Doing some research on what people want to see in FPS games...

#1 The actual link shoud be:

Take the survey.

#2 Thanks...my bad. I'll edit the post =).

#3 Its really not that simple. I feel that the FPS genre needs to progress in terms of team-based gameplay OR return to Tribes style gameplay. Either is good. I have a lot of trouble playing newer games. I like a few things though. Its very fun to blow out your mind Unreal Tournament style, but only for short periods of time. If I had to play something all day, I would choose Tribes over FEAR, FarCry, etc. Most newer games don't do it for me in a way that teambased games can. Most upcoming FPS games look cool, but how many of them will stay with me for years is the question that really matters here.

#4 Honestly, I don't expect any FPS to stay with me for years. The technology, the industry, and the whims of gamers change far too rapidly for that. I'd say "weeks", at best.

#5 I dislike most FPS games because it's needless killing and it's the same all of the way through, take Doom 3 for instance, good graphics, good effects, good physics, but bad design in my opinion, there should be a flow, some meaning behind the killing of enemies, perhaps campaigns and variation. Call of Duty 2 is probably a good example for good FPS games, you have 3 countries, 3 main campaign aspects of WWII (Stalingrad, Alamein, D-Day) enemies are well placed, often or not aren't there to make you jump or to randomly shoot. You get a nice range of weapons, even MG 42s, anti-aircraft guns, flak guns, explosives and even signal air strikes, you also get to drive tanks and other vehicles. Quite a variation in what to do and that is what makes it such a good FPS, I personally want to see non-war FPS games to be more like that, I mean a lot of the elements there would work in Doom 3, I can imagine running on the surface of Mars between 2 base sections on a buggy being chased by some huge monster or something.

#6 True Musashi. I have been playing a lot of Call of Duty 3 lately, but that only does it for me on team play because just killing everyone bores me. However, when you are watching a teammate's back and someone pops out and you kill them just before they can get the drop on him/her...that's a different feeling, one of cooperation and purpose.

Overall, Ryan, I would suggest trying to hypothesize what the future in trend gaming will be...nobody knows what it will be until someone makes something that becomes it.

#7 Yeah covering someone is much more fun and challenging then just mowing down people with your Super-Powerful-Minigun-With-Multiple-Rocket-Launchers-And-Heat-Seeking-Missiles-Packed-With-Mini-Nukes!

Though I don't like to loose the game due to a dumb AI character dying.

Though I would like to see what would happen if a FPS had the power-ups of like the old flying arcade shooters like Tyrian. Where you don't always get the ones you wanted and end up loosing your Twin Vulcan cannons to getting the completely useless bubble in all the wrong places "power-up".

#8 Here's my views on FPS:s (my favorite genre btw)

Personally single-player FPS and multi-player FPS is to different bests, should they even be compared?

I'm personally bored by any single-player FPS I played the last years, so I just don't bother with them any more.

A good mp-FPS for me has a bit of chess to it, e.g. you need to use your brain more than your gun.
This does come to the price of extensive training, which maybe not for the average player?

The mp-FPS I love all have stuff like vehicles (air, water, land, etc) and different means to suppress those.

The best ones also have objectives on the maps, and multiple optional objectives is the best, because it gives you choices.

A good FPS also should make it possible for the player to use "all" senses (e.g. sound) to out smart the opponent. (the more attention you pay the details the better you would be)

Finally FPS weaponry. Weapons should be balanced and configured for different task and playing styles.
Heavy assault weapons shouldn't be power full in every situation (they could be for suppression of the enemy from static positions, where light assault weapons could be use in motion, and so on).

The key here is to make the player face a number of tactical and strategical choices.
To transfer this type of choices to a team leaver (like the BF-series for instance) is very interesting,
but harder to make useful to individual players who tend to (imho) prefer to be more individual about their
choices. Let's face it, online FPS:s are anarchistic in their nature :-)

PS. I'm thinking that FPS:s has a lot to borrow from MMO:s and RPG:s.
I think quest systems could be mutated to work in FPS:s, in that quests would
just be dynamically "loaded" objectives as in GTA.

#9 I like very much fps games.. but there are types of fps..

medal of honor kind where the player has to follow a sequence of actions to get your mission done..the gameplay in these ones are normally acording the games history.. like to sabotage a nazi tank or something like that..if the history is well planned it wll be a cool game .. they are a little slower paced and less freedom than others fps but more strategic.. but if theres not enough action.. it will bore you

and the ones like unreal tournament that is for the moments you dont want something too complex to play.. like the deatchmatch mode.. that is just who kills everybody as fast as is posible wins.. but with the time will also be boring

however you can try mix both strategy and killing fest ways hehehe

for example

in ut2k4 the onslaught game mode is alot more fun thant deathmatch because is a bit more strategic on how to reach the others team core by conecting power nodes more than just killing your enemy ..

so the main objective is to plan how to capture all the nodes to blow the enemy base .. other than killing others..also it implements many kinds of vehicles and diferent types and intensities of weapons..

so its a bit strategic and theres a lot of action.. making it a very fun game to play ..

make it challenging

because if you are just playing to kill your oponents as fast as you can.. with super weapons it will tend to bore you..

its all about the gameplay.. it could have the best graphics or effects but if the game is boring .. is condemned to death


cheers..

#10 Note to Musashi, Johan, and all those bored with the "mindless killing" of FPS,
&/or are looking for something new in an FPS

Have you tried ARCTIC STUD POKER RUN yet?
(Don't be misled by the name, its not what you'd expect.)

No killing, tons of gratuitous violence, and a unique multi-player FPS dynamic that, honestly, must be played to be appreciated.

The designers, of which I am one, set out to create a "thinking-mans FPS" that relies on strategy, planning and split second decision-making. (...and as far as the Multi-player game goes, I believe we succeeded).

The game is available through the Torque Game Store and there is a ton of strategy & background info at the
website: www.arcticstud.com

Its a free demo...
May I suggest that you all download the game, practice a bit, then meet online to see if the multi-player experience is to your liking.

I'd love to hear from folks outside the circle of our rabidly devoted playtesters!

#11 My biggest complaint about FPS is that companies are still focusing the majority of their efforts in the single palyer side, the truth is a lot of people who play FPS don't even touch the single player, some more just run it through once and then don't touch it ever again. Quality multiplayer fps is hard to find, that's why CS 1.6 is still to this day one of the most played multiplayer games, they made fun multiplayer action with good replay.

Now take a game series like Halo, they focused sooooo much on single player and the multiplayer is weak because of it. Maps can become unbalanced very quickly (which drives gamers away if they get stuck in that, that would be why dust_2 and office are the most played CSS maps, very balanced) There's only a couple good weapon combos in halo 2 leaving all the rest of the weapons useless. The whole multiplayer design is bad game play the only thing that made it popular was it is on a console where there weren't many good FPS games, and it's matchmaking system is very nice, keeping the games different so you don't play on the one map your good at for an hour straight.

Rainbow 6 Vegas is pretty decent, people always like the terror hunt it's nice balance for a coop style system, unfortunatly they don't have enough varience so when you play the maps a few times you realise if I go this way they will either spawn here or here and you can then beat it easy. So I guess poor AI would be the complaint there. Multiplayer deathmatch is pretty good the way it's set up

As one guy said teamplay is the big thing, BF2 was played so much since it's pure teamplay. The one problem there is since most people play on 32-64 player settings, if you go in with just you and your buddy you don't end up with good teamwork most of the time, a lot of people don't like to gather up 15 people to have a good match, so I'd like a very team oriented game on a smaller scale maybe teams of 8 max. But that's just me, I like mass warfare sometimes, but a lot of other times I just like to get on with a few friends and work together.

#12 "My biggest complaint about FPS is that companies are still focusing the majority of their efforts in the single player side, the truth is a lot of people who play FPS don't even touch the single player..."

I find this ironic because my biggest complaint about FPS is that companies are still focusing the majority of their efforts in the *multi*-player side, the truth is a lot of people who play FPS don't even touch the *multi*-player...

(not trying to flame, insult, or in any way incite a negative response, just trying to make a point!)

The point I'm trying to make is that I think we've reached a point in FPS's where story-based single player and deathmatch-style multi-player games need to be separated. Above, J Sears complains about Halo's single-player focus resulting in poor multiplayer, but I loved Halo (epecially in co-op) and found Halo 2's multi-player focus resulted in a poor single-player game.

I have no interest in playing deathmatch games online - I have a full-time job and a family, so I can't spend hours every day practising to get good enough to survive more than 10 seconds. I used to play Quake 2, 3 and Unreal Tournament online all the time back in the day, but pointless twitch-killing has long since lost it's allure. Objective-based, team multi-player interests me as a concept, but it still comes back to being able to survive long enough to enjoy yourself when servers are inevitably filled with teenagers that do nothing else.

As an additional to J Sears comment about teams, I think team games should always have the option to fill out the roster with bots which are kicked as soon as a new player joins. I know a lot of people don't like it, but I prefer to be able to play a large-scale battle even if it's just me and a friend.

I also think that a small array of clearly differentiated weaponry is far more important than dozens of guns that are very similar. This fetish for having numerous real-world weapons that (to the majority of people) are exactly the same baffles me - does any game really need more than one type of pistol? (unless there is a *clear* difference of course)

Single player FPSs need good story or at least a good setting. Good characters help, as Half-Life 2 shows, and I think additional elements that expand the fiction are great - System Shock's PDAs, Metroid Prime's scan points, etc. - so long as they're not required to progress (I hate having to hunt for, pick up and read every pointless, long-winded PDA entry in a game just because every 20th one has a door code).

Side missions/quests can be good so long as they fit into the story, or provide some kind of progression - adding them in just to fill out gameplay always feels as such. In fact, I think that side quests should give otherwise unattainable bonuses, so long as (once again) they're not required to complete the game.

If you're going to make a single-player squad-based game (like GR:AW), make sure the AI of your squad is up to the task - nothing sucks more than being unable to complete a mission or killed because your dumb-ass squad ignored your command, wandered out into the open and got annihilated (like GR:AW). Players should never be punished for things that don't work properly. (Obviously this is difficult to prevent completely, good AI is hard to make, but keep in mind how it will effect the players ability to progress) GR:AW really pissed me off because the squad is meant to be the whole point of the game, but they're so friggin retarded that they ruin the experience. (This is doubly annoying when you consider that much of the game is a series of fairly linear set-pieces, and thus situational AI routines could have been created...)

The only team-deathmatch game I still enjoy is Star Wars: Battlefront on the Xbox - teaming up with several friends to mow down hundreds of enemies is great fun, although I find it hard to pinpoint what it is about that one game that I don't get sick of it. I think it's partly the 'weak' enemies - I think it gives a greater feeling of power to mow down hordes of weak enemies, than to kill a couple of tough enemies. I also like the maps in the SWBF games - very asymmetrical with many levels. They're also often very visually striking. The vehicles are a mixed bunch, but some are really great, especially those that have rocket launchers or turrets that other players can operate.

#13 I don't really have much original to add. I'd also like to see more of a trend away from 'twitch-killing', and a return to Tribes-style multiplayer. As for single player, plot, plot, plot!

#14 Twitch killing is one of the reasons that Halo 2 multiplaeyr is horrible, if you look at the PC FPS evolution they have gone more away from twitch style (with exceptions for series that have no appeared to end Doom 3, Quake 4 and the UT series) games like BF series are gaining huge popularity and those slow down the game to more realistic movements and running around bunny hoping while shooting doesn't really help you at all.

Halo 2 far from focused on multiplayer, they made some changes after the release of the game and added some more multiplayer maps but that was because the single player was already complete. And if you check any of their progress on Halo 3, they constantly refer to how much they're tryign to make it the ultimate single player ever.

But I am letting you know that with the hardcore FPSs now a days the majority do play for multiplayer reasons not for single player. But I do think they should release seperate ones that focus on single player for that crowd, and ones that focus on multiplayer.

Asymmetrical levels are a must, and that is something that halo 2 lacks in big time, I think there's what 2?

filling the remaining teammates with bots is a mixed feeling for me. If you can't possibly get a full game it's better then nothing. But if people keep putting the bots in anyways because they're either morons or have superhuman reflexes and aim, both of which arn't fun. And in a major teamwork game you can't communicate with them to get objectives done.

#15 I disagree about the majority playing for either side, because I think its immpossible to determine how many people actually play either. I play games for the single player campaign side and the story, and if the story cant even hold me, I wont bother with the multiplayer. To say that the 'majority' plays only single player caring less about the multiplayer side makes little sense, because the 'majority' only goes for who you've asked or heard from, which in truth is most likely nothing compared to the grand scheme of things, and the same goes for the 'majority' and multiplayer side.

#16 No not true, you can get numbers of games sold and you can get numbers of players playing multiplayer, you can look at two of the STILL most played online games are CS 1.6 and CSS, CS 1.6 has been out forever and there are sites that keep track of number of players online in different games, after WoW made it big it dropped to number 2 and I think it may still be number 3 I haven't checked in a while, but CSS was the spot under it, those are pure multiplayer games that people get only for multiplayer and are being played heavily years and years after their releases. Valve has been working hard to finish up TF2 to get it to PC and XBOX 360 for the fact they know it will be huge, because people love pure multiplayer FPS gaming.

How many people go hey I just beat DOOM 3 campaign for the 20th time, as opposed to how many people say I just played Doom 3 online again. If people play one aspect more then another aspect that's a preference, and there are plenty of people who go and beat a single player campaign, but there arn't many who keep going through it. There are tons of people who go play the same multiplayer map for the 1000th time though.

I won't include the success of America's army since it's free and that isn't fair but there are free single player fps too. Look at the sales of the BF series, you could say there's single player but it's the multiplayer with bots. Pure multiplayer game everyone of them a huge selling hit and every expansion a big seller.

People are defensive about what they like which is why people who prefer single player tend to fight that more people enjoy the single player but it's just not true anymore. Personally I prefer a solid RTS to any kind of FPS anyday, the problem is they tend to either have specific units to use to win or they end up with major cheats that bring them down ( the previous C&C but here's hoping this new one is cheat free for the most part) but I wouldn't say people prefer RTS to FPS, because it's not true despite how much I love RTS games.

Also companies are trying to get even more into the multiplayer area. They realise having people who have played ever fps created going up against people playing their first fps online is rough. The new guy get's killed 20 times in a row with an average life of 15 seconds. So they're working on ways to make newer/more casual style/the just plain unskilled have a more enjoyable experience.

#17 To clarify - I wasn't trying to say more people enjoy the single player, but rather because I don't play online, I felt it necessary to make a counterpoint to J's post - people that are heavily into multiplayer seem to be a lot more vocal, and I just wanted to raise a small voice for the single-player only crowd! I think it's fairly obvious that more people play online, simply because they KEEP playing, where singleplayers play through once or twice and stop.

I think we all seem to agree on two points:

1) Less reliance on twitch skills and more focus on teamplay and/or objectives.

2) Make the game single-player OR multi-player - games that do both nearly always end up with one mode that is poor, and gamers seem to gravitate to one or the other anyway, so pick one and do it well!

In a deathmatch game, I think a 'quick-death' bonus could be given to help new players out - ie: if you die within 15 seconds of spawning, you respawn with more health (or a shield or something). I think tracking player lifespans, kill rates, etc. and assigning powerups accordingly could be a good way to balance hardcore players with casuals. (maybe give out higher points or achievement-type awards to the unassisted players so they don't feel like they're getting a raw deal)

As far as halo 2's 'multiplayer focus' is concerned, I mentioned that simply because prior to launch all Bungie would talk about were the improvements to multiplayer, then when it came out, the single-player mode was lacklustre and unfocused - not so much trying to say it was a heavy (or even good) multiplayer game, but simply that they seemed to have placed more development emphasis on the multiplayer, at the expense of the singleplayer. (besides, the later addition of downloadable maps and gameplay patches is common to all online games and doesn't really demonstrate a lack of multiplayer focus)