What would be needed in the greatest fps ever?

Did you actually read this before posting?

  • Yes

    Votes: 5 50.0%
  • No

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • I don't have the mental capacity to read all them there words

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • I am cheese

    Votes: 2 20.0%
  • Cheese is I

    Votes: 3 30.0%

  • Total voters
    10
Before you start to read this. Know. I will bash halo. I will praise and bash gears. I will probably bash most fps games. If this offends you in any way. I let you know now. I'm sorry that you take offense to video game player opinions. I'm not that important. Since I already said sorry. Don't bash me. Thanks.

Let's get started. It's a given that any great fps game needs an enveloping single player story just like most games need great multiplayer. We all know parties are fun. Plain and simple. Honestly, would halo be good at all if the multiplayer wasn't so overpopular? No. Halo would be super puke. That's above trash. Beyond garbage. Halo had a decent story. It didn't suck you in though and right now I can't say any good fps games with a more than mildly entertaining plotline. You guys can do what you want with story ideas. I have none.

Gears had a decent story. You are part of a militia that takes out a universal enemy of the planet. Your characters wore heavy equipment. You ran slow as hell (humans in heavy equipment) good job. It was believe-able unlike halo where you could run fast as hell (notice the difference) and jumped high as hell, unlike gears where you avoided fire by rolling, roadie running, hiding behind objects. That's great. However, can I really compare the two shooters? One is third person, one is first person. I am not, a gears fanboy by the way. If you planned on starting. It just had good ideas that a lot of people know about and can understand better.

What if we, as a general public, urged a game design forward that was viewed in the first person but had the elements of avoiding firefights like gears? Sure it seems a bit unfair. I mean a bad guy (my universal term for the enemy) could creep up behind your hiding place and put a bullet through your skull. What if this wasn't a smart thing to do though? What if that was the complete wrong thing to do. What if..while they tried to sneak up on you, you snuck to the other side of the object slowly (maybe you hear their footsteps?) when you think the least expect it. Pop up, shoot em a few times. Run away, and hope they die?

Hope they die? From what? This is video games! We have health! What if you don't? What if this is semi-realistic? What if you have a life? Your character isn't so expendable now is he? You don't want to sneak up and get shot then (another concept in gears that was a bit...retarded) bleed to death. What if getting shot in the leg hampers your movement (i.e. Deus Ex which was horribly done as well...lol)? What if while you bleed out your vision blurs? Will this bleed out idea be your ultimate downfall? Think more team based tactics. There could be people who play medics (that can also die this way) who could stitch you up. Give you a quick suture. Something. I'm thinking real combat. That was a brief idea.

Continuing on with the whole single life idea. You have this life. You don't want to die. My idea says if you get shot in the leg. You walk/run slower while bleeding out. Maybe if you run you bleed faster. We all know that anyone who is shot with running away in mind has a higher adrenaline flow than someone caught be surprise and shot. Maybe this adrenaline or (ones and zero's in the game) keeps you alive longer. You can still run while bleeding out but you maybe run a little slower, nothing that puts you at an extreme disadvantage. Your in game character has the will to survive if you do. They try to emulate what you want. Example : "I'M SHOT! JEEZ I BETTER RUN AWAY AND FIND A MEDIC BEFORE I GET SHOT TO DEATH OR BLEED!!!" *runs to medic for life prolonging procedures* Procedures being a quick thick layer of gauze and some medical tape to hamper bleeding (Oh yes your on the road to death but maybe you can kill someone before you leave) This is just an idea. Depending on where your shot determines how long you live. Maybe one of your teammates sprays bullets in the general direction of the enemy to give you a little more time to get to safety.

It seems in games these days. If your shot anywhere other than the head you have a chance to live. Headshots are always one hit kills. What about heartshots? Who survives that so easily?

This is all just an idea. I know a lot of it needs to get worked on but what do you think? What can you add? It would make team based games much more interesting. Last man standing games would be highly entertaining. Rounds would be quick. Fun. Just my ideas. Guess I didn't bash too much.
 
Play Counterstrike Source. It incorporates many of the ideas you have and without a doubt will try to incorporate most of your other ideas in future versions.

For the most part I agree with you. I always thought it would be great if a developer found a way to make you value your character's "life" without simply penalizing you for dieing (by making you redo part of the level, losing inventory, etc.). Counterstrike is great in that you only get one life per round, and tactical retreats and regroupings are key to any effective team. But as far as a single player FPS that is able to achieve what GoW did in terms of your character's movement... I'm not saying it's impossible, but I will say that it would be very hard to accomplish without making it a very disorientating experience for the player. Barrel rolls, popping around corners, strafing walls back and forth... it's too much movement for a person to comprehend without peripheral vision and other senses such as touch to fill in the blanks.

I would like to see something like that happen in an FPS, but it will take a special developer to accomplish it, and for the most part developers seem content with maintaining the status quo.
 
In the greatest FPS ever? Why, you'd need guns of course, silly. Witches, cyborgs, elves, dragons, mechs, tanks, jets, moon buggies, warlocks, knights, kings, queens, minstrels, bards, dinosaurs, walking trees, talking rocks, smoking catapillars, an angry trench coat that's pissed you're wearing it, teeth with propellers, shoelaces make from your own stranded together intestines, a mountain named Hamster, a whole mountain range, trenches, large scale armies, small scal skirmishes, epic plot, devious tactics, Herman Munster, th main character must smoke and drink and abuse his body, holograms, XXX girls, atomic weaponry, chicken quesadillas, a dresser drawer, unlimited catch phrases like 'eat my lead, wormface', someone with a worm face, and kinky underwear.

No doubt in my mind, if you put all that in one game, it'd fly off the shelves.
 
I really liked Gears of War. It was just too short and the storyline wasn't there.

If they flesh it out in Gears of War II I'll be pretty happy.
 
SpartanEvolved said:
Greatest FPS game ever needs everything Halo 3 has...
Kind of jumping the gun aren't you? You haven't even played the game and you're saying it's the greatest fps. You are aware it is basically halo 2 with more story and better graphics right? Halo 3 is going to be what it is. The end of the halo series (thank god) before they start to make knock of games and milk the series for everything it's worth basically turning it into a joke and making only the die hard fans still love it. It will finish the story but will the multiplayer be all that counts? What will be so different in the multi? I doubt anything serious. Quit kidding yourselves.
 
Uh, yeah I have played it. It is incredible.

Halo 3 brings 4 player online co-op, the incredible saved films feature (being able to share and edit videos of any campaign, co-op, or multipalyer match), and Forge mode to the table. Halo 2 had none of those, or anything like them. In fact, virtually no console games have even 2 of those 3 features.

Outside of that, Halo 3 has the new in-game content like guns, vehicles, etc. But to be quite honest, saying Halo 3 sucks for being like Halo 2 is like saying Command and Conquer Red Alert sucked for being like Command and Conquer Tiberium Dawn. IT IS A SERIES. GAMES IN A SERIES ARE SIMILAR TO EACH OTHER. JUST LIKE MOVIE SERIES AND BOOK SERIES.
 
SpartanEvolved said:
Uh, yeah I have played it. It is incredible.

Halo 3 brings 4 player online co-op, the incredible saved films feature (being able to share and edit videos of any campaign, co-op, or multipalyer match), and Forge mode to the table. Halo 2 had none of those, or anything like them. In fact, virtually no console games have even 2 of those 3 features.

Outside of that, Halo 3 has the new in-game content like guns, vehicles, etc. But to be quite honest, saying Halo 3 sucks for being like Halo 2 is like saying Command and Conquer Red Alert sucked for being like Command and Conquer Tiberium Dawn. IT IS A SERIES. GAMES IN A SERIES ARE SIMILAR TO EACH OTHER. JUST LIKE MOVIE SERIES AND BOOK SERIES.
So you've completely beaten the storyline and that helps make it the greatest fps game ever right? A game is nothing without both mp and sp. Halo will just be UT without a good story. My opinion.

Edit : Why do we get off topic so much in threads and talk about halo...I'll go make a thread about halo in general.
 
I haven't beaten the campaign. But the Halo games have always had a good story, and Halo 3 looks like it will have the best story of them all.
 
SpartanEvolved said:
:lol

The campaign wasn't great, but the story of it was pretty good. Mind explaining why it was so terrible?
Well, personally, it didn't entertain me very much like the original halo. Did it entertain you a lot? I don't know that many people that say the second halo's story entertained them to keep playing and want to know what happens next. I kept playing because I liked killing enemies.
 
Hinesmdc said:
amazing controls like metroid prime 3

imagine like...a black ssquel with those controls!
I'd want more freedom over my characters movement. Which as good as the Metroid Prime series is (excluding 3 since I haven't played it) wasn't as user friendly as it could have been :)
 
I didn't even care about the story. I bought Halo 2 to play multiplayer. I hardly even touched the campaign in however long I have owned the game (whenever it came out). I don't need it to have a good, entertaining story. I know, after playing the beta, that the multiplayer is going to rock, and that this could be my new favorite game of all time. This game could not even have a campaign and would still be amazing.
 
mastermario said:
I didn't even care about the story. I bought Halo 2 to play multiplayer. I hardly even touched the campaign in however long I have owned the game (whenever it came out). I don't need it to have a good, entertaining story. I know, after playing the beta, that the multiplayer is going to rock, and that this could be my new favorite game of all time. This game could not even have a campaign and would still be amazing.
Ah but that is when a problem happens. Said game loses it's longevity. For example. If halo 2 was only a multiplayer game, in ten years would it be sought after if no one played it on live or windows live? Sadly, the truthful answer is no. It would be just another party game that loses it's life to a newer, better game.
 
Back
Top