Console Shooters No Longer Innovate, Says Original GoldenEye Director

PogMoThoin

GoldenEye made such a splash when it was released, that more than a decade later it is still held up as an example of a movie tie-in that didn't suck, not to mention one of the games that defined the modern console shooter. But Hollis doesn't think that modern console shooters are really trying to do anything new anymore and instead are just rehashing the same old ideas.

He said that he always went into FPS games hoping to see something new, but felt that most of the interesting developments were happening in PC shooters, which had different cultures and different gameplay mechanics. He didn't think that console shooters were moving backwards necessarily, but he didn't think that they were moving forwards and that a lot of what he saw wasn't really very new.

http://www.escapistmagazine.com/news/view/104675-Console-Shooters-No-Longer-Innovate-Says-Original-GoldenEye-Director

What innovation I ask? Crysis is 3 yrs old, we've seen little innovation in years. Innovation can only start when a majority of people demand it. Unfortunately, in todays era of bread and circuses, its now become X-Factor generation gaming, cash-ins, reskins and bandwagons

DarkJager

PogMoThoin wrote: »

http://www.escapistmagazine.com/news/view/104675-Console-Shooters-No-Longer-Innovate-Says-Original-GoldenEye-Director

What innovation I ask? Crysis is 3 yrs old, we've seen little innovation in years. Innovation can only start when a majority of people demand it. Unfortunately, in todays era of bread and circuses, its now become X-Factor generation gaming, cash-ins, reskins and bandwagons

You could argue that FPS games are evolving into more cinematic experiences over the past few years. Look at MW and MW2 - almost movie like in their script and pace. As for gameplay innovation, you could argue that its probably reaching a point where not a lot more can be done. We've had vehicles, weapons, powers etc that have been done in every FPS and I'm not quite sure what else there is to add to that.

I'm hoping the story of these games becomes a more central point in the future to be honest. For me personally there are few other genres that can engross me as much as a well written, well paced FPS.

Sisko

Only so much you can do with a console though. So if your really looking for the best from an FPS you shouldn't be looking at a console in the 1st place.

The pc has the in-depth high end stuff like ArmA 2 etc but sure even the more laid back arcadey FPS's are best on the PC , I look forward to BF3 despite it being a rehash the platform allows for more scope. Unless they back down and make it a multi platform release thus ruining the games potential.


But these are consoles we're talking about anyway and even if you did some how manage to make a game like Arma2 playable on a console, you would rather play the much more straight forward and simple MW2 or -insert generic team deathmatch shooter- on a console anyway which lends itself far more to straight forward simplified gameplay.

Which sells in the bucket loads so companies are generally only going to keep remaking the same FPS gaming over and over again with different graphics and themes since thats what console gamers want out of their FPS's.


Left4Dead was something new and interesting though, PC game yeah but it did make it to 360 as well.

dreamers75

Sisko wrote: »

Left4Dead was something new and interesting though, PC game yeah but it did make it to 360 as well.

Bascially Swat 4 and Serious Sams bastard son.

super_furry

Goldeneye is held up like some sacred cow of gaming but the truth is, it's absolute unplayable rubbish now and was severly over-hyped on release. It looked awful, had a terrible, terrible framerate and poor level design, but because it was a multi-player shooter on a console, when previously there had been none, it's looked back on as some work of genius.

Sisko

dreamers75 wrote: »

Bascially Swat 4 and Serious Sams bastard son.

Lies!

super_furry wrote: »

Goldeneye is held up like some sacred cow of gaming but the truth is, it's absolute unplayable rubbish now and was severly over-hyped on release. It looked awful, had a terrible, terrible framerate and poor level design, but because it was a multi-player shooter on a console, when previously there had been none, it's looked back on as some work of genius.

Truth!

PogMoThoin

Sisko wrote: »

Left4Dead was something new and interesting though, PC game yeah but it did make it to 360 as well.

Hardly innovating, Gameplay was nothing spectacularly new, then it uses a dated engine thats reached the end of its days.

Retr0gamer

super_furry wrote: »

Goldeneye is held up like some sacred cow of gaming but the truth is, it's absolute unplayable rubbish now and was severly over-hyped on release. It looked awful, had a terrible, terrible framerate and poor level design, but because it was a multi-player shooter on a console, when previously there had been none, it's looked back on as some work of genius.

To be honest on release it was very innovative it's just been totally surpassed now that it's totally dated and no longer relevent.

I'd have loved to have seen shooters evolve into the RPG hybrids that System Shock 2, Thief and Deus Ex promised but these games just don't sell and it was the dumb bombastic linear spectacle of MoHAA and Halo that caught on with audiences despite being in myopinion much inferior games. Now while I enjoy my dumb bombastic linear spectacle as well I just wish the more intelligent shooters were more popular. Stalker and Fallout 3 are the closest we have and Stalker is probably the best FPS game I've played in a very long time. Who knows, maybe the dumb FPS will become the 2D shooter of the future, a genre that was once used to show off the technical marvels of a console but now pretty much dead as players seek much more sophistication in their games.

Liber8or

Unfortunately consoles will be the main perpetrators for dictating the pace of innovation. So much focus on them now, both financially and in the eyes of what is popular culture.

FPS innovation came from ambitious PC titles. It is no coincidence that since PC gaming has taken a back seat in these last few years, so has new concepts and ideas trying to raise the bar to a new level.

For the record, MW2 and Halo are not innovations. They are both refined multiplayer titles with a single-player (in the form of a offline tutorial) tacked on.

DarkJager

Liber8or wrote: »

Unfortunately consoles will be the main perpetrators for dictating the pace of innovation. So much focus on them now, both financially and in the eyes of what is popular culture.

FPS innovation came from ambitious PC titles. It is no coincidence that since PC gaming has taken a back seat in these last few years, so has new concepts and ideas trying to raise the bar to a new level.

For the record, MW2 and Halo are not innovations. They are both refined multiplayer titles with a single-player (in the form of a offline tutorial) tacked on.

Completely disagree with you here. Halo is about the Single player experience first and foremost, the multiplayer section just happens to be quite good as well. As for Modern Warfare, you're wrong again. Its 2 games in so far with a continuing story arc across the titles for the single player, and a multiplayer element which was made very well.

To call them multiplayer titles with an Sp tacked on is way off the mark (look at MOH or BFBC if you want an example of that sort of title)

PogMoThoin

DarkJager wrote: »

Completely disagree with you here. Halo is about the Single player experience first and foremost, the multiplayer section just happens to be quite good as well. As for Modern Warfare, you're wrong again. Its 2 games in so far with a continuing story arc across the titles for the single player, and a multiplayer element which was made very well.

To call them multiplayer titles with an Sp tacked on is way off the mark (look at MOH or BFBC if you want an example of that sort of title)

You could argue that the latest MOH is a BC2 mod with a short single player (done by a completely different studio) tacked on. MOH is nothing new, the title has been around for yrs and is what developed into COD if You know Your history. More reskin cash-ins with no innovation

Liber8or

DarkJager wrote: »

Completely disagree with you here. Halo is about the Single player experience first and foremost, the multiplayer section just happens to be quite good as well. As for Modern Warfare, you're wrong again. Its 2 games in so far with a continuing story arc across the titles for the single player, and a multiplayer element which was made very well.

To call them multiplayer titles with an Sp tacked on is way off the mark (look at MOH or BFBC if you want an example of that sort of title)

Halo? Single player experience? Took me 4 hours to complete Reach and ODST. Halo 3, took me 6 hours. MW2 - took me 5 hours.

These are not games with Single Player being the most important element. Multiplayer sells, map packs sell, etc. The very fact that Activision are trying to work in a subscription based service into the next COD proves this. Publishers want to publish games with longevity and financial viability, this means emphasis on the multiplayer community.

DarkJager

Liber8or wrote: »

Halo? Single player experience? Took me 4 hours to complete Reach and ODST. Halo 3, took me 6 hours. MW2 - took me 5 hours.

These are not games with Single Player being the most important element. Multiplayer sells, map packs sell, etc. The very fact that Activision are trying to work in a subscription based service into the next COD proves this. Publishers want to publish games with longevity and financial viability, this means emphasis on the multiplayer community.

Halo was originally a Single Player game before they realised that people had taken quite fondly to the multiplayer side of it. I still see Halo as primarily being a Single Player experience, albeit one with an excellent MP mode added to it.

It's a pet hate of mine at the moment that games are ignoring the SP aspect in favor of MP. Its ignoring a fundamental decision for potential buyers; if you're SP absolutely blows me away, you have a guaranteed sale from me in the next installment, simply because my interest lies in the solo experience of your game. As for the MP, its not something I care about really. I'm not going to purchase anyone's sequel to play a **** SP mode and the same MP as the last one. Lets face it, you've played one multiplayer FPS you've played them all.

PogMoThoin wrote: »

You could argue that the latest MOH is a BC2 mod with a short single player (done by a completely different studio) tacked on. MOH is nothing new, the title has been around for yrs and is what developed into COD if You know Your history. More reskin cash-ins with no innovation

Absolutely agree with you on MOH, rubbish short SP with a BFBC reskin tacked on as its multiplayer mode. I am fully aware of MOH being the origin of COD, and both titles began as immersive SP experiences before the explosion in popularity of multiplayer.

What I'd really like to see in future is games decideing exactly what they want to be, single or multiplayer but not both. You want multiplayer? Have a standalone edition solely focused on that aspect. You want singleplayer? Standalone title again, which would leave these developers with no excuses for churning out a ****ty 3 hour campaign because they focused too much on the online.

L31mr0d

I hate to say it but we need a developer of FPS genre games with the same mindset that Apple has towards it's hardware. A developer which gives the consumer a game before they know if the consumer actually wants to play it.

Take some risks ffs.

What we have atm is a classic example of Hotelling's Law. Everybody's looking over the shoulder of the guy next to them and copying whatever they are doing. "It sold for them, heck, it will sell for us, let's just tack on some gimmicks to make it look different"

Support SP Co-op FFS. I'm sick of seeing these lazy co-op games that are basically just a weak tutorial on the MP portion of the game.

Build a story driven FPS Co-op, where you actually need to work together to progress. Heck, you could even make the players have to turn on each other at one point, making one the bad guy and the other the good, with two, alternate endings. Who knows.

TBH, as was mentioned, the only FPS experience that I even consider decent in the last while (since the Crysis hype) was L4D(2). For me it was a unique gaming experience. I remember vividly hearing the screams, and giddy laughing over the speakers as we encountered the tank for the first time with some friends online in the L4D demo. I remember thinking "this is what gaming is all about".

It's just a shame that experiences like that, in the FPS genre, are becoming more and more infrequent thanks to your cookie cut Halo and CoD clones.

CORaven

DarkJager wrote: »

What I'd really like to see in future is games decideing exactly what they want to be, single or multiplayer but not both. You want multiplayer? Have a standalone edition solely focused on that aspect. You want singleplayer? Standalone title again, which would leave these developers with no excuses for churning out a ****ty 3 hour campaign because they focused too much on the online.

Interesting. Would you really pay €50 for a multiplayer only game? Keep in mind that you would need a XBL sub on top of this...
Strangely, that's what Black Ops will be for me (I prob will disregard SP)

Overheal

/starts playing Natural Selection.

Korvanica

Wonder what he thought of shadowrun...

johnny_ultimate

I wouldn't be entirely cynical. Bioshock is one shooter which - while heavily based on the system shock games that came before it - at least tried something new, in terms of atmosphere and narrative anyway (BioShock 1 is pretty much a commentary on the nature of shooters). Left 4 Dead, as has been said, is a benchmark for innovative new experiences. Indeed, Valve are constantly innovating: their output over the last five years have all been extremely successful first person experiments.

Having just played through Vanquish, there's another console shooter with the balls to try something different, literally attaching a rocket to the third person shooter and seeing what goes. Resi 4 was an innovative console shooter, but that was half a decade ago now, and while Gears of War is one of the few worthwhile examples that built and toyed with the Resi 4 innovations, the cover based shooter is almost a cliche already. Vanquish gives it a kick up the arse though, and it is the first console 'shooter' (not first person, but still all shooting) that feels like a breath of fresh air in some time.

I do agree with the calls for more singleplayer experiences though. Online is great and all, but far too many shooters focus on the multiplayer too much: CoD syndrome, we could probably call it. It's a shame that in the decade and a bit since Half Life 1, we still don't have full control over those hands holding a gun. Instead, storytelling in the likes of CoD or MoH relies on taking control out of the players hands, often pre-rendering the best bits. It's a damn shame, because as Valve games in general have proven the first person shooter can be used as a wonderful storytelling medium.

Alas, few other game developers have built and developed upon Valve's innovations

Retr0gamer

I don't think Gears of War should be given any credit for innovation considering it stole everything from Kill.Switch.

johnny_ultimate

Retr0gamer wrote: »

I don't think Gears of War should be given any credit for innovation considering it stole everything from Kill.Switch.

Oh, I wouldn't consider it innovative in the slightest, but at least it understood what others got right and implemented it extremely well. It's a damn shame the cover based shooter has now become pretty stale as every other game has introduced a rudimentary cover system.

Lukker-

Completely agree.

neilk32

Shadowrun is definitely one of the most innovative and competitive console fps that we have seen and it was not appreciated by the masses

Gonzovision

Lack of innovation is caused by developers not allowing their communities any freedom to develop what they would like to see. Taking away dedicated servers and such, not releasing mission editors or SDK kits is all wrong. The community will come up with new ideas and build on developers ones. Also not supporting a game for long enough before throwing out the next installment, what chance do some games have. Two developers who take the opposite approach would be Bohemia Interactive and Firaxis, just off the top of my head. Look at the innovation and communities they have built.

cherryghost

Console shooters, or any shooter for that matter will not get innovative because the majority of gamers are abusive, immature teenagers who will accept any kind of drivel that's churned out, as long as they can brag about how they finished it and how great their gamerscore is.

The End.

Gonzovision

A Senior Gameplay Designer at DICE has addressed concerns from players that Battlefield 3 would be dumbed down in the wake of the success of Battlefield: Bad Company 2 on the Playstation 3 and the XBox 360, saying that “Battlefield 3 needs an extra bit of special attention on the PC.”

Writing as Demize99, Alan Kertz from DICE posted on the EA forums to say that “consoles generally are less tolerant of overly complex interfaces. They have less buttons, you need more elegant interfaces.”

He adds, “PC players have their own set of requirements. They tend to play only on PC, and they know their PCs have capabilities beyond that of a console. The gap is narrowing, but PCs still have a clear advantage in memory. PC players also demand a PC interface, a server browser, and anything that feels like it might have been “ported” from a console is going to get flamed hard. They are more forgiving of complex systems and will tear any design down into its parts to really figure out how it works. It’s a damn sight harder to please a PC player, they have higher expectations.”

Kertz confirmed on Twitter that he is currently working on Battlefield 3, and had this to say about the upcoming sequel: “It’s too early to talk BF3 specifics. But it’s never too early for me to acknowledge that PC players have a fear that BF3 will be “consolized.” PC gaming is alive and well, BFBC2 has proven that and no one at DICE or EA can argue with the numbers. Battlefield 3 needs an extra bit of special attention on the PC. I intend to give it that attention, tradition and our community demand it.”

We'll see...................

Sisko

PogMoThoin wrote: »

Hardly innovating, Gameplay was nothing spectacularly new, then it uses a dated engine thats reached the end of its days.

4 player coop story based zombie killing game with a huge team play element. Not played any other such FPS's?

I mean all crysis has is good graphics.

Helix

DarkJager wrote: »

You could argue that FPS games are evolving into more cinematic experiences over the past few years. Look at MW and MW2 - almost movie like in their script and pace

yeah, theyre getting to be the same length as movies too

Grumpypants

Helix wrote: »

yeah, theyre getting to be the same length as movies too

Yea but you get a free online pass with it


On the inovation side of things its quite hard to think up off totally original aspects for a FPS, Singularity was the last game that i played and though wow this is different but when you think about the game its just a mixed bag of 5 or 6 other games. It was still very good but still flopped.

where as COD will be the same as it was 3 years ago but will still sell a billion dollars worth.

GTR63

Developers make uninnovative games because its a Huge risk to do something strange or unfamiliar eg Bayoneta.If you do that you run the risk of selling damn all copies no matter how much critic praise you recieve.The Shooter Genre (FPS/3rdPS) is the most inflated Genre this Gen.I enjoy good execution rather than Innovation.Gears,Halo, Uncharted,COD & Mass Effect didn't reinvent the Wheel but they all handle a lot better than Goldeneye in 2010.

GTR63

Martin Hollis hasn't done ANYTHING since 1998,he even left during developement of Perfect Dark & is making games I never even heard of now.If your going to insult people making Shooter have something else on the C.V. besides Goldeneye.

Zeouterlimits

L31mr0d wrote: »

Build a story driven FPS Co-op, where you actually need to work together to progress.

Portal 2. It has exactly that.

GTR63 wrote: »

Martin Hollis hasn't done ANYTHING since 1998,he even left during developement of Perfect Dark & is making games I never even heard of now.If your going to insult people making Shooter have something else on the C.V. besides Goldeneye.

My thoughts exactly.

Overheal

GTR63 wrote: »

Developers make uninnovative games because its a Huge risk to do something strange or unfamiliar eg Bayoneta.

Right. Thats exactly right. It takes too much time, energy and money to develop a console game. First you have to decide which consoles you want to develop for, then you have to sell a publisher on your idea, then you need to create thousands of copies to distribute, an ad campaign, etc. and you could still end up with a flop. So you almost wouldn't dare to try something fresh on the console. Only a few games ever rarely fit that description.

Enter PC Gaming. One guy makes a little Java game called minecraft, it's not even done yet, and he's on his way to being a millionaire.

Halo, Call of Duty and Mass Effect? Those developers started life on the PC (or Mac).

At least this is the theory given by the Lead Creator of Bioshock, Ken Livine:

http://kotaku.com/5675559/the-future-of-pc-gaming-according-to-the-lead-creator-of-bioshock

"After a long day in front of a PC, the last thing I want to do is come home and sit in front of a PC."

I hear this all the time from game developers.
It is not something you'll hear from me.
When I get home, my wife and I have a routine. We eat dinner together, and then I head upstairs. To my PC.
Email.
Twitter.
Kotaku.
Joystiq.
Fidgit.
Rock Paper Shotgun.
Steam Store.
And so on.
Then, I boot something up. Today, it's Civ 5. Yesterday, it was the Cataclysm beta. The day before, Minecraft, or Torchlight.
Later on in the evening, I'll boot up the 360, or the PS3. And at bedtime, it's the iPad, which I read until I fall asleep. Maybe I'll pass out playing 100 Rogues or Sword & Poker.
But when it comes down to it, as a gamer, I'm a PC. I like the kind of games you can play on it. I like that designers know they have your full attention, so they feel comfortable EXPECTING your full attention. I like the ergonomics of the thing, the mouse and keyboard, the effortless transition from gaming to browsing to typing. I'm an alt-tab kind of guy.
What's the future of the PC? Social games? MMOs? Freemium?
If you want to know the future of gaming, buy a PC.


**** if I know. But I know this: The PC will always be the place that drives innovation. The PC is the place where great game developers are born, even—and maybe especially—where great console game developers are born. Halo, Mass Effect, Call of Duty…PC developers first. And it's on the PC where the leading-edge ideas form, primarily because the barrier of entry is low and you can have an idea that goes like this:
"Hey, I've got an idea!"
"Cool! Who do we need to approve this idea?"
"Umm…nobody?"
And then the idea gets done. Because magic can happen when there are no middle men, no marketers, and no naysayers.
Sometimes it's a disaster. In fact, usually it is. Most ideas are terrible.
But sometimes it's Steam.
And sometimes it's modding.
And sometimes it's Minecraft.
And then we all, gamers and developers, get to high-five the universe and think about how lucky we are.
What's the future of PCs?
Again, **** if I know.
But here's something you can take the bank: If you want to know the future of gaming, buy a PC. And pay attention. Because above all, that thing on your desk is a crystal ball.
Ken Levine is the co-founder, President and Creative Director of Irrational Games. He led the creation of the multi-million unit selling, multiple game-of-the year award-winning title BioShock. He was named 2007 Person of the Year by the 1Up Network and was named the number one game developer of the 2007 by Next-Gen.Biz.

DarkJager

The self righteousness of PC gamers continues to sicken me. Who really gives a **** if your PC can add extra shadows or physics to a game? I play games for the enjoyment of them, and a console suits me just fine for that - put the game in and play. No arsing around with driver updates, patches, system requirements etc. I was a PC gamer once upon a time but I got tired of buying games only to find them crashing every 5 minutes or not being able to run the thing at all.

A PC gamer is entitled to feel proud of his expensive gaming machine,just as others like myself are entitled to enjoy consoles for what they are - easy to use gaming systems and instantaneous enjoyment from your purchase without the hassle. Nobody really cares what your PC does better than a console, so get off the horse.

cherryghost

The guy who made Minecraft has sold well over 500,000 copies from preorders already. Given it's a tenner each, thats 5 million raked in already.

Retr0gamer

DarkJager wrote: »

The self righteousness of PC gamers continues to sicken me. Who really gives a **** if your PC can add extra shadows or physics to a game? I play games for the enjoyment of them, and a console suits me just fine for that - put the game in and play. No arsing around with driver updates, patches, system requirements etc. I was a PC gamer once upon a time but I got tired of buying games only to find them crashing every 5 minutes or not being able to run the thing at all.

A PC gamer is entitled to feel proud of his expensive gaming machine,just as others like myself are entitled to enjoy consoles for what they are - easy to use gaming systems and instantaneous enjoyment from your purchase without the hassle. Nobody really cares what your PC does better than a console, so get off the horse.

There's no need forthis and you are taking the conversation completely off topic. There's no need to call PC gamers self righteous when the article you are talking about has nothing to do with it. If you really did pay through the nose for a PC and had it crash every 5 minutes then you clearly didn't know what you are doing. No more of this when it's uncalled for or there'll be infractions or worse.

Overheal

Jager you've completely misread the topic. This has nothing to do with Fidelity or Performance or Dynamic Shadows and Dolby reach-around technology. It's everything to do with Games as Games that Innovate. Examples being Minecraft; Bioshock; Half Life; Halo; Goldeneye; etc.

DarkJager

Retr0gamer wrote: »

There's no need forthis and you are taking the conversation completely off topic. There's no need to call PC gamers self righteous when the article you are talking about has nothing to do with it. If you really did pay through the nose for a PC and had it crash every 5 minutes then you clearly didn't know what you are doing. No more of this when it's uncalled for or there'll be infractions or worse.

Seeing as I specialise in IT, I think I know my way around a PC thanks - I just don't appreciate spending an hour trying to make a game run on it. Anyway, I'm dragging it off topic again here so apologies. Please continue.

seyeM

DarkJager wrote: »

Seeing as I specialise in IT, I think I know my way around a PC thanks - I just don't appreciate spending an hour trying to make a game run on it.

:rolleyes:


IMO it comes down to lazy developers and in the past few years the control and hardware limitations of the current generation of consoles. Keeping the focus on shooters the majority of devs just play on the safe side, copying the CODs, Halos and GOWs and hoping that formula will translate into success for them too.

As Pog said in the OP, innovation will only come when the majority call for it - by passing on these rushed rehashed games (unfortunately the bigger franchises always seem to sell well no matter how unoriginal each iteration is) and supporting good innovative games (Left 4 dead, Portal)

http://www.heroesofstalingrad.com/ - A promising PC focused FPS coming from the guys who made Red Orchestra and Killing Floor.

Also RAGE!!1! from ID is looking good.

Sisko

DarkJager wrote: »

The self righteousness of PC gamers continues to sicken me. Who really gives a **** if your PC can add extra shadows or physics to a game? I play games for the enjoyment of them, and a console suits me just fine for that - put the game in and play. No arsing around with driver updates, patches, system requirements etc. I was a PC gamer once upon a time but I got tired of buying games only to find them crashing every 5 minutes or not being able to run the thing at all.

A PC gamer is entitled to feel proud of his expensive gaming machine,just as others like myself are entitled to enjoy consoles for what they are - easy to use gaming systems and instantaneous enjoyment from your purchase without the hassle. Nobody really cares what your PC does better than a console, so get off the horse.

This is like getting pissed off at people who say movies are better in the cinema.

Anyway its not merely about 'my graphics are more shiny than yours' it's more to do with the larger scope the platform allows. There's a reason people go through all the tweaking and so on , same reason people still leave their houses to watch a movie , its worth it for the better experience.

Again consoles are grand for the casual relaxed environmental of a quick game of fifa etc. A lot of it depends on the genres you are into and as that article overheal posted puts it 'the pc games will demand your full attention'. Your right in there, and the mouse and keyboard are still a large factor too.

But really it doesn't make sense to be annoyed at pc gaming being talked about in a thread to do with gaming innovation , I mean games are made on PC's in the 1st place and a lot of big titles have come from users at home tweaking and modding games themselves. Counter Strike, Desert Combat.

And now we've minecraft etc.

Magill

minecraft.... really ? a shooter ? really ?

Besides... Bioshock/MW1+2/Gears of war/Halo/Fallout/Deadspace/L4D/Portal(If minecraft is...)/Killzone/vanquish etc there aren't many good shooters out there.... OH WAIT !

Goldeneye was released when 3D gaming and shooters in general were still very new, ofc everything back then was new and innovate. Theres only so much you can do with a shooter... you shoot guns/ fire rockets / drive tanks and snipe enemies.. what else do you want ?

New **** will come with new tech, next generation of consoles will bring a **** ton of new ideas and big better games... even tho pc's are miles ahead of consoles in terms of power, they will be limited by what consoles can handle in the future, there are only a handful of PC only developers out there.

Games in general are better now that they ever have been, there are far more quality titles being released now compared to the n64 days. Nostalgia is funny, go back and play goldeneye now... its ****e. Compared to zelda and mario 64 it certainly hasnt lasted the test of time.

Gaming is about fun, and although MW2 and BC2 have their flaws... A LOT of people have been having A LOT of fun playing them...

Overheal

Magill wrote: »

minecraft.... really ? a shooter ? really ?

Silk, Feathers, and Sticks.

Sisko

Sigh, I'm gonna stay out of this, some console gamers really just don't understand, and no ones saying theres anything wrong with finding 'generic console shooter No.4'. This is about innovation, you may not even enjoy the types of games we're talking about anyway. Too many buttons to press and files to open.

We'll start to see some innovation in the period between the death of this gen and the beginning of the next when developers bring PC only titles out a little more then usual. But once the ps4 etc is out it'll die down again.

Anyway I'm out. Looking forward to Portal 2, that should be something to see.

Magill

Sisko wrote: »

Sigh, I'm gonna stay out of this, some console gamers really just don't understand, and no ones saying theres anything wrong with finding 'generic console shooter No.4'. This is about innovation, you may not even enjoy the types of games we're talking about anyway. Too many buttons to press and files to open.

We'll start to see some innovation in the period between the death of this gen and the beginning of the next when developers bring PC only titles out a little more then usual. But once the ps4 etc is out it'll die down again.

Anyway I'm out. Looking forward to Portal 2, that should be something to see.

Besides the fact that i've been playing competitive pc shooters since quakeworld and have played practically every decent shooter ever made on a PC... ****... i even designed my own maps on cs. I think i understand just fine. Please explain what was the last shooter you played that was innovate and why (Arma2 = not innovate, its basically a sim wannabe.. i'd have more fun cutting my balls off tbh)

You just sound like a PC fanboy imo, i prefer shooters on the PC, but there is NOTHING new about any PC shooter released in the last 6 or 7 years (Maybe L4D... it bored me tho).

ProjectColossus

Overheal wrote: »

Silk, Feathers, and Sticks.

+flint

CiDeRmAn

Overheal wrote: »

It's everything to do with Games as Games that Innovate. Examples being Minecraft; Bioshock; Half Life; Halo; Goldeneye; etc.

You know, if this was the A&R forum Retr0 would never have let this one slide by, maybe he's just better behaved over here?

And, regarding the off topic topic of PC's being temperamental, could this by why, when talking of retro gaming on the PC, say playing Dark Forces or Mechwarrior, folks normally red hot enthusiasm wanes somewhat at the prospect of trying to boot games on a 200Mhz mmx machine, with a mighty 16mb of ram and a 500mb HDD, with Windows 95 installed?
What hell it was!
Now, those were the days when getting your new game to play, state of the art it might be, involved spending "one of those days" configuring your system to play the damn thing!

As for the OP about console shooters, sure isn't he talking out of his arse?
I mean, Goldeneyes major innovation was an FPS on a console, everything else had been done everywhere else.
Easy to innovate when there's nothing else in that vein on any consoles.
Sniper Rifle? Done already, even on consoles in MDK.
Multiplayer? Sure Quake and Doom were doning this, amongst a cast of thousands on the PC.
Since Goldeneye, we have seen refinement, AI improvements, changes to the accepted manner of weapon loadouts (no longer are we allowed a magic back pack that carries an entire arsenal on you person), grenades as a readily thrown weapon, cover systems, stealth, story, so many changes, extending the genre from standard spy/space marine escapades into fantasy (Thief series), into horror (FEAR) into adventure (Mirrors Edge).
We have seen FPS simulate the modern battlefield (COD4, BF, GR:AW), and the not so modern battlefield (COD 1/2/3, MoH).
We have used the latter war games to bring a simulation of the fighting unit into the home via the interweb.

So, when the dev of Goldeneye comes out with a line like console shooters no longer innovate, perhaps he should actually take a look beyond his own "achievements" and realise that his great contribution too has become a relic, a fossilised stepping stone in some darwinian progression, an evolution spawning hundreds of FPS games, many unrecognisable as siblings, aside from the POV, and many with innovations unimagined in the mid 90's.

Retr0gamer

CiDeRmAn wrote: »

You know, if this was the A&R forum Retr0 would never have let this one slide by, maybe he's just better behaved over here?

Well if it makes you happy then Halo didn't innovate anything. In the same way GoW gets credit for innovating cover systems despite stealing them from Kill.Switch all of Halos innovations were taken from obscurer games. I'm going to leave it at that.

CiDeRmAn wrote: »

And, regarding the off topic topic of PC's being temperamental, could this by why, when talking of retro gaming on the PC, say playing Dark Forces or Mechwarrior, folks normally red hot enthusiasm wanes somewhat at the prospect of trying to boot games on a 200Mhz mmx machine, with a mighty 16mb of ram and a 500mb HDD, with Windows 95 installed?
What hell it was!
Now, those were the days when getting your new game to play, state of the art it might be, involved spending "one of those days" configuring your system to play the damn thing!

I don't know where people are getting this from. In the old days it was like this but when DOS4GW came along around 1992 which handled memory really well it was simply a case of installing the game and playing it. Windows 95 made it easier again. If your system wasn't up to it you turned settings down in the options.

CiDeRmAn wrote: »

As for the OP about console shooters, sure isn't he talking out of his arse?
I mean, Goldeneyes major innovation was an FPS on a console, everything else had been done everywhere else.
Easy to innovate when there's nothing else in that vein on any consoles.
Sniper Rifle? Done already, even on consoles in MDK.
Multiplayer? Sure Quake and Doom were doning this, amongst a cast of thousands on the PC.

I give Goldeneye a lot of stick about not being playable when it came out but it definitely was very innovative. The control scheme worked really well and eventually led to iron sight aiming. The AI was very advanced for it's time. No other game had enemies with different damage hit boxes and AI that reacted dynamically to being shot in different areas, MDK only had headshots. It didn't have the first sniper rifle but came out very close to the likes of Outlaws, MDK etc. that had the first examples of sniper rifles. Also MDK came out after it on consoles and was a bad port of a better PC game. It was the first game to have a reload button. Multiplayer was done before but never 4 player split screen on the same console. It was also one of the first FPS games were the objectives were something other than find red keycard for red door and reach the exit.

Martin Hollis really hasn't done much else since though.

oceanclub

PogMoThoin wrote: »

Hardly innovating, Gameplay was nothing spectacularly new

To be fair, the idea of a co-op game with an AI director is fairly novel.

P.

Dustaz

Magill wrote: »

You just sound like a PC fanboy imo, i prefer shooters on the PC, but there is NOTHING new about any PC shooter released in the last 6 or 7 years (Maybe L4D... it bored me tho).

I think the point is that if any innovation is going to occur in the genre, then its more than likely going to occur on the pc platform.

Afaic the last big jump in innovation was tribes:)

I agree with the point the consoles are just too 'mass market'. The chances of a very small developer giving rise to an entire genre is simply not going to happen on a console. It will and has happened in the pc world, many many many times. In fact as far as i can tell some of these genres haven't even migrated to consoles yet.

So yeh, the op's article has a point. Innovation is just a lot slower in the console market than the pc.

justsomebloke

seriously how much innovation can you really get in a shooter. You go around shooting stuff while trying to get from point A to point B.

I think the last time I went wow at a shooter innovation was someone showed me how to turn the mouse lock off on quake so you could actually aim at stuff.

also a lot of people seem to be knocking golden eye as it no longer any good, however I would say innovation and being good don't have to go hand in hand, once someone takes the idea and refines, and then someone after that refines it even more.

One of the main problems holding back innovation in games is the sheer cost of developing games of games, and it is hard for publishers have to weigh up innovation V chances of the game failing.

marco_polo

Joe the Santa wrote: »

seriously how much innovation can you really get in a shooter. You go around shooting stuff while trying to get from point A to point B.

I think the last time I went wow at a shooter innovation was someone showed me how to turn the mouse lock off on quake so you could actually aim at stuff.

also a lot of people seem to be knocking golden eye as it no longer any good, however I would say innovation and being good don't have to go hand in hand, once someone takes the idea and refines, and then someone after that refines it even more.

One of the main problems holding back innovation in games is the sheer cost of developing games of games, and it is hard for publishers have to weigh up innovation V chances of the game failing.

I suppose conservatism is not all that surprising in a world where a game that is for all the world an identical clone of it predecessor makes well over 1 bilion dollars at retail.

Magill

Retr0gamer wrote: »

Well if it makes you happy then Halo didn't innovate anything. In the same way GoW gets credit for innovating cover systems despite stealing them from Kill.Switch all of Halos innovations were taken from obscurer games. I'm going to leave it at that.


I give Goldeneye a lot of stick about not being playable when it came out but it definitely was very innovative. The control scheme worked really well and eventually led to iron sight aiming. The AI was very advanced for it's time. No other game had enemies with different damage hit boxes and AI that reacted dynamically to being shot in different areas, MDK only had headshots. It didn't have the first sniper rifle but came out very close to the likes of Outlaws, MDK etc. that had the first examples of sniper rifles. Also MDK came out after it on consoles and was a bad port of a better PC game. It was the first game to have a reload button. Multiplayer was done before but never 4 player split screen on the same console. It was also one of the first FPS games were the objectives were something other than find red keycard for red door and reach the exit.

I think thats the problem with people that complain about games not being orginal. You talk about these games that were the first to have a sniper rifle, or a reload button.. although they were new, i wouldn't exactly call it thinking out of the box, which is what developers today have to do if they want to create something with innovation, everything has been done before. I think the biggest advancement besides the obvious graphical improvement is AI, there is lots of room for improvement here. You also accuse GoW of "stealing" the cover system from killswitch(Which was a horrible game btw).. I never really considered GoW a game that innovated the cover system... ts just a really good game. I suppose using a reload button is "Stealing" it from other MDK or whatever.

The most innovate thing to come out of this generation of consoles/gaming in general in the last 5 years is the whole wii ****, i guess the obvious step for next gen consoles would be to expand on that a bit(Hopefully not too much ).