why are FPS's the 'standard judge' of a system's quality/maturity level?

A

Anoz

New member
Like seriously, of all genres of games, FPS bores me the most. I see posts on here constantly raving about how GOW makes the 360 worth buying, or R: FOM is the one worth it game on the PS3... then like 2 weeks later everyone starts posting "well this game is not that great" or "yeah the graphics are awesome but..." or "single player really sucks honestly but multiplayer makes up for it"

like I don't get it. Multiplayer FPS experience has not really changed much since Quake has it? Run, bunnyhop, shoot, maybe capture the flag?

is it because FPS's are so standard that they can spend all their time developing for the graphics part of the game or what?
 
single player FPS aren't that great imo, im going to pick up farcry for wii to see how it goes, but normally i only play the online part of an FPS. There can be a big difference in FPSs, such as your movement speed (it really does make a difference, play rainbow six 3 and then play UT 2004) Weapon balance (is there a 1 hit kill weapon, how powerful are weapons in general, melee, etc.) maps (are the innovative? Do they promote tactics or just running + gunning?) community (how many people play, what kind of people play) and maybe how realistic the game is (weapon damage, scenario, graphics, etc.)
 
FPS do not make the game, however here in America compared to many other parts of the world, FPS's are extremely popular. Americans FPS is Japanese RPG.

Considering that FPS's usually stress out the graphics power of the system to its maximum people are going to take notice. There are many tips of games that make a system, I mean look at PS2 for example....here are the games that many/most gamers would say are the "Reasons" to get the system: Shadows of the Colossus, God of War, Final Fantasy Series, and Guitar Hero (Not really first person shooters).

FPS games have really gained a lot of steam over the years because of online capability of the console systems. FPS's have always been extremely competitive, however the computer ruled this domain because of it's online capability. Nowadays the Xbox, and the future next gen games are all online capable which means that FPS's shooters are going to be a huge concern for many games because of the competitiveness of the genre.
 
In this next gen war they do, not a few years ago...think about all the big games on the last gen:

Gamecbue:
RE 4
SSBM
Metroid Prime 1/2
Zelda: Wind Waker

PS2:
Guitar Hero
FF
God of War
Shadows of the Colossus
GTA

Xbox:
Fable
GTA
Halo 1/2

Those are just a few of the AAA a titles that have come out on the last gen consoles and are usually what I hear from people as the reason to get the system....now tell me, yes count, how many of those are actually FPS's? I see two series Metroid Prime and Halo....nothing else.
 
Bioshock by the makers of System Shock 1/2 looks to change the FPS formula. It is coming out on both PC and Xbox 360. Another FPS that is shaping up to be interesting is Crysis for the PC which will utilize the new Direct X 10 components.
 
FPS is my favorite type of game, and for it to be done well - especially on a console - says a lot.

for example, on a PC the game control isn't really an issue because i can bind keys very easily and aiming is never a problem (you're aiming with a mouse and you can change sensitivity)

on a console, control becomes very important, i think, because it's a lot harder to aim with one thumb than with 5 fingers on a mouse....that in addition to all the other functions you want at your fingertips to make it immersive and streamlined.

for both PC and console, FPS are going to showcase the maturity / power of the system more than any other type of game. physics, graphics, detail, realism, AI...all have to be there. the point of a modern FPS is to make you feel like you're IN THE GAME, for real, and that YOU can interact with the world in a way that mirrors the real world as much as possible.

this isn't as true with other types of games. for example, Madden or a side scroller doesn't need the kind of physics processing that HL2 needs for the gravity gun. games like Gran Turismo do, but they're FPS's as well.
 
Your view is subjective, FPS has nothing to do with maturity of anything. To say that run and gun games are more mature because they mimic real life is pure crap. Maturity has nothing to do with a genre of a game, but the system as a whole. Maturity is a console which is fullys developed which one means, in essence, a console system that exceeds in all genres and areas of interest. A console that focuses only on a narrow path like FPS for instance is actually completely opposite of the word "maturity." A console system needs to have an amazing array of games, like RTS, FPS, RPG, Sim, etc. The more "great" games in each category you carry the more mature the system is.

Your view is to say that only the technical make for mature gaming...who's to say bright and artistic worlds are not technical or do not take planning and maturing to execute. I am a 3D Artist myself, I have made things which are mimic realism and things that mimic dreams, each are equally needed.

Lastly, FPS's are just a fraction of the maturity puzzle to say otherwise is to deny gaming in general...we play games to escape period (whether it is to escape to a realistic world, or a fantasy land), we are still escaping.
 
don't get me wrong, i don't mean to say that realism is the only benchmark of greatness. dreamscapes or even simple but well-made worlds are just as important.

my position is that a FPS-type game (like HL2, like GT4) shows off how really "next gen" a console is in that it's much harder to make a game that's supposed to mimic reality truly shockingly real than it is to improve on other types of games. a game like madden improves by going 480p --> HD.

also it depends on the area in which the console seeks to excel. a FPS should not be the judge of a console like the Wii, obviously.
 
and it depends on the gamer.

for me, the Sims could be at the top of its game, fully mature franchise, and it wouldn't sell a console or motivate me to upgrade my video card.

the wave of next-gen FPS's - quake 4, doom3, and HL2 are what got me to spend money
 
But next gen, can be anything...but solely focus on graphics as the leap into the next stage of gaming does not make a lot of sense. In reality it is the games themselves which are the next stage of gaming.

Larger worlds, more realistic AI, innovation, new ways to experience games, and the like.

Prime example of this is actually a lot of launch titles for both the 360 and PS3 which again have the graphic capability to deliver something amazingly realistic at this point in time, yet are horrible games and therefore score blow expectations.

I've found myself playing some of my DS games more than I play my 360 because of the next gen in portable handhelds make it for a new and interesting way to play games. Just like people play the xbox and 360 because the online capability allows to play with there friends at their house...those are next gen functionalities not the graphics or physics of the world. Until physics play more of a role in games...it means nothing to me, very few games if any take true advantage of the havoc engine (physics).

I could think of a hundred different ways puzzles in zelda could be solved with using the havoc engine. If and when those types of things are added to the game, which is when physics will really be the next gen.

"Graphics are there to grab you attention, gameplay is there to keep it."
 
Back
Top