When is a Fps shooter good?

[Mr Jt (Gog is king)]

What does a fps shooter have to provide to be good in your opinion? First person games are in general more immersive becaude everything is directly in your face but simple shooty shooty like cod doesn’t do it for me. If you take games like stalker, fear, farcry 5 etc they make something to make this formula interesting. For some of you good gunplay is the most important thing

[EpirusWarriorμολὼνλαβέ]

Arma 3
Escape from Tarkov
There the answer.

[OoOoOoooOOoOoorgle]

I mean it really depends. I can forgive lower quality weapon animations and ballistics, if there's a well fleshed out RPG system as the central appeal. Fallout, for example.

FO4 and 76 failed imo because they forgot about the strengths of the series and tried to be a "play house with NPCs" simulator. But in terms of the actual gameplay mechanics - clearly the gunplay is inferior to many others, but it was forgivable because the SPECIAL system, VATS, and character progression was pretty well done.

Now, if you're going for a milsim thing, since the game has little mechanically outside of firearm combat, it is absolutely critical that the weapons feel good and are realistic and well-animated. It's why ARMA is so heavily praised, but there are all those dime-a-dozen copies that fell flat because they didn't spend enough time perfecting shooting mechanics.

STALKER had pretty good shooting mechanics and ballistics, but not amazing. But again that was okay, because it succeeded so much atmospherically. And you could make a case that the jankiness of the weaponry in spots even supplemented the 'scavenged in an apocalyptic wasteland' sort of feel. A 'happy accident' in that case, but it worked out because the minor failings of their shooting mechanics did not impede or seem out-of-place within the game experience.

So for me it's all about giving the title a meaningful and sensible identity, derived from the IP. The areas where the developers focus should be things that fit that identity, and positively compound the core things that you expect the game to competently accomplish, based on the expectations of the series/genre.

Many games clearly do not even understand what they are because the devs just shove mechanics and systems together which really don't make any sense together. Typically those will have great shooting mechanics where it doesn't matter, or poor shooting mechanics where they should have been a central focus. The decline of Farcry and absolute failure of things like Wildlands or The Division are prime examples here, for my tastes anyway.

[Tiberius]

When the sound design is amazing. It is the main reason why i rate battlefield 5 highly.

But then.. Borderlands alr exist, so theres no need for another fps game

[agu]

When it has a good userbase so you can just jump into a game in seconds
I prefer shooters that reward accuracy and reflexes over positioning
Low time to kill is much better than high ttk
No unnecessary stuff clogging the UI, keep it clean and simple

[Tiberius]

TRethehedgehog の投稿を引用：

Tiberius の投稿を引用：

When the sound design is amazing. It is the main reason why i rate battlefield 5 highly.

But then.. Borderlands alr exist, so theres no need for another fps game

Saw it on sale, looks fun and interesting, does it have the 2k launcher?

They dont

[Basarab Laiota]

Have it be a game where you actually use your guns to kill things instead of Doom-Eternal-Style where you finish off every enemy with a melee attack that gives you invincibility frames.

[Vinz Clortho]

Interactivity. I want to open every door, pick up every empty bottle & throw it at the wall, turn all the lights on & off, rearrange the furniture, dress like a blind cybersteampunkgoth and have people call me out on it, play on the see-saw, cook in the fire and so on. Only then will I consider saving the NPC's town or family.

[Defective Dopamine Pez Dispenser]

It being a game I enjoy, and having a substantial singleplayer campaign. That's it.

I mean sure, I can quantify and articulate what individual attributes or features specific FPSes I've loved over the decades had, but those vary from one game on that list to the next. E.g. Doom 64 doesn't share a ton in common with Halo, nor Doom Eternal with Goldeneye or the first few MoH games, or DN3D.

So it clearly isn't an exclusive combination of factors that must be present. As with all things, it's a combination of objective features and intangible qualities subjective to my own experience while playing. And I could play a new game tomorrow that meets few if any of those criteria that I still regard as "good." There aren't necessarily rules. I just know it when I play it.

That said, I don't play much multiplayer anymore, so the one constant is that it has to have significant singleplayer content.

[agu]

Liu Thay Nhut Dan の投稿を引用：

Interactivity. I want to open every door, pick up every empty bottle & throw it at the wall, turn all the lights on & off, rearrange the furniture, dress like a blind cybersteampunkgoth and have people call me out on it, play on the see-saw, cook in the fire and so on. Only then will I consider saving the NPC's town or family.

Name 3 games that do this

[Dawido]

Mr Jt (Gog is king) の投稿を引用：

What does a fps shooter have to provide to be good in your opinion? First person games are in general more immersive becaude everything is directly in your face but simple shooty shooty like cod doesn’t do it for me. If you take games like stalker, fear, farcry 5 etc they make something to make this formula interesting. For some of you good gunplay is the most important thing

-gunfeel
-damage balance
-level design

[Mr Jt (Gog is king)]

I also think that csgo is better than cod. Less camping and the people are way more fun

[Fumo Bnnuy n Frends]

tl;dr
-good but not too much gun diversity / customization
-guns main focus not anything else or weapon type
-realism setting (personal preference)
-stuff to do but not too much 90% gun fights 10% other stuff that still work with gun fights like finding guns loot ammo etc.
-Tension moments and badass fighting scenes where you can go in guns blazing or stick behind but still fire wildly.
-Coverage not just open fields
-good setting and soundtracks
-enemies tough but not too too tough. Goes back to realistic thing

think hardcore henry that's FPS in movie form.


imo it has to have not only gun diversity but also be dumb fun or just fun. Not exactly hard or impossible but relaxing to shoot the breeze. It has to have SOME IRL setting tbh. Not that i'm against the futuristic or past shooters but set in current times just hits differently you know?!?


literally the last good fps game i ever played for ps2 era was 50 cent get rich or die trying

That and MW2/BO1 for CoD during its experimental days of CoD for xbox. MW was good but focused more on the story line which not so much the gunplay as much as setting the tone like MW2 and BO1.

modern games i gotta say the LAST game i ever felt like that was ironically dead frontier 1 or 2. Ignoring crafting they kept the whole short gun selection while focusing on shooting zombies and mutants. Combining both the fps AND RPG elements together.

I'd say also doom sorta scratches that itch but not set irl. Still weapon selection and shooting feels nice.

After that nothing really sadly compared anymore.
Most other games feel like a different genre that just added FPS to the title.




FPS needs to be both tension building but also mind numbing turn off your brain and just blast away fun.

Also be both semi open world and do stuff
BUT
crafting = no

idk how to explain it.
Like ever game tries to be dayZ or PUBG


all it needs is a few gun selection, some kick ass music background blasting, tough but not impossible enemies, and some sort of progression system that isn't set in stone or relies on much.

To paint you a picture:

50 cent game you're in the projects or some shanty town area. Some ship yard. SOMEWHERE THAT'S A GOOD SHOT OUT SPOTS IRL

You grab a pistol 9 or AK or any AR / shotgun.
Single pistols or gangsta dual pistols b/c still needs some silliness / badassery. Same with COD. DF sadly nope but they make up for in MINIGUNS

anyhow you're in a dark alley or some close area. Plenty of cover.
Small selection of rifles shotties pistols ARs SMGs etc. RL or grenade launchers optional.

You get the base background music or hear an aistrike coming in or enemies notice you and start firing at you. SP or MP doesn't matter. If original OST songs you get badass songs like these:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tTG_jdS_pHk

or

death metal music

It gets you pumped for an upcoming battle or gun fight.



Then the guns FEEL powerful. Not just look powerful then pewpewpew but actually you shoot someone and the get blown back or one shot one kill. Hell if you can perform execution styled kills with them more fitting just jamming a shotty down someone's windpipe.



Lastly what separates a good fps from a GREAT fps is the addition of other stuff to do. Not necessarily the main focus but you can do stuff like lock pick or set traps. All while helping mostly for the main game of shooting.

shooting has to be 90% of the game with 10% other stuff to keep it not so boring / repetitive.

Crafting sadly takes away from it. Also with open world or those shooters with like a field worth of open area where you can just shoot each other.

A good FPS shooter needs coverage and less crafting. But still some sort of progression system to improve weapons or your character a little. Give you some goal in mind.

Also very important you shouldn't lose it like in those survival games where you drop everything on death.


With those you get the best fps

ex: borderlands was okay but it tried to cram tooo tooo many guns into the game. Plus other objectives and it was more all over the place overpowering characters. That's more into the PVE MOBAs which i despise.

The last of us, a more commonly popular fps shooter / 3rd person shooter it focuses more on the story than the actual gunplay.

TF2 is a good fps but has too many alternatives to be a TRUE FPS. It's more like a MOBA or lite version of it. The original TFC would be a better fit for FPS title.

Dead island was GOOD but not FPS mostly b/c not a lot of guns but also enemies felt too strong. Like 5 max that took 40 bullets each. That felt more like a turn based with fps instead of 3rd person.

Dead Space i'd consider it top tier but it's set in space. It's less realistic.

Bioshock is a better ....realism setting. Since everything is 1950's steampunkish sorta it CAN make sense. Least 1st one was. 2nd mostly multiplayer since SP focused more on tasks as the big daddy.

System shock 1 and 2 feel more fps like OG doom. Though 2 has more branches it has 1 main style of guns which you can use throughout a play through all the way to the end.

OG doom would be one of the pioneer of pure FPS games that fit the genre neatly.

Halo too ironically the 1st ones especially LAN are worth of FPS. Lacking for the time setting but it doesn't matter that's a personal preference. The actual gameplay of multiplayer encapsulates the essences of FPS genre. LAN one anyhow.




Again nothing inherently wrong with these games. But i wouldn't count them as more pure FPS title and again more other genres that just added the FPS at the last minute or beginning then never capitalized on that.

And that's not bad but we're talking good FOCUSED ON FPS then yeah they don't fit too well sadly.

[Mr. Tex]

1) when it has good level design

What made older FPS so good, those made 12+ years ago, is the intelligent, interesting or fun level design, ... usually with lots of exploration to do or unexpected pathways. Modern FPS games have mostly very simplistic designs; either linear corridor or arena types. There are exceptions of-course like Prey (2017) and modern games inspired by older fps, like Amid Evil.

2) when there's no ETS (Enemy Tagging System)

Modern ETS' are simply cheating in my opinion, especially the system introduced by Ubisoft in games like Far Cry, where you can see the enemy's movements through buildings and other solid structures.This removes much of the realism, tension and excitement from the game. Granted, using these are optional in most of these games, so you can avoid it ... however the game's difficulty often seems to be tied to this function, expecting players to utilize it.

3) when there's no rechargeable health, ... again, pretty much cheating in my opinion (if it's a Sci-fi or Fantasy game maybe it's acceptable, but I still don't like it)

4) a storyline that's one of the following:
- fun (Serious Sam, Blood, Redneck Rampage...)
- cool (Doom, Fear, Stalker ...)
- interesting (Half-life, BioShock, Dishonored, ...)
- realistic (Swat 4, Delta Force, Operation Flashpoint ...)

I'm assuming the game functions well in terms of performance, and technical quality in general.

[🍋 Lemonfed 🍋]

When it's give weapons that feel good with interesting enemies to shoot at.

Painkiller is a good example of great weapons design, each gun feel unique and have specific purposes and situations where they excel.

Enemies, it's great when you can distinguish different enemies types that behave and fight differently. It's prevent the game from feeling too much repetitive.

Both the old and newer Doom games does this extremely well.

[GunsForBucks]

FPS just means first person shooter

It includes many types of games from PVP, PVPVE, PVE or solo etc and each of those would have aspects that can make fist person good or bad.

In the most simple form of PVP.. simple due to not needing much map design or enemy coding etc... probably the key factor, to me, is all players start equal.
This is what made Unreal Tournament and Quake 3 such fun games.
Random spawns on the map and players start out equal.

I think things like gear and skill progression add to the game but should be kept out of PVP, that is more to keep your interest in PVE or solo type stuff.

Just my 2bits