Reply
Uncharted Territory
Registered: 03/12/2009
Offline
1754 posts
 

Re: What do you think will evolve the shooter genre nowadays?

Jul 23, 2010

 


lucky897 wrote:

I see it is as a integration of other game types combined.   I also see MP and SP being seperated.  As for words like groundbreaking and/or amazing I see them the same as cuss words.  A drunken sailor can cuss a thousand times and no one will blink a eye, but a nun cusses once everyone's mouth will drop.  Only so many games can be groundbreaking, but for as many times as its said now-a-days you wonder if there's any ground left.

 

The idea of separating the same game into SP and mp is a interesting idea, but is without a doubt much to complex for a game forum.  That seems more of a quantitative economics question.  Overall micro managing the game community hasn't gone well so far, but times they are a changing maybe the most evolutionary thing we'll see is the way you access it.


 

 

You may be right, mode separation may be to complex for a forum, but I think the IDEA(s) needs to start somewhere thus at least giving the developers an insight into what gamers MIGHT want therefore possibly making it an economically viable option.  There is a slight trend in this direction anyway.  We are seeing many more MP ONLY games coming out at lower prices, albeit they are dl only.  The disc based ones are still being sold at full price.  I mean I would like a physical copy of my game, but if I can get a MP experience at a cheaper price point with good support and lifetime digital ownership.....I'm game

 

I mean look at MoH, one developer did SP the other MP, and we are still getting the game for the usual price, why couldn't that game be separated?  RHETORICAL.....Yes they are possibly quite a few issues, but you see my point.  BUNGIE has signed with EA to do some work and they will own those IP's after the contract is up.  I also believe there are other deals out there like the BUNGIE one but I can't recall them at the moment.  So I say that the separation may not be that far away. 

 

There is a paradigm shift beginning in game development  that I think will be conducive for better games in the future.  It is just gonna take TIME and more CONSTRUCTIVE posts from FORUMS and their participants.  No more thoughtless junk posts.  Lets give the developers more FOOD FOR THOUGHT not some stupid azz criticism that ANYONE can give.

 

BUCHANANS has many good points in this post about gamers want more meaningful interaction with their environments.

 

"Head tracking to enable players to look in other directions then where their gun is pointed, this would help lessen the problem of no peripheral view in first person shooters. Head tracking could also let players lean in all directions, duck down, and peak up.

 

More dynamic, detailed, and purposeful environment interaction. Most games now have very limited or pointless interaction with the maps, 9 times out of ten it's just destroying things most of which serve aesthetic purposes only and have little to no effect on the gameplay. Open and close doors, shoot out lights to make it dark or hit a switch to turn them on, fires that actually burned and progressed though a level as it was being played, fast moving water that pushed the player as they tried to wade across it, team actions such as using another player to boost you up somewhere you normally would not be able to get to alone, weather that changes during play and effects how things play... The ideas here are endless."

 

These are thing that could be easily rectified, and his is but ONE voice of MANY who have good ideas but are DROWNED out and BURIED by the numerically overwhelming, useless, bandwagon, whiney, self deserving forum posts out there.

 

Just my thoughts...................................

Photobucket

"THE PRICE OF FREEDOM IS DUE DILIGENCE
IF NOT WE ARE ALL SHEEP FOR OUR GOVERNMENTS SLAUGHTER " - Me
Please use plain text.
Message 31 of 40 (12 Views)
Reply
0 Likes
Lombax Warrior
Registered: 01/10/2010
Offline
101 posts
 

Re: What do you think will evolve the shooter genre nowadays?

Jul 23, 2010

I'm very interested in the upcoming game "Brink",  I think it comes out Spring 2011 so it's a long time away but there's a couple videos on the official website.  It looks like it is basically an FPS with alot of character customization.  Even though it doesn't matter, since you can't see yourself in FPS, it's still an option I enjoy.  Also claim that they have a good control system for smoother movement, running and sliding and shooting and mantling etc.  I really liked Fallout and Brink seems like it's in that broad category.  Not necessarily post-apocalyptic, but set more in the future without the space monsters.  Personally I like it because I don't really like playing games against monsters I'd rather fight other people,  but that's just my preference.

Sometimes when you bring the thunder, you get caught in the storm . . . .
Please use plain text.
Message 32 of 40 (12 Views)
Reply
0 Likes
Lombax Warrior
Registered: 09/08/2009
Offline
190 posts
 

Re: What do you think will evolve the shooter genre nowadays?

Jul 24, 2010

Far Cry 2 had a great map creator, and you could play those online. But that game isn't all too popular. I think the next big thing will be customization. Supposedly, CoD: Black Ops, you can now customize the way your character looks, and even change the ammo in your weapon. 

Please use plain text.
Message 33 of 40 (12 Views)
Reply
0 Likes
Uncharted Territory
Registered: 03/12/2009
Offline
1754 posts
 

Re: What do you think will evolve the shooter genre nowadays?

Jul 24, 2010

 


car_jacker1 wrote:

Far Cry 2 had a great map creator, and you could play those online. But that game isn't all too popular. I think the next big thing will be customization. Supposedly, CoD: Black Ops, you can now customize the way your character looks, and even change the ammo in your weapon. 


But no really great maps.  Its problems contributed to its demise.  Too bad because it could have been one of the greats.  As far as customization is concerned what does that mean?  Do you really care that you can put your face on your in-game charater?  We can already do weapons and ammo customizations, so what does that mean????????????????

 

Photobucket

"THE PRICE OF FREEDOM IS DUE DILIGENCE
IF NOT WE ARE ALL SHEEP FOR OUR GOVERNMENTS SLAUGHTER " - Me
Please use plain text.
Message 34 of 40 (12 Views)
Reply
0 Likes
Lombax Warrior
Registered: 09/08/2009
Offline
190 posts
 

Re: What do you think will evolve the shooter genre nowadays?

Jul 25, 2010

 


NoRest4TheWlCKED wrote:

 


car_jacker1 wrote:

Far Cry 2 had a great map creator, and you could play those online. But that game isn't all too popular. I think the next big thing will be customization. Supposedly, CoD: Black Ops, you can now customize the way your character looks, and even change the ammo in your weapon. 


But no really great maps.  Its problems contributed to its demise.  Too bad because it could have been one of the greats.  As far as customization is concerned what does that mean?  Do you really care that you can put your face on your in-game charater?  We can already do weapons and ammo customizations, so what does that mean????????????????

 


 

I have yet to see a game that lets me change from Armor Piercing rounds to Hollow Point Rounds to Full Metal Jackets rounds and back to Armor Piercing. And the reason Far Cry 2 fails was that the basic multiplayer components of it aren't that great. The maps were just fine IMO, it's just that the way you unlocked guns, and the balance of them is horrible. And the single player mode in Far Cry 2 was very repetitive and not really exciting.

 

And what I mean with customization is being able to change almost everything about your character, like in Saints Row 2. And then, once you have your very own person, being able to change their clothes, from the helmet to the boots. 

Please use plain text.
Message 35 of 40 (12 Views)
Reply
0 Likes
Treasure Hunter
Registered: 07/24/2008
Offline
8774 posts
 

Re: What do you think will evolve the shooter genre nowadays?

Jul 25, 2010

 


car_jacker1 wrote:

 


NoRest4TheWlCKED wrote:

 


car_jacker1 wrote:

Far Cry 2 had a great map creator, and you could play those online. But that game isn't all too popular. I think the next big thing will be customization. Supposedly, CoD: Black Ops, you can now customize the way your character looks, and even change the ammo in your weapon. 


But no really great maps.  Its problems contributed to its demise.  Too bad because it could have been one of the greats.  As far as customization is concerned what does that mean?  Do you really care that you can put your face on your in-game charater?  We can already do weapons and ammo customizations, so what does that mean????????????????

 


 

I have yet to see a game that lets me change from Armor Piercing rounds to Hollow Point Rounds to Full Metal Jackets rounds and back to Armor Piercing. And the reason Far Cry 2 fails was that the basic multiplayer components of it aren't that great. The maps were just fine IMO, it's just that the way you unlocked guns, and the balance of them is horrible. And the single player mode in Far Cry 2 was very repetitive and not really exciting.

 

And what I mean with customization is being able to change almost everything about your character, like in Saints Row 2. And then, once you have your very own person, being able to change their clothes, from the helmet to the boots. 


 

And if a game does allow you to change your ammo between FMJ, HP, and AP it will be stupid IMO. The MoH beta lets you put HP ammo in your rifle which is dumb cause hollow points are for pistols not rifles. And the FMJ upgrade on MW2 was also stupid cause all rifle rounds are already FMJ... nobody fires a non jacketed rifle rounds. If anything it should just be standard (FMJ) and AP which provides better penetration but the same damage.

 

And too much customization in at least military themed shooters is a bad thing IMO. Changing the way a guys face looks or the type of hat or helmet is usually ok if it falls inside certain guidelines but if you start letting people pick between a bunch of different camo paterns and such it makes the game feel silly IMO because every single player strarts to look drasticly different and it can get to a point where it hard to tell who is who. Everybody on one side needs to appear somewhat uniform. And in the end character customization is just a cosmetic detail... it doesn't really do much of anything to advance the gameplay aside from how the camo works in a particular map.

Please use plain text.
Message 36 of 40 (12 Views)
Reply
0 Likes
Uncharted Territory
Registered: 03/12/2009
Offline
1754 posts
 

Re: What do you think will evolve the shooter genre nowadays?

Jul 25, 2010

 


SINISTER-ILLS wrote:

I'm very interested in the upcoming game "Brink",  I think it comes out Spring 2011 so it's a long time away but there's a couple videos on the official website.  It looks like it is basically an FPS with alot of character customization.  Even though it doesn't matter, since you can't see yourself in FPS, it's still an option I enjoy.  Also claim that they have a good control system for smoother movement, running and sliding and shooting and mantling etc.  I really liked Fallout and Brink seems like it's in that broad category.  Not necessarily post-apocalyptic, but set more in the future without the space monsters.  Personally I like it because I don't really like playing games against monsters I'd rather fight other people,  but that's just my preference.


 

Again, to me, BRINK brings nothing new.  Ok it is nice/important not to get caught up on debris and environmental obstacles, but this game still brings no groundbreaking actions to the genre.  I really don't see any game coming out yet, with the POSSIBLE exception of GHOST REACON:  FS, to bring anything really new or groundbreaking to the genre.  But that remains to be seen.

 

I think IMMERSION in the game environment AND meaningful interactions WITH SAID GAME is what is really needed.  Some things are do-able now, but maybe the designers need a good slap to wake up, or for some things, CONSOLE HARDWARE is not up to it

yet......Whatever, things need a freshening up.

Photobucket

"THE PRICE OF FREEDOM IS DUE DILIGENCE
IF NOT WE ARE ALL SHEEP FOR OUR GOVERNMENTS SLAUGHTER " - Me
Please use plain text.
Message 37 of 40 (12 Views)
Reply
Wastelander
Registered: 02/22/2010
Offline
891 posts
 

Re: What do you think will evolve the shooter genre nowadays?

Jul 26, 2010

 


Argetlam wrote:

In my opinion, less or almost no multiplayer.

 

Imagine a shooter that is longer than five to seven hours and with a character that we actually care about. I have yet to really see this combination before in this genre so it would be a welcome change. A compelling narrative with an experience that can last longer than one sitting would be a nice alternative to the games that we have known that are obviously mainly focused around pleasing the multiplayer fans.


Didn't Uncharted: Drake's Fortune already do that?

 

While I DON'T agree with your views on multiplayer, I DO agree with you on the SP aspect of games.


One of the reasons why I wouldn't trade Uncharted 2 is its single player.  It took me 12 hours on Hard, 10 on Crushing.  Halo 3 took me six on Normal, and MW2 took me 4...... a 4-hour campaign?!  That's disgraceful.  It's like you KNOW they only built it for the fragheads and not to deliver something out of the box.

 

Hell, even Killzone 2 took longer.  9 hours when I first played it, 7 on a second run through.  Shooters should be able to deliver an amazing campaign AND multiplayer.  Not just one or the other.

Please use plain text.
Message 38 of 40 (12 Views)
Reply
0 Likes
PlayStation MVP
Registered: 09/03/2006
Offline
11832 posts
 

Re: What do you think will evolve the shooter genre nowadays?

Jul 27, 2010

aka_TRAP wrote:

 


Argetlam wrote:

In my opinion, less or almost no multiplayer.

 

Imagine a shooter that is longer than five to seven hours and with a character that we actually care about. I have yet to really see this combination before in this genre so it would be a welcome change. A compelling narrative with an experience that can last longer than one sitting would be a nice alternative to the games that we have known that are obviously mainly focused around pleasing the multiplayer fans.


Didn't Uncharted: Drake's Fortune already do that?

 

While I DON'T agree with your views on multiplayer, I DO agree with you on the SP aspect of games.


One of the reasons why I wouldn't trade Uncharted 2 is its single player.  It took me 12 hours on Hard, 10 on Crushing.  Halo 3 took me six on Normal, and MW2 took me 4...... a 4-hour campaign?!  That's disgraceful.  It's like you KNOW they only built it for the fragheads and not to deliver something out of the box.

 

Hell, even Killzone 2 took longer.  9 hours when I first played it, 7 on a second run through.  Shooters should be able to deliver an amazing campaign AND multiplayer.  Not just one or the other.


When I typed the above post, I was really only thinking of first-person shooters. Sorry for the lack of clarification. Overall, I feel like their stories are very underwhelming.

Please use plain text.
Message 39 of 40 (12 Views)
Reply
0 Likes
Treasure Hunter
Registered: 07/24/2008
Offline
8774 posts
 

Re: What do you think will evolve the shooter genre nowadays?

Jul 27, 2010

 


aka_TRAP wrote:

 


Argetlam wrote:

In my opinion, less or almost no multiplayer.

 

Imagine a shooter that is longer than five to seven hours and with a character that we actually care about. I have yet to really see this combination before in this genre so it would be a welcome change. A compelling narrative with an experience that can last longer than one sitting would be a nice alternative to the games that we have known that are obviously mainly focused around pleasing the multiplayer fans.


Didn't Uncharted: Drake's Fortune already do that?

 

While I DON'T agree with your views on multiplayer, I DO agree with you on the SP aspect of games.


One of the reasons why I wouldn't trade Uncharted 2 is its single player.  It took me 12 hours on Hard, 10 on Crushing.  Halo 3 took me six on Normal, and MW2 took me 4...... a 4-hour campaign?!  That's disgraceful.  It's like you KNOW they only built it for the fragheads and not to deliver something out of the box.

 

Hell, even Killzone 2 took longer.  9 hours when I first played it, 7 on a second run through.  Shooters should be able to deliver an amazing campaign AND multiplayer.  Not just one or the other.


The storyline for MW2 was flat out disgraceful let alone how short it was. Everything in the story was so bad, over the top, and not even close to plausable or making any sort of sense that it made the action less enjoyable for me. I'd get to certain parts and have to turn it off just because I thought it was that damn lame and retarded of a story. It was like forcing yourself to watch a really really really bad movie just cause you know there's some decent action or nudity at some point. I couldn't take enough stupid pills to stomach that piece of crap story in a single sitting... so in that respect they did kind of prolong the game in a way, LOL.

 

Please use plain text.
Message 40 of 40 (12 Views)
Reply
0 Likes