fps, feeling all cloneish?

first person shooters seem to all be clones now days, annoying achievements that i couldnt care less about, all the same mechanics, all on rails, all the usual weapons

i find myself almost falling asleep during most fps games

the gameplay itself (which is what matters, these are GAMES afterall) are all clones of eachother

anyone else got an opinion on the dreary world of current fps? is it just time for me to retire from fps? getting too old? 15+ yrs of gaming getting to be too much?

yes. Thats about there is all to say.

first person shooters seem to all be clones now days, annoying achievements that i couldnt care less about, all the same mechanics, all on rails, all the usual weapons

i find myself almost falling asleep during most fps games

the gameplay itself (which is what matters, these are GAMES afterall) are all clones of eachother

anyone else got an opinion on the dreary world of current fps? is it just time for me to retire from fps? getting too old? 15+ yrs of gaming getting to be too much?

chertoo

I can agree to a point. I don;t think most games are bad really but they don't seem fresh for the most part.

I only get FPS for multiplayer. If it doesn't have good multiplayer, it's a no buy for me. Currently my two main FPS are TF2 and BC2, and they are very unlike each other.

Well, no not really. Plenty of variety out there. Stalker is not equal to Bioshock which is not equal to BC2.

its a pretty simple genre, all the games are going to feel similiar. This is why I think shooters are so hard to do well, and why the occasional gem is the best experience you can have while gaming.

its like this cooking quote I live by: "the quality of the chef is determined by the quality of their simplest dish". FPSs belong to a simple, basic genre...if a developer manages to nail the fundamentals, it is a true testament of their ability to make great games.

to answer your question, yes, I suppose they do feel "cloneish", especially when they copy all the gimmicky crap (cover systems, achievements, CoD-style multiplayer, etc), but I really do not blame them for it.

its a pretty simple genre, all the games are going to feel similiar. This is why I think shooters are so hard to do well, and why the occasional gem is the best experience you can have while gaming.

its like this cooking quote I live by: "the quality of the chef is determined by the quality of their simplest dish". FPSs belong to a simple, basic genre...if a developer manages to nail the fundamentals, it is a true testament of their ability to make great games.

to answer your question, yes, I suppose they do feel "cloneish", especially when they copy all the gimmicky crap (cover systems, achievements, CoD-style multiplayer, etc), but I really do not blame them for it.

mrbojangles25

achievements are just a constat popup reminder that its a game, kiddie stuff that constantly takes you out of the world of the game, very annoying :(

just with they would focus less on graphics and gimmics and start getting creative with the gameplay again

[QUOTE="mrbojangles25"]

its a pretty simple genre, all the games are going to feel similiar. This is why I think shooters are so hard to do well, and why the occasional gem is the best experience you can have while gaming.

its like this cooking quote I live by: "the quality of the chef is determined by the quality of their simplest dish". FPSs belong to a simple, basic genre...if a developer manages to nail the fundamentals, it is a true testament of their ability to make great games.

to answer your question, yes, I suppose they do feel "cloneish", especially when they copy all the gimmicky crap (cover systems, achievements, CoD-style multiplayer, etc), but I really do not blame them for it.

chertoo

yeah I really hate achievements, it takes away from the basic concept of "playing a game solely for the sake of playing the game". And "leveling" in multiplayer? Whatever happened to just plain skill and finding a weapon you are good with?

achievements are just a constat popup reminder that its a game, kiddie stuff that constantly takes you out of the world of the game, very annoying :(

just with they would focus less on graphics and gimmics and start getting creative with the gameplay again

It sounds like you are ready for a game that advances the original Tac-Sim genre that RSE created by the former lead level designer of R6, RS and GR. Ground Branch will not be a clone of all those other games that most people are playing today. It follows a simple concept first defined by a Green Beret (now retired but still working for the Army and JFKSWFCS), natural order of realistic gameplay. Basically it means that you can do in game what you could do in real life like jump, but there is a consequence to it. You can shoot while jumping, but not hit anything and while you jump, you become a target who most likely will die or at least, become injured. Jumping can also cause injuries to your character.

It also means you need to choose the right gear for the mission. Take a sniper rifle on a CQB mission and you will be at a distinct disadvantage over having a carbine.

Mainstream FPS has gotten stale. There are hybrids that add to variety tho. You can't call Bioshock an "FPS".

I will admit I miss my arena shooters with their frenetic pace. Hearing people calling CoDs "fast paced" makes me really wonder how many noobs there are in today's industry.

FPSs belong to a simple, basic genre...mrbojangles25

Genre doesn't outright determine the complexity of a game. I do agree that most games *in the genre* are simple, though. Especially these days.

True, the strategy side of things is usually very straightforward and simple. The objectives of a FPS gametype are always clear and there are few ways to accomplish them. This is only one part of the equation, though.

The best FPS games have extremely high mechanical depth and are quite difficult to get into. Take a look at Quake 3, UT2004, or Tribes. It takes thousands of hours to get a full handle on these games' core mechanics. They have very long, steep, and steady learning curves.. which is exactly the opposite of what you would see in a "simple" game.

[QUOTE="mrbojangles25"]FPSs belong to a simple, basic genre...Velocitas8

Genre doesn't outright determine the complexity of a game. I do agree that most games *in the genre* are simple, though. Especially these days.

True, the strategy side of things is usually very straightforward and simple. The objectives of a FPS gametype are always clear and there are few ways to accomplish them. This is only one part of the equation, though.

The best FPS games have extremely high mechanical depth and are quite difficult to get into. Take a look at Quake 3, UT2004, or Tribes. It takes thousands of hours to get a full handle on these games' core mechanics. They have very long, steep, and steady learning curves.. which is exactly the opposite of what you would see in a "simple" game.

I would argue quite the opposite. The mechanics are incredible easy, the learning curve is short and sweet. They simply just take a long time to master, but I'd argue that has more to do with the people youre playing against than the game itself.

Either way, I was not criticizing the genre, I didnt mean "simple" as a negative, just the way I see them.

Modern Warfare has, for better or for worse, had a palpable influence not just on shooters, but on every genre. I think there is room for bombastic, set-piece focused, linear shooters, but it's certainly disheartening to see so many shooters look to Modern Warfare for ideas when there are so many other great formulas to consider. Half-Life 2 may be the finest shooter ever made, but you see few games trying to emulate it, and possibly for good reason: it's hard to copy a game that special.

But there are definitely shooters out there that shy away from the CoD mold. I am a big fan of Crysis 2 in part because it feels like its own thing. It may not be as sandboxy as the original Crysis, but it is no corridor shooter either. Can I recommend a few games that may help stave off the clone-ishness for you? ARMA 2 has a learning curve, but it's remarkable and intense, certainly nothing like most other shooters. Singularity is more traditional, but it has a great sense of pacing, great atmosphere, and a fun, silly story. Cryostasis isn't a shooter, exactly, but if you like slow-moving, intense, scary games that really immerse you, try giving that a go. And if you have a limited budget or just like fun without too much else, you might enjoy Section 8: Prejudice. And then there's Bulletstorm, which features very linear level design, but has a few mechanics that keep it feeling superfun from beginning to end.

I agree, though, that a lot of shooters tend to blend together. That's when it's time to try something off the beaten path. There's actually a lot more creativity out there than people think--it's just that creativity doesn't sell well anymore. It's at times like these when I scour Steam, looking for something interesting I might have missed.

If you find yourself getting tired of the games I think it would make sense to take a break from them. Surely this obsession with modern FPS games will end eventually? Perhaps with an explosion involving Bobby Kotick and the post-launch sales figures of MW 3 compared to BF 3?

Already signs of market saturation are appearing with games like Homefront and Medal of Honor failing to succeed in the same ways that the BF and CoD series has.

Also much of the talent behind the original CoD games is gone, meaning that the remaining team can only do so much towards improving the sequels in ways meaningful enough to attract worn-out FPS audiences like yourself.

Likely one or two series will remain within the genre, but hopefully the imitators will soon realize that there are other, better ways to attract a fanbase that don't rely on copying the games that are currently setting sales records.

Modern Warfare has, for better or for worse, had a palpable influence not just on shooters, but on every genre. I think there is room for bombastic, set-piece focused, linear shooters, but it's certainly disheartening to see so many shooters look to Modern Warfare for ideas when there are so many other great formulas to consider. Half-Life 2 may be the finest shooter ever made, but you see few games trying to emulate it, and possibly for good reason: it's hard to copy a game that special.

But there are definitely shooters out there that shy away from the CoD mold. I am a big fan of Crysis 2 in part because it feels like its own thing. It may not be as sandboxy as the original Crysis, but it is no corridor shooter either. Can I recommend a few games that may help stave off the clone-ishness for you? ARMA 2 has a learning curve, but it's remarkable and intense, certainly nothing like most other shooters. Singularity is more traditional, but it has a great sense of pacing, great atmosphere, and a fun, silly story. Cryostasis isn't a shooter, exactly, but if you like slow-moving, intense, scary games that really immerse you, try giving that a go. And if you have a limited budget or just like fun without too much else, you might enjoy Section 8: Prejudice. And then there's Bulletstorm, which features very linear level design, but has a few mechanics that keep it feeling superfun from beginning to end.

I agree, though, that a lot of shooters tend to blend together. That's when it's time to try something off the beaten path. There's actually a lot more creativity out there than people think--it's just that creativity doesn't sell well anymore. It's at times like these when I scour Steam, looking for something interesting I might have missed.

Kevin-V

And this is why I can't wait for Red Orchestra 2. It harks back before this new flavor of FPs, while incorparting new fps techniques and game movements.

I would argue quite the opposite. The mechanics are incredible easy, the learning curve is short and sweet.mrbojangles25

In games like TF2 or Call of Duty, sure. I don't think you understand what a "learning curve" is if you think that what you said applies to the games I mentioned. The learning curve is so long that "mastery" of these games is not realistically attainable. That's what makes them fun to me.. the constant, noticeable improvement as I play them and learn new things. Most other shooters (especially modern ones) I figure out *very* quickly, upon which they become boring.

Modern Warfare has, for better or for worse, had a palpable influence not just on shooters, but on every genre. I think there is room for bombastic, set-piece focused, linear shooters, but it's certainly disheartening to see so many shooters look to Modern Warfare for ideas when there are so many other great formulas to consider. Half-Life 2 may be the finest shooter ever made, but you see few games trying to emulate it, and possibly for good reason: it's hard to copy a game that special.

But there are definitely shooters out there that shy away from the CoD mold. I am a big fan of Crysis 2 in part because it feels like its own thing. It may not be as sandboxy as the original Crysis, but it is no corridor shooter either. Can I recommend a few games that may help stave off the clone-ishness for you? ARMA 2 has a learning curve, but it's remarkable and intense, certainly nothing like most other shooters. Singularity is more traditional, but it has a great sense of pacing, great atmosphere, and a fun, silly story. Cryostasis isn't a shooter, exactly, but if you like slow-moving, intense, scary games that really immerse you, try giving that a go. And if you have a limited budget or just like fun without too much else, you might enjoy Section 8: Prejudice. And then there's Bulletstorm, which features very linear level design, but has a few mechanics that keep it feeling superfun from beginning to end.

I agree, though, that a lot of shooters tend to blend together. That's when it's time to try something off the beaten path. There's actually a lot more creativity out there than people think--it's just that creativity doesn't sell well anymore. It's at times like these when I scour Steam, looking for something interesting I might have missed.

Kevin-V

Liner shooters are not always bad but many people tend to like sandbox approach more. Looking back at 1999-2000 we had Unreal Tournament & Quake 3 Arena dominating the multiplayer scene and they were the most linear games ever (at least the SP part of it).Whatever happened to that kind of approach from the developers. :?

I know CoD is always mocked at, if it's selling well it must be doing something right. I for one wouldn't know since I don't play CoD games. But what I'd like from the developers is giving me a game like UT or Quake 3 Arena.

Why don't creative games sell well? And what exactly do you mean by creativity doesn't sell well? Care to give an example?

Not really many original fps to choose from these days...not many original games period. Meaning games that break the mold and tries something new.At least not from the big developers.

BUT a nice surprise for me today was Zeno Clash which i bought on the Steam weekend deal. Check it out. I fell instantly in love with this game.

if you break it down all fps are running about with a gun stitched to your nose pointing and clicking at everything that pops up in front of you and that's going all the way back to Wolfenstein 3D (did i just show my age there :? ) but it's got worse these days with the rise of fps's (CoD and Halo)on the Consoles. Every 2 bit dev out there wanting to make a quick buck just make clones, 2 guns, recharging health, linear gameplay andleave your brain in the wrapper because you'll not need it.

Having said that I still love fps games and I'm looking forward to RAGE (the grand masters of the genre are back) and BF3

I'm definitely going to get Rage, and maybe Prey 2, but the genre as a whole has turned pretty stale for me.

This is why I had high hopes for Duke Nukem: Forever. It is selling a lot of copies, but because it's not very good people won't care after they've played it. If it was great AND sold a lot of copies, I think it could have made more developers think creatively. Imagine if Duke Nukem: Forever waslikeDuke Nukem 3D. No recharginghealth, unlinear (is that a word :P) levels,but just had updated visuals, physics engine, etc. Then it sells a lot of copies and gets recognized. Developers would then try to change their approach.

You could argue that Bioshock had all the elements of a great shooter, but that never made more creativity in the genre. That is true, but Bioshock doesn't have a big name like Duke Nukem: Forever did.

if you break it down all fps are running about with a gun stitched to your nose pointing and clicking at everything that pops up in front of you and that's going all the way back to Wolfenstein 3D (did i just show my age there :? ) but it's got worse these days with the rise of fps's (CoD and Halo)on the Consoles. Every 2 bit dev out there wanting to make a quick buck just make clones, 2 guns, recharging health, linear gameplay andleave your brain in the wrapper because you'll not need it.

Having said that I still love fps games and I'm looking forward to RAGE (the grand masters of the genre are back) and BF3

GarGx1

See what I related above. That one mechanic will not be used in that new game I was referring to.

Most game companies do seem sqeamish about taking risks and coming up with their own ideas. When the original MOH came out many years ago, it was followed by an onslaught of other WWII shooters by many other companies. That went on for several years. Then along came the modern warfare craze. Now everyone is making that type shooter. Or like in the case in DNF, they may not copy the entire genre, but they do copy gameplay elements.

Rage, Hard Reset, Red Orchestra 2 and tribes ascendmaybe different

Red Orchestra 2 will crush all competitors in terms of innovation.

The modern shooter FPS craze is like that but there are tons of FPSs out there that don't follow that formula. Granted they aren't released every 3 weeks.

Well of course FPS games are feeling "clonish", the current gaming industry is completely over-saturated with them. At least half of the major titles this year are FPS games and all have the same basic concept. You aim your gun and shoot it at the other person. Sure you can argue that there are different game types, but at the core of the gameplay someone is going to shoot someone else. Now I'm not trying to bash the genre. I play TF2, L4D2, and CoD4 on a regular basis, but there are so many shooters out now that many of them are going to feel very similar.The simple solution is just don't buy every FPS that comes out. Find an FPS or 2 you like and stick with it for a while. You can also explore different genres altogether like RTS games or RPG games.

It sounds like you are ready for a game that advances the original Tac-Sim genre that RSE created by the former lead level designer of R6, RS and GR. Ground Branch will not be a clone of all those other games that most people are playing today. It follows a simple concept first defined by a Green Beret (now retired but still working for the Army and JFKSWFCS), natural order of realistic gameplay. Basically it means that you can do in game what you could do in real life like jump, but there is a consequence to it. You can shoot while jumping, but not hit anything and while you jump, you become a target who most likely will die or at least, become injured. Jumping can also cause injuries to your character.

It also means you need to choose the right gear for the mission. Take a sniper rifle on a CQB mission and you will be at a distinct disadvantage over having a carbine.

WhiteKnight77

sounds like arma and its key binding for every key on the keyboard, i find those games not too much fun personally.

Sure, to a point. I think the real problem is that hte creativity in the video game industry hasn't kept up with the amount of content produced, it's not that there are less creative games than there used to be it's just that they're harder to find due to all the clones surrounding them..markop2003

i dunno about that, seems the only thing thats been creative to any respectable degree is the graphics capabilities, and thats the doing of hardware companies

just feels like their all the same, need something new and exciting.. dare i say it .. FUN? to wake me up from the mediocre.. nothing has personality anymore, Prototype is the last game to really break the boundries and make it work that i can remember, and many aspects of borderlands too.

Borderlands? Bioshock? Fallout? Bad Company 2?

I don't think these would all be clones of each other...

Thank Activision for the state of todays FPS.

COD has destroyed the genre.

Crysis 1 NOT TWO.

Metro 2033

Battlefield BC2 or Battlefield 2

Battlefield 3 (not out yet, but looks like it's not following COD's garbage footsteps.)

Halo Reach (that has major issues to though) awful armor abilities

Are FPS that arent a complete waste of time like most are today.