• 53 results
  • 1
  • 2
#1 Edited by SmugDarkLoser (4619 posts) -

Now more than ever, new shooter series are simply taking themselves way too seriously.

A shooter cannot exist without being gritty and having generic looking bald marines.
I cannot actually name a new shooter series that tries something somewhat different.   Anything different works.  The mediocre shooter is all generic unfun weapons with repetitive environments and that dumb on rail section, and it just isn't fun

I'm not saying that generic cannot be fun in shooters (i think R2 shows this), but where has creativity in design gone?  Other genres really don't have a true niche that it makes some games of it indistuguishable from the other (for example, blacksite and timeshift are so similar in layout, save controlling time and can you even distinguish between a prey and quake screenshot if the weapons were blurred out?)


Whatever happened to, even last gen, stuff like Armed and Dangerous, Metal Arms, Oddworld: Stranger's Wrath, etc.?
Heck, where has the true sci-fi shooters gone?  Yea, technically anything alien and whatever is sci-fi (see blacksite ) but what about more true sci-fi?  This genre is becoming an endangered species, somehow.  As much as we like to say that every other shooter is sci-fi, in reality, most of these fall under the modern shooter category.  Again, yes, there are tons involving aliens or whatever, but so few truly feel sci-fi more than like a modern shooter with aliens. 

In short, I guess this:
Why does this have to be the standard shooter


Why not something more like this?



Just some questions: these aren't bad qualities of games, but just so many games fall into it

Why is are tool like guns so rare?  There's barely ever rapples now, or teleport guns.
Why does every gun need to have a zoom (think COD) to aim?
Why is jumping useless?
Why are fun and fast vehicles so rare?
Why can I only carry 2 weapons?
Why is radar fading away?
Why aren't there switches in maps?
Why are they so linear?  
Why can I only jog or sprint?  Why is there no flying or transforming into something else?
Where are the portals?
Where are the powerup?
What's with the same multiplayer gametypes in nearly every game?  Can't we be creative?

#2 Posted by dsplayer1010 (2227 posts) -

Yea, why the fuck not?

#3 Posted by whackmypinata (941 posts) -

Battlefield Bad Company is a great shooter that knows its place. What differentiates typical squad-based army games, story wise?
BFBC had plenty of humour, but included an interesting enough story of four fuck ups in the B squad of the US army. It was great to watch two army members playing rock paper scissors behind their sergeant who was receiving an order. Great varied gameplay complimented the engrossing dialogue. In short, if you want a break from Call of Duty-esque stories, pick up Battlefield Bad Company.

#4 Posted by AndrewGaspar (2418 posts) -

I don't mind if its serious, but it has to have a quality and original story.

#5 Posted by Rowr (5474 posts) -

Are you forgetting tf2?

What about Battlefield Heroes?

#6 Posted by Hamz (6846 posts) -

I can see where the OP is coming from in that the FPS genre has begun to turn to realism and more contemporary settings instead of pushing the boat out further and going full on Sci Fi or even Steam Punk etc.

I guess from my own personal viewpoint I am tired of playing the all American action hero in a modern day or WW2 era setting in every FPS game. Change is good, so is variation and I don't think it would hurt developers if they decided to go against the current trend of the genre and bring out something refreshing.

Thats why games like TF2 are big hits and top of my lists of most fun games ever. They break the mold and do something different.

#7 Posted by gunswordfist (576 posts) -

I haven't paid any WW2 shooter not named Call Of Cuty any attention. There are other shooters like The Orange Box and Dead Space.

#8 Edited by banned8921 (1246 posts) -

I wish there were more games like css, I think balanced games like tf2 are good but I want games that take skill to be good at like tribes 2 or counter strike. I havent seen a game as good as those 2 since css was released. I enjoy massacring noobs (I like to call it the right of passage.) 

#9 Posted by Ravey (329 posts) -

People just don't understand shark guns!! I'm still waiting for a game that lets you eject through the roof of a vehicle like in Necrodome.

Gunswordfist: What about Hidden & Dangerous? That game was great...free..and it had coop. C'mon.

#10 Posted by Optiow (1745 posts) -

True, they are getting to serious, to realistic. Who cares about realistic!!!!!

#11 Posted by LiquidPrince (15836 posts) -

As Yahtzee said, I'm still waiting for a game where the main character has a gun that shoots velosoraptors.

#12 Posted by BoG (5180 posts) -
SmugDarkLoser said:
"Just some questions: these aren't bad qualities of games, but just so many games fall into it

Why is are tool like guns so rare?  There's barely ever rapples now, or teleport guns.
Why does every gun need to have a zoom (think COD) to aim?
Why is jumping useless?
Why are fun and fast vehicles so rare?
Why can I only carry 2 weapons?
Why is radar fading away?
Why aren't there switches in maps?
Why are they so linear?  
Why can I only jog or sprint?  Why is there no flying or transforming into something else?
Where are the portals?
Where are the powerup?
What's with the same multiplayer gametypes in nearly every game?  Can't we be creative?"
1. Because I'm sure it is difficult to program to be anything but a hassle, and there would be a fine line between grapplings hooks being fun or annoying.
2. I don't think this is true of every gun in every game. None of the valve games have it, few shotguns have it, and in Halo only the BR has it.
3. Because if it isn't done right, it's tedious. Metroid Prime made first person platforming awesome, but without the tweaks the game made to make it fun, it would suck.
4. These aren't racing games, and I'm sure balance is an issue. Plus, the shooting element adds an extra layer of difficulty.
5. Because if you could carry more in Halo, for example, some guy would rush to get the shotgun, the sword, the sniper, and every other worthwhile weapon, and camp with them. It would suck.
6. Radar doesn't make something more fun, just easier
7. huh?
8. Game design is more difficult then you think.
9. Flying would be really difficult to control, especially in a FP perspective. I have no idea about the transforming. Werehogs, maybe?
10. In Portal and Prey
11. In CoD 4's classic mode
12. Because whenever someone comes up with something brilliant, people still play deathmatch. Bungie was creative with Halo, but they don't do infection rotations because nobody wants to play them.
#13 Posted by Shadow (4977 posts) -

Battlefield Bad Company.  Case closed.

#14 Posted by ColumnBreaker (1159 posts) -
BoG said:
"SmugDarkLoser said:
"Just some questions: these aren't bad qualities of games, but just so many games fall into it

Why is are tool like guns so rare?  There's barely ever rapples now, or teleport guns.
Why does every gun need to have a zoom (think COD) to aim?
Why is jumping useless?
Why are fun and fast vehicles so rare?
Why can I only carry 2 weapons?
Why is radar fading away?
Why aren't there switches in maps?
Why are they so linear?  
Why can I only jog or sprint?  Why is there no flying or transforming into something else?
Where are the portals?
Where are the powerup?
What's with the same multiplayer gametypes in nearly every game?  Can't we be creative?"
1. Because I'm sure it is difficult to program to be anything but a hassle, and there would be a fine line between grapplings hooks being fun or annoying.
2. I don't think this is true of every gun in every game. None of the valve games have it, few shotguns have it, and in Halo only the BR has it.
3. Because if it isn't done right, it's tedious. Metroid Prime made first person platforming awesome, but without the tweaks the game made to make it fun, it would suck.
4. These aren't racing games, and I'm sure balance is an issue. Plus, the shooting element adds an extra layer of difficulty.
5. Because if you could carry more in Halo, for example, some guy would rush to get the shotgun, the sword, the sniper, and every other worthwhile weapon, and camp with them. It would suck.
6. Radar doesn't make something more fun, just easier
7. huh?
8. Game design is more difficult then you think.
9. Flying would be really difficult to control, especially in a FP perspective. I have no idea about the transforming. Werehogs, maybe?
10. In Portal and Prey
11. In CoD 4's classic mode
12. Because whenever someone comes up with something brilliant, people still play deathmatch. Bungie was creative with Halo, but they don't do infection rotations because nobody wants to play them.
"
1. Tribes: Vengeance (game sucks as a whole, but the grappler was fun)
2. Non-issue
3. Tribes franchise makes good use of the jump button/spacebar
4. A fast paced shooter on a console would be awful. Fast vehicles would imbalance all of the slow shooters on consoles. There are plenty of fast vehicles in various different pc shooters.
5. Tribes Franchise
6. Radar is pretty questionable in any game that doesn't have layer after layer of depth to justify it.
7. Yeah... agreed. Huh?
8. Non-linear games aren't always the best. Just take a look at crysis... that game gets fucking boring because of how open it is.
9. ...Tribes fucking franchise. Transforming.. no thanks.
10. Quake anyone?
11. Contra.
12. There are some staple gametypes that deserve to be in just about every shooter that's worth playing. Capture the flag for example... that's a personal favorite of mine, and my interest is kept longer by the games that offer it.
#15 Edited by BiggerBomb (6944 posts) -

I like the more realistic shooters like Call of Duty and the more gritty shooters like Gears of War, but I do get where you're coming from. Ingenuity seems to be going the way of the dodo, nowadays.

#16 Posted by Dalai (6980 posts) -

Somewhere along the way, Halo became the standard for shooters.  Now, everyone will try to copy Gears of War, which further lessens the chances of more unique shooters like Team Fortress and Metroid Prime.

#17 Posted by Endogene (4741 posts) -

I miss the days of Unreal Tournament.

#18 Posted by crunchUK (5963 posts) -

it all boils down to games being more expensive to make than before..... = fewer risks taken.

haven't you noticed that nearly all the anticipated games of this year are sequels? gta 4, mgs4, gears 2, fallout 3, etc

#19 Edited by Gizmo (5389 posts) -
crunchUK said:
"it all boils down to games being more expensive to make than before..... = fewer risks taken.

haven't you noticed that nearly all the anticipated games of this year are sequels? gta 4, mgs4, gears 2, fallout 3, etc"
Sequels, but brilliant sequels nonetheless.
#20 Edited by pweidman (2285 posts) -

I think realism, or at least attempts at realism, are always going to be some part of the shooter development menu.  Shooter fans want that type of game, viseral, and immersive, and hopefully full of that sense of any mistake equals death.  Rainbow 6 does it perfectly imo.  You feel like a badass spec-ops mofo, but you have to stay in every moment of the game or you get dead quick.  That type of well executed simulation, and it's related tension and rush, will always have a place and be popular...human nature imo. 

Now though, big money has gotten behind some new ideas...just look at Deadspace.  Some very new shooting ideas, although it treads over some familiar survival/alien monster ground(the Sufferings models somewhat imo). GoW is just an over the top sim(using sim very loosely,lol) of a parallel civilization, that tries very hard to be comical, and cartoon gross, while letting players have fun but still be immersed.  Epic succeeded bigtime in those ambitions obviously.

Lastly, with game dev costs getting astronomical for AAA games, pubs/devs have to consider the risk/reward of getting 'creative'.  But there is evidence of big pubs taking some chances(Mirror's Edge, Dead Space,etc..), so it'll be intersting to see how the market evolves over the next couple years.  And there's no lack of ingenuity...many of these devs are making some incredibly complex games that perform nothing short of amazingly, and look jawdroppingly good. 

#21 Posted by ChestyMcGee (135 posts) -

Team Fortress 2

Battlefield Heroes
Battlefield Bad Company

And quite simply, the reason "all" shooters are serious is because that's what sells. Quirky humour and pleasant visuals will always get good reviews and cult fans but it's whether it seels which counts. And it doesn't. It's sad, but true.
#22 Posted by Origina1Penguin (3500 posts) -

Well I was looking forward to the next Timesplitters.  That would pretty much cover everything on your list, except jumping of course.  I don't know what's going to happen to the game now though.

#23 Posted by Jayge_ (10222 posts) -
Endogene said:
"I miss the days of Unreal Tournament."
A-fucking-men.

Shadow said:
"

Battlefield Bad Company.  Case closed.

"
Maybe if it didn't disgrace the Battlefield name, it would be satisfactory.
#24 Posted by BlackWaterCO (1574 posts) -

It's so the game isn't unbalanced...jeez

If you had it your way, you'd kill the shooter

COD4 bad, Fur Fighters Good

#25 Posted by Pibo47 (3166 posts) -

Dont worry guys. DNF is coming, and all our problems will be solved!

#26 Posted by BiggerBomb (6944 posts) -
Jayge said:
Shadow said:
"

Battlefield Bad Company.  Case closed.

"
Maybe if it didn't disgrace the Battlefield name, it would be satisfactory.
"

I usually agree with what you say/think Jayge. What you said above, I do not agree with. Because that was just stupid.
#27 Posted by Jayge_ (10222 posts) -
BiggerBomb said:
"Jayge said:
Shadow said:
"

Battlefield Bad Company.  Case closed.

"
Maybe if it didn't disgrace the Battlefield name, it would be satisfactory.
"

I usually agree with what you say/think Jayge. What you said above, I do not agree with. Because that was just stupid."
No, it's a truth.
#28 Posted by atejas (3057 posts) -

The way I see it, there should be two kinds of shooters
The fast, excessively arcadey variety, in the style of Quake and UT.
The tactical and deep variety, such as STALKER or ArmA.
Anything in the middle is an abomination that deserves to be purged.

#29 Posted by Warfare (1632 posts) -

Money.

Make of it what you will.
#30 Posted by pause422 (6170 posts) -
Jayge said:
"BiggerBomb said:
"Jayge said:
Shadow said:
"

Battlefield Bad Company.  Case closed.

"
Maybe if it didn't disgrace the Battlefield name, it would be satisfactory.
"

I usually agree with what you say/think Jayge. What you said above, I do not agree with. Because that was just stupid."
No, it's a truth."
Maybe most people don't think BF BC was terrible or a bad game at all, but when it comes down to it, it was a very bad "Battlefield" game in general. I'm assuming that's because the majority of people that come to the conclusion that its a great game, have only played that game, and stuck to consoles and never touched any previous BF. I literally know zero people that have played BF2 and then touched Bad Company and think it was anything but an awful stepback in every possible way.
#31 Posted by Jayge_ (10222 posts) -
pause422 said:
"Maybe most people don't think BF BC was terrible or a bad game at all, but when it comes down to it, it was a very bad "Battlefield" game in general. I'm assuming that's because the majority of people that come to the conclusion that its a great game, have only played that game, and stuck to consoles and never touched any previous BF. I literally know zero people that have played BF2 and then touched Bad Company and think it was anything but an awful stepback in every possible way."
That's what I'm getting at. It's a solid game, but it doesn't deserve the prefix Battlefield.
#32 Posted by SmugDarkLoser (4619 posts) -
BlackWaterCO said:
"It's so the game isn't unbalanced...jeez

If you had it your way, you'd kill the shooter

COD4 bad, Fur Fighters Good"

Halo is one of the most balanced shooters available.  It has some of those things.

I think people forget that a vehicle can be balanced.
In halo for example, the vehicles don't completely rape like in COD5.  A charged plasma pistol, which is very common, will allow you to take down any vehicle easily. The vehicles are still hugely useful.
#33 Posted by Maxszy (2064 posts) -

So what do you mean by more "Sci-Fi" then? Sci-Fi is a broad category really, and contain quite a bit of various adventures.

If by more "Sci-Fi" you mean a more space opera feel, somewhat like Halo or a setting like Mass Effect except a shooter instead of an RPG, then yeah there hasn't been too many things like that recently. As someone said above though, sadly those aren't really the games that sell. Its hard for me to believe, and probably anyone here that most people don't ever read about games before they go into a store and buy them. They buy them by the cover art and what is on the back of the case. It seems because of this, it is many times the "tried and true" of "real action" that sells the most. (With the exception of Halo, but that was because of its distinguished titles beforehand). So if this is what you mean, yeah I would love to see some more space opera-esque shooters, though I doubt we'll se any soon.

#34 Posted by daniel_beck_90 (3159 posts) -

I want Doom 4 !!!!

#35 Edited by SmugDarkLoser (4619 posts) -
Maxszy said:
"So what do you mean by more "Sci-Fi" then? Sci-Fi is a broad category really, and contain quite a bit of various adventures.

If by more "Sci-Fi" you mean a more space opera feel, somewhat like Halo or a setting like Mass Effect except a shooter instead of an RPG, then yeah there hasn't been too many things like that recently. As someone said above though, sadly those aren't really the games that sell. Its hard for me to believe, and probably anyone here that most people don't ever read about games before they go into a store and buy them. They buy them by the cover art and what is on the back of the case. It seems because of this, it is many times the "tried and true" of "real action" that sells the most. (With the exception of Halo, but that was because of its distinguished titles beforehand). So if this is what you mean, yeah I would love to see some more space opera-esque shooters, though I doubt we'll se any soon."

Sci-fi as in Halo, Mass Effect, and Star Ocean or into the realms of movies, like Star Wars or Star Trek.  
But I do think that they can sell.  Halo obviously proves that and so does Star Wars.  Two mega popular series in two different categories.  

 And I know what you mean about cover buying.  That being said, I think that isn't so true.  While there is a huge amoutn who do that, advetising is what you're forgetting.  Gears of War is proof of this.  Advertised up the ass with a good foundation and sold greatly. Granted though, that was a MS game, where they do have resources to do that.  LP and Dead Rising did well because of great ads as well.
         That being said, by contrast, Little Big Planet is a great game and had a whole bunch of advertising, but bad sales.
#36 Posted by gunswordfist (576 posts) -
Ravey said:
"

People just don't understand shark guns!! I'm still waiting for a game that lets you eject through the roof of a vehicle like in Necrodome.

Gunswordfist: What about Hidden & Dangerous? That game was great...free..and it had coop. C'mon.

"

I never even heard of Hiiden & Dangerous. lol
#37 Posted by pweidman (2285 posts) -

He prolly meant Armed and Dangerous...a game that had a weapon that launched sharks at enemies.  Pretty zaney and funny shooter actually.

#38 Posted by gunswordfist (576 posts) -

I thought that for a second but it's not a WW2 shooter. And besides I already ordered that game. lol

#39 Posted by crunchUK (5963 posts) -
SmugDarkLoser said:
"Maxszy said:
"So what do you mean by more "Sci-Fi" then? Sci-Fi is a broad category really, and contain quite a bit of various adventures.

If by more "Sci-Fi" you mean a more space opera feel, somewhat like Halo or a setting like Mass Effect except a shooter instead of an RPG, then yeah there hasn't been too many things like that recently. As someone said above though, sadly those aren't really the games that sell. Its hard for me to believe, and probably anyone here that most people don't ever read about games before they go into a store and buy them. They buy them by the cover art and what is on the back of the case. It seems because of this, it is many times the "tried and true" of "real action" that sells the most. (With the exception of Halo, but that was because of its distinguished titles beforehand). So if this is what you mean, yeah I would love to see some more space opera-esque shooters, though I doubt we'll se any soon."

Sci-fi as in Halo, Mass Effect, and Star Ocean or into the realms of movies, like Star Wars or Star Trek.  
But I do think that they can sell.  Halo obviously proves that and so does Star Wars.  Two mega popular series in two different categories.  

 And I know what you mean about cover buying.  That being said, I think that isn't so true.  While there is a huge amoutn who do that, advetising is what you're forgetting.  Gears of War is proof of this.  Advertised up the ass with a good foundation and sold greatly. Granted though, that was a MS game, where they do have resources to do that.  LP and Dead Rising did well because of great ads as well.
         That being said, by contrast, Little Big Planet is a great game and had a whole bunch of advertising, but bad sales.
"
That's because the main ps3 audience is only interested in GTA and fifa
#40 Posted by Gameboi (653 posts) -
crunchUK said:
"it all boils down to games being more expensive to make than before..... = fewer risks taken.

haven't you noticed that nearly all the anticipated games of this year are sequels? gta 4, mgs4, gears 2, fallout 3, etc"
Exactly! To make matters worse, the majority of gamers tend to ignore games that go out on a limb. Developers don't make the money they intended, as a result, and shovel out more of the generic shooters people complain about. We can complain about it all day on forums, but until we can convince the general game playing public to actually reward developers for this, we've accomplished nothing.
#41 Posted by PartTimeNinja (344 posts) -

I think we need another No One Lives Forever.

#42 Posted by crunchUK (5963 posts) -
SuperMooseman said:
"Shooters are pretty boring anyway, so I agree that they need to stop taking themselves so seriously. Call of Duty: World at Haberdashery Store would be much more fun!"
i agree! i mean there was a platformer about mcdonalds back in the day so why isn't there an FPS about FKC or burger king???
#43 Posted by dsplayer1010 (2227 posts) -
Jayge said:
"BiggerBomb said:
"Jayge said:
Shadow said:
"

Battlefield Bad Company.  Case closed.

"
Maybe if it didn't disgrace the Battlefield name, it would be satisfactory.
"

I usually agree with what you say/think Jayge. What you said above, I do not agree with. Because that was just stupid."
No, it's a truth."
Explain to me how it disgraces it?
#44 Posted by crunchUK (5963 posts) -
Jayge said:
"pause422 said:
"Maybe most people don't think BF BC was terrible or a bad game at all, but when it comes down to it, it was a very bad "Battlefield" game in general. I'm assuming that's because the majority of people that come to the conclusion that its a great game, have only played that game, and stuck to consoles and never touched any previous BF. I literally know zero people that have played BF2 and then touched Bad Company and think it was anything but an awful stepback in every possible way."
That's what I'm getting at. It's a solid game, but it doesn't deserve the prefix Battlefield."
i've played a little of bf2 and bad company and just because bad company isn't like BF2 doesn't mean it sucks.

i think its a bit like people hating nuts and bolts because it didn't stay true to the series and wasn't an ordinary platofromer
#45 Posted by KamasamaK (2407 posts) -
pause422 said:
"I literally know zero people that have played BF2 and then touched Bad Company and think it was anything but an awful stepback in every possible way."
But...destructibility. It was clearly not meant to be a successor to the PC Battlefield games anyway.
#46 Posted by dsplayer1010 (2227 posts) -
Kamasama said:
"pause422 said:
"I literally know zero people that have played BF2 and then touched Bad Company and think it was anything but an awful stepback in every possible way."
But...destructibility. It was clearly not meant to be a successor to the PC Battlefield games anyway."
Not at all. It set up something new for console players.
#47 Posted by BigBoss1911 (2408 posts) -

I agree shooter makers dont have as much originality as they should.

#48 Posted by Ravey (329 posts) -

I don't want a successor to Battlefield, I want more of the predecessor. Codename Eagle was amazing.

#49 Posted by Kazona (3058 posts) -

It's simple. The majority of people want grittier and more realistic, so that's exactly what they're getting. It's a shame that there's not more shooters with crazy over the top shit and quircky art in it, but those games simply don't sell enough. I mean, look at Unreal Tournament. Despite it having alot in common with the Gears of War look, sales for it have been less than stellar simply because it's not realistic and gritty enough.

#50 Posted by DARKIDO07 (876 posts) -
pause422 said:
"Jayge said:
"BiggerBomb said:
"Jayge said:
Shadow said:
"

Battlefield Bad Company.  Case closed.

"
Maybe if it didn't disgrace the Battlefield name, it would be satisfactory.
"

I usually agree with what you say/think Jayge. What you said above, I do not agree with. Because that was just stupid."
No, it's a truth."
Maybe most people don't think BF BC was terrible or a bad game at all, but when it comes down to it, it was a very bad "Battlefield" game in general. I'm assuming that's because the majority of people that come to the conclusion that its a great game, have only played that game, and stuck to consoles and never touched any previous BF. I literally know zero people that have played BF2 and then touched Bad Company and think it was anything but an awful stepback in every possible way."
I played Battlefield: 1942, Vietnam, and Battlefield 2. Bad Company was not an abomination, becuase it was released on consoles, now if was a PC game it would be different but becuase of the limitations of console controller, Bad Company couldn't have as many features as Battlefield 2 but granted it was still extremely fun and did help to re-invent the Battlefield Franchise as its no longer just a multiplayer game, and the multiplayer gameplay aspect has been revolutionized thanks to the destructible environments.