Are you shy to share your knowledge about those classic NES cartridges? Maybe shy of talking about classic games on PS1? Then here is your place! Share and discuss about the classic games you played or wished you had and share your thinkings about many characters of Old School Games! Give your preffered games a Reset!

Post news Report RSS Why the FPS genre is dying

The FPS genre may be the biggest, but is it evolving? Some gamers say that the end is near for it,but what can be possibly interfering in it's evolution? What really is killing the beloved genre?

Posted by on

The videogames have been passing through an evolution, in less than ten years, they are for the first time trespassing Hollywood's Big Budget movie profits and showing us amazing graphical quality, but that is just amazing huh? I mean, you may be reading this now and saying "clearly the videogames are improving, because there is much more money and people involved in their development", the answer is no.

Let's take a look at one of the many FPS games that made huge success, Call of Duty:Modern Warfare, released in 2007 it was amazing, graphics, gameplay and story and an exciting Multiplayer Mode with different game modes and thousands of players to play with online sounded like a good thing doesn't it? Well, it really "sounded" a good thing for the time. And that because since Call of Duty 4, Call of Duty series didn't innovated in any way but graphical quality. Let's take a look in Modern Warfare 2 and 3, it's basically the same thing, okay, you could say "but the maps and story is different", yeah that's right, but maps and story different and no gameplay innovations is what we gamers call "Mods", and since Activision worked a lot on it and spent a bunch of money on the development, nothing could go wrong, I mean, we're talking about taking the series to a new point, not just changing the
map and story.

I remember playing COD 4 when I was 8 years old, oh my god it was amazing, it sure messed my head up, until that moment the best graphics I've seen in a game so far was in GTA 3, but COD 4 with it's intense shooting and MP mode really cheered me up and made me play for many years, actually something that made me really addicted and happy to play the game was the Health Regen system that has been implanted in many games now-a-days, and that's another problem. The point to create a War game is to feel and to simulate to be in a war, right? Well, when I was as a kid, I thought that any game will look good, but it looks like that for some adults and teenagers if you take 20 AK-47 shots and hide behind concrete for a few seconds, a miracle happens and god or buda or whoever you belive in, heals you, maybe I should try and join the U.S Navy Seals then.

Unfortunately this health regen system is still being used in games like Battlefield, Medal of Honor and Crysis, and that's something that rips off the thing that any and all videogames should have, challenge. If you think putting tons of enemies on the screen and shoot them, then wait 'till your health regens again and shoot them again is what you call challenge then you are wrong. Putting tons of enemies on the screen with a limited health and some covers and difficult points where you can find medkits is what you call challenge, and that's what is lacking on some FPS's today.

Try to remember other FPS games, maybe you know Battlefield and Medal of Honor, great games huh? Battlefield with it's big maps and many players on MP mode, Medal of Honor with it's nice campaing, maybe you live in a dungeon and never heard of these games before, but what you must know is that the last two Battlefield and Medal of Honor games suck, and not only suck, but they cooperate with the decline of the FPS's. It doesn't matter if you think Call of Duty and/or Battlefield sucks, what you could say is that they are equally the same, you want to know why? Then join me in a time travel now.

In 1993, two guys named John Romero and John Carmack were working on a game that would change the future of the videogame industry in all senses, Doom. You may not know it's creators but you surely heard about it. Doom is so amazing that I have no words to explain, it was the only game that really revolutionized gaming, it defined what we call 3D graphics and First Person Shooters. In the game, you control a marine and was sent to discover what happened in one of UAC's (Union Aerospace Company) laboratories, and what you find is monsters apparently that came from hell and you have to escape and stop them from going to the Earth.

You can laugh at this picture above, but the guy in glasses and the one beside him are John Carmack and John Romero, the creators of Doom.

The game wasn't just big, for the time Doom levels were considered a maze, many passageways where you could find monsters, a health bar that didn't regenerated and tons of areas with secrets. Now tell me, what FPS game today we have the freedom and magnitude that Doom had? I know it may sound a lie for you but if you can, and have the game, open Medal of Honor Warfighter, and open the level where you fighing in an African region, now there is point in the level where you have to point a laser at a tall building full of bad guys so your allies can bomb it, now walk a few steps ahead, like you are going to the building, you will notice that you will die. I'm not kidding, and yes, the game didn't let you go ahead, it is some sort of Dictatorship where you have to obey what the government says, the plot in the game said that you had to destroy the building before proceding, okay, what if we don't destroy it, what happens? Does the game stops at that point? I finished the game once, I want to destroy the building in a different way, is that possible? No. Take a look at the FPS map design in different years.

I think we're going to one of the crucial points of this article, MMS's ( Modern Military Shooters) as I call them today, just take you from point A to point B, no freedom to do what you what or to complete objectives your own way. For examaple ,what if in Doom you wanted to go to the end of the level trying to kill all monsters, using the left way, but the game wanted you to go through the right way, not wanting you to get the secrets and everything else, what if as soon as you went to the left way you died? Freedom is another point that lacks in FPS's now-a-days. If it isn't enough, let's take a look at Doom again, in Doom you started the first level with the only weapons at your disposal a pistol and your bare hands. In Doom you have to find the ammo spread all over the map, because if you don't search for ammo, you will certainly not pass the level with your bare hands. Now let's play Medal of Honor Warfighter, "oh my god, I'm out of ammo", no problem your buddy is next to you to supply you with inifinite ammo, isn't that good, not.

That's why Call of Duty and Battlefield are basically the same, their health regen system, which allows the chracter to hide and recover it health, lots of ammo at your disposal and no freedom at all to complete your objectives. But you may think that Battlefield 3 has better Multiplayer than COD, okay, I understand. What I don't understand is that most part of the people that buy Call of Duty and Battlefield don't touch in the Single Player mode, why? Because the only way for them to have fun, the only way for the to find a little challenge, the only way for them to say "I liked the game" is to only play the Multiplayer. And that is creating a legion of future gamers that will say "Multiplayer is better than Single Player", and that's wrong, that's where the lack of innovation is creating a snowball of mistakes, that will may even "infect" other genres.

Although, there is something else that Call of Duty, Battlefield and other FPS's are equal, graphics.Logically, the thing that will improve over time with new consoles and graphics cards and new processors is the graphical quality in the videogames, that's actually good, the problem is not really the graphics, but when you focus too much on it what happnes? When there is nothing but graphics, what happens?

I'll put another example here, ever heard of Crysis? Probably you heard about it, the game that makes you computer sweat and work as hard as it can to run it, the game that became a meme with the phrase "Can it run Crysis?", probably, but then your pc didn't even open Crysis 3, no problem, I will tell you what is Crysis 3. Imagine Crysis, now imagine you character in a different map, change the story and put a Bow as one of the weapons for you to use, that is exactly Crysis 3. For me, Crysis 3 is nothing but a Crysis mod, with no innovations and improvements in the gameplay mechanics at all. Oh sorry, I mean, Crysis really improved 200% in something, graphics. That's all. That's all what's left of this game that had a great future.

In 2013 Battlefield 4 and Call of Duty Ghosts were released, but with them some problems, Battlefield with it's bad campaign and a buggy MP mode that crashes all time and Call of Duty with it's same MP formula and repetitive campaign, also, it was the game with the lowest metacritic score of it's series.

This lack of gameplay, story, and innovation in many points is becoming a virus that may and will infect the next FPS games that will come, also, this addiction for Multiplayer mode is going to destroy the FPS's. And speaking of Multiplayer, now-a-days someone that plays an MP game 24/7 is considered a hardcore gamer, no, if you play 24/7 you ain't hardcore, you're just addicted. Only the game companies can change this unfortunate future.

Unfortunately, we have a recent FPS game that not many people heard about it, a decent game that combines story, gameplay and a pinch of challenge, this game shows us that the FPS industry isn't dead, just sleeping, this game is Brothers in Arms. Brothers in Arms is a series of 3 FPS games (so far) with the WW2 theme, that puts you in control of Matt Baker, a squad leader that has to lead his soldiers in the days following D-Day. It features a sad story showing that even games can have cinematic animations and gameplay. If you try to rush to kill your enemies, spending every bullet, you'll be dead even before starting to shoot.

Brothers in Arms features a "flanking" gameplay style, you have to put a part of your squad to suppress enemy fire while you/or your other soldiers can get around the enemy and kill it. And if you still think it's easy think twice, the first game "Road to Hill 30" is challenging even on normal difficulty. Have I told you that is based on a true story? As I said before no game is perfect and unfortunately the third game of Brothers in Arms "Hell's HIghway" copied the same mistake other games had, health regen. Although, if you know what the FPS's really are and want to play a game that will be worth your entire life, then I highly suggest you to get Brothers in Arms.

We live in an era called the "Golden Age of Gaming", we've never played so much before as we play now, the game companies never profited so much as now, but in my opinion we live in an era called "Golden Age of Gaming for those who profit with it". Videogames can change the world, videogames makes people think different, act different. The FPS is having a bad time but we can call it "Adolescent Crisis", the future of what we call FPS is also in our hands, we must open the eyes of the game companies that develop these games, because after all, I highly doubt that they spend every penny thinking in making a good game.

Comments
ElfFriend
ElfFriend

It's not dieing. It's just that nobody has had the intelligence to make a good FPS in a long time. Kind of like the Space Sim genre was called dead until Star Citizen...

Reply Good karma Bad karma+1 vote
Batguerra Author
Batguerra

Well, in my opinion, if nobody is making good games, then we are in a big crisis.

Reply Good karma+1 vote
figalot
figalot

I gotta disagree. Just because they changed does not mean they are dying. Making games fps games like this now is just more financially viable than the old way of doing it.

Its such an opinion based topic that its barely worth discussing.

Reply Good karma Bad karma+4 votes
Batguerra Author
Batguerra

It can be an opinion based topic, but you gotta admit that videogames are not the same as before, i bet that even half of the people that develop games even like them at all. I knew someone would say the same thing you would say. And btw, finacially viable is a point of view, if we had the same number of people that play videogames at that time as we have today, im sure it would sell as much as we sell today.

Reply Good karma+1 vote
Batguerra Author
Batguerra

Also figalot, please watch this video and you can connect it with COD: Ghosts :) Youtube.com

Reply Good karma+1 vote
French_Fry
French_Fry

Forgot about Red Orchestra and Metro. Now those are good FPS games.

Reply Good karma Bad karma+4 votes
Racoon655
Racoon655

Since Call of Duty 4: Modern Warfare was released back in 2007, it had set the standard in AAA gaming titles or whatever, so since then the companies saw the "success" with the brand name. That's why World at War started, MW 2 started, and so on until recently Ghosts came out 2 months ago. If you notice the pattern here, They do not want to stray from it's active business model that's bringing in the cash, so this causes other video game companies to copy that very same sales success Activision is having.

Of course, you could consider Call of Duty one of the worst FPS games out there in the market, which to me it's not really an FPS...its what I call a modern military shooter, and I got that nickname from a random YouTube video talking about how stale FPS games are nowadays with all these Military shooters flooding the scene. I do think the FPS genre is dying because of this very same reason. Companies are just throwing money at these titles, and unfortunately, a lot of companies had fallen into the same scheme as activison...Battlefield, Medal of Honer, Halo, that recent Gears of War game... I know it's not a FPS but still, that one really sucked.

Until then, We are going to be stuck with all these generic shooters for probably many years to come.

Reply Good karma Bad karma+1 vote
Racoon655
Racoon655

I still hope that we could get something different, like one of those arena shooters or something.

Reply Good karma Bad karma+3 votes
Serygala
Serygala

Crysis 2 and 3 are wildly different from crysis in almost all mechanics.
FPS games are also not doing bad and you only name very few titles here. I think this article is just someones opinion worded as if there are some stats backing it up. there aren't.

Brothers in Arms is also not "a game very few people have heard about". Its very popular. You wording it as if it is this obscure title (like Neuro or Solarix) makes me assume that you just took a glance at whatever is currently popular and completely ignore the depth of thousands of games underneath that.

Reply Good karma Bad karma+1 vote
Post a comment
Sign in or join with:

Only registered members can share their thoughts. So come on! Join the community today (totally free - or sign in with your social account on the right) and join in the conversation.

Established
Privacy
Public
Subscription
Open to all members
Contact
Send Message
Membership
Join group
Group watch
Follow
News
Browse
News
New
Post news
Report
Report
Share
Related Groups
Old School Games Fans
Old School Games Fans Fans & Clans with 171 members