but actual control of objects in the environment and the ability to move around how you wish to like with ME but on a whole other level. Being able to climb on complicated objects like trees and non "designed specifically to climb on" things. Along with being able to move things about how you would expect to (IE how in Pneumbra you move doors/drawers with the mouse how you would in real life).

Total immersion in the world of an fps game with the ability to control and move around it non a non-linear plane as most fps games are done.
 

DeathPrincess

Fully [H]
Joined
May 15, 2010
Messages
18,205
This is what Bethesda is doing to try to revolutionize it....

http://www.brinkthegame.com/features/freedom/

make sure to watch the trailer too!

looks good :)

Yes it is a good new game client, but, you do know its a FPS made by bethesda. Fallout 3 was one of my favirote games...but not because of the shooting mechanics. I know it was accurancy or something effected, but them hitboxes...
This is TPS but might be moar revolutionary!
 

Shadowspawn

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
Sep 17, 2002
Messages
1,870
Make fps games over 18s ONLY and ban headsets.

Huh?

I know there are some young idiots out there but my time spent playing Americas Army with a team of dedicated professional players required headsets for the strategy. The ability to communicate with teammates makes the game so much more immersive and fun.
 

Domingo

Fully [H]
Joined
Jul 30, 2004
Messages
20,271
I loved Fallout 3, and I enjoyed Oblivion, too. Those are definitely steps in the right direction for me.
With games like MW2...I'm honestly bored. I've been playing FPS games since the days of ROTT, Doom, etc. and I'm sick of 'em. I think the last traditional FPS game I really got into was Far Cry, although I'll admit I have an affinity for L4D1.
I think the generation that got started with Halo, Goldeneye, and Unreal Tournament will be like me in a few years. There's just so much of the same old thing you can handle. I don't care how much you force teams or grinding on me. It's still the same 'ol thing.
 

DeathPrincess

Fully [H]
Joined
May 15, 2010
Messages
18,205
Huh?

I know there are some young idiots out there but my time spent playing Americas Army with a team of dedicated professional players required headsets for the strategy. The ability to communicate with teammates makes the game so much more immersive and fun.

Because there is some rule somewhere that if you use a headset you have to have an annoying voice. I usually just play on mute. But then again i'm not really a team player, unless its coop.
 

Inu

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
Jun 29, 2004
Messages
2,022
I felt a lot of the newer COD series were very innovative, interactive cinematic sequences were amazing, however short-lived.

Easiest way to think of it, is its an FPS, games played in the first person perspective. We want to feel we are the character and actually in the environment.

Crysis accomplished it very well for me. I actually felt like a super soldier in a rain forest, spaceship or iced up environment, was amazing really.
 

Lateralus

More [H]uman than Human
Joined
Aug 7, 2004
Messages
16,831
I think in future FPS games are going to wow us when they make environments seem more realistic, we're not just talking better graphics and higher fidelity but also having the world behaving in realistic ways, allowing the player to manipulate the environment in ways that extend past simply shooting things.

A game that caught my eye was Dark messiah, a FPS game a while back which was playable as several characters, a sort of generic knight, an assassin or a mage, the game was really in its element as the mage. The game sported several dynamic elements such as fire, physics objects, breakable objects, and also had some interesting spells (flame, ice etc)

What really made it an enjoyable game was that the environments could be used to kill your opponents just as readily as the spells and weapons at your disposal. You could kick enemies and if they were off guard they would fall/stumble backwards, if they fell down a large flight of stairs they'd get injured or die, if you kicked them through a camp fire they'd get set on fire and die. If you kick/smashed a supporting beam, whatever it was supporting would come crashing down. You could mix these things in a large combination of ways to make more deadly attacks, for example you could use a flame spell (or put an arrow into fire) and set alight a bunch of wooden barrels and crates that are being supported by a beam, now when you kick the beam away its not just crates falling on the enemies head it's flaming crates.

You could for example kick a barrel down a flight of stairs causing it to tumble and roll faster and knock enemies over like bowling pins, you could light the barrel before you did it. The mage had a particuarly amuzing freeze spell which froze enemies, but when applied to surfaces made it slippery and enemies would fall over and slide a short distance, you could put that before a fire/ledge/spikes/stairs and your oppenent would slip and fall/impale/whatever.

Now extraplote that by todays standards and level of physics and bring me a game like this but allows a wider range of options, maybe I can throw around explosives, flamable substances (like In Postal2 with the gas can) maybe just allow me to tie rope to various objects so I can create my own traps that cause enemies to yank anvils from a ledge onto their head, maybe have properly modeled fire propogation and smoke propogation and even gas propogation so that I can put a candle in one side of a room and break a gas mains at the other side and after x many minutes get an explosion, have properly modeled electrisity so I can just smash a water main then yank a mains cord and create a water/electrisity trap, or transmit electrisity through any metalic object, rubber objects are insulators and are safe. Have realistic buildings made with real materials with real properties, wood burns, stone doesn't, stone is heavy and crushes wood so like in Red Faction Guerrilla you have to build houses with proper structual integrity, equally they can be collapsed in realistic ways.

Do you know how many ways I could kill a person with even half of the above system modeled correctly. Garysmod made money just by allowing players to tinker with the relatively limited source engine because these dynamic systems are FUN!

You're on the right track with this post. I don't care about cutting-edge graphics and 3D as much as I do about creativity and interactivity like what you've described here. 3D may immerse us into the game world more if implemented correctly, but if you're still on rails with relatively few things to do then it's not going to keep me coming back for more. If we are given the tools and freedom to play the game how we want, well that's the game I'll be playing for a long time. And I'm not talking about the ability to approach missions from different angles in Far Cry 2...it takes more than an open world to accomplish what I'm thinking of here (and apparently you as well).

You know, I hadn't paid one bit of attention to Dark Messiah since I'm typically not big on the whole fantasy, Might & Magic themed stuff. But after reading more about the game and considering it's available for $10 on Steam and D2D, I'm thinking a purchase will be in my immediate future.
 

MixPix

Gawd
Joined
Aug 24, 2001
Messages
833
It would be great if I could see my legs when I look down.

Ok seriously, I would like to see more games like Far Cry 2. I loved being able to follow the story ot just explore a huge open world. I had so much fun playing it on PC.

I'd like games to stop putting walls up. I would have LOVED to explore the Sitadel in Mass Effect. I loved that setting and it was beautifully designed. I would love to live in that world.

Far Cry 2 meets Left 4 Dead would be awesome in a co-op environment. I know you could say that's an MMO, but I don't want quests. I want interesting places to explore and conquer.

Maybe its just crazy enough to work.
 
Last edited:

Chameleoki

Limp Gawd
Joined
Jun 28, 2004
Messages
479
Per-polygon hit detection. Make it so if you get hit in the leg, you limp. Foot, you limp differently. Arm, you can't aim as well. I know it's been somewhat done before but I think there are other ways to do it (damaged mechs for one, area damage on ships, etc.) I know I feel somewhat guilty every time I snipe-kill someone in the foot.

I really think physics is the next big update. Bullet, frags, shrapnel, shards of windows, etc. Even movement. It doesn't have to be REALISTIC physics. You can do massive explosions. Low gravity, etc. One of my favorite gaming memories is making a mod for Quake 2 where we modified all the weapons including making the radius of grenades to be about 100x bigger. Basically if you could see the grenade you were dead. Doing that with explosions with flying debris and other things we haven't even thought of would be fun. I think something like the Dark Messiah idea above is the same type thing- physics.

Also open-endedness. That doesn't mean boring or no missions but freedom. I want to race a car across the country with no loading screens. I want to do a 300-mile race. I want to have a whole city to run around in with all buildings open. That would take a lot of design, and I think you would have to automate it in generation and then go through and make tweaks and add additional details but I think it's doable.

Imagine having an "address" of where you think other players are hiding something. You get your team and go there and have to infiltrate the building. One building out of thousands. A skyscraper. You fight your way up floor after floor. That would be awesome.
 

MrAgmoore

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
Jun 5, 2008
Messages
2,015
Do you know how many ways I could kill a person with even half of the above system modeled correctly.

You are a scary person Princess Frosty :D



Visionary developers would be nice. My friend and I were blown away while playing Crysis.
 
Top