Anybody else getting fed up with first-person/over the shoulder shooters?

[Nebagram]

It's not so much the actual gameplay, more the setting. I mean for god's sake, every year seems to bring with it five hundred more 'army of today'/'army of tomorrow' style games. Rainbow Six, Call of Duty, Halo, Gears of War, Resistance, Killzone, Ghost Recon, hell there's even a new Doom game in the works, you know HL2E3 will be out this year and right in the middle of this market saturation the Duke will most likely awake from his millennia-long coma.

The annoying thing is, these games are all good. They're all playable. But they're all... samey. They seem to blend into one. It's about time someone actually tried innovating rather than 'slightly tweaked engine' or 'new weapon or two'.

On that topic, note the one recent fps that I DIDN'T list at the top- Bioshock. THAT's an fps that really turned the genre on its head, in my humble opinion. And yes, Portal too- games that require some brains to complete rather than pandering to dribbling teenagers who just want to shoot everything.

I know what to expect- 'if you don't like them, you don't have to buy them'. No shit, Sherlock. Precisely why I don't. But I can't help but feel that while there are studios churning out shooter after shooter, they could be producing something like Portal, or something new entirely.

Rant over. Congratulations if you made it all the way to the end.

[Kitsune Sniper]

Actually, no, I haven't gotten tired of them because I never really played any until last year. I'm still a newbie in the genre.

But I do see what you mean. There's way too many "ME TOO!" games out there.

[Kaboomer]

I was sick of them after HALO 2!

[ProgrammingAce]

You know what? I love every single one of those titles.

As for innovation, COD4 is the most inovative thing to happen to FPS since mouselook. Take a modern millitary shooter, add in an RPG style leveling system, add in features like dynamic lighting and weather, add in bullet penetration.

The thing about the genre is that once a game gets too innovative, it stops beeing an FPS. I've enjoyed every FPS in the last 18 years, and i'm still looking for more.

[CartCollector]

It's not so much the actual gameplay, more the setting. I mean for god's sake, every year seems to bring with it five hundred more 'army of today'/'army of tomorrow' style games.

Well, at least the WWII fad is over. But excluding WWII, 1980-2008 wars, and the future, where else can the genre be set? Korea? Vietnam? We already had Battlefield Vietnam, look at how well that turned out. And any war before WWII had crappy guns and would be a boring game from a soldier's perspective (firing lines or trenches).

[Sweater Fish Deluxe]

I got fed up with them after Wolfenstein 3D.

Well, at least the WWII fad is over. But excluding WWII, 1980-2008 wars, and the future, where else can the genre be set? Korea? Vietnam? We already had Battlefield Vietnam, look at how well that turned out. And any war before WWII had crappy guns and would be a boring game from a soldier's perspective (firing lines or trenches).

Come on, don't you have any imagination? Why does it have to be set in any war at all? Set it on the ocean floor with the player harpooning monstrous fish and great leviathans. Set it inside the human body with the player neutralizing foreign virii. Ever heard of Super Noah's Ark 3D? There's tons of interesting things that could be done with a FPS. There are in fact some cool total conversions available for Quake or Doom that show some good creativity and even a handful of commercially released games over the past 15 years, but for the most part the FPS genre is the absolute worst case of the general lack of imagination plaguing video games today.


...word is bondage...

[TonyTheTiger]

It's not so much the actual gameplay, more the setting. I mean for god's sake, every year seems to bring with it five hundred more 'army of today'/'army of tomorrow' style games. Rainbow Six, Call of Duty, Halo, Gears of War, Resistance, Killzone, Ghost Recon, hell there's even a new Doom game in the works, you know HL2E3 will be out this year and right in the middle of this market saturation the Duke will most likely awake from his millennia-long coma.

The annoying thing is, these games are all good. They're all playable. But they're all... samey. They seem to blend into one. It's about time someone actually tried innovating rather than 'slightly tweaked engine' or 'new weapon or two'.

In what way do you want them to change? Are you saying you want the gimmicks to change? Like Call of Duty's engine but instead set in a Lord of the Rings environment with magic wands instead of guns? Or are you saying you want the nature of the mission to change ala Metroid Prime?

On that topic, note the one recent fps that I DIDN'T list at the top- Bioshock. THAT's an fps that really turned the genre on its head, in my humble opinion. And yes, Portal too- games that require some brains to complete rather than pandering to dribbling teenagers who just want to shoot everything.

That's totally unfair. These kinds of statements mean nothing and all they do is reveal a skewed bias on the part of the critic. "Oh, whats with these RPGs just pandering to dribbling geeks who just want to power level." "Oh, what's with these fighting games just pandering to dribbling Neanderthals who just want to beat someone up."

I don't understand what kind of changes you're really looking for. Call of Duty, for instance, punishes players who try to act like Rambo. Hell, there's probably more "thinking" in that game than even in the slower paced Metroid Prime where you essentially are Rambo. So what are you really looking for?

I know what to expect- 'if you don't like them, you don't have to buy them'. No shit, Sherlock. Precisely why I don't. But I can't help but feel that while there are studios churning out shooter after shooter, they could be producing something like Portal, or something new entirely.

You're jumping the gun with the defensive attitude. That tells me you aren't all that comfortable with your own position. Portal's great but it isn't quite a straight up FPS any more than Abe's Oddysee is a straight up platformer. You can't expect the traditional FPS genre to change just because another game did something interesting by merging the genre with a puzzle game.

Think in hindsight how absurd this would have sounded. "What's with all these platformers? They're all the same. Mario, Sonic, Spyro, Crash Bandicoot, Croc, Rayman. Look at Abe's Oddysee. Now that's a game that turned the genre on its head. It makes you think and doesn't just pander to mindless kids who just want to run around killing enemies and fighting bosses." It should be obvious that quirkier games like Abe and Portal are going to be fewer in number than more traditional ones like Mario and Call of Duty.

[Nebagram]

In what way do you want them to change? Are you saying you want the gimmicks to change? Like Call of Duty's engine but instead set in a Lord of the Rings environment with magic wands instead of guns? Or are you saying you want the nature of the mission to change ala Metroid Prime?

Either works for me. I'm getting a little tired of shooting people over and over.

That's totally unfair. These kinds of statements mean nothing and all they do is reveal a skewed bias on the part of the critic. "Oh, whats with these RPGs just pandering to dribbling geeks who just want to power level." "Oh, what's with these fighting games just pandering to dribbling Neanderthals who just want to beat someone up."

No such thing as an unbiased critic, mate. I can't help it if I look at these games and they all start to blur into one sigh-inducing whole.

I don't understand what kind of changes you're really looking for. Call of Duty, for instance, punishes players who try to act like Rambo. Hell, there's probably more "thinking" in that game than even in the slower paced Metroid Prime where you essentially are Rambo. So what are you really looking for?

I'm not arguing that these games are bad- on the contrary, I like CoD4. It's just seeing multiple games on the shelves with similar gameplay, setting, graphics, ethos, everything. Imitating rather than innovating. Metroid Prime admittedly you were a tank, but each chamber seemingly had a puzzle in it that required you to lower your weapon for a bit and start to work the old grey matter.

You're jumping the gun with the defensive attitude. That tells me you aren't all that comfortable with your own position. Portal's great but it isn't quite a straight up FPS any more than Abe's Oddysee is a straight up platformer. You can't expect the traditional FPS genre to change just because another game did something interesting by merging the genre with a puzzle game.

Define 'traditional FPS' for me. 'Run around, shoot people, shoot some more people' would be the short version if I was asked. That'll never change, and I accept that, but I believe there's room for much more from the genre.

Think in hindsight how absurd this would have sounded. "What's with all these platformers? They're all the same. Mario, Sonic, Spyro, Crash Bandicoot, Croc, Rayman. Look at Abe's Oddysee. Now that's a game that turned the genre on its head. It makes you think and doesn't just pander to mindless kids who just want to run around killing enemies and fighting bosses." It should be obvious that quirkier games like Abe and Portal are going to be fewer in number than more traditional ones like Mario and Call of Duty.

You forgot Tomb Raider. Seriously though, that doesn't sound absurd at all. It reminds me why I stopped giving a shit about all the franchises you named (except Mario, who only makes a new 3D platformer once every 5 years) a long while back.

I'm entitled to my right to whinge, aren't I?

[exit]

I'll have to disagree when saying Half-Life 2 is the same as anything, each episode had it's own feel and (especially by the end) never let you leave your guard down. Condemned is another good example of an FPS that does it's own thing and somewhat created a genre of it's own, the FPS brawler.

Other than that I can agree that FPS' are getting tiring, but there was a high point for every genre and then another one took it's place eventually.

[j_factor]

I agree that they tend to blend together. What I don't like is that FPS games are often given way too much lavish praise. They can't all be that great if they don't differentiate themselves. With a few exceptions like BioShock, I see most FPS games as disposable. Everybody says CoD4 is amazing, but will anybody still care about it when CoD6 hits? I certainly don't hear anyone talking about CoD2 these days, and that was supposed to be the second coming at the time. Something like Deus Ex, on the other hand, is still worth a damn long after its release.

The idea that there's not much innovation to be done with FPS games is preposterous, considering how many innovative FPS games have been made. The problem isn't entirely a lack of innovation, it's mainly a glut of non-innovation.

[TonyTheTiger]

Either works for me. I'm getting a little tired of shooting people over and over.

That's what the game is at the very name, though. FPS doesn't stand for First Person Shoemaker. If it is an FPS there's going to be some kind of shooting happening. You may as well complain that puzzle games are tiring because there's all that puzzle solving. Or complain about dungeon crawlers having all that walking. It's one thing to criticize for saturation (which there is). But it's a whole other issue to criticize a genre for just being that genre. Just look at something like Smash Bros. It might have it's roots in fighting games but few people would say that it's a fighting game comparable to what we expect from them. Eventually you innovate yourself right into another genre.

No such thing as an unbiased critic, mate. I can't help it if I look at these games and they all start to blur into one sigh-inducing whole.

It's really what you said about the FPS audience that makes little sense. FPSes by definition are...well...about shooting. How does a caricature of dribbling teenagers advance any point whatsoever? Clearly a criticism of fighting games based on a caricature of violent people or a criticism of RPGs based on a caricature of overweight, mom's basement living, losers with no life doesn't say anything of value. Even games that are known to be about "thinking" like chess have their own negative caricatures of what the players are like. Pretentious men with a constant robotic stoicism and lack of any and all emotion.

I'm not arguing that these games are bad- on the contrary, I like CoD4. It's just seeing multiple games on the shelves with similar gameplay, setting, graphics, ethos, everything. Imitating rather than innovating. Metroid Prime admittedly you were a tank, but each chamber seemingly had a puzzle in it that required you to lower your weapon for a bit and start to work the old grey matter.

Eh. Metroid Prime's puzzles are about as complicated as Zelda's or Resident Evil's. "Put this thing here." "Step on this block." That's not exactly a brain busting experience. Remember that there are different ways to "work the old grey matter." While Portal asks you to slowly take in what's happening and weigh your options (sometimes submitting to trial and error), Call of Duty asks you to think on your feet and support your team and allow them to support you in a way that will effectively help your crew achieve a goal. That's not mindless by any stretch. It seems you're associating a slower pace with the thinking process. If you prefer slower paced games that's cool. But it doesn't mean they're any more mentally challenging than faster ones. Hell, ever play Tetris Attack?

Define 'traditional FPS' for me. 'Run around, shoot people, shoot some more people' would be the short version if I was asked. That'll never change, and I accept that, but I believe there's room for much more from the genre.

That's what most genres are like.

FPS = run around and shoot people.

Platformer = run through a stage avoiding enemies and hazards.

RPG = experience a world and/or story while performing tasks often consisting of exploration and fighting.

Puzzle = solve a series of small problems over and over in either rapid succession or after slow consideration.

Fighting = beat the other guy senseless.

Sports = Uh...play the sport.

Innovation is great and I think we'd all like to see more of it but everything you've said can be applied universally. It just sounds like you picked FPS out of a hat.

You forgot Tomb Raider. Seriously though, that doesn't sound absurd at all. It reminds me why I stopped giving a shit about all the franchises you named (except Mario, who only makes a new 3D platformer once every 5 years) a long while back.

I'm entitled to my right to whinge, aren't I?

Again, sounds like you picked FPS out of a hat then. If quirkier games like Abe, Portal, Intellgence Qube, Rez, Shadow of the Collossus, etc. are what you're hoping to see then great. I like seeing them too. But lets say Portal became the next big thing and every game started imitating it. You'd find yourself in the exact same place looking for something "new." What you're arguing is that popular games get imitated a lot and sequels don't change much from their predecessors. It has nothing to do with FPSes specifically.

[zektor]

I used to *love* FPS's...starting with Doom, Hexen, Heretic...up to recent years. But, as I get older, things have changed. I almost can't stand them nowadays. They have just gotten way to old for me. Last one I played was Resistance, which was really good, but got old rather quickly as well. Now I basically steer clear of the whole genre, and get my kicks from original games such as Super Stardust, LocoRoco, Patapon, and so on.

[ProgrammingAce]

Thing is, FPS that innovate by stray too far from the norm sell like crap. Breakdown is an awesome FPS, but had poor sales.

[Nebagram]

That's what the game is at the very name, though. FPS doesn't stand for First Person Shoemaker. If it is an FPS there's going to be some kind of shooting happening. You may as well complain that puzzle games are tiring because there's all that puzzle solving. Or complain about dungeon crawlers having all that walking. It's one thing to criticize for saturation (which there is). But it's a whole other issue to criticize a genre for just being that genre. Just look at something like Smash Bros. It might have it's roots in fighting games but few people would say that it's a fighting game comparable to what we expect from them. Eventually you innovate yourself right into another genre.

I don't recall ever saying I disliked FPSes, and if I did then slap me with a herring because that's not what I was trying to convey. An FPS game can be truly great. Twenty-five nearly identical games kinda dilutes that a little and makes the whole 'shoot a lot of people' concept get kinda old.

It's really what you said about the FPS audience that makes little sense. FPSes by definition are...well...about shooting. How does a caricature of dribbling teenagers advance any point whatsoever? Clearly a criticism of fighting games based on a caricature of violent people or a criticism of RPGs based on a caricature of overweight, mom's basement living, losers with no life doesn't say anything of value. Even games that are known to be about "thinking" like chess have their own negative caricatures of what the players are like. Pretentious men with a constant robotic stoicism and lack of any and all emotion.

That was just me blowing off steam and based on another forum I visit where something like ten of the top twelve gaming topics were about the genre in question. It flipped a switch in my head and I admit maybe I diverged a little too much with my anti-teenage rant. Maybe you just read a bit too much into that sentence, i dunno.

Eh. Metroid Prime's puzzles are about as complicated as Zelda's or Resident Evil's. "Put this thing here." "Step on this block." That's not exactly a brain busting experience. Remember that there are different ways to "work the old grey matter." While Portal asks you to slowly take in what's happening and weigh your options (sometimes submitting to trial and error), Call of Duty asks you to think on your feet and support your team and allow them to support you in a way that will effectively help your crew achieve a goal. That's not mindless by any stretch. It seems you're associating a slower pace with the thinking process. If you prefer slower paced games that's cool. But it doesn't mean they're any more mentally challenging than faster ones. Hell, ever play Tetris Attack?

I dunno, in my eyes that's blurring the border between what I consider to be 'puzzle' and what i consider to be 'strategy'. And absolutely, both exercise the brain cells, but in different ways, as you said. Again it drags me back to the whole 'every game features a military man'- seeing similar strategic principles in every game. Admittedly there are some base strategic principles in place here due to the type of genre it is, but imagine an FPS with a version of the Ikaruga black/white concept applied to it instead.

That's what most genres are like.

FPS = run around and shoot people.

Platformer = run through a stage avoiding enemies and hazards.

RPG = experience a world and/or story while performing tasks often consisting of exploration and fighting.

Puzzle = solve a series of small problems over and over in either rapid succession or after slow consideration.

Fighting = beat the other guy senseless.

Sports = Uh...play the sport.

Innovation is great and I think we'd all like to see more of it but everything you've said can be applied universally. It just sounds like you picked FPS out of a hat.

Not quite. I go into my latest game store and I see the titles named in my first post plastered all over the shelves with other genres seemingly struggling to compete. I know the studios will make what sells- doesn't mean I have to like it.

Again, sounds like you picked FPS out of a hat then. If quirkier games like Abe, Portal, Intellgence Qube, Rez, Shadow of the Collossus, etc. are what you're hoping to see then great. I like seeing them too. But lets say Portal became the next big thing and every game started imitating it. You'd find yourself in the exact same place looking for something "new." What you're arguing is that popular games get imitated a lot and sequels don't change much from their predecessors. It has nothing to do with FPSes specifically.

Again, call it 'flavour of the month'. No doubt I'll have another thing to whinge about in a couple of years' time.

Oh, and true innovation will sell. Just ask Nintendo.

[Rob2600]

I don't play computer games, so I never got into games like Deus Ex, Half Life, Star Trek: Voyager: Elite Force, Star Wars Jedi Knight II: Jedi Outcast, or Thief. I tried out the original Unreal a while back and thought it was pretty cool though.

The last first-person shooters I was really into were Turok 3 and Perfect Dark for the N64. They were both very different from each other...good variety.

A new Turok game was recently released, which I imagine is different from today's typical "army man" FPS games. Was it any good? It seems like it got lost in the "army man" crowd.

[BHvrd]

Call of Duty 4 = Not as fun as 4 player goldeneye, though the closest a console has come.

Crysis = Halo on crack, nothing ground breaking "other than graphics".

Unreal Tournament 3 = more of the same "though great".


I like shooters, but I know where you're coming from, they all blend together. The only shooter that tries something a bit new and is just all around well rounded is Warhawk. Online, offline 4 player drop-in/out. It's the best shooter out there imo, console or pc.

Mirror's Edge might have what you may be wanting "something new"....honestly though if it isn't online and 4 player split i'm not really interested "well kinda", will be good for the genre I recon.

[TonyTheTiger]

I can't think of any genre that really has made major strides lately, though. The closest one I can think of is Super Mario Galaxy and that was mostly due to the screwy gravity rather than any real innovation that changed how the game was played. You still have to play it like a platformer. BioWare has done some interesting things with RPGs. But on the whole, 90% of games on the market are fundamentally grounded in "been there, done that." It's a criticism that can be equally applied all over the playing field. I can envision an FPS that doesn't involve shooting at all. Imagine that short story 'The Most Dangerous Game' where you have to run around setting booby traps and avoiding detection. Yeah, it's different, I guess. But that still might not turn out better than a more traditional game.

What ends up happening is you get a seesaw effect. When a genre becomes too stale with too many Wolfenstein clones someone comes around and does something awesome ala Goldeneye. Then when that becomes the standard everyone else uses it as a measuring stick. Eventually that will become stale and out comes Call of Duty. And so on and so forth.

[DefaultGen]

.....

[zemmix]

I got tired of them around the time John Romero promised to make us all his bitch. Or rather about the time they moved to requiring 3d cards. I loved playing Duke Nukem 3D and the original Dark Forces but after that it just became meh to me. Sure they are great nowdays but I don't have any urge to run home and play them like I did those two older games at the time.

[7th lutz]

I am fed up with the genre. It may sound odd since I never get tired or bored with Shoot'em ups.

I have no problems with FPS games being released. My problem is the amount of FPS games being release a year is getting out of hand.

I didn't type this because it is cool to dislike FPS games. It is how I really feel about the genre since I played games like Doom, Wolfenstein, and Goldeneye. The games I played seemed boring to me like Metal Gear Solid did for me.

It is no different than some Wii owners not liking that amount of Shoot'em ups on the vc.