I suppose this is a little open ended of a discussion topic, but I figured posting something was better than posting nothing. That being said, our discussion was over the potential of the WiiU and over the gaming spectral of the three leading consoles. That being said, my point, and refute this if you will, is that although the criteria for being a first-person shooter is going to be similar for all games attempting to be a first-person shooter, I still feel that they're too damned similar, and although Nintendos competitors do release other games, the majority of the mainstream games we see are as said FPS's and not just fps's but fps's that are unbelievably similar. My friends argued to me that no they aren't similar because there's objectives? I guess my taste for fps's is much slimmer than others based purely on the fact that changing your reason for turning shooting and running, or what you shoot, doesn't really make the game different. It would be the equivalent of Nintendos Top selling games being, Super Mario Galaxy, Luigis Super Universe, Warios Fantastic Star and Yoshi Outstanding Solar System. The games are so similar that making them all is just redundant. I'm not saying that Nintendos rivals didn't have some great features they did, and heaven knows, they had Nintendo beat in terms of hardware, but in terms of the games released, I'm ready to see a great deal more variety from the competitors. Agree/Disagree/Love This/Hate my guts for Even thinking it?
I've been feelin this way for quite some time. I'm really startin to feel like fps is really just who can mimmick call of duty the best. When the first Halo came out I was blown away. I wanted nothing to do with a non established system like nintendo or playstation. My friends brought over 3 xboxs and we wired my whole house with system link cables and we had about 10 people over. Was one of the greatest gaming times of my life. I went right out and got an xbox the next day.
I've said many times that the call of duty series is just rehashing the same old crap and it's really gettin old. My last hope is that halo would always be good and try new things. Well it looks like halo is all about rehashing the same crap as well. There remaking the original Halo.
At the moment i'd say Battlefield BC2 is the best one i've played in a while. I much prefer games with objectives but we've all seen this done a million times before. The thing that keeps battlefield so fresh for me is that there's so many creative ways to accomplish the objective that it's just as much about outsmarting the other team with a decent strategy as it is outgunning them. BF3 is about to come out and does look great but, the question you have to ask is it going down the same old let's rehash the same old same old crap.
Then we have gears 3. It was a very different game and I commend them for doing it. This series also seems like it will be going down the same old road as well. Probably the last shooter i felt really thrilled about was the older ghost recons. When you only had 1 life and had to tactically use your surroundings to outsmart the enemy it felt like a breath of fresh air from the run and gun gameplay we were used to. Well the GRAW series took it back to run and gun and I can only hope Future Soldier brings it back to it's tactical roots.
I feel exactly what your sayin but, the short and sweet of it is. If we keep buyin it and they don't have to work very hard to change it. There just going to keep crammin the same series down our throats instead of making a new series. I'm just as guilty as anyone because I have purchased all those series just so i could play with my friends. Convincing them to try and play a round of Mario Kart and Smash Bros is like pulling teeth.
I always had to play my Wii games by myself so i ended up sellin it. I would much rather be playing some wii titles with friends than the short list of series I have to choose from on my Xbox.
I disagree. I agree with you to some extent but mostly I disagree. The same exact thing could be said for any genre.
"I guess my taste for platformers is much slimmer than others based purely on the fact that changing your reason for jumping avoiding and running, or what your running on, doesn't really make the game different."
"I guess my taste for RPG's is much slimmer than others based purely on the fact that changing your reason for attacking defending and healing, or what your attacking, doesn't really make the game different."
See what I mean? What your saying sounds pretty biased. Also I can think of plenty examples in FPS's where gameplay differs.
For example TF2 and L4D2 both are games you shoot. However TF2 you work together with the rest of your team to either block the control point, steal the intelligence or whatever you chose. L4D2 is mainly survival missions and what not. However I do suppose any first person shooter compared to TF2 is different seeing as how TF2 is so comedic and lighthearted (in a way) that the majority of FPS's that are usually dark and serious seem way out there.
My argument is more for series instead of genres. I get your point there are several genres and all that games that fall under them have similar aspects. My point is more of a franchise not evolving there series or just pushing them out as fast as they can. Which from a business prospective series like COD are doing exactly what i would do if i was CEO.
My point being is that some franchises take it a little overboard to the point of where they getting boring way faster than they could have been. Lets look at a series like COD... on the 360 alone we have:
COD2
COD3
Modern Warfare
World at War
Modern Warfare 2
Black Ops
(soon MW3)
I understand a few titles because this has been a very long lived console but lets look at Smash Bros. Only 1 game this generation. Makes it a little harder to get burnt out by it. You make an excellent point that every game in a genre takes from one or the other. My case is that the series should evolve a bit./
@Floof: Makes enough sense, thats the point that was brought up in my discussion, definition of genre, but I guess my point was similar to Odins, in that, Im not necessarily saying fps's shouldn't be fps's I'm just saying for the systems as a whole, it's pretty constant that the big named games ARE fps's almost always I mean the Top 10 selling games for the 360 were FPS genre exception of 2. I suppose I am a bit genre biased but I just feel like when you look at Nintendos spread, you have more choices in general than in the 360. I can play Mario for the more developing platform feel, I can play zelda for the more adventure feel, I can play pokemon for the more rpg feel, and it's like that because they legitimately are from different genres. And yes as he said, fps's should evolve a bit. I just don't know what would persuade me to play COD that couldn't be used to persuade me to play Left 4 Dead.
Of course, all FPS games are different...to a degree. What you do in the game is different with each installment, but the mechanics and overall gameplay doesn't differ much from title to title. Call of Duty Modern Warfare was great. But the following titles just felt progressively staler. Black Ops has some new features, but it's still the same stuff, really.
But then you have to ask yourself: just how different can they really make a FPS? Games like Left 4 Dead are atypical because, yes, they're shooters, but they're also crazy fun strategy/survival games. Fallout combines FPS with RPG. We also have to take into account that Microsoft and Sony don't dictate what games are popular. Sure, they could put MILLIONS into advertising a game, but that doesn't guarantee high sales. If people want shooters, that's what they're going to buy. If we see the top games looking incredibly similar, that's because consumers like those games the most. There's a good variety of games out there, it just so happens that if we like a game like Call of Duty, we'll also probably like a similar title such as Battlefield. There ARE different shooters out there (such as L4D and Fallout), they just aren't the most popular ones as decided by consumers. Same goes for all genres.
I've thought about topics like this. I have a large collection of gaming consoles, some dating back to 1979, and I've got a handfull of games for each, but the consoles with the least diverse game library are the XBox 360 and Ps3. It is an indisputable fact that Ps3 and 360 sell alot of very similar franchises, mostly Fps's. That is why Nintendo is my favorite. In every generation I get a good mix of all genres( FPS, platforming, RPG, to name a few). And I'm sure FPS's can evolve. They could add features like calling commands for your platoon, a more open world, ect. but all anyone wants to do is mimmick COD...
I believe it was game informer magazine I was reading where they took a look back at the games they gave the best scores in the last couple years. They were drawing lines to the box art of every game on the page and they were all pointing at one thing...Guns. They even said themselves. Wow almost every game we declared a must own had guns in it.