• Advertisement

what is the appeal of fps games?

Recommended Posts

Advertisement

That might be a hint that FPS's are not the thing for you. :-)

But I'm not really a huge FPS fan myself. I really liked Mass Effect although it was a lot more than an FPS. To me FPS is basically just one game. It's like no matter how you reskin it Monopoly is Monopoly. It's not really a "genre". It's just the same game re-skinned. But a few games like Mass Effect have managed to be more. It had role playing elements and a promise that your decisions mattered that it largely failed to deliver on from what I hear since I never finished it because that really kind of ruined it for me knowing those decisions did not really matter.

 

But solely as an FPS, Mass Effect had fun game mechanics. It was more than just jump around in circles and you can't be hit by your opponent.

So, I think there are a lot of FPS's that really are the same game re-skinned. And it's not even realistic combat. Bullets aren't affected by gravity, air density, wind, temperature. The fly in perfectly straight lines with no bullet drop. And combat tactics that would never in a million years work in the real world win the day. And shooting bullets is pretty much the entire game.

 

Another thing is that different people like different games. I never thought much of Halo, but it was insanely popular. Sometimes you just have to realize certain types of games aren't really your thing and that's okay. A lot of people like games where they have to master the controller. I'm like, "look, if I have to use a certain type of controller to play the game, I'm out. The controller should have so little to do with the game play that you could easily switch it to a totally different type of controller unless maybe it's a vehicle game or something." I just don't like twitch games where you have to do button combos and such. But that doesn't mean there is anything wrong with those games. It's just not my preference. But it is for many people and more power to them.

 

As a game designer, I think you need to realize that different people have different tastes in games, which is why you can never please everyone, you could make the best game in the world and there will always be someone who dislikes it, and it's important to know your target audience you are designing for.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The appeal of FPS games is unusually realistic and immersive combat.

Even with implausible weapons and unnatural physics, the experience of running, jumping, turning, looking around in a solid environment is close to the player's body perception in a way that is impossible for other kinds of equally twitchy realtime games (e.g. a RTS where you scroll a map. point with a mouse and press buttons or a driving simulator where you learn to master the controller, not the vehicle itself).

FPS games can have genuine differences, but the fundamental similarity makes the differences minor and, from a more technical point of view,  games can be usually altered drastically with easy and "superficial" tools (level design, weapon selection and if applicable placement of monsters, traps, bonuses etc.) making FPS design a matter of making a capable FPS engine first and defining gameplay details second.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Rather answering the topic title rather than the specific question (which is down to things like whether you enjoy the particular rules, physics, graphics, gameplay, weapons):

If you watch a cat play, they like to play hunting games. You can move a stick around and it engages its hunting instincts, and it gets to practice them in a safe way that very literally translates to something that could give it a survival advantage in finding the next meal / evading danger. So their survival skills are a combination of instincts and practice.

Although we live in a modern world, biologically we are still cavemen that have evolved for millions of years having to hunt to survive, fight against enemy humans, run / hide from predators. There has been very strong selective pressure for these things, rather than the ability to walk to MacDonalds. So as in cat play there is probably brain reward (endorphins etc) from the same kind of practice activities in humans - running and hiding with a 1st person viewpoint, using weapons etc.. For the same kind of reasons. It better prepares us should we have to use these skills to survive in a real situation. It is no accident that soldiers play a lot of 1st person shooters.

Some people morally disagree with the idea of shooting bad guys. But put that same person in the situation where they are getting chased by a sabre tooth tiger, they better have got some practice in first otherwise they are going to make a tasty snack. :)

Edited by lawnjelly

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

To me FPS games can be very different, might be you just tried to similar FPSgames. A few of them I played but a lot more I did , which are to much to remember them all. Some are games others are series or IP's.

From the genre starter from IDsoft up to Quake2 

IDsoft Rage // because it a much different style of game not in line with other idsoft fps games.

serious sam 

Stalker C.o.P.

Ghost Recon

Farcry

Crysis

America Army

Operation flashpoint

Arma

Hidden & Dangerous

Duke nukem

Rise of the triad 

Call of Duty

Battlefield

bad company.

Unreal

No one lives for ever

etc.

They are all so different .  I am a FPS gamer who like to play differnt styles that why sample list  are so different fps games, but other play only specific type.

Differences:

Singleplayer Co-op Multyplayer Teamplay

Corrididor Arena Sandbox

Fastpace slowpace

Arcady to milsim

Pure FPS or with Perks Grind mechanic  latest CoDs

Rockpapersissors Battlefield with grind mechanics.

Onrail shooter on the Wii.

 

The best experience I had are the Co:op games.

Ghost Recon Advanced warfighter 1&2

Operation Flashpoint 2 Red River.

Stalker C.O.P.

America Army

These are 3 types of different games I enjoy the most.

There are so many FPS games that if you pick 10 games they could be more similar in there core gameplay.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

For me old fps will always have a place in my gamer heart, as i was growing up with local area network multiplayer games like Doom, Quake, Duke Nukem, Unreal etc. At that time i had a lot of fun playing these fps with friends in closed dark rooms, side by side, with the pc´s heating up the room like crazy, eating pizza, etc. Really it was fun and i really miss it.

Unfortunatly todays fps games and gamers are totally different, they just want as violant, as realistic as possible, as close to war as possible, just because its "hip" or something. I personally dont like this kind of games, because there so much real war going on in our world, so why bringing that in the virtual world? - whats the point, what is the fun? I dont see it, and i will most likely not understand that. But well generations are different, so i have to bear with the fact with that 10 year old childrens play adult fps war games and talk like it was pokemon or something.

I rather jump around in virtual worlds, doing insane movements and jumps, getting as fast/high as possible. I enjoy it much more using weapons as a tool to reach impossible ledges, instead of using it to shoot others. The reason why i played the "Defrag"-Trickjumping mod from Quake 3 Arena over 10 years.

 

But nowadays i dont play any fps games anymore because of several reasons:


- I hate any kind of close to war fps

- Too much online multiplayer going on

- Modern fps are no fun for me, especially the COD and BF series

- I dont have much time anymore, i spent these more wisely

- My eyes cannot handle it anymore, i am getting old

 

Everyone has their own story why they like or dont like fps games  - so we only can share our personal experience with playing fps and why it may be fun or not. For me that time i played such games are long over and enjoy other game types much more.

Edited by Finalspace

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The original Doom was fun because it was primarily a exploration/puzzle game with some combat thrown in.  The combat served a purpose in adding an element of danger to the exploration, but it wasn't the point of the game.  Hexen was even better in that regard: prettier, more interesting world, deeper puzzles, more rewards for exploration.  I've played lots of shooters, but those two are the ones that stand out in a positive way.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

FPS games seem to based on multiple layers of reactive and active defense - you are seeking to maintain a certain status or potential:

  • Your health (status of being alive, too)
  • Your ammo (absolute quantity, and in current clip)
  • Your weapons/equipment 'level' (relative to enemies)
  • Your combo counters (or K/D ratio etc)
  • Your positioning/cover (protected status, potential to deal more damage than you take)
  • Your mental model / situational awareness (similar to above)
  • Multiply the above by number of team members, and do the same for enemy members as well for that awareness
  • Also apply to the team as a single unit (team positioning / resources etc)

The worth of protecting those is clearly implied by aesthetics, and ideally would actually impact your long term performance as well (this is not always the case).

As you can see, there is a mountain of values the player must protect. Importantly, player attention will keep shifting across this set of values to protect as they fluctuate, and as the environment changes. That fluctuation itself is driven by multiple factors (level design with constantly shifting front line or player placement, switching maps, random drops, multiplayer chaos, changing nature of conflict over time as focus switches from long term to short term and players might get better weapons etc). This very effectively creates novel experiences / content.

So there is no lack of motivation to stay engaged.

"Realism" (on a general level, not the details) helps in that the brain is probably better at multitasking if the tasks roughly map to natural functions (Allowing you to stuff more simultaneous minigames in the same experience). This means using different senses, input methods, active and reactive behaviors, slow and fast, fuzzy and discrete reasoning, whatever (just not 12 copies of the same minigame depending on the same cognitive tools). Having exhausted that capacity to you for the fluctuation of attention over the various minigames / protectables over time (interleaving). If your game completely lacks a "natural task" like super realistic 3D graphics or spatial sound/physics, it is fundamentally more limited in instantaneous diversity of experience (this could in theory affect how quickly players get exhausted/bored, since it puts more pressure on fewer cognitive functions).

Incomplete mapping of game to brain also fundamentally limits the potential fun (I assume good feels are fairly distributed across different types of brain activity). You cant be rewarded by beautiful 3D views if the game doesnt have 3D graphics. You cant feel the thrill of action in a slow game. Combining good feels across all channels of human experience, gets you uh... meta-feels? (plus I assume its not effective to spam / overlap a bunch of similar rewards - diminishing returns and all). Diversity in sourcing good feels could also contribute to player exhaustion/boredom?

FPS games also naturally support a whole bunch of emotional amplifiers (sensory, social, associations) better than most other games IMO.

Getting all those benefits without it being a shooter, would probably be easiest to do if you evolved the "shooter" aspect until it no longer resembles shooting (instead of removing it and replacing with something simpler or different, which just means you lose critical gameplay). Like replace the gun with a fancy ranged health steal ability that can form a mesh over enemies instead of just shooting rays (then build some gameplay and fancy visualization and cooperation and countering and environmental interactions and throw in all those ammo/upgrade/weapon type mechanics). This is with the assumption that the ranged visibility-based interactions are somehow fundamental to the human brain (which is what the "shooter" aspect really addresses).

One improvement FPS games could use IMO, is adding in some slower phase for relaxation and design/planning (like a fortification/building/management aspect). Rainbow six siege has a phase like that, for example. Doesnt have to be formally enforced by game, could just be part of individual players play cycles (like maybe they end up in a temporarily enemy-free area, so decide to use the time for preparation instead of just waiting or walking even longer).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I like FPSs because of several things: dramatic storytelling...or humorous storytelling, competition, socializing and being creative with a sandbox, attaining a rank for personal accomplishment, winning close/intense matches for the feeling of glory, and the simplistic gameplay that can become really entertaining, and cause you to come back. Not all FPSs do this, and not all are successful. While I enjoy them, I am extremely picky of which ones I play. Halo is a huge majority of the FPS experience I have. I dip into Battlefield as well, and try out new FPSs on the occasion. The issue is that so many are fast paced, ultra competitive, and catering to specific people, or wanting to stay historically accurate (cough Battlefield 1 COUGH) at the cost of quality and a good life cycle. For the record, I've enjoyed BF 1 for a year, but I haven't played it in several weeks. Maybe over a month. Got bored of it. Halo rarely gets boring for me, on the contrary. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 12/18/2017 at 7:00 PM, ObjectivityGuy said:

what makes a good fps game

Good controls. A level of response that fits the game being made, ranging from very tight controls requiring high precision to very loose controls where close is good enough. Exactly what makes them good varies by game, and what is good for one game may be bad for another. That is true for all these elements.

A good variety of balanced game mechanics.  Things like vehicles, tools and weapon choice, power-ups, multi-player combined abilities, damage types and area of effect, time for weapons to travel, player physics mechanics, game environment mechanics, respawn mechanics, and puzzle mechanics need to come together into a cohesive whole. 

Good balance in mechanics can also mean 'imperfect balance', where everything has strengths and weaknesses and players need to work with a mix of elements to leverage their strengths with the opponents weaknesses, while protecting themselves from the opponents trying to do exactly the same thing.  As an example, in Team Fortress 2 you've got the Scout who is fast and can reach control points long before others, but they have low health and do little damage at a distance, meaning he is easily killed by a other classes that do damage at a distance as he approaches.  Contrast with the Heavy that can do tremendous damage with fast firing weapons and has high health, but moves slowly; he is easily killed if the scout can reach point-blank range or if the relatively fast-moving spy can run in for an easy backstab. Each character's weaknesses can be overcome by a different character's strength.

Good level design.  Choke points, control points, cover, high/low ground, rapid travel paths within controlled areas, a series of fallback points for each side, or other design elements that fit the game.

Good art design and audio design. Art can range from cartoonish to comic book to realistic, from clean to gritty to gory. Audio can make a game range from whimsical and comedic to serious and intense. 

Good level of interaction with others for multiplayer games.  Single player FPS games are rare these days and mostly used for tutorials.  Even so, they still need good interaction as players progress through the levels. If it is a tutorial it needs to teach everything with a good learning curve.  If it is a puzzle-based FPS or maze navigation the interactions with the world should be compelling.  Exactly what is compelling depends on the game.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The point is to make conflict meaningful in ways that are more efficient. I don't mean you are learning to use a gun with a mouse, you're making the game to teach how to use the mouse in the best way.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A major reason that FPS games are so successful is that they possess a quality that makes them hard to compete with as online games.  You are not "obligated" to the game or the other players when you enter an FPS game online.  You can jump in and play for just 5 minutes and leave, and nobody will even notice let alone be annoyed with you.  Very few games possess this quality, and it is the primary reason that FPS games are the dominant online games.  Any game that has this quality makes for an excellent online game, but very few do.  In most games you are "obligated" to stay and finish the game, unless you want to annoy the other players.  And in a game like that, players will eventually stop trying to play because the can "never get a good game".

Online, at least, this aspect of FPS games is the primary thing that makes them so successful and popular as online games.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It doesn't matter how long you play an FPS game, that is a big part of what makes them so popular online.  It does matter how long you play most other games online, because if you leave you end/ruin the game for the other players in the game.  The most extreme example, the opposite end of the spectrum from FPS games, are long playing strategy games.  Civilization will never be a popular online game because you are "obligated" to remain in the game for 6-8 hours to complete a game.  This is the exact opposite of what makes FPS games so popular online.

Edited by Kavik Kang

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Perspective and embodiment would be big factors, I'd say.

And not just embodiment as in "I get to play as a superhuman." I'm referring to speed, weight, and the other factors that make you feel superhuman. Being close to a huge gun going off makes you feel like a boss, for example. In Half-Life 1, being able to travel super fast is exhilarating. These qualities make you feel powerful, dexterous, etc.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You feel superhuman because you have control over timing. In FPS games that comes from assisting your teammates instead of just reacting to whoever is shooting at you.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Our vision is First person perspective. Something every body easy can relate to. Shooting in first person is also something every body knows as it straigh forward. We want to escape reality and do something we would not do in real life as it to dangerous. So virtual do a dangerous job. Or dangerous adventures. History accurate or Scifi. From acady to milsim training.

Like Thug , Police ,  Soldier , cowboy , Jedi. In well known setting War , Hunting , There are very well known events like every world war. Where task of handling small arms. Or strong fictional IP. CoD is game that aimed at mass market Tier1But gamer diver to. Not all FPS gamer like this massmarket targeted aimed game. Some want the thrill of simulate the task of soldiers. From casual to milsim training level. And that  are niche games but some are very hardcore. Often also played by real soldiers.

Often it very risky to come with a new IP but if there is a gap it have change. So very different games. Totaly opposite are something like.

Serious sam  . If you just want to shoot a lot. With mate in co-op. Just like Wii onrail shooter. Sometimes you want just shoot.

in reallife it is plinking someting. 

The other end is training hardcore simulating be a soldier . Where America Army is more game for authentic theme with high dosis of realism. But ARMA is large scale simulating on very serious level. Less game more closer to training.

Then you got games based on movie IP. And Scifi shows. 

It true massmarket want to game alot and waiting is game killer so short session. For the hardcore is 5 to 10 min session doable in dead is dead mechanic wirh no respawn. Where in milsim long mission after fail you need to start new again. you play different if there is no respawn. 

Then there are the addictive mechanic like XP grinding and unlocking. 

Then you got the e- sports the more competive branch.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Every shooter, since the beginning of the FPS genre, has been about using guns.... WITH a good morality structure behind it. In fact the first fps game was Wolfenstein. A game about killing all of Hitler's men. But we all know that is not the real reason behind the games....

 

This game had a mass appeal because you finally had a game that shot bullets. At least it made you feel like you were shooting bullets. But what really drew people in was the guns themselves. You started off with a pistol... then upgraded to a sub machine gun. And finally you had rockets. The same thing happened with DOOM. You start off with almost nothing but end up with everything. The idea was to allow the player to slowly try out different guns, then throw in a mix of enemies to make it challenging. While also having the player save ammo for different enemies to quickly progress through a stage.

 

Eventually this became boring. people would find the biggest gun and use it every time against other players. It was pretty much Find the best gun in the game and just camp on its spawn point.

 

Well then players started to see that tactic as being cheap. So they tried something else... Each gun does a different amount of damage with varying rates of fire, but the recoil on the guns should be different.

 

Eventually people stopped hogging the rocket launchers after they only had like 2 rockets instead of 5. It worked. You had Socom do this... But ultimately Counter Strike made this a staple. You must have recoil in a gun. So this became the appeal to gamers... Counter Strike had you play a side game of "economy." But other gamers found this to be a cheap tactic.

 

In comes Battlefield or Battlefront which introduces a new mode called "Conquest." Gamers flocked to this new way of playing in the maps because now you can not just camp in one area of the game. You now had to defend areas in order for players to even come across that part of a level that you are watching.

This went on for a while. Almost every game had a mode like this but Socom had a mode called "Captive." Where when you "kill" an enemy, you only just down him. but it required you to oust the entire enemy team to win. Which means a player from the opposing side could "revive" a fallen ally and they could team up against the enemy team. Both teams had the ability to down opponents and revive. But until a team was ousted it would go on until the timer ran out.

 

And lets not forget Halo adding in the floaty jumps, the 3 hit pistol, and sticky grenades.... I still don't find sticky grenades as much fun as the Jumping Bean grenade from Area 51.

 

Then comes in Call of Duty 4 Modern Warfare which introduced not only "prestige" and shooting through walls but "kill streak rewards." Call of Duty pretty much took over the planet of FPS because of this. Rewarding players for getting kill streaks to enable a sort of cheat code into the game? HECK YEAH SIGN ME UP AND TAKE MY MONEY!

This is where it has been for a while....

 

Uncharted comes around and has players finally doing something different which is CLIMBING ON STUFF! No longer would you have to run around to get to a new are, now you can climb on walls and rocks! But this was only fun for Uncharted 2 (Uncharted 1 had no multiplayer.)

Haze tried to introduce feigning deaths. 

Warhawk was about trying to add in planes to a battlefield type setting instead of helicopters, but allowing sniper shots to travel all the way across the map. As well as shells from tanks and so on.

Then Gears of War had the chainsaw fights and the chest high walls...

They tried to get players interested in other abilities to shoot projectiles by introducing mutated humans. (I forget the name of the game)

Crysis was for the technologically advanced people obsessed with invisibility cloaks.

Resistance was all about alien guns like Duke Nukem had...

The order 1886 had the fabled death ray gun from Nicolai Tesla.

Starhawk had mech's that could transform into planes...

 

It would not be until Rainbow Six Siege came out that it shifted gamers in a new direction... being able to change up the playing field with Gadgets and gizmos. Reinforcing walls... windows... having different speeds for each operator.... basically brought the "Hero shooter" into the light of day.

 

Honestly the reason why "Hero shooters" became popular was because of those MOBA games. Having different abilities to catch your opponent off guard.

You had Drawn to death go into the more cartoonish Mortal Combat special move style of a hero shooter.

Overwatch stole the limelight from siege and had players get interested in hero shooters... This also helped Rainbow Six Siege come into play.

LawBreakers introduced Zero gravity (Which Area 51 did first. But no one cared for it.) and a new idea behind the term "Blitzball." It is not the FFX version of it at all. It is something completely different. Which I am surprised that Squaresoft hasn't filed any actions in court over the name of the mode found in LawBreakers.

And now you have Player Unknown's battlegrounds (PuBG).

Where all of the people screaming for an open sandbox world of competitive shooting can finally come together and GET THE HECK OFF OF GTA V. Killing random people all of the time absolutely everywhere in GTA V online.

 

PUBG introcuded the idea of having a gigantic level to start with and having random items thrown every where.... But having only 1 player who can take the top spot. (You can thank Sword Art Online for having the idea behind this first.... Or did they have this idea first?) While the level shrinks every so often. (Which in Sword Art Online it would shorten after the death of a certain amount of players.)

 

And now we are currently here.... Where can we go with shooters?

 

We can't do space. Forsaken 64 already did that. Deadspace has the horror aspect of it already covered.

The hero based shooters already have mutant abilities.

What more can you do with guns?

 

You could say prop hunt from Gary's Mod could be a way to go.... but that gets old.

Friday the 13th the game was an awesome idea but it has only a shotgun in it.

Evolve and Dino D-Day, or Primal Carnage already has dinosaurs or the ability to play as some type of animal in the middle of a gun fight. Aliens Vs Predators Vs Humans gets old.

Battleborn and Paragon are already old and boring.

Fortnite PVP is he same as PuBG only you get to create walls and stairs and such on the fly....

 

What else can you do with a shooter?

 

Metal gear Online had abilities too... and had an rpg system to it. or at least the element of adding stats to certain areas of a soldier.

 

I mean what else can you do with a shooter to make it fun when everyone is just fine with skirmish mode? How can you attract them to a new shooter with what we have right now? What can you possibly think of that would appeal to the gigantic crowd of the FPS player?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 18/12/2017 at 11:42 PM, BBeck said:

That might be a hint that FPS's are not the thing for you. :-)

But I'm not really a huge FPS fan myself. I really liked Mass Effect although it was a lot more than and (...)

But solely as an FPS, Mass Effect had fun game mechanics.

Mass Effect was a shooter, but it wasn't a first person shooter. It's a Third Person Shooter, such as the likes of Tomb Rider, Just Cause, GTA, Hitman, etc. Not quite the same beast.

On 18/12/2017 at 11:42 PM, BBeck said:

So, I think there are a lot of FPS's that really are the same game re-skinned. And it's not even realistic combat. Bullets aren't affected by gravity, air density, wind, temperature. The fly in perfectly straight lines with no bullet drop. And combat tactics that would never in a million years work in the real world win the day. And shooting bullets is pretty much the entire game.

Yup. It's good to point it out because the user base usually takes a great pride in the "realism" from such games (it's the users? the marketing? I don't know), when the reality is that "realism" isn't fun.

Reality means a bullet travelling at super sonic speed you first get hit then hear the sound coming. A fun game means sound is simultaneous with impact so the player knows where the bullet is coming from in order to shoot back.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Some games makes your last bullet kill, so dont reload before you shot the last bullet wich is very powerfull.

Stand around and watch how fast you die, half of the games you dont die, only after they emptying 3 magazines on you.

 

The biggest point for me is the loading,

if you take rage anargy edition on PS3, it is unplayable because of all the waiting and loading.

Some games are really good, this makes a good game : if you die you dont have to load the whole level again, only when going to next map.

Imagine you play a hard map you dont know yet : you die in 1 second, then you have to load 1 minute again to die in 1 second again.

Maybe on PC it dont matters very much.

I think the developers only play on PC not from CD, so they dont see the horrible loading times.

PC players are a different breed then console players, only not for long since VR is here now.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@BBeck, Mass Effect is not an FPS, it's a 3rd person shooter. I prefer FPS games, as the mechanics are much simpler and more streamlined. In 3rd person games you have to worry about programming and controlling the camera, and it's too easy for the player to cheat (in my book) by peeking around corners. FPS games, however, there is no such cheating allowed. It is the most realistic point of view and the simplest to the control, and hence it is the most immersive.

@ObjectivityGuy, Lots of FPS games do have the same mechanics, but you can always try the other kind of FPS, First Person Stealth. The original 2 thief games, Dishonored, Deus Ex 1, and Alien Isolation, are all about stealth, and stealth is much more fun when you can't move the camera to peek around corners while staying hidden.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think that FPS games are popular because they give the illusion of YOU being the character, as it's being "viewed through your eyes" via the character whose face you usually never see.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

For a short answer, in my opinion, FPS tend to focus on the action the game has to offer that's why it is appealing. Not everyone wants to look at their character and build a story around it. Some people prefer to be immersed in a story and the action that comes with it. FPS can achieve that a little bit easier since the focus of the camera is on the environment, not the character.

Also, think about it there is more gun than people in the US. Everyone wants to play a first-person shooter where you can see different guns.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 12/19/2017 at 12:46 AM, LorenzoGatti said:

Even with implausible weapons and unnatural physics, the experience of running, jumping, turning, looking around in a solid environment is close to the player's body perception in a way that is impossible for other kinds of equally twitchy realtime games (e.g. a RTS where you scroll a map.

There are plenty of FPS games that aim for ultra realistic weapons and physics which are quite popular also.  Sniper series along with Arma comes to mind, with Arma having quite a large community.

Having said that, I really enjoyed Doom (2016 version) while I typically prefer Arma 3 or realistic flight sims (DCS).  But the appeal of the faster paced, less realistic FPS games, to me at least, was in the faster pace, twitch gaming seeing if I could beat my previous play through time and later in competition in online gaming (Counter-Strike).  But what makes them fun?  Depends on the intended market you're looking to appeal too, honestly.  If we all liked the same games, there would be a tiny game dev segment :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I find the appeal of FPS to be the non-FPS content.

Gameplay wise, a FPS which has nothing to it but shooting guns is extremely boring to me.

But, a game that uses FPS gameplay as a mean to materialise role playing mechanics and strategical decisions can be awesome.

The stalker series and arma are the first ones that come to mind. The X game series is a space shooter with a ridiculously deep open world and sand boxing. The FPS games I like usually have a complex inventory management system.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now


  • Advertisement