The "General Games Chat" forum, which includes Retro Game Reviews, has been archived and is now read-only. You cannot post here or create a new thread or review on this forum.
First person shooters then. The cause for much of the scandal and ‘videogames made my child kill’ accusations. Now I’m not going to go into the morals of first person shooter (not in this post anyway…) I’m going to try to show how they have evolved, and from that try to predict their future.
The idea is simple. You view an environment through the eyes of the hero (or character anyway) and must shoot your way through a level full of bad guys. Wolfenstein 3D is widely accepted as the first FPS (though I’m sure others came before it), and titles like Doom and Quake followed. These were simple, basically involving getting to the end of the level in one piece and shooting as many ugly monster things as possible. It is easy to see how survival horror games evolved from titles like Doom and Quake, as in both surviving is the level is the only objective, and the enemies were designed to pop out from corners and hiding places to make you jump. It is harder however to see how Goldeneye for example, or Rainbow Six evolved from these games, beyond the basic perspective they are viewed from.
Well, the jump to modern day FPS games didn’t come overnight. A crucial jump however was the introduction of objectives. I cannot say how these came about, or what game first implemented them, but they are very well displayed by the outstanding Goldeneye on N64. This game introduced various missions you had to complete, and increased the number of these as you progressed in difficulty. Another obvious example is using ‘realistic’ themes in FPS, like the hostage rescue situations seen in Rainbow Six, and others, using ‘real’ situations like those faced by special police units or the military. These could allow the use of realistic weapons, enemies, and objectives. It seems that theses games were brought about through striving for realism in FPS.
However, the survival FPS is not obsolete. Half-Life has made sure of this. With its’ outstanding single player story of government cover ups, alien portals, and struggles for survival, it showed that survival FPS could be anything but linear. It placed you in a hostile environment, where you had to use every available resource at your disposal just to get out alive.
These two different varieties of FPS show the two types I think will be developed in the future. The continuos FPS where you play through the whole game, no set out levels, just going all the way through, being able to save, like Half-Life. The other type is where you have set out levels, and at the start of each you get different equipment according to the type of mission (or you may get to choose your equipment). The first will be better for building tension, while the second better for strict objectives. Of course the two could be merged together, and it has been done with Turok 2, although I don’t feel that worked too well, and the levels were still separated by the ‘hub’ area.
FPS have classically called the PC home, but we are now seeing more and more on consoles. The future of the FPS lies with both in my opinion. PCs have mods and unofficial add-ons for virtually unlimited replay value, but consoles have the face to face multiplayer, and won’t crash on you.
There is also a multiplayer division. There are team based games like the Team Fortress Classic and Counter Strike mods for Half-Life, and the single player all out kill-a-thons like Quake 3 (although that can be played with team play), and most deathmatch games. I think team based gameplay will become increasingly popular as consoles come online. They help give a better feel of war, and raiding and defending bases is very fun and gives you more of a sense of purpose than just having to shoot anything that moves. Multiplayer games that are all vs. all rely heavily on quick gameplay, and being able to run about shooting first to get in the kills, but for team games you need more strategy. I think team FPS have a lot of potential, and with consoles coming into online gaming they could become extremely popular with that market.
Consoles also could have a team of four people all playing on the same console with split screen, but at the same time playing against another team online. The team using split screen would be at an obvious disadvantage due to less screen space, so harder to see, but they would have vastly better team communication. This could allow them to set up well co-ordinated attacks, help each other out, and would give the four (or three, or two for that matter) a really fun experience. It could be awesome, and mix LAN style PC gaming with console and internet play.
I think the future for FPS is bright, with a lot of potential for new and inventive ideas. Maybe the slow motion effects seen in both Perfect Dark (Combat Boosts) and Max Payne (Bullet Time) will somehow be implemented into online FPS for cool deathmatch experiences.
Lets just hope developers use the potential and don’t waste it.
The idea is simple. You view an environment through the eyes of the hero (or character anyway) and must shoot your way through a level full of bad guys. Wolfenstein 3D is widely accepted as the first FPS (though I’m sure others came before it), and titles like Doom and Quake followed. These were simple, basically involving getting to the end of the level in one piece and shooting as many ugly monster things as possible. It is easy to see how survival horror games evolved from titles like Doom and Quake, as in both surviving is the level is the only objective, and the enemies were designed to pop out from corners and hiding places to make you jump. It is harder however to see how Goldeneye for example, or Rainbow Six evolved from these games, beyond the basic perspective they are viewed from.
Well, the jump to modern day FPS games didn’t come overnight. A crucial jump however was the introduction of objectives. I cannot say how these came about, or what game first implemented them, but they are very well displayed by the outstanding Goldeneye on N64. This game introduced various missions you had to complete, and increased the number of these as you progressed in difficulty. Another obvious example is using ‘realistic’ themes in FPS, like the hostage rescue situations seen in Rainbow Six, and others, using ‘real’ situations like those faced by special police units or the military. These could allow the use of realistic weapons, enemies, and objectives. It seems that theses games were brought about through striving for realism in FPS.
However, the survival FPS is not obsolete. Half-Life has made sure of this. With its’ outstanding single player story of government cover ups, alien portals, and struggles for survival, it showed that survival FPS could be anything but linear. It placed you in a hostile environment, where you had to use every available resource at your disposal just to get out alive.
These two different varieties of FPS show the two types I think will be developed in the future. The continuos FPS where you play through the whole game, no set out levels, just going all the way through, being able to save, like Half-Life. The other type is where you have set out levels, and at the start of each you get different equipment according to the type of mission (or you may get to choose your equipment). The first will be better for building tension, while the second better for strict objectives. Of course the two could be merged together, and it has been done with Turok 2, although I don’t feel that worked too well, and the levels were still separated by the ‘hub’ area.
FPS have classically called the PC home, but we are now seeing more and more on consoles. The future of the FPS lies with both in my opinion. PCs have mods and unofficial add-ons for virtually unlimited replay value, but consoles have the face to face multiplayer, and won’t crash on you.
There is also a multiplayer division. There are team based games like the Team Fortress Classic and Counter Strike mods for Half-Life, and the single player all out kill-a-thons like Quake 3 (although that can be played with team play), and most deathmatch games. I think team based gameplay will become increasingly popular as consoles come online. They help give a better feel of war, and raiding and defending bases is very fun and gives you more of a sense of purpose than just having to shoot anything that moves. Multiplayer games that are all vs. all rely heavily on quick gameplay, and being able to run about shooting first to get in the kills, but for team games you need more strategy. I think team FPS have a lot of potential, and with consoles coming into online gaming they could become extremely popular with that market.
Consoles also could have a team of four people all playing on the same console with split screen, but at the same time playing against another team online. The team using split screen would be at an obvious disadvantage due to less screen space, so harder to see, but they would have vastly better team communication. This could allow them to set up well co-ordinated attacks, help each other out, and would give the four (or three, or two for that matter) a really fun experience. It could be awesome, and mix LAN style PC gaming with console and internet play.
I think the future for FPS is bright, with a lot of potential for new and inventive ideas. Maybe the slow motion effects seen in both Perfect Dark (Combat Boosts) and Max Payne (Bullet Time) will somehow be implemented into online FPS for cool deathmatch experiences.
Lets just hope developers use the potential and don’t waste it.
nah fps's are cool. In fact they are the only 'real' games as all other games let you see yourself from outside of you. Freaky.
Anyway FPS's do tend to be the best games. Goldeneye, half life, doom duke nukem 3d and many more are househol names, but i know loadsa people who never heard of sonic and knuckles or ff7.
Anyway FPS's do tend to be the best games. Goldeneye, half life, doom duke nukem 3d and many more are househol names, but i know loadsa people who never heard of sonic and knuckles or ff7.
I felt sorry for you not having any posts so I wrote this.
wow man yes, i'm totally interested.
wow man yes, i'm totally interested.
First person shooters then. The cause for much of the scandal and ‘videogames made my child kill’ accusations. Now I’m not going to go into the morals of first person shooter (not in this post anyway…) I’m going to try to show how they have evolved, and from that try to predict their future.
The idea is simple. You view an environment through the eyes of the hero (or character anyway) and must shoot your way through a level full of bad guys. Wolfenstein 3D is widely accepted as the first FPS (though I’m sure others came before it), and titles like Doom and Quake followed. These were simple, basically involving getting to the end of the level in one piece and shooting as many ugly monster things as possible. It is easy to see how survival horror games evolved from titles like Doom and Quake, as in both surviving is the level is the only objective, and the enemies were designed to pop out from corners and hiding places to make you jump. It is harder however to see how Goldeneye for example, or Rainbow Six evolved from these games, beyond the basic perspective they are viewed from.
Well, the jump to modern day FPS games didn’t come overnight. A crucial jump however was the introduction of objectives. I cannot say how these came about, or what game first implemented them, but they are very well displayed by the outstanding Goldeneye on N64. This game introduced various missions you had to complete, and increased the number of these as you progressed in difficulty. Another obvious example is using ‘realistic’ themes in FPS, like the hostage rescue situations seen in Rainbow Six, and others, using ‘real’ situations like those faced by special police units or the military. These could allow the use of realistic weapons, enemies, and objectives. It seems that theses games were brought about through striving for realism in FPS.
However, the survival FPS is not obsolete. Half-Life has made sure of this. With its’ outstanding single player story of government cover ups, alien portals, and struggles for survival, it showed that survival FPS could be anything but linear. It placed you in a hostile environment, where you had to use every available resource at your disposal just to get out alive.
These two different varieties of FPS show the two types I think will be developed in the future. The continuos FPS where you play through the whole game, no set out levels, just going all the way through, being able to save, like Half-Life. The other type is where you have set out levels, and at the start of each you get different equipment according to the type of mission (or you may get to choose your equipment). The first will be better for building tension, while the second better for strict objectives. Of course the two could be merged together, and it has been done with Turok 2, although I don’t feel that worked too well, and the levels were still separated by the ‘hub’ area.
FPS have classically called the PC home, but we are now seeing more and more on consoles. The future of the FPS lies with both in my opinion. PCs have mods and unofficial add-ons for virtually unlimited replay value, but consoles have the face to face multiplayer, and won’t crash on you.
There is also a multiplayer division. There are team based games like the Team Fortress Classic and Counter Strike mods for Half-Life, and the single player all out kill-a-thons like Quake 3 (although that can be played with team play), and most deathmatch games. I think team based gameplay will become increasingly popular as consoles come online. They help give a better feel of war, and raiding and defending bases is very fun and gives you more of a sense of purpose than just having to shoot anything that moves. Multiplayer games that are all vs. all rely heavily on quick gameplay, and being able to run about shooting first to get in the kills, but for team games you need more strategy. I think team FPS have a lot of potential, and with consoles coming into online gaming they could become extremely popular with that market.
Consoles also could have a team of four people all playing on the same console with split screen, but at the same time playing against another team online. The team using split screen would be at an obvious disadvantage due to less screen space, so harder to see, but they would have vastly better team communication. This could allow them to set up well co-ordinated attacks, help each other out, and would give the four (or three, or two for that matter) a really fun experience. It could be awesome, and mix LAN style PC gaming with console and internet play.
I think the future for FPS is bright, with a lot of potential for new and inventive ideas. Maybe the slow motion effects seen in both Perfect Dark (Combat Boosts) and Max Payne (Bullet Time) will somehow be implemented into online FPS for cool deathmatch experiences.
Lets just hope developers use the potential and don’t waste it.
The idea is simple. You view an environment through the eyes of the hero (or character anyway) and must shoot your way through a level full of bad guys. Wolfenstein 3D is widely accepted as the first FPS (though I’m sure others came before it), and titles like Doom and Quake followed. These were simple, basically involving getting to the end of the level in one piece and shooting as many ugly monster things as possible. It is easy to see how survival horror games evolved from titles like Doom and Quake, as in both surviving is the level is the only objective, and the enemies were designed to pop out from corners and hiding places to make you jump. It is harder however to see how Goldeneye for example, or Rainbow Six evolved from these games, beyond the basic perspective they are viewed from.
Well, the jump to modern day FPS games didn’t come overnight. A crucial jump however was the introduction of objectives. I cannot say how these came about, or what game first implemented them, but they are very well displayed by the outstanding Goldeneye on N64. This game introduced various missions you had to complete, and increased the number of these as you progressed in difficulty. Another obvious example is using ‘realistic’ themes in FPS, like the hostage rescue situations seen in Rainbow Six, and others, using ‘real’ situations like those faced by special police units or the military. These could allow the use of realistic weapons, enemies, and objectives. It seems that theses games were brought about through striving for realism in FPS.
However, the survival FPS is not obsolete. Half-Life has made sure of this. With its’ outstanding single player story of government cover ups, alien portals, and struggles for survival, it showed that survival FPS could be anything but linear. It placed you in a hostile environment, where you had to use every available resource at your disposal just to get out alive.
These two different varieties of FPS show the two types I think will be developed in the future. The continuos FPS where you play through the whole game, no set out levels, just going all the way through, being able to save, like Half-Life. The other type is where you have set out levels, and at the start of each you get different equipment according to the type of mission (or you may get to choose your equipment). The first will be better for building tension, while the second better for strict objectives. Of course the two could be merged together, and it has been done with Turok 2, although I don’t feel that worked too well, and the levels were still separated by the ‘hub’ area.
FPS have classically called the PC home, but we are now seeing more and more on consoles. The future of the FPS lies with both in my opinion. PCs have mods and unofficial add-ons for virtually unlimited replay value, but consoles have the face to face multiplayer, and won’t crash on you.
There is also a multiplayer division. There are team based games like the Team Fortress Classic and Counter Strike mods for Half-Life, and the single player all out kill-a-thons like Quake 3 (although that can be played with team play), and most deathmatch games. I think team based gameplay will become increasingly popular as consoles come online. They help give a better feel of war, and raiding and defending bases is very fun and gives you more of a sense of purpose than just having to shoot anything that moves. Multiplayer games that are all vs. all rely heavily on quick gameplay, and being able to run about shooting first to get in the kills, but for team games you need more strategy. I think team FPS have a lot of potential, and with consoles coming into online gaming they could become extremely popular with that market.
Consoles also could have a team of four people all playing on the same console with split screen, but at the same time playing against another team online. The team using split screen would be at an obvious disadvantage due to less screen space, so harder to see, but they would have vastly better team communication. This could allow them to set up well co-ordinated attacks, help each other out, and would give the four (or three, or two for that matter) a really fun experience. It could be awesome, and mix LAN style PC gaming with console and internet play.
I think the future for FPS is bright, with a lot of potential for new and inventive ideas. Maybe the slow motion effects seen in both Perfect Dark (Combat Boosts) and Max Payne (Bullet Time) will somehow be implemented into online FPS for cool deathmatch experiences.
Lets just hope developers use the potential and don’t waste it.