next »

[JoGribbs]

I think another way to move forward would be to look more at the macro scale. I mean, there are loads of models for micro scale 'how does the shooting work?' or 'what exactly am I shooting at?', but all the models for 'why am I shooting?' or 'how will this shooting effect me several hours from now?' are kind of lacking. Essentially, all shooters are super linear one-event-after-the-other obstacle courses, which is leaving a lot of interesting places unexplored.

It's (in my opinion) the next big problem that stealth games have to solve. If Conviction hadn't taken the series in the other direction - dumbing everything down and making the game super-linear - then I would have said Double Agent was a good indication of where the genre could evolve. Alpha Section is probably the best I can hope for from an AAA title (I actually think I wrote an article about this but not even I read my articles so I unno ).

I was watching Dog Day afternoon today, and I thought it'd be a good idea for a shooter where you're either taking hostages or trying to diffuse a hostage situation. In that case the temporal navigation of when you take a shot is more important than the spatial navigation of where you are when you're shooting. Of course you'd have to consider that the game could end like right away if the player decides to go crazy. It's something worth thinking about (and prototyping!) anyway.

Also, C.A. Sinclair, I know you don't like gimmicky guns but... the Torque bow... It's amazing.

[eiyukabe]

"The next logical step would to stop thinking in "genres" altogether. "

Yeah, I like that line of thought. It can be hard though, when genre defines player expectation, marketing strategies, etc, but I definitely think that there's something to think about there. Usually when people talk about a game they're working on, or want to work on, they start with the genre and then qualify. "Oh, it's an FPS where you can pause time", "Oh it's a tower defense game with innocents", etc. Maybe there is a garden of interesting games waiting to be made from a different starting point than genre. Like how you want the player to feel, start with some base feeling (dealing with stress), then think of a scenario that such a feeling would thrive in (the workplace, college, war), then start trying out mechanics that lead the player into these feelings. Or pretend that no genres exist and start constructing a game based solely on the verbs and mechanics that you want to explore.

This seems like a good topic of its own, I think I'll start a new thread 

[yesfish]

Really there are two improvements that should have happened a while ago but are still lacking (due to difficulty/time constraints) and that's AI. Smart enemies and smart NPCs.

Smart allies would be a good thing. People that actually help out instead of getting in the way / running into gunfire causing mission failure.

Smart enemies that do more than duck behind a box and then line up to die. There's a lot of interesting scenarios you could do with enemy AI that would make a shooter rise above the rest.

[Bood_war]

So I think that defining the mechanics of what would make a good FPS without any idea of what that game is supposed to be is counter-intuitive. To illustrate, I'll talk about the mechanics of two games: Half-Life 2, and ARMA II.

Half-Life 2 is ultra-simplistic. It can be described as point, shoot, load, and repeat without leaving anything out. There's no iron sights, no losing unused ammo on reload, no cover system, nothing to make it even remotely realistic.  It's fast, it's brutal, it could even be classified as mindless. But it works beautifully with it's story, and that's what makes it a blast to play.

On the opposite end of the spectrum is ARMA II. It's ultra-realistic. There's a boat-load of truly different weapons and vehicles, and projectile ballistics. You need to co-ordinate armor, stealth, and recon units to successfully stage an assault. All of the (in this case) wonderful complexity are what make ARMA brilliant.

So what if the mechanics of one had been laid down beforehand to be used for the other? It might be really tempting to say "Well, this and this and this would be really cool. Let's go make a game with these", but it wouldn't work very well. ARMA II and HL2 are great because there's such a symbiotic relationship between their story/premise and gameplay. If they were switched between the two, they would both be horrible messes.

To sum it up: imo, it's utterly pointless to think about what mechanics would make a great shooter. Mechanics come with a games story and intent, not the other way round.

[Danmark]

Bullet drop

The S.T.A.L.K.E.R. games have exaggerated bullet drop. I think Operation Flashpoint had realistic ballistics, but I don't remember distinctly. In any case, this sort of thing makes shooting over medium to long ranges a welcome challenge.

Recoil

That's in too many shooters to name.

Weapon jams

S.T.A.L.K.E.R. series, Far Cry 2. Can lead to interesting situations.

Overheating

Not really relevant given "recoil" above, since there would almost never be a reason for sustained fire. The Halo series is the only one I can think of with any overheating on small arms (and it's only for one weapon).

Destruction of objects by way of bullets

You say realism is a good goal, and in that case, penetration is far more important than outright destruction. S.T.A.L.K.E.R. modelled it well.

I think you and Riley Adams would be very interested in dslyecxi's articles on present (circa 2006) and ideal tactical shooters.

semi automatics movement

Sounds like the upcoming Brink.
A hard sci-fi tactical shooter based around highly mobile powered exoskeletons would be interesting.

account for the extra round when you reload with one in the chamber

Crysis.

Count ammo by magazines

Operation Flashpoint, Ghost Recon, tons more I can't immediately recall. It's standard in tactical shooters.

Slow projectiles:

That's like an idea I had for a game, and it seemed compelling for the tactical challenge you and Theophilus discuss (the difference being that projectiles are faster than players). It morphed into a bizarre, flaky hotseat game. In retrospect, I would've made it single-player, as originally intended. I do want to revisit the idea one day.

the other part is more that the enemies don't really behave so much like they're trying to preserve their own lives.

I think this is the single greatest flaw in shooters today. Combat is as much about fear as outright destruction. Shooters would not only be more tasteful if this was represented, but also more deep (although current suppression mechanics in games feel contrived).

Shooters shouldn't necessarily be anti-war propoganda pieces, but they could do with more humanity. There are tons of possibilities:

• Soldiers can have their morale broken and run. Not all soldiers are equally brave; some, especially the more experienced ones, are more willing to expose themselves to fire, and avoid being suppressed or routing.
• When a soldier is incapacitated by a wound, he must be dragged behind cover before his wounds can be dressed. This entails high risk on the part of one of his comrades.
• Squads under extreme pressure can surrender- but what if it's perfidy?
  

and so on.

Just to keep things equitable, it'd be worth experimenting with player character permadeath.

[aekeren]

I've been thinking about this recently.  While this doesn't change the genre, it's a mechanic that the genre needs to implement.  Inspired partly by the attractive way AI react to being shot nowadays (ex. Euphoria engine,) partly by the first person deaths in Red Orchestra, and partly in the name of realism.

Bullet Impact Reactions
So we can agree that gradual health recharge (ex. CoD) is a better system than health pack hunting.  Still, it's not very fun to be shot and have to wait around a corner for 5 seconds before coming back in to it.  Instead let's think about reacting being shot.  Taking a slug in the chest would knock us backward, in the shoulder would spin us around, in the arm and we would drop our firearm, in the leg and we collapse.  Each of these would cripple the person in some way temporarily, eventually recovering completely because of nanobots or magic or some shit.  The "hiding for 5 seconds" would become an attractive mid-fight cinematic with a function.  Here's how it would affect the dynamics of a multiplayer CoD-type game:

1. Less respawns, more front-line concentration.  Instead of standing to absorb more bullets until death, become less of a target by falling when shot, possibly behind cover.
2. Penalties for being a target.  Being shot comes with having to limp, reduced accuracy, having to hunt for a dropped primary or switch to secondary, etc. 
2a. Would lead to "covering fire" being a useful tactic.
2b. More risk involved in the run-and-gun behavior.
3. Awesome visual effect.  The shooter would see their target react like in a SP modes, the target would really feel the impact.  Pushed, it could have a real Hollywood action feel.

Not a great mechanic for all styles of games (especially bad for CoD, even though I used it as the example.  Not enough fragz.)  Bullet impact reactions would add a lot to shooters involving precision, realism, and immersion.

Encounters such as this could emerge. (Battle Royale spoiler)



Immersion like this, except with bullets.



First-person death in Red Orchestra (and HL2DM) are great effects.  Dying can become fun!
http://developer.valvesoftware.com/wiki/File:Dm_resistance0008.jpg
Euphoria Engine at work.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MM08Kzb2jCg&t=0m40s

/ramble

[laserdracula]

Yes, good ideas.  Having knockdowns in an fps makes so much sense and would add a ton of depth.  In any fps I've played, the player is immovable, even if a grenade explodes next to him.  Usually the only time, player is pushed by anything is when he goes ragdoll upon death.  It'd be much more believable and interesting if the blast flipped him over and threw him a few feet. 

And yeah, if the player is hit and he survives there should be more motor skill inhibition than just jarring his aim a bit.  Of course, in a multiplayer game, it would probably mean that getting hit once would almost always result in a player getting finished off shortly thereafter.

[aekeren]

Probably, but it would make sense for an injured guy to be taken out quickly afterward.  It would really enforce team play, and it would be fun to defend injured teammates until they recover.