The future of SP FPS

[Dalamari]

Condemned...amazing FPS game, very scary, a lot to do, feels responsive and interactive

 

[VirusType2]

You're taking what I said far too literally. Of course I didn't mean the Oblivion we are all playing, just with guns added.

What i'm thinking of is more a Mad Max type setting. It doesn't have to be, there's many others that would lend themselves perfectly to a free roaming 'Oblivion style' fps.

And what did that stuff about police and realism have to do with anything at all? :rolling: You crazy foo ...

Yea it could be cool. Oblivion mod with Gatling gun, running through a dungeon wasting masses of hordish creatures, with flesh flying.

I don't think Bethesda Softworks allows that much freedom with their construction set however. Unfortunately. Well, possibly later down the line after people can add models, then there can be guns, but I'm surprised I didn't see anything like that for Morrowind come to think of it.

 

[Vegeta897]

Condemned...amazing FPS game, very scary, a lot to do, feels responsive and interactive

A lot to do? Not like what was described earlier where you could pretty much choose your own story. Condemned was completely linear. I don't think there were any alternate routes, and there was no way to change the storyline in any way. The only things extra were some extra deadends that wouldn't lead anywhere except to maybe one of those dead birds.

Now, Operation Flashpoint was a very nice nonlinear game. But you may notice that it did suffer in the graphics department slightly, and some other annoying things, but the nonlinearity really made the game. You don't see those too often anymore, which is the topic of the thread. It's a lot easier for game companies to put their effort into better graphics than expanding on more storyline. Why? Because graphics are the first things that hook you. You can't look at a screenshot and be able to tell if it's linear or not, or how the gameplay is.

 

[Dalamari]

Now, Operation Flashpoint was a very nice nonlinear game. But you may notice that it did suffer in the graphics department slightly, and some other annoying things, but the nonlinearity really made the game. You don't see those too often anymore, which is the topic of the thread. It's a lot easier for game companies to put their effort into better graphics than expanding on more storyline. Why? Because graphics are the first things that hook you. You can't look at a screenshot and be able to tell if it's linear or not, or how the gameplay is.

OFP was a good game, but tbh after doing so many online missions and stealth missions, it gets a tad boring without any real story to follow (the default one is just more missions that don't feel connected) although the vietnam mods and such really made the game fun, but not enough to really bring much else to the table.

 

[Vegeta897]

OFP was a good game, but tbh after doing so many online missions and stealth missions, it gets a tad boring without any real story to follow (the default one is just more missions that don't feel connected) although the vietnam mods and such really made the game fun, but not enough to really bring much else to the table.

I was actually talking about the singleplayer, which offered huge amounts of gameplay, and you could really shape the gameplay. Don't make it to the Evac point on time? New branch in the storyline. Didn't manage to steal enough Russian tanks? The scheduled battle tomorrow is off.

And nobody ever said the game was going to last forever, that's something that's quite difficult to do, and doesn't necessarily have anything to do with whether the game is linear or not. I don't know why people assume nonlinear games will automatically have a lot of replay value. I mean I still play Halflife every now and then and it's simply because it's a great story, linear or not.

Which brings us back to the discussion, making a game non-linear doesn't always make it fantastic, mainly because they often lack in the other departments.

In a perfect world where game companies had an infinite supply of money and time, games like mentioned before with the multiple directions you can take would be possible. But they just aren't by normal standards. It's basically like making an entire game for each path the player can take. It's just unrealistic.

 

[Pesmerga]

It's basically like making an entire game for each path the player can take. It's just unrealistic.

Not only is it an impossible task to create all infinite pathways, the player is oft left worried about whether he or she has taken the right decision, or will back track his steps to try out all paths before making any crucial advancements.

Real life is not your choice, you are pushed and shoved into it by yourself and other forces. Being forced into the video game's path is just the same.

 

[Vegeta897]

Not only is it an impossible task to create all infinite pathways, the player is oft left worried about whether he or she has taken the right decision, or will back track his steps to try out all paths before making any crucial advancements.

This is correct. A lot of people, including me, get overwhelmed when they are presented choices. Then again, that's where the replayability comes in. But like I said, it's pointless anyway because why not just make each of those things different games on their own? What's the point of having all the stuff before it if it all boils down to a certain number of main routes anyway?

Real life is not your choice, you are pushed and shoved into it by yourself and other forces. Being forced into the video game's path is just the same.

This is where your logic falls apart... I don't know what you could possibly be thinking when you say you have no freedom in real life. I make choices all the time, huge ones, and I'm not even a young adult yet. College is the big choice coming up for me right now. That could have a radical effect on my life. I could choose to murder someone tomorrow. That would have a huge effect too. Please explain what you mean.

The difference is, I don't really feel overwhelmed in real life, simply because I know it's impossible to "load" or go back in time to change a decision, so there is no point in regretting, just to live with it. In a game though, you do feel overwhelmed and regretfull because you are going to just groan when you know you have to replay the whole game just to get back to that choice. Unless ofcourse a really great save system was implemented, but it would get far too messy to keep track and all that. It would also make the game really cheap when you could just load if you didn't like the choice you made. It's like cheating in those "Choose your own adventure" books. It takes out the feeling of risk COMPLETELY, and it can kill a game. So there's your double edged sword.

 

[clarky003]

You must read the crysis previews in PC gamer.. I think I'll write some of it down.. seeing as the gameplay introduces some non linear story based aspects not in terms of conclusion however.

Historically, FPS squadmates have been annoying more often than useful, but Crytek have been careful not to let these ones become a hinderance. You're not responsible for keeping them alive, you don't need to tell them what to do, and you can go off and do your own thing if you prefer. If one dies, he's dead forever. By the end of the game you might have your entire squad intact (six of them currently), or be the only survivor.

They're likely to be an IQ point or two above the standard for friendly AI too: Crytek made admirable strides with the AI in Far Cry. Its not just the other marines that will make Crysis a different kettle of fish. Your own character, Jake Dunn, is better prepared for his jungle expedition than Jack Carver was. Concept art shows him swinging an enormous gattling gun around, and dual-wielding has been confirmed, but the exotic centerpiece of his loadout is the armour. The Nano Muscle Suit is a futuristic bit of kit that can be set to one of four different modes: Speed, Strength, Protection or Stealth.

The idea is that by switching between these with hotkeys, you can sneak into an enemy camp, take whatever you want, survive a few shots a few shots if you're discovered, and get away quickly before things get out of hand. The one mode that's slightly mysterious is Strength -- there's no word on what you can do in the game that requires physical strength, except presumably a melee attack. We're hoping for boulder throwing antics.

But some of the nano suit's features don't come in handy until you get closer to the probably-not-a-meteor. It's around there that the sunny paradise starts to get a bit chilly. The object is of course an alien ship, the aliens are alive and well, and the prefer colder climes. Rather than move to Scotland, they're using an enourmous ice cannon to turn chunks of the island into a winter wonderland.

and it goes on.. basically, you get to order in new weapons for changing situations and mod them with scopes and silencers, and later in the game you can obtain two types of alien weapon... one that fires razor sharp ice shards that pin your oponents, and an other that freezes your oponents.. allowing you to smash their limbs off etc..

There's also mention of the change in outcome depending how you fight the Korean native forces.. if you go on a murderous rampage then when the Koreans agree to join forces against the aliens near the end.. they wont be as forthcoming with attitude and supplies, if you play it cool and leave most of them in your stealthy tracks they will be more inclined to lend a helpful hand. It's all very interesting!.

 

[Ren.182]

Just give me BF2 with destructable terrain, buildings and people who actually like teamplay. I'd be happy then.

 

[Venmoch]

No it wouldn't.

The story would be way too stupid, and just ruin the whole ****ing thing.

I mean, it works in oblivion, because that's how things were back in medieval ages. Mercenaries, no cops, gotta watch your own back, I won't tell if you don't.

I dunno, really really old steampunk-escue guns would be cool. And work.

 

[Gargantou]

Just give me BF2 with destructable terrain, buildings and people who actually like teamplay. I'd be happy then.

QFT, just replace "people who actually like teamplay" with bots that have the ability to think and behave like military professionals.

 

[Sulkdodds]

The player is oft left worried about whether he or she has taken the right decision, or will back track his steps to try out all paths before making any crucial advancements.

But for me, this only applies when the game is supposed to be linear-ish. If I play Far Cry, Operation Flashpoint or even Deus Ex, I don't go back. That's because I have enough freedom to just roll with it and carry on with whatever consequences result from my actions. I choose the route I think looks most tactically safe or most fun; maybe next time I play through the game I'll do it radically different. The only time I do what you described is in 'two corridor fork' situations.

I really do believe that the potential for a non-linear FPS just hasn't generally been realised yet. Operation Flashpoint is a shining beacon that shows it works. And why must it have to be all that hard to make? We're entering, or perhaps already halfway into, an age where increased standardisation can make it easier to build maps. Imagine some new-flashpoint game in the future. All you need to make a mission is:

- Map out a landscape with terrain tools.
- Designate areas of scrub, swamp, forest, etc. These areas get randomly generated in a certain pattern defined by the map editor.
- Add roads, buildings, fixtures.
- Add AI units.
- Add flags: where does the AI want to get? What's tactically important?
- Build a base. Add game logic: if player destroys four tanks, player recieves message telling him to get to a chopper.
- Add chopper and 'end mission' flag.

If the game is built in the right way, this is easily possible and versatility and variety will result.

Correct me if I'm wrong on the following paragraph: I think this was in PC Gamer, but right now, the problem with programming in general is that builders try to create a solution to everything; you get millions and millions of interlocking one-offs and instructions. This is the way the internet used to be build; this is the way people used to go about trying to build AIs. But what both Tim Berners-Lee and the AI people have realised is that they're going about it the wrong way; they need to create a very basic system first and it needs to grow from there. Current AI research focuses on imitating stupid animals and building basic instincts from which more complex behaviour can arise; Tim's building the Semantic Web.

If you can do the same with games - create a system from the ground up instead of from the top-down - the possibilities may well be endless.

Think of the possibilities the non-linear structure presents. Theatres of war, republics in chaos, the depths of space, non-linear emergent TIME TRAVEL.

Imagine, now, a game that gives you a large area of Russia. It's 2043 and Russia has no government; territory is owned by private interests, organised crime and, in a few cases, foreign governments (EU-occupied Moscow; The Republic of Chechnya). Unfortunately, this means that the government's nuclear weapons are scattered all over the place and free. There have already been a couple of nuclear exchanges between corporations and mafias. The Chinese have just finished restructuring their entire country; with that revolution done with they're now free to dedicate resources to sending agents into Russia to get nukes. Your job, as an NSA agent recruited when you were captured as a young conman, is to get 50 nuclear warheads any way you can. You're an independent cell; while backup is available (airstrikes! connections! Entire squads of operators!) you walk around in plain clothes and it's entirely up to you whether you cause more damage with your mobile phone, laptop computer and friends in high places or with a rusty Lada, a sportsbag full of guns and brute force.

Imagine Urban Dead. Imagine it with a huge city, and countryside, and gas stations, and derelict malls, and wasteland and Las Vegas in ruins and pile-ups and all that post-apocalyptic gubbins. Imagine it in 3D, with a gun hovering in front of your camera. Imagine an alternative: an FPS where you must survive in a post-apocalyptic landscape so fundamentally lonely that the first time you meet another living human being (not a zombie, mutant or turned-insane-by-plague-dude) you cry real tears. Imagine heat haze on a dead city as smoke from funeral pires curls lazily into a cloudless bowl of sky. Imagine a boot stampimg on an undead face - forever.

A pipe dream? Maybe it's unfeasible. But as computer technology becomes more and more advanced, I can see more games like this appearing.

If STALKER is good, and sells well, it may well prove to be a paradigm shift for FPS gaming.

Now, I'm not arguing against linear shooters, because a lot of them are great. However I see the FPS splitting off into two genres - the so called 'Interactive Action Movie' and 'Sandbox Shooter'. In a similar way I see future games genres being defined by subject matter as well as/more than the type of gameplay.

At least...

...I hope so.

 

[Gargantou]

there're quite a few really deep games out there, problem is most gamers diss'em because they're not pretty(or even graphical tbh), roguelikes for example..
One could do a great open-ended zombie survival roguelike if they bunched together the great brains from ADOM, Dungeon Crawl etc..

I want a open-ended zombie survival sim, I've mentioned it here a few times before, a breed of REs monsters, 28 Days Later(For objective), and The Dead movies for the "evolution" of the zombies.

 

[A True Canadian]

Wasn't S.T.A.L.K.E.R. supposed to offer the type of open-ended gameplay being described in this thread? Yes, S.T.A.L.K.E.R. promised a living-breathing world for you to roam around in, and it also promised less linearity than your standard FPS. Perhaps the game is too ambititious, and is the reason for all the delays. The future of SP FPS will probably have to wait until technology improves.