First person shooters...

[JR Jansen]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Thoran:
What Sigmar said... not inane key puzzles (which you get just as much of in RPG's fwiw), but solving dynamic tactical and strategic problems. Choosing how to engage the enemy, conservation of resources, and lots of other decisions that need to be made in rapid fashion.

Well, deciding if you are going to use a chaingun or a knife at a rat. Hmmm hard decision. I can imagine the conversations 'Oh will we take the left corridor to shoot them up or the right one ?'. And it's the rapid fashion thing that i dislike. If you have to come up with a really good strategy, that takes time. Oh, you can get lucky of course but thinking of a really good strategy and then executing it takes time.


I'm also not talking about online multiplayer... too slow to achieve the level of immersion I'm accustomed to. I'm talking about 10-15 players on a local network... the potential for team dynamics adds a whole new dimension to the game. To say these games are mindless is to say that splatball is mindless, or capture the flag, or really that ANY combat oriented game is mindless. I would have to disagree on that assertion.


Basically the same thing, only the number of people participating change. Are you talking paintball or what here or computergame capture the flag. I was going to comment on it but since i'm not to sure i'm not going to.

Of course if you haven't mastered the basics of motion... freelook movement, strafing, and targeting on the fly... as well as keysetup that allows engagement without ever looking

Sorry but not everybody is 'perfect'

away from the screen... well then you're not going to be able to participate in the true challenge of the games (except maybe as a defensive camper in a capture the flag game)... you'll be spending all your time looking at the sky and the ground and you'll die usually before you know who's shooting at you.

---

I played fps games and was died of boredom before anybody could kill me character. And true challenge of the game ? What is that ? Killing as much as possible right ? We are still talking about an fps game right ? Not a strategical combat game right ? Because they are different, you know.

[Thoran]

Everyone is entitled to their opinion, I would say that you're opinion comes accross as somewhat... uninformed, which is why some of us are trying to add information. I certainly am not trying to change your mind. It's possilble that you just got bad games (lots of those out there), or maybe didn't give a good one much of a chance... doesn't really matter, but I was saying that there are huge challenges to be had in fps gaming. There are outstanding solo games (like Operation Flashpoint... a VERY difficult game), and then there's multiplayer gaming. I would suggest that as a Genre FPS's gain more from playing against real opponents than any other game family out there. The level of immersion that's possible really puts you and your friends in the game, and the challenge of a melee against competent living opponents is very visceral.

[JR Jansen]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Thoran:
Everyone is entitled to their opinion, I would say that you're opinion comes accross as somewhat... uninformed, which is why some of us are trying to add information. I certainly am not trying to change your mind. It's possilble that you just got bad games (lots of those out there), or maybe didn't give a good one much of a chance... doesn't really matter, but I was saying that there are huge challenges to be had in fps gaming. There are outstanding solo games (like Operation Flashpoint... a VERY difficult game), and then there's multiplayer gaming. I would suggest that as a Genre FPS's gain more from playing against real opponents than any other game family out there. The level of immersion that's possible really puts you and your friends in the game, and the challenge of a melee against competent living opponents is very visceral.

---

Uninformed ? Could be. I have been playing games for ages and i have played a lot of fps games through, even against my better judgement. But you come over as someone who says 'Great, now i can beat up my little bro and show him that i am much better then him'. And believe me i have seen a lot of people like this.
I don't play games for competition, hell, i get as much competition as i want in real life. Remeber i'm an athlete so i get to test my abilities almost every day and maybe that's way i don't need to get my adrenaline rush from a game but more of a brainbuster type thing in my games.

[WOLFGIR]

quote:

---

Originally posted by JR Jansen:


Well, it isn't so much that i dislike FPS games, i just see them for what they are. I've played Wolfenstein, Doom, Blood, Redneck rampage, etc. I count Carmageddon among these aswell, allthough it isn't really first person and you don't use a gun. I like RPG games aswell as a good strategy from time to time.

---

And when did you realize that RPG´s aren´t about the same thing?
In BG2 you can kill everything and more or less beat the game. The puzzles in BG2 and BG2 are silly as well. Repetetive things right? I mean that is waht we are talking about right? I mean in Wolfenstein as you mentioned you can sneak past alot of guards without shooting once, as well in thief, DeusX and so on. Q3 and other games don´t hide the fact that killing is the name right. But you draw a pretty harch line and most games are pretty trepetetive. The RTS games instance is all about destoying your enemies be it pilitical or by force. Star Craft, Civ, AoE or Alpha Centauri. It´s silly industrial warfare all over again and again. Killing id the name of the game in most games now adays. The adventure genre is one of the few that breaks it or actually Thief (an FPS) were you can sneak by all the enemies. Oki, I´m not counting patience or soliteres in this!

But the way you say that FPS are stupid is way wrong actually. You are elitising the RPG and sims because some function of it stimulates a different part of the brain. The action types of games are actually more stimulating then the civs! There was a reference to this at Avualt for some time ago when they measured the activity of the brain when playing games. In a shoooter you make choices all the time. You can of course go repetetive, as wel las in most RPG´s but see how they play the game. Face your opponents and see that in fact, it´s like sports. Now do you think sports are pretty dumb as well?

Sorry if this sounds harsh, but your words can be read as pretty downgrading so if you feel like this is a wrongstated post, please tell me more feedback from your position.

[Mirac Honorguard]

I play first person shooters quite alot I think, play Half-life (including opposing force), Gunman, Deus Ex, Codename : Outbreak, Max Payne, Operation Flashpoint, and some others as well, though I must say that I'm not really fond of Quacke (however you write it [img]tongue.gif[/img] )I only play that when I'm really bored.

[JR Jansen]

quote:

---

Originally posted by WOLFGIR:



And when did you realize that RPG´s aren´t about the same thing?
In BG2 you can kill everything and more or less beat the game. The puzzles in BG2 and BG2 are silly as well. Repetetive things right? I mean that is waht we are talking about right? I mean in Wolfenstein as you mentioned you can sneak past alot of guards without shooting once, as well in thief, DeusX and so on. Q3 and other games don´t hide the fact that killing is the name right. But you draw a pretty harch line and most games are pretty trepetetive. The RTS games instance is all about destoying your enemies be it pilitical or by force. Star Craft, Civ, AoE or Alpha Centauri. It´s silly industrial warfare all over again and again. Killing id the name of the game in most games now adays. The adventure genre is one of the few that breaks it or actually Thief (an FPS) were you can sneak by all the enemies. Oki, I´m not counting patience or soliteres in this!

But the way you say that FPS are stupid is way wrong actually. You are elitising the RPG and sims because some function of it stimulates a different part of the brain. The action types of games are actually more stimulating then the civs! There was a reference to this at Avualt for some time ago when they measured the activity of the brain when playing games. In a shoooter you make choices all the time. You can of course go repetetive, as wel las in most RPG´s but see how they play the game. Face your opponents and see that in fact, it´s like sports. Now do you think sports are pretty dumb as well?

Sorry if this sounds harsh, but your words can be read as pretty downgrading so if you feel like this is a wrongstated post, please tell me more feedback from your position.

---

Well, it already starts with character generation. You don't do that in fpq games right ? You already need to think what sort of a character am i going to play. Race, gender (in some RPG's this counts), alignement and as it is in Fallout for example what you are good at. The choices you make are already influencing the game at that point. At least it should be if you roleplay. And, yes, most RPG's have a lot of killing in them, especially those who have their roots in AD&D it seems and it is an integral part of the game but you can't just run around and kill stuff. You need to look out who and what you kill. Not just run past a guard undetected but certain people might have some other importance to you know. Like the thiefs in BG2. Ofcourse they had an atomatic falesafe but if that wasn't implemented and you killed them as to what the main point in fps games is, you couldn't explore that avenue. The point is that in an fps game it's pretty straight forward. You can kill everything you see but in an RPG, the rule of thumb is to talk to as much people, and even from time to time monsters as you can to get the best results. Killing is a part but that's i, a part, while in an fps it is the only part. You may not need to kill everybody or everything but it's still the major part of the game.

I play sports on a high level, so don't go there. As i said in another part of this thread, it may be because i play sports that i don't need an adrenaline rush from a game that much.

I have nothing about some sarcasm from time to time . God knows, i have used it aswell in this thread so if i now would say that you can't be sarcastic would be.....hypocritical. Feel free to use it. As long as it stays with discussion and not downgrades in endless and pointless namecalling and mudslinning, i'm OK with it my friend.

[Neb]

In FPS games you don't always kill everything that you see, you might have the need to conserve ammo and need to decide which ones you need to kill and who you can sneak/run past instead.

And at other times it might be better to sneak in order to avoid alerting more enemies than absolutely necessary to your presences.

[DarkUnderlord]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Neb:
In FPS games you don't always kill everything that you see, you might have the need to conserve ammo and need to decide which ones you need to kill and who you can sneak/run past instead.

And at other times it might be better to sneak in order to avoid alerting more enemies than absolutely necessary to your presences.

---

Interesting debate here... Firstly, to answer the original question, it's my opinion that there are TOO MANY of EVERY type of game. It seems to go in waves. Command & Conquer and Starcraft were released, they sold well and as such, there was an inevitable FLOOD of quite lame 'take-offs' that had nothing to offer. It is the same with every genre. As soon as one company releases a game that sells well (Eg. Quake), everyone else in the gaming world (publishers, designers and coders etc...) all decide that "Hey, Let's make our own version of this game, but with these really COOL effects....". Unfortunately, as a result, about 10-20 games of the same genre are released at the same time and most of them are lost in the flood. Only the truly unique ones or the highly marketed ones ever make enough sales to cover costs.

On the issue of the thought involved in an FPS? Well, that all depends on your definition of a 'First Person Shooter'. Someone raised 'Thief' in this thread, I'd just note that the creators/designers of thief called it "More of a First Person SNEAKER than a First Person SHOOTER". So, it all depends on your definition of the term FPS. If you mean FPS to be "Anything 3D made in the 1st person perspective" it might be a little broad. As there are a few games that are 1st Person 3d but DO NOT have anything to do with shooting. (Well okay, maybe there's a bit of shooting....)

I tend to agree with JR Jansen. MOST FPS games are not much more than 'run around, kill suff, run around again'. Half-life, although it did involve some thought, was still much of the same 'Run around, kill stuff, get a bigger weapon, run into a room, kill some more stuff, ooohhh maybe I should throw a grenade in there instead....'. It's essentially a combat game. Certainly, combat games DO require some form of intelligence as we are seeing more and more games where running in with the biggest weapon only makes you dead. But when compared with other games, where there is dialogue involved and quests to solve, it's my own opinion that there is, not so much MORE thought involved, but rather, a different KIND of thought. In an FPS, you DO need quick reflexes, I don't care what game it is. If you play it online, if you don't have a good connection and a fast mouse hand, then you won't last long and your frag count will be pathetically low. Okay, so you can camp.. But still, it is a decision on 'What gun should I use? Answer: The biggest one that causes the most damage.' 'What armour should I use? Answer: The BEST armour, that repels the most shots'. There is little more involved except maybe the ocassional, token 'puzzle' like moving boxes in half-life to gain access to another room.

Now, compared with a game such as Arcanum. While yes, there are things to kill, it relies NOT on having good reflexes, but on knowing the right spell, or having the 'right' sword to do away with the undead. Perhaps a venemous sword might help? Or an axe is preferred when fighting a rock golem. Yes, I am talking about choosing between the better weapons, but not so much the BIGGER weapon. As an example a usual FPS has a pistol and some sort of machine gun. When do you ever use the pistol when you have the machine gun? While the weapon choice can be important, there are MORE choices to make in other games (such as Arcanum). Should I help this character? Should I kill them? Should I join them? Should I just ignore them? If you decide to help them, there are generally several ways to finish their quests. IE. You don't just have to kill someone as in an FPS. Oh, and sneaking past someone instead of killing them is not really a major thought process....

Er... I think I've made the point I wanted to.. Sorry if this is a little long.

[ 02-14-2002: Message edited by: DarkUnderlord ]

[Neb]

quote:

---

Originally posted by DarkUnderlord:


Now, compared with a game such as Arcanum. While yes, there are things to kill, it relies NOT on having good reflexes, but on knowing the right spell, or having the 'right' sword to do away with the undead. Perhaps a venemous sword might help? Or an axe is preferred when fighting a rock golem. Yes, I am talking about choosing between the better weapons, but not so much the BIGGER weapon. As an example a usual FPS has a pistol and some sort of machine gun. When do you ever use the pistol when you have the machine gun? While the weapon choice can be important, there are MORE choices to make in other games (such as Arcanum). Should I help this character? Should I kill them? Should I join them? Should I just ignore them? If you decide to help them, there are generally several ways to finish their quests. IE. You don't just have to kill someone as in an FPS. Oh, and sneaking past someone instead of killing them is not really a major thought process....

Er... I think I've made the point I wanted to.. Sorry if this is a little long.

[ 02-14-2002: Message edited by: DarkUnderlord ]

---

I just want to point out that Arcanum is not the best choice if you need an example here [img]tongue.gif[/img] You can disentigrate your way through most doors instead of searching for a key and you really don't have to talk to that many people in order to get through the game, also, Arcanum's dungeons remind me of an FPS game.

You run in, more or less a straight line to your goal, cut down anything in your path, you don't need any special spells that weaken your foes, it's simply just: Choose the biggest spell that deals the most pain.

Same with Arcanum's weapons and armor, various special things about them mean little, just choose the armor with the highest Armor Class and the weapon that deals the most damage, not really much of a choice when it comes to ranged versus close combat in Arcanum.

Any ranged combat can simply be handled by spells while you run around with a two-handed sword that can kill most foes in one chop.

Actually, most RPG's in existence are like this now that I think of it.....

[DarkUnderlord]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Neb:

Actually, most RPG's in existence are like this now that I think of it.....

---

I hate that you're right. (About the RPG's and about Arcanum being a poor example).