Will newer shooters with depth uplift the genre?

[Sky High]

I am not saying it's revolutionary but it's certainly more so than CoD.

true, at least it doesn't have that money gouging DLC.

[Graeham]

I'd love to play a FPS with smooth mechanics and an elaborate and memorable story. I suppose the closest thing I've encountered so far is Fallout 3 and Fallout: New Vegas which aren't technically FPS games in the usual sense.

[RoninaThorstone]

Right, but if it ain't on console it ain't gonna matter. High end PC gaming is pretty niche nowadays.

Wait.

Wat?

Is it more niche now than before?

[apepi]

The only real shooter I played multiplayer was Killzone 2, I think it's depth was not that bad. It depends on what you think is depth, there are many fps that have depth, but just may not be online.

[Sky High]

The only real shooter I played multiplayer was Killzone 2, I think it's depth was not that bad. It depends on what you think is depth, there are many fps that have depth, but just may not be online.

KZ 2's multiplayer was quite fun to me. I liked the class based unlocks and abilities. but god it was a pain to try and unlock all the weapons.

[DiscoGhost]

take me back to goldeneye 64!

[Erolian]

Seeing as how 99.9% of people can't even master setups, spawns, objective plays, actually shooting the guns and communication in extremely simple games such as Call of Duty I'm not sure what another layer of depth is going to do for pretty much anyone outside of professional gamers. Maybe just the thought that there is more to the game, even though next to nobody grasps the entirety of the basics, makes you feel good mentally? Maybe you meant something else when you said depth? Imo there is near infinite depth to simple shooters, as long as they aren't totally random, due to having to deal with real people on the other team and not scripted events.

[PizzaSHARK]

Innovation is still present and appreciated in the AAA environment. Borderlands has done fantastically well, and is basically Diablo with plasma rifles and cel-shading. The new Wolfenstein is probably the best single-player shooter I've played in years; despite the goofy premise, the characters and plot manage to be engaging without ever really losing the goofy feeling that's always been associated with Wolfenstein.

And it's a great mixture of old and new mechanics; you still have limited regenerating health, but most of your healing is still through grabbing medpacks. You can carry five of every weapon ever invented, but you're still rewarded for using ironsights to go for headshots without feel like you're being forced to do so. It's just a very well-designed game that's an excellent bridge between old and new.

Innovation is still alive and well in the AAA shooter industry. COD isn't the only beast on the block.

[Mormolyce]

Right, but if it ain't on console it ain't gonna matter. High end PC gaming is pretty niche nowadays.

Well, take these kind of figures with a grain of salt but:

Despite a declining overall PC market, gaming systems are alive and well. So alive, in fact, that the PC gaming segment is already twice the size of the console gaming market – and growing. A report just released by John Peddie Research (JPR) claims that the PC gaming market will tip $21.5B this year and grow to over $23B in 2017.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/marcochi...c-already-won/


http://www.destructoid.com/pc-vs-con...k-212611.phtml

- - - Updated - - -

Innovation is still present and appreciated in the AAA environment. Borderlands has done fantastically well, and is basically Diablo with plasma rifles and cel-shading.

Not sure what you're saying there, while I mostly enjoyed Borderlands I was struck by how antiquated it was in terms of loot system and skill trees, that seemed like something from 1999. Diablo with plasma rifles and cell shading is completely true.

[PizzaSHARK]

Not sure what you're saying there, while I mostly enjoyed Borderlands I was struck by how antiquated it was in terms of loot system and skill trees, that seemed like something from 1999. Diablo with plasma rifles and cell shading is completely true.

Because Borderlands incorporates a wide variety of "new" stuff to the shooter genre, but it's still unquestionably a shooter rather than one of those "RPG-with-shooter-elements" types of games.

And both games have been wildly successful.

[Orangetai420]

Destiny looks promising, only time will tell.

[kail]

Well, take these kind of figures with a grain of salt but:...

Pretty generic figures though. For all we know, the PC gaming revenue can come mostly from F2P games like LoL and some Facebook games.

For most AAA titles and popular shooters, consoles outsell the PC by a wide margin. CoD/BField/etc...even Minecraft sold more on consoles than on the PC, which says a lot.

PC gaming for the higher-end games is still pretty niche, very few know or bother to build/buy a PC capable of playing graphic demanding games.

[PizzaSHARK]

Destiny looks promising, only time will tell.

Hoping against hope. If the game was as good as they want people to believe, they wouldn't need to spend an embarrassing amount of money taking out an ad in Times Square to raise awareness of it.

[kail]

I'm assuming you're talking about multi-player shooters, since I don't think it's fair to meld them with story driven/rpg shooters. MP games have to take balance into consideration, which innovations can easily fuck up. CoD tried to put in new things every game, I personally found them annoying (RCXDs, 4 types of chopters, some guided missle...) with each new addition.

The one shooter that I would consider innovative would be TF2 and GoW. Those two titles stood out from the rest during their time. Of the recent games, Titanfall may be the best we have. It adds to the CoD feel that doesn't involve crazy killstreak rewards.

[PizzaSHARK]

The best multiplayer shooters have already been done. You've got CS 1.6 if you want tactical, Q3A and UT2k4 if you want arena, BF2142 and Project Reality if you want large-scale, and you've got (vanilla) TF2 and Tribes 2 if none of the rest interests you much.

I don't really see anyone improving on those games, just rehashing them into a more cashcow-friendly format.

[Afrospinach]

They are a lot of hardcore FPS, just don't ask the big ones (aka COD, BD, Destiny). They all target the mass market who actually want fast paced games without too much difficulty nor depth. That's also why F2P are so huge right now, LoL, Hearthstone and others being amazing exemple.

I honestly believe this is more of a perception than a reality. You have a game like minecraft that has just done exceptionally well, a lot of us have forgotten just how barren the base game is at this point but really you have to be creative to get something out of it. I think it comes down to the fact that it is more challenging to engage players in this way rather than develop some minor eye candy upgrades and rattle off Call of the Battlefall:115.

The best multiplayer shooters have already been done. You've got CS 1.6 if you want tactical, Q3A and UT2k4 if you want arena, BF2142 and Project Reality if you want large-scale, and you've got (vanilla) TF2 and Tribes 2 if none of the rest interests you much.

I don't really see anyone improving on those games, just rehashing them into a more cashcow-friendly format.

No ace of spades? that game was great until it got bought out heh.

[PizzaSHARK]

I honestly believe this is more of a perception than a reality. You have a game like minecraft that has just done exceptionally well, a lot of us have forgotten just how barren the base game is at this point but really you have to be creative to get something out of it. I think it comes down to the fact that it is more challenging to engage players in this way rather than develop some minor eye candy upgrades and rattle off Call of the Battlefall:115.

Maybe. Minecraft's real strength is in its modding community, and the developer realized that sometime around the time they officially went from beta to "live.

[87Octane]

I'm sorta thinking the upcoming Call of Duty will shake up the bare bones playerbase. It seems to be injecting a lot of movement and atypical abilities. I wonder if it's the franchises way of trying to move forward?

[PACOX]

People like to complain about COD being much the same with every iteration while only making improvements to its core gameplay but people don't see how the majority of players see COD.

COD is a sport, no one really calls it a sport but the brain treats it like a sport. Think about it, basketball/football/soccer/golf/etc have been the same for years with slight variation because of player skill level, better equipment, slight rule changes as the game evolves but for the most part these sports remain the same. People have no problem with this and will play this games day in and day out for years. They way people play COD and specifically TDM in COD is the same. So its okay that COD stills to its fundamentals, its actually better for it to do so. Now we could debate the price point but thats a different subject.

Sometimes gamers demand for the sake of change when its not needed or even complain about a game for not changing when its not needed.

[87Octane]

People like to complain about COD being much the same with every iteration while only making improvements to its core gameplay but people don't see how the majority of players see COD.

COD is a sport, no one really calls it a sport but the brain treats it like a sport. Think about it, basketball/football/soccer/golf/etc have been the same for years with slight variation because of player skill level, better equipment, slight rule changes as the game evolves but for the most part these sports remain the same. People have no problem with this and will play this games day in and day out for years. They way people play COD and specifically TDM in COD is the same. So its okay that COD stills to its fundamentals, its actually better for it to do so. Now we could debate the price point but thats a different subject.

Sometimes gamers demand for the sake of change when its not needed or even complain about a game for not changing when its not needed.

I agree with this, the pricepoint is what irks me.

I think soccer would be a lot more intertaining if there were 4 balls, and two goalies, but hey...what do I know.

But I have to wonder - with the accumulation of technology and potential that new consoles have, if things will change. Of course Battlefield completely disproves my post. Battlefield has all of the typical shooter mechanics (if not a bit rougher), and adds arguably the kitchen sink available to the engine/tech and CoD still exists and is favored by many. The other issue with complexity in multiplayer random matchups is the fact that the more variables something has - the more lopsided it could potentially be. These are the same kinds of things that killed Wintergrasp and led to Tol Barad. Part of the reason I didn't like Battlefied (trial period) was because if I got a team who didn't know what to do, the game was horrible. Call of Duty is a tiny bit more immune to issues that. The "lone wolf" player isn't completely useless to your team.

Still, you don't see Digital monopoly or digital Uno selling for 90 bucks. At some point the "simple" games have to get "outfeatured"?

Speaking of sports, i wonder to what degree the "E-Sport" community props it up.

I really hate to keep using Destiny as an example, I sound like such a fanboy - but it has the option for typical pvp, across the board weapon balance, solid shooting - although the power useage is a little uncounterable. Why wouldn't someone want to have their cake and eat it too?