The Problem with First-person Shooters

  • 74 results
  • 1
  • 2
#1 Posted by mastermetal777 (2009 posts) -

http://venturebeat.com/2014/06/17/the-first-person-shooter-problem/

This is an article I personally wrote that got featured on the front page of GamesBeat. In it, I basically talk about why I both like and dislike the FPS genre. It's not as polished as I would like it to be, but I wanna know what everybody's thoughts are on what I have to say. Please keep it civil.

#2 Posted by maynardburger (187 posts) -

I think its a well-thought out article that I disagree with completely.

He admits off-the-bat that FPS's don't interest him much in the first place. You could argue that its a chicken'n'egg situation and that the state of FPS's is what causes this, but I don't think so. He says that what immerses him most in a game is story, so right there, he's downplaying the effect of a 1st-person perspective in immersion, which is really one of the key ways of achieving this. But that's fine, that's his preference and I don't have a problem with that.

But I have to say, I will rarely agree on matters of video games with people who value story highly. Mainly because video game stories are cliche'd, badly written and just plain dumb overall. There's a few above average ones, which I would ironically say are games like Halo and Half Life, both FPS's, but its mostly B-tier narratives at best, and this goes for role playing games, third person shooters, visual novels, whatever. So when they say they value story in games more than anything, its telling me that they fundamentally see video games completely differently than I do and play them for different reasons.

I think the FPS genre has become fairly diverse lately and you are hardly limited to the stereotypical military, dudebro shooter if you are willing to take the time to look. I'm currently playing Dishonored and its been a huge surprise how great and fresh it feels. But if the article writer values story, then they're not going to like it, no matter how awesome the gameplay is, cuz the narrative is drivel.

Its pretty clear the person simply doesn't like FPS's in general and there's not going to be anything that changes their mind. Which, again, is fine, but I'd hardly say its a fair perspective of the state of FPS's today.

#3 Edited by Lulu_Lulu (15189 posts) -

Every great genre has this problem.... Thats why we splice'em up with other genres...

Except with RPGs... That just makes things worse.

#4 Posted by mastermetal777 (2009 posts) -

@Lulu_Lulu: @maynardburger: Well this was my article (I'm the one who wrote it). I like some games in the genre, as I state with my thoughts on the BioShock games, Far Cry 3, and Fallout 3 as well. I'm not opposed to the focus on first-person. I just wish the stories were better. Granted, this was written a long time ago with a few minor edits here and there.

And as for Lulu_Lulu, I don't get what's wrong with RPGs. Maybe the JRPG has gotten stagnant over the years, but other games like Skyrim, Fallout, Mass Effect, and even Dark Souls are all considered RPGs. They're all about becoming stronger in harsh environments and overcoming your weaknesses. What's not to love? lol

#5 Posted by Lulu_Lulu (15189 posts) -

@mastermetal777

To be more accurate their all about YOUR CHARACTER overcoming harsh enviroments. Infact the more control you take away from the player the better the RPG will be..... They do this by Abstraction.

Obviously theres some sort of vicarious enjoyment in their.... But isn't direct enjoyment better ? Wouldn't you rather play the game yourself than buildind a character to do it for you ?

#6 Edited by mastermetal777 (2009 posts) -

@Lulu_Lulu: to be fair, your character in an RPG is a representation/avatar of what YOU want to be. Yes, you're controlling a character in a video game, but it's YOUR character that can look like you (as closely as possible), can have your reactions to things, and is the embodiment of what you've always wanted to be, given the setting. Hell, Dark Souls is the best example because the player character is technically you. The avatar never speaks nor is never addressed by name. It's all about how you perceive yourself to be, and how you build yourself accordingly.

#7 Edited by Lulu_Lulu (15189 posts) -

@mastermetal777

In most games the idea is connect you to your avatar in such a way that everything they do is merely a direct reflection of your capabilities.....

But in RPGs idea is the exact oppasite, its no longer the player doing these things.... In Action RPGs its the Player AND the Stats, in Full blown old school RPGs its the Player issuing the Command and the Character performing the task, the profeciency of execution is deternined by the stats, its completely out of the players hands.

So in a game like Call of Duty, the characters aim is actually my aim and their skill is my skill, he's as accurate as I am. But in Fallout the character has their own aim, their own skill, and no matter how accurate you are the character's accuracy is independent from your own..... In other words.... Fallout has stolen something from you, why would any want to play a game that has shooting in it yet the game doesn't want you to perform the task yourself ? Dare I sau that the game like fallout is so abstract that its almost playing itself ?

Thats where the progression system comes into play and psychology takes over...... People like RPGs, or Abstracted Systems because they create the illusion of progress.

#8 Posted by Ariabed (1238 posts) -

@Lulu_Lulu: "Thats where the progression system comes into play and psychology takes over...... People like RPGs, or Abstracted Systems because they create the illusion of progress"

Hey Rpg Antichrist it's not really an illusion any more than all games are a sort of illusion, in an Rpg you start off with a weak shell of a character and as your character progresses it gets stronger faster better, and you can see and feel the effects of your characters gradual improvements it's not really an illusion.

But I get what you are saying, in a Rpg you build a character and you watch it grow and you progress the character as you see fit and your characters skill increase and not your own, only your character management skills increase.

Where as in a non Rpg you are the character and only your actual skill of carrying out actions in the game is increased.

#9 Posted by Lulu_Lulu (15189 posts) -

When did I become the RPG Anti-christ ? :o

Anyway Yes you do see your characters improvements but that wasn't my point, my point is it takes away the need and the possibilty of the player improving.... Thats the illusion part, My Progress in CoD is real, and its mine. My progress in Fallout is Illusory because its not really me progressing...

My issue is why make a game where the character you play as has more fun than you do ? Is it because players feel inadequate and lazy and the idea of putting in real effort for real progress is just too intimidating ?

Obviously I've asked this question many times before but I always get the same useless answer.... "thats just how I like it, who are to tell people what to like ?" its really frustrating. :(

#10 Posted by Ish_basic (4063 posts) -

@Lulu_Lulu said:

When did I become the RPG Anti-christ ? :o

Anyway Yes you do see your characters improvements but that wasn't my point, my point is it takes away the need and the possibilty of the player improving.... Thats the illusion part, My Progress in CoD is real, and its mine. My progress in Fallout is Illusory because its not really me progressing...

My issue is why make a game where the character you play as has more fun than you do ? Is it because players feel inadequate and lazy and the idea of putting in real effort for real progress is just too intimidating ?

Obviously I've asked this question many times before but I always get the same useless answer.... "thats just how I like it, who are to tell people what to like ?" its really frustrating. :(

It's not a useless answer; you just can't seem to process a difference in taste.

There are games that challenge your dexterity, there are games that challenge your mind and there are games that are simply meant to be experienced. Some people don't have the hand eye coordination and some people lose it with age, some people are disabled, some people just don't care for that particular brand of challenge. In fact, forcing all games to be a dexterity check fundamentally limits the range of gameplay and narrative potential of gaming in addition to limiting its audience.

To use TV as an analogy; it's quite common for a person who works in a very mentally strenuous field to go home and watch reality shows precisely because the shows are stupid - they are the mental equivalent of putting your feet up. It doesn't make them less intelligent or lazy, it's simply a way of relaxing that works for them given their professional lifestyle. Judging people on their entertainment is baseless and it'd be great if you'd stop doing it. Not for my sake; I don't give a shit if you look like an idiot every time you open your mouth.

#11 Posted by Behardy24 (4757 posts) -

I'll read the article and leave my thoughts on it when I get home. Can't click URL when on moible :(

#12 Posted by wiouds (5341 posts) -

@Ish_basic said:

@Lulu_Lulu said:

When did I become the RPG Anti-christ ? :o

Anyway Yes you do see your characters improvements but that wasn't my point, my point is it takes away the need and the possibilty of the player improving.... Thats the illusion part, My Progress in CoD is real, and its mine. My progress in Fallout is Illusory because its not really me progressing...

My issue is why make a game where the character you play as has more fun than you do ? Is it because players feel inadequate and lazy and the idea of putting in real effort for real progress is just too intimidating ?

Obviously I've asked this question many times before but I always get the same useless answer.... "thats just how I like it, who are to tell people what to like ?" its really frustrating. :(

It's not a useless answer; you just can't seem to process a difference in taste.

There are games that challenge your dexterity, there are games that challenge your mind and there are games that are simply meant to be experienced. Some people don't have the hand eye coordination and some people lose it with age, some people are disabled, some people just don't care for that particular brand of challenge. In fact, forcing all games to be a dexterity check fundamentally limits the range of gameplay and narrative potential of gaming in addition to limiting its audience.

To use TV as an analogy; it's quite common for a person who works in a very mentally strenuous field to go home and watch reality shows precisely because the shows are stupid - they are the mental equivalent of putting your feet up. It doesn't make them less intelligent or lazy, it's simply a way of relaxing that works for them given their professional lifestyle. Judging people on their entertainment is baseless and it'd be great if you'd stop doing it. Not for my sake; I don't give a shit if you look like an idiot every time you open your mouth.

Don't bother. Lulu_Lulu does not RPG and will attack anyone who does like them. I bet there are game types that you do not like and can see a number of flaws in them even if you do not troll anyone who like them.

#13 Posted by AGeekyLink (55 posts) -

Sure the basic principle of shooting with a gun is the same but look at the metroid prime games. They are first person shooters (you are in samus' head and you shoot).

But there is platform, exploration, wonderful music, weapon upgrade etc.

The genre has evolved don't you think ?

#14 Posted by Jacanuk (5158 posts) -

@ageekylink said:

Sure the basic principle of shooting with a gun is the same but look at the metroid prime games. They are first person shooters (you are in samus' head and you shoot).

But there is platform, exploration, wonderful music, weapon upgrade etc.

The genre has evolved don't you think ?

I dont think the FPS genre has evolved one bit, from the early shooting games, doom, unreal and until now Battlefield 4 and Call of Dogs, there are just graphics who tell a difference.

And i was sad when i saw all the fps multiplayer clones at this year´s E3

FPS has really ruined gaming in terms when it comes to a more varied gaming library and today 70-90% of a gaming library is FPS or FPS-related games and that is sad.

#16 Posted by wiouds (5341 posts) -

@ageekylink said:

Sure the basic principle of shooting with a gun is the same but look at the metroid prime games. They are first person shooters (you are in samus' head and you shoot).

But there is platform, exploration, wonderful music, weapon upgrade etc.

The genre has evolved don't you think ?

If that is all you can point at then you need to look at them a bit closer.

Compare to current FPS staging of their shootouts. A shootout is from when you first see the enemies until all threats in that area is gone. FPS pushed staging so far ahead. I am talking about what is the area like, how enemies come, when they come out, and where they came from. They are changing that up some much and coming up with new ideals all the time.

#17 Posted by Lulu_Lulu (15189 posts) -

@Ish_basic

Yeah heres the thing even if I couldn't process the difference of taste thats definately not the scenario, simply because I too use to love RPGs.... Yes, Lulu circa 2008 was an RPG loving Hermit...... well actually to be fair I didn't love them.... I was addicted to them, but my reasons go alot deeper than "I just like it that so back off, Tubby !", granted at the time thats what I told anybody who asked but now I know my underlying reason why I loved them so damn much. Ironically I hate them for precisely that same reason now..... sort of. Anyway back to your TV analogy, as I said before the whole point (so far) of an RPG is abstraction, so where else a normal person might watch TV an Role Playing Gamer might want to build and develope a character that watches TV. If that doesn't make any sense to you then you now know what I've been trying to figure out for these pass few years.

@AGeekyLink

The Genre "Expanded", adding non-FPS elements to compliment the FPS part of a game isn't really evolving.... However I encourage it.

I mean what more can you do to improve FPS at its core....?

@wiouds

Attack is abit strong..... Its more like probing.... :p even with permision its still going to be a very uncomfortable experience. Believe me when I see I don't like it either... I'd rather talk about "codependent co-op" but nobody's into that... :(

#18 Edited by maynardburger (187 posts) -

First person shooters certainly have come a long ways.

In the beginning, it was all just mainly PC corridor FPS's. Games like Half Life, Deux Ex, Far Cry 2, Borderlands and Battlefield games took things in entirely new, great directions. None of these are anything like the original PC shooters.

#19 Posted by AGeekyLink (55 posts) -

@wiouds said:

@ageekylink said:

Sure the basic principle of shooting with a gun is the same but look at the metroid prime games. They are first person shooters (you are in samus' head and you shoot).

But there is platform, exploration, wonderful music, weapon upgrade etc.

The genre has evolved don't you think ?

If that is all you can point at then you need to look at them a bit closer.

Compare to current FPS staging of their shootouts. A shootout is from when you first see the enemies until all threats in that area is gone. FPS pushed staging so far ahead. I am talking about what is the area like, how enemies come, when they come out, and where they came from. They are changing that up some much and coming up with new ideals all the time.

Of course there was more to be said, what i pointed out was just a few examples.

@Lulu_Lulu said:

@Ish_basic

Yeah heres the thing even if I couldn't process the difference of taste thats definately not the scenario, simply because I too use to love RPGs.... Yes, Lulu circa 2008 was an RPG loving Hermit...... well actually to be fair I didn't love them.... I was addicted to them, but my reasons go alot deeper than "I just like it that so back off, Tubby !", granted at the time thats what I told anybody who asked but now I know my underlying reason why I loved them so damn much. Ironically I hate them for precisely that same reason now..... sort of. Anyway back to your TV analogy, as I said before the whole point (so far) of an RPG is abstraction, so where else a normal person might watch TV an Role Playing Gamer might want to build and develope a character that watches TV. If that doesn't make any sense to you then you now know what I've been trying to figure out for these pass few years.

@AGeekyLink

The Genre "Expanded", adding non-FPS elements to compliment the FPS part of a game isn't really evolving.... However I encourage it.

I mean what more can you do to improve FPS at its core....?

@wiouds

Attack is abit strong..... Its more like probing.... :p even with permision its still going to be a very uncomfortable experience. Believe me when I see I don't like it either... I'd rather talk about "codependent co-op" but nobody's into that... :(

What you can change is how the ennemies interract with you.

I remember the time when a lot of ennemies was easy to deal with. Just go hide somewhere and wait for them to come.

And then i played at half life 1. First time you meet the marines. Try to hide ? They send grenade to get you out.

It's no longuer a question of going forward and shooting. It's a question of what strategy you are going to use. Now you have to think ahead.

#20 Edited by Lulu_Lulu (15189 posts) -

@AGeekyLink

Indeed.... But that sounds like too much hard work so instead they'l give us Mechs and Magic.... :p oh and Nano Suits.... ;)

#21 Posted by Lulu_Lulu (15189 posts) -

@AGeekyLink

Indeed.... But that sounds like too much hard work so instead they'l give us Mechs and Magic.... :p oh and Nano Suits.... ;)

#22 Posted by AGeekyLink (55 posts) -

@Lulu_Lulu said:

@AGeekyLink

Indeed.... But that sounds like too much hard work so instead they'l give us Mechs and Magic.... :p oh and Nano Suits.... ;)

Some people like easier games ! (i don't :p)

#23 Posted by Lulu_Lulu (15189 posts) -

@AGeekyLink

I don't think they like easier games persay.... After all theres usually a story in games these days and and having intelligent challenges gets in the way of the deep and profound story an Old man Baby sitting a teenage girl through the zombie apocolypse... :p

great game design is poison to a story ;)

#24 Posted by turtlethetaffer (16909 posts) -

My main issue isn't even with the genre but with the fact that the vast majority of them are set in the real world. Games can be set anywhere and so many developers choose to set it in the real world. It gets old.

#25 Posted by Lulu_Lulu (15189 posts) -

@turtlethetaffer

#26 Edited by Lulu_Lulu (15189 posts) -

@turtlethetaffer

Yes... We need more steampunk FPS's and lot and lot of co-op :)

#27 Posted by turtlethetaffer (16909 posts) -

@Lulu_Lulu: Steampunk is always pretty reliable as a cool setting. I'd just say we need more varied settings in general.

#28 Posted by mastermetal777 (2009 posts) -

@Lulu_Lulu: http://tay.kotaku.com/storytelling-and-gameplay-in-video-games-1571189453

#29 Posted by Lulu_Lulu (15189 posts) -

@mastermetal777

That was weird..... Anyway it brings up a topic I've been thinking about lately.... Balance.

Balance doesn't actually mean anything. You can balance almost anything... Doesn't actually mean anything... Many games can balance story and gameplay.... But just because their balanced doesn't mean theres no conflict.... It just means theres equal conflict

also how can he honestly say Visual Novels balance story and gameplay when there actually isn't any gameplay ?

#30 Posted by marlobc (802 posts) -

after playing Destiny FPS seems less boring to me , but it mostly is :/

#31 Posted by mastermetal777 (2009 posts) -

@Lulu_Lulu: If game and story are balanced, than the conflict should be minimal to the point where its unnoticeable, something that a majority of games seem to not get. There are others that have found that balance, but if I were to mention them to you, all you'll do is attack them and say they're "not games" like you're very prone to doing.

#32 Posted by Lulu_Lulu (15189 posts) -

@mastermetal777

Well.... They are not games and they are not a subcategory of games.... And heres the kicker.... Visual Novels are not games either.

But before we get into why that is we must 1st decide what a game actually is.....

You know what, "decide" is not a good word. We must 1st "decipher" what a game actually is

#33 Posted by mastermetal777 (2009 posts) -

@Lulu_Lulu: You mean decipher what your interpretation of a game is right? A game can be anything you want it to be. To lump games into one singular category is idiotic and limits our medium severely. Explore what can be done with the main feature in a video game: interactivity. If you explore the possibilities within that space, video games will eventually gain the respect it deserves, but doesn't necessarily have.

And also, this in-fighting between the "definition" of a game is all wrong. It's the wrong question to ask, honestly. There's a game out there for everybody: hardcore, casual, and even the non-gamer. You're honestly gonna tell me that their wrong in thinking games they might like are actually good? That's very narrow-minded.

#34 Edited by Lulu_Lulu (15189 posts) -

@mastermetal777

Games may be an art.... But they aren't bound by the same dumb logic. Wherelse anything and everything can be art... Not eveything can be a game.... The big problem is people like you get all offended when I say something isn't a game. You see it as some sort of insult that your precious Visual Novels aren't part of the club. So much so that you've come to the conclusion that a game can literally be anything...

Look I get that theres something there for everyone... What I don't get is why its so important to call it a "game" specifically. I'm not trying to anything from anyone or change anything. I'm just trying to get to the bottom of the issue

Also FYI if you think about it really carefully then defining a game merely as something interactive is rather stupid. Consider exactly how broad and pervasive the term "interactive" is.....

#35 Posted by mastermetal777 (2009 posts) -

@Lulu_Lulu: Well unless you can come up with another catchy, non-pretentious title for what we're playing/experiencing, the world will still call them video games.

Oh, and don't even bring in visual novels. Those are merely moving comic books whereas something like Gone Home and Heavy Rain both allow you near complete control of the player character(s).

#36 Posted by jun_aka_pekto (16809 posts) -

One reason why I like FPS games is not being able to see the character. That frees up my imagination and I can pretend the character is me which does a lot for immersion. If I can see the character I'm controlling, it's like I'm controlling a robot which I don't find immersive.

#37 Posted by Lulu_Lulu (15189 posts) -

@mastermetal777

Why don't you just call it a visual novels/interactive dramas ? Why is it important that they be called games ?

I only brought up visual novels because of the link you sent me.... See what happens when you don't use your own words ? I got sources backing up everything I say... But I never use, I shouldn't have to, they should make just as much sense coming from me as they would had you discovered them yourself.

You this thing of putting everything under the gaming definintion is actually doing more harm than good. Calling them games instead of what they actually are limits them. Or perhaps thats what you want....

#38 Posted by HipHopBeats (2921 posts) -

The same can be said about any genre. I'm not fan of turn based RPG's and I can make the same allegations. Yet someone who enjoys games like Final Fantasy and Dragon Age Origins will debate the opposite.

If you look at the evolution from Duck Hunt to Bioshock or Fallout New Vegas, FPS games have indeed came a long way. How can you speak highly of a genre you dislike?

You contradict yourself saying despite your not feeling the repetition, you still enjoy headshots and mass murdering pixels, lol. How many times can you reinvent the wheel before finally running out of ideas and deciding to ride a horse or simply walk instead? In the end, it's all about having fun and getting your money's worth.

#39 Posted by mastermetal777 (2009 posts) -

@Lulu_Lulu: Well unless you want to call everything an interactive drama when they're not, I think video game is still a reasonable enough term until we can all come to an agreement as to what we should call this all-encompassing interactive medium.

As for storytelling, games have come a long way. Yes, there is a disconnect between gameplay and story moments known as ludonarrative dissonance, and it's a hard thing for developers to let go of because they still want to make a video game feel like...well, a game. It's hard enough to engage an audience on an interactive medium when all you do in a game (yes, I'm using the word "game" much to your chagrin) like Gone Home is walk around reading and looking at things while trying to find out what happened at this house you're exploring. How about The Last of Us, where the game's overarching themes of mortality and survival are present in both the story and the gameplay, avoiding the dissonance problem almost perfectly. Or even a game like Heavy Rain, in which your choices in-game determine the story's direction. And yet all of these games have been praised for their unique approach to storytelling within a medium so blindly focused on trying to make everything "fun" instead of simply engaging. Even horror games are slipping, focusing on delivering "fun" action sequences instead of having a weak protagonist suffer through their fears and overcoming it.

Using your own words is fine and all, but if you're going to try and convince someone of something, you need to give examples of what you're talking about instead of simply speaking your mind, as your own words end up being biased at some point or another. To try and convince people, they need more than just word of mouth from one person, since one person is one opinion. To back yourself up with examples when someone's not getting the message is a smart thing to do.

#40 Posted by The_Last_Ride (73501 posts) -

@mastermetal777: You pretty much gloss over Far Cry 3's rpg elements. You didn't even mention Mirrors Edge. Battlefield 4's multiplayer events are massive and unique to the game. It's true that FPS are point and shoot, but you're totally forgetting other elements of the game mate

#41 Posted by mastermetal777 (2009 posts) -

@The_Last_Ride: I'm mostly talking about the fundamental mechanic of an FPS game: point and shoot. Every other element that's introduced in games like Far Cry 3 is merely an addition to that mechanic.

#42 Posted by wiouds (5341 posts) -

There are limits within gaming.

There is a tiny things that you can do with the first person. It may be the most limited pov in gaming. Other than aiming there is little that first person is better at.

As for storytelling there is so little that game can do with the story.

interactive stories are not auto games. The parts that many talk about for the game does not come from the game it self but other part. Game play can not tell a true story. Sure you get fun tales from it but they are not true stories.

At the end, if I want a decent story then I will will a book or watch a movie. If I want the worse stories then I will play those interactive stories that some call video games.

#43 Posted by The_Last_Ride (73501 posts) -

@mastermetal777 said:

@The_Last_Ride: I'm mostly talking about the fundamental mechanic of an FPS game: point and shoot. Every other element that's introduced in games like Far Cry 3 is merely an addition to that mechanic.

hunting, platforming, poker, open world, etc are all important compared to linear corridor shooters

#44 Posted by Lulu_Lulu (15189 posts) -

@mastermetal777

I never said call everything an interactive drama... You mentioned an interactive drama and called it a video game I'm merely say call that an interactive drama, if you brought up a visual novel then I wouldve told told you to call it a visual novel.

Also considering your attitude we are never ever going to come to an agreement about what these things should be called, which is why I said "decide" is a bad word. You don't really decide a deginition.... You come up with it through observation.

Ludonarrative Dissonance is not really problem... Infact it can easily be fixed. The bigger issue is story and gameplay still can't be spliced into a single thing.... Which TLOU and HR have not done.... The "gameplay" doesn't so much resonate with the story so much as its merely agreeing with it.... Call Of Duty does this pretty well, its a war game so ir tells a war story. Boom no dissonance ! Dissonance only happens because developers and writers get ambitious and try to deal with issues like racism and religion in an FPS, I mean seriously.... Why ! Why didn't opt for the adventure genre instead ? The Last of Us also suffers from this problem sometimes, they can't line up all its themes to comply within a 3rd Person Shooter format.

I'm not using my own words... I didn't come up with these terms, they already existed people have been trying to define games since the late 1800's......

Theres still no concrete definition but we enough to say Beyond, Heavy Reain, etc are not actually games. And now that we have a word for them theres no need to call them games. Infact just because we don't know what to call something it doesn't mean you should call it a game.

Also theres a difference between giving examples and giving a link that goes off about something else entirely.

#45 Posted by wiouds (5341 posts) -

@mastermetal777 said:

@The_Last_Ride: I'm mostly talking about the fundamental mechanic of an FPS game: point and shoot. Every other element that's introduced in games like Far Cry 3 is merely an addition to that mechanic.

That is a poor joke. It is so mindless that it is not fun. Worse if you are saying that for real. That is like claiming all you need for a car to drive is pedals and a steering wheel.

#46 Posted by The_Last_Ride (73501 posts) -

@wiouds said:

@mastermetal777 said:

@The_Last_Ride: I'm mostly talking about the fundamental mechanic of an FPS game: point and shoot. Every other element that's introduced in games like Far Cry 3 is merely an addition to that mechanic.

That is a poor joke. It is so mindless that it is not fun. Worse if you are saying that for real. That is like claiming all you need for a car to drive is pedals and a steering wheel.

So tell me, what do you do besides moving around in COD?

#47 Posted by Old_Gooseberry (3857 posts) -

I don't play many shooters these days, last COD i played was Black Ops... then I was kinda left the series there for a while, maybe i'll check out the new COD if its good.

I've always liked Halo because it had a story I was interested in... even though the cutscenes had trouble properly showing the whole backstory but made me care enough to read more into it.

But the shooters these days are superior to the lame Doom/Wolfenstein shooters. They are improving all the time, just theres so many new ones out all the time where you do the same thing as the previous ones so its easy to skip them. They made you run around in circles finding keys to open doors in those games, that was all you did, like a rat in a maze.

I don't get why people always think games are worse now then they were at their beginning... shooters were complete garbage back at their starting, some are boring to people like me who aren't hardcore into them but even I can appreciate the fact they are lightyears ahead of old shooters. Going back to Halo here... i remember when I played it and was jumping around from the warthog, then into a tank then into the banshee, then into a ghost, before then i hadn't had a shooter where you could pilot so many vehicles so seemlessly.

I don't think people like you who dislike shooters should be writing about them. I'm just slightly into them so my opinion on them is kinda meaningless, but even I've had my fun with them.

#48 Edited by wiouds (5341 posts) -

@The_Last_Ride said:

@wiouds said:

@mastermetal777 said:

@The_Last_Ride: I'm mostly talking about the fundamental mechanic of an FPS game: point and shoot. Every other element that's introduced in games like Far Cry 3 is merely an addition to that mechanic.

That is a poor joke. It is so mindless that it is not fun. Worse if you are saying that for real. That is like claiming all you need for a car to drive is pedals and a steering wheel.

So tell me, what do you do besides moving around in COD?

How and Why you move through an area the way you do.

All you do in a car is press pedals and turn a wheel but it take more to drive a car.

It is complicated and very visual. Would you want me to try?

#49 Edited by Ariabed (1238 posts) -

@Lulu_Lulu: "Anyway Yes you do see your characters improvements but that wasn't my point, my point is it takes away the need and the possibilty of the player improving..... That's the illusion part"

I think fans of Rpg's are well aware that their character will do most if not all of the improving but with the players guidance, so it's not an illusion.

"My issue is why make a game where the character you play as has more fun than you do"

Hmmm not quite sure if this is a serious question? To imply that a video character has fun, maybe you have taken too many flu meds lol hope your feeling better by the way.

"Is it because players feel inadequate and lazy and the idea of putting in real effort for real progress is just too intimidating"

Are you really going to go down that road I mean really? In my experience with rpgs it takes a lot more thought and "real effort" to play these games successfully than it takes to play COD.

Before I started playing rpgs they were quite intimidating and seemed more complicated than your normal shooter or adventure game and they are more complicated. The first Rpg I played was kotor2 and I was hooked from then on the depth of these games blew me away.

#50 Posted by Lulu_Lulu (15189 posts) -

@Ariabed

Well the character does have more fun, even though they may not be real or alive I'm pretty Sure Cloud and Shepard are having a blast doing the actual Sword Fighting or Persuading....

Role Playing actually does rear its ugly head during non-combat Scenarios from lock-picking to conversations.... I think you're already familiar with Mass Effect's problem with the Dialogue System.

Also The Only effort RPGs require is tedius repition, yes any RPG over 24 hours long is going to lots of repition and thats pretty much the only kind of effort they require, which wouldn't be a bad thing if the gameplay wasn't so abstract. One thing I do notice with every RPG is you don't only start at the bottom with your character, you also start at the bottom in terms of knowledge, like you said RPGs are very complicated and anytime you play a new RPG you learn all about the game's lore and why fire doesn't work on Dragons and why you need to use Warp on Krogans. But all this information seems like complexity just for complexities sake, I love learning new things but in RPGs its just layer after lafter of "you can't do this because its not part of the lore" I think thats part of the reason why the gameplay usually sucks. Complexity is not always a good thing, depth is always but complexity..... Nope.