Why such negativity associated with FPS
by Tim Heldna · in General Discussion · 04/30/2005 (3:22 am) · 30 replies
I own the Torque Game Engine and am working on a game called World At Arms: Vietnam. We have a snapshot in the snapshot gallery if you're interested.
Just from browsing around this site and reading some forum posts i've discovered some people have a pessimistic view on first person shoot em ups. Frank, my 2nd team member, has noticed this as well. We've both seen remarks like "Not another fps", or "There's too many fps games being made at the moment!".
We can't understand this. I looked through the games available for purchase on this site and have only found one that comes close to fitting in the fps genre. Lore. I know there are a few fps style games being made at the moment, but have trouble grasping why people see this as a bad thing. I mean, if something is common it's usually for a reason. That reason usually is that it's good!
To give a crappy analogy;
I have a friend who is passionate about cars. I myself am not (prefer bikes) but as far as bang for buck goes i don't think you can go past a WRX. They're cheap (reletively speaking) and provide impressive performance. If i were to recommend this car to my friend, he would agree it gives very good performance for money, but would then say they're crap cos there's too many of them around. He simply would not buy one because they are common, ignoring the fact that they are an excellent vehicle.
This is where people differ i guess. I would be happy to drive around in a WRX, enjoying it's generally superior acceleration and handling, and not give a shit if people viewed me as being unoriginal.
I sense that attitudes regarding fps games are the same (for some). They recognize they are fun to play but choose to bag them because so many of them have been made. If this is true then i'm confused. A majority of games i've seen made, or being made with, the Torque Engine are not fps. Mostly puzzle type games or something completely different. I have nothing against puzzle games, i just prefer fps. But this does not stop me from playing other styles of games, or feel the need to insult them in any way, just because they don't fit into my preferred fps category.
I love going to LAN partys and spending two days straight playing Battlefield 1942. Or playing Counter Strike Source, after a few beers, and taking screenshots of all the crazy positions a dead victims body can end up (gotta love ragdoll).
However, having said that, the most enjoyable game i've played made with the Torque Engine so far is Rocket Bowl. This is the game that made me have faith in the Torque Engine.
The last opinion i wish to voice, which may be bias cos of my passion for fps games, is that most of the new technology and techniques introduced into todays games have been created due to a need for it in a particular fps game. Remember i said "most". I mean things like dynamic lighting, stencil shadows, ragdoll physics etc etc. If it wasn't for the whole doom, quake, unreal, evolution there just wouldn't be as much of a need for these features in other styles of games. Thus they would have taken a lot longer to surface.
In closing;
-Keep an open mind, EVERY style of game requires an abundance of skill and creative talent to be successful.
-Follow your passions, but don't insult others who share a different passion than you.
-All of what i have written above is my opinion and my opinion only. These are just my feelings, thoughts, and attitude on the negativity surrounding fps style games.
Well that's my 2 cents worth, what does everyone else think..?
Just from browsing around this site and reading some forum posts i've discovered some people have a pessimistic view on first person shoot em ups. Frank, my 2nd team member, has noticed this as well. We've both seen remarks like "Not another fps", or "There's too many fps games being made at the moment!".
We can't understand this. I looked through the games available for purchase on this site and have only found one that comes close to fitting in the fps genre. Lore. I know there are a few fps style games being made at the moment, but have trouble grasping why people see this as a bad thing. I mean, if something is common it's usually for a reason. That reason usually is that it's good!
To give a crappy analogy;
I have a friend who is passionate about cars. I myself am not (prefer bikes) but as far as bang for buck goes i don't think you can go past a WRX. They're cheap (reletively speaking) and provide impressive performance. If i were to recommend this car to my friend, he would agree it gives very good performance for money, but would then say they're crap cos there's too many of them around. He simply would not buy one because they are common, ignoring the fact that they are an excellent vehicle.
This is where people differ i guess. I would be happy to drive around in a WRX, enjoying it's generally superior acceleration and handling, and not give a shit if people viewed me as being unoriginal.
I sense that attitudes regarding fps games are the same (for some). They recognize they are fun to play but choose to bag them because so many of them have been made. If this is true then i'm confused. A majority of games i've seen made, or being made with, the Torque Engine are not fps. Mostly puzzle type games or something completely different. I have nothing against puzzle games, i just prefer fps. But this does not stop me from playing other styles of games, or feel the need to insult them in any way, just because they don't fit into my preferred fps category.
I love going to LAN partys and spending two days straight playing Battlefield 1942. Or playing Counter Strike Source, after a few beers, and taking screenshots of all the crazy positions a dead victims body can end up (gotta love ragdoll).
However, having said that, the most enjoyable game i've played made with the Torque Engine so far is Rocket Bowl. This is the game that made me have faith in the Torque Engine.
The last opinion i wish to voice, which may be bias cos of my passion for fps games, is that most of the new technology and techniques introduced into todays games have been created due to a need for it in a particular fps game. Remember i said "most". I mean things like dynamic lighting, stencil shadows, ragdoll physics etc etc. If it wasn't for the whole doom, quake, unreal, evolution there just wouldn't be as much of a need for these features in other styles of games. Thus they would have taken a lot longer to surface.
In closing;
-Keep an open mind, EVERY style of game requires an abundance of skill and creative talent to be successful.
-Follow your passions, but don't insult others who share a different passion than you.
-All of what i have written above is my opinion and my opinion only. These are just my feelings, thoughts, and attitude on the negativity surrounding fps style games.
Well that's my 2 cents worth, what does everyone else think..?
About the author
#22
Don't worry about what others say.. do what YOUR dreams tell you to do.
05/02/2005 (7:55 am)
Everyone has there opinion... if you make a good shooter people will play it.. period..Don't worry about what others say.. do what YOUR dreams tell you to do.
#23
Don't have ragdoll pack cos we're under the impression you have to use the default orc bones and that just plain sucks!!!
05/02/2005 (8:04 am)
@Chris LabombardDon't have ragdoll pack cos we're under the impression you have to use the default orc bones and that just plain sucks!!!
#24
EDIT: Spelling sucked
05/02/2005 (8:07 am)
Yes, you need to use the default biped naming method in 3dsmax or something like that (the orc skeleton) ... If all your guys are just humans, then why dont you just use the orc skeleton ? There cant be a large loss incurred by using it ? And it will add a lot to the game... Death animations are often pretty terribleEDIT: Spelling sucked
#25
05/02/2005 (8:49 am)
Hmmm. I thought that the art direction in Alien Hominid was more inspired and refreshing than most anything I've seen in the commercial sector for quite some time. But I think that has more to do with its artistic origins than a marketing thinktank.
#26
A lot of a games success comes down to marketing and hype. Thats why there is so much of it today. I suspect that hald the people on here have never played Riddick. Simply because it arrived unannounced with little fuss for Xbox and was by far the Best Xbox FPS game. However the chronicles of riddick movie turned people off and without good marketing the game didn't do as well as one might expect. Despite beating Doom 3 and Halflife quite often.
Gamespot review
www.gamespot.com/pc/action/chroniclesofriddick/review.html
I recommend people who havent played it try it out.
Featured Articles - 47 On File Average Ratio: 91.1%
GameSpot 93.0%
Gamespy 90.0%
IGN 88.0%
Computer Gaming World 100.0%
PC Gamer 93.0%
Game Informer 92.5%
PC Game World 91.0%
ActionTrip 91.0%
Eurogamer 90.0%
Worth Playing 90.0%
Doom3 got 87% overall on gamerankings and HL2 94%
When you consider that hardly anyone played it, kind of sad really.
05/02/2005 (9:14 am)
Everyone has there opinion... if you make a good shooter people will play it.. period..A lot of a games success comes down to marketing and hype. Thats why there is so much of it today. I suspect that hald the people on here have never played Riddick. Simply because it arrived unannounced with little fuss for Xbox and was by far the Best Xbox FPS game. However the chronicles of riddick movie turned people off and without good marketing the game didn't do as well as one might expect. Despite beating Doom 3 and Halflife quite often.
Gamespot review
www.gamespot.com/pc/action/chroniclesofriddick/review.html
I recommend people who havent played it try it out.
Featured Articles - 47 On File Average Ratio: 91.1%
GameSpot 93.0%
Gamespy 90.0%
IGN 88.0%
Computer Gaming World 100.0%
PC Gamer 93.0%
Game Informer 92.5%
PC Game World 91.0%
ActionTrip 91.0%
Eurogamer 90.0%
Worth Playing 90.0%
Doom3 got 87% overall on gamerankings and HL2 94%
When you consider that hardly anyone played it, kind of sad really.
#27
05/02/2005 (9:30 am)
Anyway Tim, your game looks cool, really look forward to playing the demo :)
#28
05/02/2005 (9:37 am)
Riddick is my favorite console FPS.
#29
To start, I think most FPS makers are trying to deliver on the latest technology and a good game. I think they really try. But they often fail and so we hate them. And we start disliking FPS-es in general. Or at least most of them. Why?
Unfortunately the amount of time required to produce the content for FPS-es has risen enormously. Maps and models have vastly more details and animation needs to be perfect. I encountered this my self when doing 'mod' work. My multiplayer maps for Quake2:Weaponfactory took me 24-40 hours to complete, including testing, for Quake 3 : Anargy this was already 80+ to keep the maps in the same quality range as the title itself.
Let me explain why I said it is was 'unfortunately' this rise in time needed for content. I think that it automatically turns the focus on that production and less on delivering fun. All because firstly the game must look good and it covers by far the largest part of the actually total work. I am sure the workload is a major factor shifting the focus away from game play.
And offcourse, the more content is done, the more limited the possibilities are to change the game play. It endangers the investment done. It prevents feedback to go back into the product. This will only increase with more realistic games. So it's very easy to see why our garagegames guys advice us to prototype early!
One of the things I learned making multiplayer maps for Quake2:WF was that good maps that are fun to play extremely depend on the actual game play. You could notice that the later maps in for example Riddick were less good than the maps early in the story. They were developed earlier when gameplay was largely unknown. It is a clear example and I think this is also a factor that many FPS games are suffering from.
My Q2:WF maps were build with full knowledge about WF when I made them and they reached nr.1 most played position a year (!!) after they were released, slowly getting players to recognise the hidden depth / fun factor. But I couldnt have done it without having played the game enough. Oh and my top-clan testplaying it :)
Another issue for FPSes is naturally the ever risk-averse attitude of the publishers... they just gamble on getting the average ROI and nothing else probably, forcing all not self funded studios into production drones ;) Nowhere is that more visible as in FPS, although the RTSes are following closely and no doubt the MMORPGs will catch up quickly.
And then we'll start hating those common genres as well for disappointed us again and again. (Thinking of depressed robot in Hitchhikers Guide now)
And while we are here: I don't think new gameplay does not have to flop, if it actually brings something good. Tribes is an excellent example why publishers should think twice about playing it safe. When Tribes was released with its complex gameplay, it was a far bigger hit then the now much 'safer' Tribes: Vengeance. T:V alienated the Tribes fans by dumbed down multiplayer. They forgot about the main attraction and the exact reason why Tribes was bought in the past (even though it lacked copy protection!) No wonder we get upset with FPS titles! Vote-with-your wallet might work best to convince publishers. But that also means buying good games instead of pirating.
To conclude it, I think the hate of FPS-es is because they often leave such a very empty feeling, especially in single play. There is no depth, nothing to reward you for your improved skills, no new experience after the flash graphics wear off. In short: they lack richness and fun. This is I think why so many of us start hating FPS titles. Not so much FPS itself I think, but the titles.
But I like FPS-es. I like good games. I see a future for lower content Indie productions - at least to discover new experiences for the FPS genre.
- yes, Riddick was pretty good. HL2 was a rip-off IMO and a pale FPS. Yes, the 'place some scenery in the distance' trick was ok.
05/03/2005 (11:11 pm)
Why we love/hate FPS? My thoughts about disappointing FPS ...To start, I think most FPS makers are trying to deliver on the latest technology and a good game. I think they really try. But they often fail and so we hate them. And we start disliking FPS-es in general. Or at least most of them. Why?
Unfortunately the amount of time required to produce the content for FPS-es has risen enormously. Maps and models have vastly more details and animation needs to be perfect. I encountered this my self when doing 'mod' work. My multiplayer maps for Quake2:Weaponfactory took me 24-40 hours to complete, including testing, for Quake 3 : Anargy this was already 80+ to keep the maps in the same quality range as the title itself.
Let me explain why I said it is was 'unfortunately' this rise in time needed for content. I think that it automatically turns the focus on that production and less on delivering fun. All because firstly the game must look good and it covers by far the largest part of the actually total work. I am sure the workload is a major factor shifting the focus away from game play.
And offcourse, the more content is done, the more limited the possibilities are to change the game play. It endangers the investment done. It prevents feedback to go back into the product. This will only increase with more realistic games. So it's very easy to see why our garagegames guys advice us to prototype early!
One of the things I learned making multiplayer maps for Quake2:WF was that good maps that are fun to play extremely depend on the actual game play. You could notice that the later maps in for example Riddick were less good than the maps early in the story. They were developed earlier when gameplay was largely unknown. It is a clear example and I think this is also a factor that many FPS games are suffering from.
My Q2:WF maps were build with full knowledge about WF when I made them and they reached nr.1 most played position a year (!!) after they were released, slowly getting players to recognise the hidden depth / fun factor. But I couldnt have done it without having played the game enough. Oh and my top-clan testplaying it :)
Another issue for FPSes is naturally the ever risk-averse attitude of the publishers... they just gamble on getting the average ROI and nothing else probably, forcing all not self funded studios into production drones ;) Nowhere is that more visible as in FPS, although the RTSes are following closely and no doubt the MMORPGs will catch up quickly.
And then we'll start hating those common genres as well for disappointed us again and again. (Thinking of depressed robot in Hitchhikers Guide now)
And while we are here: I don't think new gameplay does not have to flop, if it actually brings something good. Tribes is an excellent example why publishers should think twice about playing it safe. When Tribes was released with its complex gameplay, it was a far bigger hit then the now much 'safer' Tribes: Vengeance. T:V alienated the Tribes fans by dumbed down multiplayer. They forgot about the main attraction and the exact reason why Tribes was bought in the past (even though it lacked copy protection!) No wonder we get upset with FPS titles! Vote-with-your wallet might work best to convince publishers. But that also means buying good games instead of pirating.
To conclude it, I think the hate of FPS-es is because they often leave such a very empty feeling, especially in single play. There is no depth, nothing to reward you for your improved skills, no new experience after the flash graphics wear off. In short: they lack richness and fun. This is I think why so many of us start hating FPS titles. Not so much FPS itself I think, but the titles.
But I like FPS-es. I like good games. I see a future for lower content Indie productions - at least to discover new experiences for the FPS genre.
- yes, Riddick was pretty good. HL2 was a rip-off IMO and a pale FPS. Yes, the 'place some scenery in the distance' trick was ok.
#30
05/03/2005 (11:56 pm)
I think more people bought Riddick than might be expected. That game is often totally sold out in Target etc... I got mine as a previously played game at Blockbuster. I think the above comments about Gish and Alien Hominid looking bad aren't true but are nice looking games ... good art just not the latest technology. Don't go thinking that just because it's not the latest shader tech that just anyone could lay that art down ... it's good stuff still. Then finally ... Half-Life 2 is an amazing game. How anyone could play through the game and deny it's awesomeness is beyond me. The amount of work that went into it is just crazy and I'm in awe everytime I play it. I just love the airboat sequence with all it's watery goodness! 
Torque Owner Adrian Tysoe
The player isn't just a camera either, the whole body is there and casts stencil shadows everywhere as you sneak about the game. The lighting allthugh simpler than Dooms, is in many ways more realistic since they have some ambience and aren't just black. As well as the fighting engine, there is seamless transition to 3rd person for tomb raider/splinter cell like climbing, shimmying over obstacles, which is really neat to see, as well as seamelss transitions to and from cut scenes.
there is no HUD, you see all the ammo counts on the weapons. ANd you only see damage meters when your hit. It also contains adventure/rpg elements. Has a great story, and some cool twists that get you out of generic FPS from time to time.
Easily the best FPS recently.