First-person shooters... Are there too many?

#1 That's the way I feel about it as well. There are way too many mediocre and crappy FPSs, and there is always room for quality. As long as the game isn't a clone and trys to be different, then the potential is there. Obviously, it's harder than just saying that, as there aren't any FPSs released in Torque yet that I know of.

#2 Ah... Yes, there are too many FPSs, at least for my taste. The last FPS I bought was Quake 2 for $10 at Wal-Mart. Great deal. But, that's been a while, and I don't see myself buying any FPSs in the near future. Perhaps I'm weird, expecially considering my thick distaste for Halo. The only FPS I ever truly enjoyed was Goldeneye for N64. I can't comment on Tribes, seeing as how I've never played them. I guess the thing I best like about Goldeneye was the challeging but not terribly frustrating 1-player mode, and the multiplayer deathmatch mode.

I guess I don't really have much interest in new FPSs because of 2 reasons - 1) I don't really see how much more one can do with a straight FPS that would make it much different / better than Goldeneye. Sure, theres new campaigns, and new story sequences in FPS 1 player modes, but the gameplay seems awefully stale to me. I'd prefer all 3 things to be new, and would not mind at all if the last comes at the expense of the first two.

So, to summarize, it's gameplay first to me. If I don't percieve that the gameplay isn't new and better, then all the other aspects of a game are terribly unexciting to me.

Now, remember that I am talking about stright FPSs, like Doom 3 and Quake XXIV etc. These are the games I am bored of. Now, there are game that aren't straight FPS, like those which feature stealth or blending of other genres (RPG elements, etc) that I get very excited about. But when it comes to vanilla FPS shoot-em-up death match, I seem to take a pass every time.

#3 There are to many games period. Even if you were uber rich you couldn't play them all. This is not fair. Obviously congress needs to take a proactive role here and ban the making of crappy games. Also, they should pass a law that all games are FPS. This would put us on more equal ground and would really accelerate the next generation of FPS's.

#4 There is nothing new in fundamental gameplay mechanics that I see in any games.

They're all the same.

The only thing you can do is to add features or streamline existing gameplay. Think of all the games that are out there, all the board and card games, sports... there is really nothing new to do in terms of gameplay!

I don't understand why so many people in GG think that gameplay is soooo important.

Just take existing ideas that you like and make them better.

When you look at FPSs, these are the things that are being improved as games evolve:

- Graphics (photorealism, effects)
- AI (smarter bots)
- Physics (real-world physics)
- Performance (speed of graphics, speed of multiplayer)
- Quantity (more polygons, more characters on screen, more trees, more detail, etc.)

Gameplay? Who cares about gameplay! That's a given.

Until I see an FPS that:

- has realistic physics (I want to see ragdoll physics where the character doesnt lie on the floor with his legs spread eagle and his arm is under his back... havent programmers heard of joint constraints?)
- is super fast, 30fps, blazing performance (okay, this is partially dependant on hardware, but its all the same)
- has fast multiplayer with full voice support and uploadable graphics/avatars (like in message boards) and webcam support
- has hundreds of trees and bushes in the scene, hundreds of high-poly characters running around
- looks totally photorealistic
- has characters that have convincing presence and depth
- has AI that is as good as a human

....then, no, there will never be enough FPSs.

forget gameplay.

#5 Will Harrison - forget gameplay? So let's stop making games for the next 30 years and clone unreal 3 engine until hardware gets good enough, then we can resume creative thinking...

#6

Quote:(I want to see ragdoll physics where the character doesnt lie on the floor with his legs spread eagle and his arm is under his back... havent programmers heard of joint constraints?)

Yeah, those silly programmers. You'd almost think they were trying to simulate broken bones or something by twisting your body like that. Heaven knows a knee could NEVER be folded back 90 degree's in real life, right?


And Steven is right, your "wants" are almost completely dependant on hardware capabilities. The vast majority of people are not running 1337 video cards on Alienware PC's. One of the biggest drags on the gaming industry is the slow upgrade cycle. Most people get new computers every 3 to 5 years. In that time hardware gets 100 times better and games get much better, but the PC stays the same. Then they buy a cheap PC that's capable of running the game you made the year before, and then the games take another leap, etc... But it would appear that the hardware upgrade cycle is falling further and further behind the programming capabilities.

#7 Heh, I still play old Nintendo, Super NES, and Playstation 1 games more than any other system. Since I value gameplay most, I go to where I can find it. I certainly don't find much of it at Wal-Mart. This may explain the decreasing sales growth in the video game industry as of late; with gameplay innovation stagnating (IMO, of course), why not just stay home and relive the classics you've forgotten about, or peruse the old used game bin?

But we each have our own values. The question may be, instead, is gameplay innovation in the market really stagnating? And if so, why? Is it because most of the possibilites of gamaplay have already been thought of?

I personally believe that gameplay innovation is stagnating, and I think there is one answer as to why, and a second answer as to why not -
1) In general terms, in terms of _fundemental_ genres, yes, I think most fundemental gameplay genres have been thought of.
2) In terms of genre-blending and less fundemental gameplay mechanics, no, because I think we have taken but a few steps in a long, long journey. I think there is MASSIVE amount of room to innovate in terms of less-than-fundemental games mechanics.

Of course, this may make you ask thus - "Haven't most of the possible low-level game mechanics been thought of and implemented?"

Yes, they have. But the problem is that they have not been _combined_ properly in very many games. The true art of engineering (in this discussion, gameplay engineering) is how to take all pieces and put them together properly, _synergistically_, to create something that is, perhaps of the same genre (and therefore fundemental design), but is of a totally different gameplay _experience_.

And the fact that these mechanics yields combinatorally exponential possibilities in gameplay as an end result, you can see that what has been done so far has been only a few small steps into the unknown universe of gameplay engineering.

#8 So why aren't the big companies innovating even though there are so many possibilities left? Why do they keep producing these poor, poor excuses for games, albeit with prettier graphics?

Firstly, I think that it's because it's because making better graphics is an art more easily mastered than making good gameplay. In other words, it is actually cheaper to push the graphics envelope than to find a gameplay envelope. Sounds crazy, doesn't it? But here's my question if you doubt my assertion - compared to the number of graphics programming /engineering books on the shelves, how many good books are there about gameplay engineering? Personally, I've never come across such a thing. A while back, I DO remember hearing about a book that proposed to teach gameplay design patterns in the same way that GoF's Design Patterns book taught object oriented software patterns - but it never came to fruition.

And as the Design Patterns book was a revolution in software engineering, a proper book on gameplay design patterns could revolutionize our industry in the same way - bringing us out of the gameplay stagnation we are currently in. The problem, though, is the the discipline of gameplay design patterns is simply not developed yet. It just has not yet been born. But it will be. I really believe so. It is being born right now.

"Because it has already begun"

So really, it's more of an egineering problems than anything else. I think the best thing to do is to keep that in the back of our heads, and think of what we can do to solve that problem.

#9 All I'm saying is give it a rest with all the "gameplay is everything" talk.

Quote:take all pieces and put them together properly, synergistically

Absolutely... this is a great point of view.

Gameplay is not everything. I was trying to offer different ways to be creative and improve games outside of gameplay.

This is what I said...

When you look at FPSs, these are the things that are being improved as games evolve:

- Graphics (photorealism, effects)
- AI (smarter bots)
- Physics (real-world physics)
- Performance (speed of graphics, speed of multiplayer)
- Quantity (more polygons, more characters on screen, more trees, more detail, etc.)

You cannot dispute this! It is very obvious in all the successful games being made today. Gameplay is not on that list because its not why most buyers are interested in getting games today.

Do you honestly think that people go out and buy new graphics card so that they can experience innovative gameplay?!

...And better graphics, attention to details, better AI and physics are not "almost completely dependant on hardware capabilities".

@Gonzo: Have you played FarCry or any recent Unreal Tournament? They're not trying to simulate broken bones! If you were to see game ragdoll physics in a movie people would laugh because it would look unrealistic. They dont use any constraints and this causes the limbs to potentially snap to 90 degrees. Try something... relax your arm to your side. Is it possible to relax your arm so that it is straight? No. Same thing goes for legs. Muscles naturally contract, and tighten up after you're dead. There should be a recoil in the limbs, a kind of springyness. The player should not just fall to a heap instantly with loose joints. Trust me, they're not trying to simulate broken bones.

#10 @Steven:

Quote:forget gameplay? So let's stop making games for the next 30 years and clone unreal 3 engine until hardware gets good enough, then we can resume creative thinking...

As I said, better graphics, attention to details, better AI and physics are not "almost completely dependant on hardware capabilities," as Gonzo suggested.

It is dependant on good coding, art design, and good concepts.

Creative thinking does not stop at gameplay.

Why bother with TSE if gameplay is the only real concern here??

I've listed alot of suggestions on what improvements can be made in FPSs, outside of gameplay. Can you give me some ideas for improved gameplay mechanics for FPSs? (Sincerely)

#11

Quote:So why aren't the big companies innovating even though there are so many possibilities left?

My theory is because no one ever made serious money by innovating. They made money by making what the customer wants to buy.

Big publishers are all (I think) public companies with shareholders. They are constrained to a minimum rate of growth, which means that they have to keep making profitable choices in what they sell.

Until the game buying public shows that it is interested in innovative games, publishers will keep producing the same old same old.

#12 I think the government is secretly involved

and the all the games that you play is really training for war. while the military is conquering the rest of the world we are sitting at home training in our games in case of invasion.


(disclaimer: I don't really believe this, it was just a thought that ran through my mind.)

#13

Quote:Do you honestly think that people go out and buy new graphics card so that they can experience innovative gameplay?!

Absolutely 100% yes. Let me explain. Okay, I saw Mafia at the store for $10. And I heard Mafia had some great and innovative gameplay. The only problem is that the graphics are too good for my current video card. So, unfortunately, in order to play the new games _which have the new and innovative gameplay_, I am forced to upgrade my hardware in order to get it. If I could, I would prefer that the graphics be, well, _bad_ enough to run on my current hardware. But unfortunately, this is not the case.

This is the same reason why I bought my PS2 - I wanted to experience the new gameplay of Metal Gear Solid 2 and Final Fantasy X and Dark Cloud etc. If I could've gotten these games on my PSOne, then I would've done so. But I couldn't, so I upgraded.

But again, this is all from my perspective. Values are subjective, meaning that both of our values, even if totally opposed, are still valid. Now if you want to make assertions about the market's values and what the market wants, then that is a whole different thing. Methinks you better bring some hard research data to back up any assertions you make for the good of your own argument.

#14

Quote:Why bother with TSE if gameplay is the only real concern here??

If I am correct, there is much more to TSE than shading. The entire engine has been restructured and streamlined, making Torque MUCH easier to extend and interface face with. For me, the engie restructuring is the most valuable thing, and the shading possibilities are just icing on the cake. If I am correct in my assumption, the streamlining of Torque is going to make my job as a programmer MUCH easier in the future, allowing me to focus on gameplay with greater ease. And shaders will help keep my games graphics to be at least the minimum necessary to compete with other games.

Now, in terms of _why_ we have to upgrade our games graphics even when graphics aren't totally paramount... Well, IMO, it's because our games graphics have to be at a minimum to remain competitive. For example, a 2d action videogames, IMO, just can't compete nowadays. But that is also not to say that the action game with the BEST graphics will always be the #1. The point is that all aaspects of your game such as AI, graphics, sound, gameplay, etc must all meet a certain competitive minimum. Once you meet that minimum, it is up to you to decide what aspect(s) in particular that you will concentrate on which will make your unique game stand out. Out of all the different aspects of a videogame, we can choose to maximise maybe 1 or 2. For big companies with lots of money and software engineers, the easiest thing for them to do is to maximise their game's graphics. And since the market is receptive to that, then that is what they do. But, unfortunately for these big companies, they do not often have the expertise necessary to maximise gameplay through proper gameplay engineering. It just isn't there. And because of the size of their beaurocracy, they are unable to find where this particulare expertise is (since it is such a hard thing to measure and find - unlike good graphics engineers), and to put the proper expertise in the proper place because of beaurocratic inflexibility.

For indies, on the other hand, maximising graphics to make our games stand above is not really an option. Graphics takes manpower. But the advantage we do have is our expertise in gameplay engineering, and our lack of beaurocracy which would otherwise misallocate it. That is why it is often best to leverage our specialization in gameplay engineering in order to do what we do. We are a niche, and we pick up the crumbs. And while crumbs sound unappetizing to the big companies, to us they are crumbs of gold!

But this is not suggesting that indies take the approach that emphasizes gameplay. It suggests that I personally take that approach since I personally have the expertise to do it very well, and that I personally believe that the market would be more receptive to it than putting my resources into innovating in any other department and instead just meeting the minimum competitive standards outside of gameplay.

#15

Quote:- AI (smarter bots)
- Physics (real-world physics)

Both of those are gameplay elements. They're not "new" or "revolutionary", but they are consistent gameplay elements. Notice how many people complain if you have bad physics in a FPS. Also, notice that Half-Life 2 has made physics integral to gameplay. Painkiller did some of that as well. So did PsiOps. AI is always linked to gameplay unless you're making a non-interactive simulation.

The reason we focus on gameplay is that is where the meat of your playability comes from. If you have a game that plays the way it should, then you don't have to have the best graphics on the planet. It doesn't hurt, though. And if you have solid gameplay nailed out, you can pump up the graphics as high as possible as long as it doesn't cause detriment to the playability of your game.

Most publishers have been releasing disposable games. Sure, they look nice on the computer screen, but sometimes they are quite literally unplayable. Super Hero games have been a prime example lately, though a number of budget FPS's based around Vietnam also had that problem in the past. If you look at the companies that are releasing not only beautiful games, but consistently good games, you'll notice that their gameplay is tight. It may not be "new" or "ground-breaking", but they worked to make sure it enhanced the player's experience rather than detracted from it by making the game unplayable. Blizzard make beautiful games. They also make extremely playable and addictive games. Epic did an excellent job at keeping the eye-candy to a maximum in their Unreal line AND making the tournament gameplay consistently fun. I can't say the same for that vast majority of arena and tournament shooter clones that have cropped up.

Quote:Why bother with TSE if gameplay is the only real concern here??

Because graphics will get your title off the shelf, but gameplay will keep them playing it.

Look at Aerial Antics. It was made in Blitz 3D. It's a nice looking game, but it's the consistent gameplay that keeps me coming back. Radiant Silvergun has some excellent 2D graphics for a space shooter, but it's the gameplay that keeps me coming back. Unreal Tournament 2k4 is beautiful, but I play it because of the frantic multiplayer action. I rarely even notice the graphics unless I'm in single-player.

Graphics are important. Level design is important. Sound is important. But gameplay is the most important factor. If your game doesn't play the way it should, then all the prettiest graphics and professionally composed soundtracks and amazing levels won't save it.

#16 In answer to the original question of are there simply too many FPS games. For me the answer is not so clear cut. Yes there are simply too many mindless FPS games out here but NO there are not enough story driven FPS games out there.

We all look forward to Halo2 and Half-Life2 because we identified with Gordon Freeman and the faceless Master Chief and Cortana and want to know where their stories lead them next.

I can honestly say that while Doom3 may have spectacular graphics, it is simply a remake of the original storyless FPS Doom and I know sadly that I will get bored very quickly of churning my way through hoards of mindless zombies no matter how good they look.

**Rant**
Heck even the gameplay in Doom3 has flaws (from the multiplayer demo session I was lucky enough to attend) such as why can a FUTURE marine not manage to have a gun with a light on it for dark rooms?!? You are actually forced to either carry a torch or a gun not both....er has anyone told ID that soldiers have had guns with lights on for some time now because they are useful for targetting and countering whats that stuff again oh yes DARKNESS...er sorry ranted a bit there! :o)

#17 I can see why the torch or gun was done in the single-player game. That's much like the questions that people had in Halo: "Why can I only carry two weapons even if they're small ones (like two pistols)?" It was a gameplay feature that made people choose wisely before jumping in. Since the atmosphere of Doom 3 is more akin to a survival horror title than a typical FPS, I can easily see why the decision was made IN SINGLE PLAYER.

I can't imagine why it was made in multiplayer, though. I already see the problem people have with camping being enhanced by dark levels that you have to go into unarmed. That was one of the main reasons that the Lightning Gun had such a charge time AND a lightning trail in UT2k3. It made a lot of people unhappy because it killed sniping (at least until a mod with a sniper rifle was released about three days after the launch).

I was actually releaved by Serious Sam and Painkiller's gameplay. They're pretty mindless shooters (though SS had some places where you had to think quickly to avoid getting torn apart by an onslaught of enemies), but they came out when everyone was emulating mission-based shooters, and emulating them badly.

Thief/2, System Shock, Half-Life, Deus Ex, were all nice story-based FP games, but I can't say I've enjoyed the knock-offs in that category much more than I liked the Doomlikes back in the day.

#18

Quote:Do you think there are too many FPSs or does it just depend on the quality and not the genre?

N0 there are not to many FPS games and there never will be. Why you ask? SHOOTERS ARE FUN!

'Shooter' games have an historical link to the arcades of old. Select pratically any Arcade game from the past (20-30 years ago) and you will realize that they are all practically 'Shooters'. The 'gameplay' simple: 1) shoot & destroy waves of enemies, 2) score high, 3) move on to the next wave, 4)beat the boss!

'First Person' is merely a different perspective and nothing more. Top-Down, Side-Scroller, Isometric, and 3rd Person 'Shooters' have always been around and will continue to do so.

One of my favorite Arcade shooters of all time was "Heavy Barrel" by Data East. Now, imagine redesigning it with a First Person Perspective, Multiplayer/Co-Op, with the latest visuals, AI, and physics (tongue hangs... mouth drools).

IMHO you can fuse 'Shooter' gameplay of other genres of gameplay relatively easy. Just slap a First Person, Top-Down, Side-Scroller, Isometric, and 3rd Person perspective and you can create a new and interesting experience.

This is one of many reasons why I selected TGE/TSE for our game development platform. It has already taken care of the 'Shooter' gameplay with First Person/3rd Person perspective.