Have single-player FPS gone backwards?

[jorgebonafe]

[FlowerChild]

Hehe...nice. I do enjoy a good military shooter every once and awhile, but I do agree with him that the hand-holding is getting out of control in games in general....obviously :)

[jorgebonafe]

Every now and again I play Doom 2 on LAN with the guys at work. Somehow it is way more fun then CS and the such...

[johnt]

even some decidedly lower tech like bomberman can be fun. sometimes abstraction is more fun than realism.

[Pfilson]

I think the old secret rooms being vital and ammo/item scarceness is why I play games like they are Zelda (As my BF likes to say).. I try to find all of the things.. Often being left behind in multiplayer games because I'm busy looking behind every trashcan/tree/wall... It's also why I have a reluctance to use resources that feel limited..

[FlowerChild]

I've been thinking a bit about some of the points made in this video in relation to the history of games, as there was something that struck me as off about it.

One point in particular I find fault with is his statement that health packs were traded in for automatic healing because of laziness in level design. I don't think this was true.

I think this was more of a multiplayer design decision for the tactical or more "realistic" shooters. One thing that plagued earlier fps games was people camping powerup spawn points. If any of you used to play Quake 2 online, the cries of "camper!" used to be constant.

Obviously, this is not desirable in a tactical shooter, first because it's very gamey and leads to rather odd tactical choices, and secondly, because "camping" in a tactical shooter is a valid tactical choice (as long as alternate approaches are available for the other team). As a guy that is drawn to LMGs in such games, I will say that cries of "camping" would not be well received :)

Now, what I will say is that I think modern FPS single player tends to suck ass, and on that I agree with him, but I wouldn't write off the cause to lazy level design (not entirely anyways). I'd say it's more because since Quake 3 (first game I remember that took the bold move of being multiplayer only) came out, FPS design has largely been focused on the multiplayer experience with single-player becoming almost more of an after-thought.

They're generally linear, dull as dirt, "cinematic" experiences that just make use of the multiplayer mechanics as best they can for a style of gameplay to which they are ill suited.

I do think the art of single player level design is largely being lost, but having seen that in action within the industry, I think that's more because level designers are pushed more and more towards creating big cinematic set-pieces like bridges blowing up or whatever, that leave them with little time to actually focus on the gameplay experience. Basically, the roller-coaster ride he mentions in the video. More flash, less substance. I don't think that's isolated to FPS games either.

Anyways, like I said, I do agree with his general statements that SP gameplay is actually getting worse with time in this genre, just disagree on some of the particulars about how and why that came about.

[Shengji]

Anyways, like I said, I do agree with his general statements that SP gameplay is actually getting worse with time in this genre, just disagree on some of the particulars about how and why that came about.

One thing that struck me was his view that "maze" level design was somehow superior to linear - in my opinion one is not necessarily superior to the other, neither does it represent better design. A maze with secrets can be poorly designed just as a linear corridor shooter can be superbly designed - see Halflife for a great example of a well designed linear shooter.

Like you I agree with his point that FPS games are not as well designed as they were before, but I don't agree with some of his points as to why.

[DaveYanakov]

In the cases of tactical shooters, I prefer to have no health recovery over regenerating health any day of the week. I get that you want to incentivize cover but shouldn't avoiding being shot already do that? Some form of shield or 'luck' or 'awareness' that will protect the health is one thing, regrowing a new liver in under twenty seconds is something else entirely

[MoRmEnGiL]

I wholeheartedly agree, regenerating health is probably the worst feature of modern fps games in general.

And if you want your game to be a multiplayer game, ffs, quit that stupid corridor handholding single player travesty of a campaign and focus ALL your resources in multi. Quake 3 was one of the most, if not the most, enjoyable experiences I have ever had with a fps multiplayer game.

As for the "tactical" shooters, I cannot really comment since the last fps game in the genre I really played on multi was battlefield 1942, and I still regard it as the best.

I'm sure camping health pack spawn areas can be solved with a different mechanic than regen health. I would go as far as saying that no health regenerating at all is better than automatic health regen. Just die already and respawn if it is supposed to be a more tactical game. Otherwise if it is a fast paced arcade-y game, just look at quake 3.

[DaveYanakov]

I feel like I need to rephrase my point. It is not the fact that regenerating health breaks immersion that gets to me, it is the way it destroys the need to keep track of resources. There are many ways to deal with health issues to keep multiplayer and single player issues in their own spaces. I have played games where in single player, there were waypoints that offered a space to catch ones breath and recharge supplies. I believe this to be near the ideal as it allows the designers of a single player campaign to push players a bit harder while leaving multiplayer to focus more on balancing specfically for dealing with opponents that can rely on being smarter than a computer running scripted behaviors.

[kregoth]

Is it just me or does his rant just show how little about videos games he actually knows? I understand where he is coming from, but he really should take the time and think before he rants that level design and regenerating health was what caused the FPS genre to go bad. It's not bad developers, it's bad corporatism lol

Take the Arma series for example, it's not really considered a First person Shooter, but people treat it as one. Yeah the game is clunky, and for most people it's too slow or too hardcore. A lot of people call the Arma series a bad FPS. Though thats what I want out of Arma it's fulfilling my FPS needs, and helicopter piloting needs! Maybe TB should stop pulling the reins on his high horse and think before ranting. I am not saying he is completely wrong, just that most of what he said is built around him actually not knowing what he is talking about.

Besides FPS is just a perspective, not a genre.. Get it Right!

Yes! I don't like TotalBiscuit so :P though he can be helpful finding games I might miss.

[Shengji]

I wholeheartedly agree, regenerating health is probably the worst feature of modern fps games in general.

I think it's just misused - Halo (1) was one of the best FPS games I have ever played and one reason for that was the idea that you had a health bar and a regenerating shield - and your enemies, the elites had the exact same. This led to some thrilling gunfights with you pouring equal damage onto each other, desperately hoping to hit his health before he dived into cover and choosing whether to take the risk to press the attack and taking health damage yourself! Being forced to think about the arena you are fighting in, scoping it for tactical advantage was essential!

Brutes were the worst thing to happen to the halo franchise in my opinion - replacing elites with the health bar/shield (and the AI to use it) with bullet sponges who run directly at you was a mistake.

[ScubaPlays]

I really dislike so much open worldness in some modern FPSs. It just feels too unorganized and it turns into just staying back and taking out everything at a distance. I agree that the first Halo was a great game. It's the one that got me into FPSs, however I didn't enjoy the Halos that followed and I've always felt like it was because they went with to many large open maps and too few tight corridors. Gone were the moments of running into a room packed with baddies, spinning in circles dodging sticky grenades, letting bullets fly and punching grunts with your gun, and coming out victorious feeling like a badass. I also really enjoyed the HalfLife and Portal series which were very linear as well. For me, "open world" is what's ruining FPSs.

Besides FPS is just a perspective, not a genre.. Get it Right!

I think FPS is definitely a genre and not just a perspective. I don't think anyone refers to Skyrim as an FPS.

[MoRmEnGiL]

I think it's just misused - Halo (1) was one of the best FPS games I have ever played and one reason for that was the idea that you had a health bar and a regenerating shield - and your enemies, the elites had the exact same.

I'm mainly talking about the total absence of healthbar in most mms, where if you get shot a lot you need to duck, or you die. But if you do take cover it's as if nothing ever happened. I much prefer persistant damage.

Halo 1 had a perfectly fine system.

[DreamsofFury]

Kregoth, FPS means "First Person Shooter" meaning anything from the original DOOM, UNREAL, to Halo, to COD, or BF, skyrim is a FPRPG, or First Person Role Playing Game, totally different things there, as Morm and even TB said MMS or Modern Military Shooter, is a term coined shortly after the birth of Call of Duty 4, and its exactly what it is, a sub genre of the FPS genre, on rails single player, hit scan multiplayer makes for an overall sad game for some of those that grew up with the old games such as DOOM, UNREAL, or Quake. Halo 1 did amazing with both single and multi play overall, halo 2 didnt do that bad besides the brutes that were already mentioned, those being a rare enemy woulda been a better idea instead of becoming the common enemy. Yes both had regenerating shields, separate from your HP that didn't regen at all unless in the first game were you could pick up heal kits, 2 had no health regen at all outside of the shield that I ever noticed.

The hit scan type functionality that was introduced with the MMS in my opinion ruins the competitive play of FPS, example, I'm playing a sniper, and I shoot someone in the head myself and my team mate saw the blood shoot from his HEAD, now if I left it at that then well....you would say it was lag, well no your wrong, I was split screening a 2v2. More fuckery, I got shot in the foot with the worst pistol in the game, watched a nifty kill cam of the dude taking the time to AIM at my feet. Now take this same mechanic into single player......it means i can stick my head out and spray the enemy with about half the amount of bullets end up in my head and I will come out the victor, but if I inch out too far into AI suppression fire and accidentally take one in what should be a non-critical area that I should be able to albeit painfully walk away from kills me and I'm back to the last checkpoint.

I'm gonna stop there before I end up ranting about multiplayer bullshit besides the hit scans....don't even get me started on quick scoping, the snipers should be sitting in corners, not the guys with automatic weapons.