Have FPS become boring???

its the money that they risk. that is the ONLY reason that developers arent pushing out different FPS's, shame really.heard that john woo's stranglehold cost 35 mil to make, and there is no way they are going to get ther money back there.

P.S you said you've played bioshock? not straying enough from the formula enough for you??

The short answer is "Yes they have."

Don't forget about Fallout 3. I find that playing an RPG i.e. Oblivion for a while lets me enjoy my shooters more.

If the FPS' lack an engaging storyline and the gameplay is just the same old formula (same weapons, MP only with DM, CTF and so on) I personally don't play them anymore. I really liked Bioshock, Condemned and the Darkness for example, but games like F.E.A.R. or Halo just don't cut it anymore for me.

There are probably still enough gamers out there who gobble down any FPS they can get their hands on, and developers know they can make a quick buck with games like Haze or Hour of Victory :P But I personally want something new now and then. I just won't buy the same old junk anymore.

The short answer is "Yes they have."

Don't forget about Fallout 3. I find that playing an RPG i.e. Oblivion for a while lets me enjoy my shooters more.

dxy592

i second that. every game that comes out seems to be a FPS or has a gun in it. developers seem to have lost their sense of originality these days.

Well stop and ask yourself something. How many times in the past year....or 2 have you seen someone make this comment; "Well if it doesnt have MP then I refuse to buy it." or "I dont like the way MP looks so its doubtful Ill buy it.". Or the ever popular "Ugh, this game would have been so much better if it had some type of MP". The reason FPS and TPS games are starting to get boring is because 95% of them are catered to MP. If some game developers spent as much time on their SP as they do on MP, then its doubtful their game would be as boring. I know people will will "but MP adds to the replay value", in some cases yes, but was it the MP in the original Doom or Wolfenstien 3D that keep you playing over and over again?

The problem is, the sheer amount of MP junkies out there, out number those of us that care about those silly little things such as game content, or game design, or the annoying little feature known as the single player campaign. This however is not always the case, such as Bioshock. Its obvious the game dev's wanted another System Shock for the new generation, however they didnt want to be obvious about it. Some content ended up being cut, some they just didnt follow through with. Which left us with a game that was fun to play through once, maybe twice. However after that, it just got stale. The only ones that say the game has unlimited replay to it are the die hard fanboys.

I disagree with Elann's post.

FPS is overrated, really.

Elann2008

A lot of people seem to be unable to say, "I don't enjoy [popular entertainment form]." Instead, they have to say, "[Popular entertainment form] is overrated." Anytime someone says something very popular is overrated, here's the line of reasoning on which they're traveling. For sake of brevity, I'm going to substitute "Call of Duty 4" for "something very popular."

1. I don't think COD4 is all that great.
2. A huge number of people think COD4 is great.
3. Since I disagree with everyone else, everyone else must be wrong.

I never understood this. If a game (or movie, or book, whatever) is met with critical acclaim and commercial success, and enjoyed by a great number of people, it isn't overrated. There's also the fact that we're dealing with personal preference here, and there's really no right or wrong answer, which brings me to my next issue...

A true gamer plays almost every genre and enjoys them with a passion. Sticking to one genre usually leaves you shorthanded. A lot of gamers fall into this category, they will only play shooters and ignore every genre and sub-genre or in some cases hybrids. They dont know what they're missing. Hell, I play games from every genre. Simulations to racing, RPGs, shooters, FPS, even musical games like Patapon. There are so many games out there. You just have to be open-minded.

Elann2008

A "true gamer"? I didn't know there were qualifications for being a gamer. You're describing gaming like it's a course of study. Gaming is a hobby. The only requirement of my hobby is that I enjoy it. If I get a kick out of playing every Madden that comes out every year and nothing else, then I'm doing just fine. I'm not being left "short handed." One characteristic of a hobby is that it typically creates nothing useful. I'm not "short handing" myself by being non-diverse in my completely unproductive hobby.

The notion that I'm "missing out" playing games I don't like is just ridiculous. You seem like a mature person, so I'd think you realize that different people enjoy different things. I don't consider myself "missing out" for not playing games you like. I don't much play racing games or musical games, because I largely do not enjoy racing games or musical games. No amount of being "open minded" is going to change the fact that I don't like certain kinds of games. Frankly, I think it's arrogant to suggest that because my tastes in art don't coincide with your own, that I'm therefore slighting myself in some way.

I'm kinda with yah, kinda not with you, kungfuchaos.

It seems anymore that they are all the same game with some minor gameplay tweaks.

kungfuchaos

Shooters are like the Shire, change comes slowly, if it comes at all. However, I think this is true in any genre. More to the point, in my opinion, the current rate of innovation is about the same as it's always been. Recent years have seen some new things. I can think of:

• Cover mechanics
• AI partners that function, and work with you in the game
• Physics, opening up new puzzle design, seen in Half-Life 2

Let's think about the history of shooters here. (These dates are off the top of my head; someone tell me if I'm wrong.)

• First you had Doom (or Wolfenstein, take your pick). The games that came out for the next couple years were practically identical to Doom.
• Then you had Quake, which was three years later, ushering in real three dimensional gameplay. Every game coming out for the next couple years was practically identical to Quake. There's a couple Unreal fanatics who might disagree, but whatever.
• The next innovative game I see is Half-Life, with "suspension of disbelief" trick, two years later.
• I debated including this one, and some people will disagree, but I'm putting Halo: Combat Evolved on this list (released three years after Half-Life). Halo popularized some key mechanics we take for granted these days, such as recharging health (almost standard in shooters now), vehicles, co-op mode, and limited weapons selection (for non-tactical shooters).

That's it for really stunning innovation coming in a single game, and one of my above examples was the game that started the genre. So, I guess I sort of agree with you in that there have not been any stunningly pioneering shooter games in the last seven years, at least none that changed the genre like my above examples. I think it's what we've seen is more gradual change, with games coming out that just add one or two new mechanics.

One thing I will say about shooters, is it seems that subgenres are merging. There's not a real distinct line between tactical shooters and arcadey/action shooters. This first occurred to me when I realized that Gears of War and Rainbow Six: Vegas played very, very similarly.

Overall, I'm happy with what's been happening with shooters, when in a short period of time, we have entries such as The Orange Box, Bioshock, and Gears of War. As to you finding them boring, the only person who can really answer that is you.

While some FPS games may seem to be boring anymore (it's my favorite genre but i find myself succumbing to the same problem) there are some that are changing up how the genre works to add new flavors. A few examples, which may have already been mentioned, are Bioshock, Portal, and Condemned.

Another FPS that is upcoming that I'm truly psyched about is Left For Dead. Pit 4 players, co-op, against an army of zombies. That just sounds amazing! (IMO)

I think that there's a couple technologies, however, that are also going to brighten up the FPS genre. Microsoft is rumored to be releasing a Wii-like remote for the 360. (do a google search) This rumor was strengthened when the Spring update was supposedly leaked and mentioned a motion sensing update. Maybe new controls will help us find fun again.

Another technology (this one's not a 360 peripheral but has potential for games in the future on the next gen of consoles) is the OCZ brain mouse. Imagine playing most of the game with your mind!

Another technology (this one's not a 360 peripheral but has potential for games in the future on the next gen of consoles) is the OCZ brain mouse. Imagine playing most of the game with your mind!OWUaaronTSi

They already have that, its called any game thats not Halo.

Im SO kidding!! plznoflame

maybe what he tried to say is that there are coming too many FPS and some developers are stuck doing shooters of any kind, I think they are not looking too much around, seriously this is the xbox 360 board so I have one, someimes although I love shooters some times I would like to play somethign different maybe a platform game mario type or a new fighting franchise, I'm not saying that i want a wii, Im just saying that it would be nice to have more options on the genres in the 360, í really do hope that the new banjo game, make developers more ambitious

doubalfa

I don't think there's too many FPSs on 360. I investigated this in a casual fashion. Clicking on First-Person Shooters here at GameSpot, I counted about 70 games. Now, that's including games that are under development. Opening up Wikipedia's Xbox 360 article, it says there's supposed to be 1,000 games out by the end of the year. As I said, this isn't the most precise way of looking into this, but I can't be that far off. Using these figures, FPSs comprise 7% of the Xbox library, which actually seems low, even to me.

Here's a completely unscientific analysis. Check out the top ten games listed for 360 on GameSpot right now:

Do you see any FPS games on there? Maybe The Bourne Conspiracy, as I know nothing about that game. Other than one possibilty, there's none.

Shooters comprise the 360's megahits, with Halo, Call of Duty, and Gears. I think they get a lot of attention, and I think that's where people get this idea that the 360 is all shooters. However, I don't believe this notion is accurate.

I don't know why but I find myself getting bored REALLY quickly with any FPS game (Except Doom, Quake, or any of those older games)
For example, today I played the Titanfall Beta, which is an pretty good game, but even though it definitely innovates and freshens up the FPS genre, I still got bored with it after two or three games, I don't know if it's because I used to play too much FPS, or what's causing it, but it sucks because I don't know why I get bored faster then other people when it comes to new FPS games like Titanfall

Hi Mario, i guess FPS is not ur genre maybe u can try other action role playing games in between such as arkham series, prototype or ninja gaiden. I usually mix FPS n RPAG in between to get different taste of game plays even try to throw in a couple of racing n horror games too.