At this point, FPS technology allows large and/or complex maps, intelligent AI, arbitrarily fancy weapons, large teams, vehicles, nice graphics, and anything else one might want. Making a good FPS is therefore a matter of getting it right, not of progress; a bit like cooking.
Follow-the-leader design might have been reasonable in FPS games up to 5 years ago, but today it can yield only clones because there are no incremental improvements left.
At this point, FPS technology allows large and/or complex maps, intelligent AI, arbitrarily fancy weapons, large teams, vehicles, nice graphics, and anything else one might want.
yes, but it seems they just do the same old doom maze stuff with it. in that respect, skyrim reminds me of when i played wolf3D and quake2 when they first came out. mazes, puzzles to unlock secitions of a level, the whole concept of designing things as discrete levels with hard coded spawn points, etc. scripted gameplay that's the same thing every time your play.
the introduction of more scripted "cutscenes" that use the game engine, might be seen as innovative, but also moves the in the direction of interactive movie - and all the negative connotations that implies for gameplay.
i guess at the core, a fps shooter is still your basic arcade shooter - on 3d graphics steriods. shoot badguys, get powerups, run, jump, mazes, puzzles, bosses, with the overall objective being to complete the level.
sounds like most gameplay innovations have been in the form of introducing more RPG elements (stats, skills etc) and simulator elements (a wide variety of simulated vehicles, a big "game map", playing more than one side, etc).
I wouldn't consider cutscenes currently being innovative. They were back when Valve made Half Life,but there's being so many years and console generations since then,I really don't consider cutscenes being innovative any more.
I think that the S.T.A.L.K.E.R series had some quite innovative ideas,but unfortunately the multitude of bugs and almost zero marketing for these games made them pass unnoticed for many people. They were quite ambitious games,trying to merge FPS,survival/horror,and RPGs in to a single game. Imagine the gameplay and feel of the classic Resident Evil games,but in First Person perspective and with way more responsive shooting mechanics,in an open world,and that's what was it.
The Far Cry series also deserve a special mention,especially 3. For me FC3 was of the best FPSs of the last console generation. Of course I played it on PC where it looked better,but still I use the console generations as a time unit. FC3 added things like crafting etc in FPS
Now another feature I remember coming to the FPSs in that generation was the ability for the player to move into another dimension in real time when he chooses to do it. It was a feature of Wolfenstein (2009). Before Wolfenstein I remember seeing that feature on a 3rd person game,Soul Reaver about 9 years earlier though.
Note: the above innovations are for single player only. There were quite many new things coming for multiplayer too.
I think the biggest innovation in FPS games comes from the games that are compatible with the Occulus Rift.
I think there is a lack of innovation in games in general (AAA games that is, see my post on it). I do, however, think there is room for innovation in FPS games though.
I think that "FPS" shouldn't be the name of the genre. I think "FP"-- First Person-- should be the name of the genre. Not every first person game has to be a shooter. In that case any FPS that doesn't have guns and weapons in it should be considered an innovation in FPS games.
Yeah, a lot of I's in this post, but you asked for my opinion. Hehe.
I think that "FPS" shouldn't be the name of the genre. I think "FP"-- First Person-- should be the name of the genre. Not every first person game has to be a shooter. In that case any FPS that doesn't have guns and weapons in it should be considered an innovation in FPS games.
I think the genre should be called Shooter. The camera's perspective (in the eye, over the shoulder, bird's eye) seems less important to me than the mechanic of "point gun at enemy; shoot until dead". Otherwise, games as diverse as Portal, Myst, Call of Duty, Skyrim, Battlezone, and Quake are all in the one genre, but Rainbow Six and Ghost Recon are in different ones.
I think that "FPS" shouldn't be the name of the genre. I think "FP"-- First Person-- should be the name of the genre. Not every first person game has to be a shooter. In that case any FPS that doesn't have guns and weapons in it should be considered an innovation in FPS games.
I think the genre should be called Shooter. The camera's perspective (in the eye, over the shoulder, bird's eye) seems less important to me than the mechanic of "point gun at enemy; shoot until dead". Otherwise, games as diverse as Portal, Myst, Call of Duty, Skyrim, Battlezone, and Quake are all in the one genre, but Rainbow Six and Ghost Recon are in different ones.
Oh, I wasn't thinking in terms of the camera, but in terms of the role you play. I don't know if game companies do this or not, but it would seem that you would use First-Person and 3rd-Person in a game just as you would use it in a piece of literature. If you the focus of the game is on being the character, then you would use first-person. If the focus of the game is on observing the character from a 3rd person point of view, then you would use 3rd person.
Like how you have third person omniscient and so on.
First-Person could be the main category, and FPS could be a sub category. Then you would have 3rd person, and 3PS or something. It would be more about perspective.
This leads to another interesting idea about innovation. Most games are from the perspective of the main character, but it is rare, if at all, you find games that show a different perspective of a game.
I remember the Enter the Matrix game that let's you play from different perspectives and you see how it all comes together at the end. Or what if instead of playing from the perspective of a human character, you could switch perspectives and be a a fly on the wall? Sounds goofy, but I just thought of a good concept for such gameplay.
Some games let you play the perspective of drones and such (FPS games usually). Splinter cell lets you at least see the perspective of a spy camera. I recently created a level that has a camera in it that can look in all directions. It gives a very nice layer of immersion. It makes it feel like I am actually driving through a city. This is a F.P game, but it is like a more believable FP driving game (not limited to looking left, right, and back.
Camera tricks could lead to more innovations in FPS, because for the most part, they don't sell the "first-person" effect.
I'm in the camp that thinks First-Person (FP) should take over the FPS genre. There is so much more that one can do other than shoot in a FP game: Opening/Closing containers, Talking with menu'd responses, building items through using one on another, interacting with the environment by pushing/pulling/ jumping on stuff. The Amnesia series is a great example of omitting the S from FPS. I think more can be done in this style without it necessarily having to be horror.
