Innovative Ideas you would love to see implimented into an FPS

Topic.Innovative Ideas you would love to see implimented into an FPS
I'd love to see a FPS with RTS elements. Yes, it has been done before but done very poorly.Innovative Ideas you would love to see implimented into an FPS
[QUOTE=''Cdscottie'']I'd love to see a FPS with RTS elements. Yes, it has been done before but done very poorly.[/QUOTE]Tried Savage 2? FPS/RTS, released last week.
i haven't played any tactical FPS style games, but one gripe i have with most FPS games i have played is the amount of ammo lying around and the ease in which your character can add the ammo of fallen enemies to his inventory. for instance, playing HL2 or max payne, you kill about 5 enemies in the same area. you then walk over all the bodies and *poof* within half a second all that unspent ammo disappers into your inventory and is ready for you to use. no taking cartridges out of the weapon. picking up ammo should take some time; you shouldn't be able to do it safely in the middle of a firefight.do some of the tactical shooters (BF2, R6: vegas, etc.) only allow a certain amount of ammo for each mission and no way to replenish it? this seems more realistic than the likelihood that an enemy's weapon contains just the right ammo for your weapon. if you run out of ammo for the weapon you brought on the mission, you should just be able to pick up a fallen enemy's. it just may not work as well as your original weapon (or it could work better). like i said, i haven't played any tactical shooters yet so they might already do this, but the same concepts can apply to other FPS. granted max payne isn't at all about realism, but ammo collection seems so preposterous in most other FPS too (HL series, NOLF series).another thing that could be added is occasional jamming of your weapon. system shock 2 had a weapon condition/repair aspect that many people didn't like because the weapon could become completely useless if it wasn't repaired. in shooters with lots of enemies and guns, if your weapon jams maybe you have to quickly find another one or switch to a different one. just my thoughts.z
Manually stuffing bullets into clips so its more realistic when you reload 6-7 times
Actually one of the things I'd like to see is a better movement system and it looks like DICE's (Battlefield series) Mirror's Edge might bring some of that to the table [url]http://www.next-gen.biz/index.php?option=com_content%26task=view%26id=6598%26Itemid=51[/url]They also want change the perspective so that you're no longer just and arm %26 a gun, but actually immersed in the action.
There's not really any in particular I can think of. What I'd like to see is more making of and acceptance of in the community (that's us) shooters and games in general that don't innovate AT ALL, but are great in other regards. I'm sick of this quite frankly disturbing mindset lately that shooters have to be innovative in some way, and if they're not, they're just ''an average shooter.'' There's more to quality than innovation, afterall. Too many people on this board are measuring games primarily on (1) how much they innovate, and (2) how well their innovations are done, while everything else is a negligible aspect that holds little sway over the game.Anyway, don't get me wrong, innovation, as long as it's pulled off well, is nice to see. It's just pretty low on my list of priorities in games. I also don't mean to say I like to see the exact same thing everytime. But there's more to mixing things up than coming up with something new.
I would want a game which would start off as an action adventure somewhat like GTA then after few hours of gameplay turn into one intense FPS like COD4 or FAR CRY..;)..M i a bit too optimistic..Well dare to dream :P and sine u dreaming dream BIG :D
A MMORPG + FPS + RTS + Adventure + Racing + Puzzle + Humor = MMOFTARPUZHOR - dat's what I want :P
Idunno between Crysis and the Halflife series everything I want in a shooter has been there.I guess I would like better story. Some shooters have ok stories like FEAR and Halflife, but what if they got an author like Stephen King or some other guy to do the story. And authors not only make the story, but they basically contribute to character, weapon, enemy, and environment design as well.I would also like to see less emphasis put on realistic graphics, and more emphasis put onto art direction. TF2 was a step in the right direction, but I want more than celshaded graphics lol. Everyone knows where graphics are going (toward realism) with games like Crysis, but I want a game to be released where we play it and go ''wow, thats unique and beautiful!''
[QUOTE=''mrbojangles25''] I would also like to see less emphasis put on realistic graphics, and more emphasis put onto art direction. [/QUOTE] Amen.
[QUOTE=''JP_Russell'']There's not really any in particular I can think of. What I'd like to see is more making of and acceptance of in the community (that's us) shooters and games in general that don't innovate AT ALL, but are great in other regards. I'm sick of this quite frankly disturbing mindset lately that shooters have to be innovative in some way, and if they're not, they're just ''an average shooter.'' There's more to quality than innovation, afterall. Too many people on this board are measuring games primarily on (1) how much they innovate, and (2) how well their innovations are done, while everything else is a negligible aspect that holds little sway over the game.Anyway, don't get me wrong, innovation, as long as it's pulled off well, is nice to see. It's just pretty low on my list of priorities in games. I also don't mean to say I like to see the exact same thing everytime. But there's more to mixing things up than coming up with something new.[/QUOTE]I totally agree. Look at Crysis, all you hear is ''It's mediocre because it brings nothing new to the table.'' It's usually ''all genres were better in the good ol' days ...''-people that have that mindset. Whatever, their loss. The game is FUN, damn it. It seems that some folks forget what games are all about.Anyway, back on topic. I'd love more games to do something about the health system. It's okey in games with sci fi settings and suits that regenerate and all, but I think it's a little dumb that you can take 10 bullets in the chest in Cod 4 and just hide and ''breathe it off''. Give me moans, bloodloss, death unless you finish the level in time, problems with walking and shooting or at least looking at your kevlar vest and say, ''Damn, that hurts!'' Just give me a plausible explanation to whatever is making you the human bullet spunge without any major consequences.One good thing is that most devs have removed those idiotic health packs, that's a start, I guess.
[QUOTE=''artur79''][QUOTE=''JP_Russell''] There's not really any in particular I can think of. What I'd like to see is more making of and acceptance of in the community (that's us) shooters and games in general that don't innovate AT ALL, but are great in other regards. I'm sick of this quite frankly disturbing mindset lately that shooters have to be innovative in some way, and if they're not, they're just ''an average shooter.'' There's more to quality than innovation, afterall. Too many people on this board are measuring games primarily on (1) how much they innovate, and (2) how well their innovations are done, while everything else is a negligible aspect that holds little sway over the game.Anyway, don't get me wrong, innovation, as long as it's pulled off well, is nice to see. It's just pretty low on my list of priorities in games. I also don't mean to say I like to see the exact same thing everytime. But there's more to mixing things up than coming up with something new.[/QUOTE]I totally agree. Look at Crysis, all you hear is ''It's mediocre because it brings nothing new to the table.'' It's usually ''all genres were better in the good ol' days ...''-people that have that mindset. Whatever, their loss. The game is FUN, damn it. It seems that some folks forget what games are all about.[/QUOTE]ya, and this seems like a problem that is extremely prevalent in video games. Frankly, I blame the critics and reviewers to an extent.But seriously, many many forms of entertainment have absolutely zero innovation (just look at sports...when was the last time a sport like Football or Baseball was invented? 1930?). And movies? Please, action flicks (the movie equivelent of an FPS imo) have gotten gorier and thats about it. They still (generally) suffer from bad stories, and the only way they ''wow'' audiences any more is by A. doing some gimmick such as bullet time, or B. being violent by portraying ''realistic'' action. But I dont think they suffer from half the criticism shooters do.I think, if anything, there needs to be more refinement of what developers are doing now as opposed to innovation that is poorly executed.
Wow great suggestions so far!Reason I asked this is because I'm planning on making an FPS one day, still fleshing out the story atm with friends and all that, and I was curious about what game elements I could try to put into the game to make it as unique as I could. Over all great suggestions so far!

please, continue!
[QUOTE=''CnC_Freak''] Wow great suggestions so far!Reason I asked this is because I'm planning on making an FPS one day, still fleshing out the story atm with friends and all that, and I was curious about what game elements I could try to put into the game to make it as unique as I could. Over all great suggestions so far!

please, continue! [/QUOTE]are you a college student (or younger)? College is a great place to meet lots of people with various talents. I mustve been friends with three english majors, a few art design majors, and a bunch of computer science majors (I was ag, tho, lol) and I just remember thinking ''Man it'd be cool to make a game with these folks''.Just get together with some people. A lot of colleges also have ''Senior Projects'' where you spend a quarter or two making one big project that reflects your major (I Made beer cuz I was food science!) but if you were like computer science you could make a game.Man that'd be great. Anyway, good luck with your FPS. Start playing around with HL2's Hammer editor!
I doubt any of my suggestions could be called innovative, but I don't really think innovation is necessarily needed.I would like to see first and foremost, our characters as existing in the world. I don't want to be a floating hand with a gun. I want to feel like I'm a real person. I want to see my legs when I look down. I want many different animations for holding weapons depending on context - holding the weapon one handed to open a door, or slinging the weapon over my shoulder when I climb ladders. I want to hear my character breathe. Games like Escape from Butcher Bay and F.E.A.R made good progress in this area (and Project Origin seems even better - Far Cry 2 seems to have some good ideas, too) but I think the whole thing could be done in a much more realistic way.I'd like to be able to stumble and fall (not in a stupid way, but maybe if I'm sprinting and I quickly change directions - humans can't circle strafe very well at all in real life), I'd like to be able to hop over objects - and visibly see my legs swing over, rather than just some generic jump animation where my character launches into the air. I think it would make FPS games much, much more immersive. Just seeing my hand extend and connecting with the door would make any game better for me.I also want developers to start building the world, then build the game around the world. I hate how linear games are. I hate that I can smash this door in, but I can't smash that door in. I hate that I'm a highly trained soldier, but I can't hop over a hedgerow. I think if developers started building their world as a whole (an entire office building, an entire city block - whatever), then mapped out where they want the player to go - and then add artificial contrivances (some are necessary), I think level design would be far more enjoyable than the way things are currently done - which is the opposite.I also want destructable environments. Why does planting an explosive charge not take out these windows? Or this door made out of wood? I have a shotgun here, why can't I shoot the lock off this door? It would make level design much harder - and there would still need to be some artifical constraints, probably - but I think playing in realistic words would make games better.If I find myself playing in a realistic, non-linear world I can interact with in realistic ways - with as few artificial restraints as possible - while also feeling like my character inhabits this world, and that he can perform all of the maneuvers a real human can perform, and the animations reflect this in a realistic way, I think I will find that FPS games have just gotten a hell of a lot better.
[QUOTE=''mfsa''] I doubt any of my suggestions could be called innovative, but I don't really think innovation is necessarily needed.I would like to see first and foremost, our characters as existing in the world. I don't want to be a floating hand with a gun. I want to feel like I'm a real person. I want to see my legs when I look down. I want many different animations for holding weapons depending on context - holding the weapon one handed to open a door, or slinging the weapon over my shoulder when I climb ladders. I want to hear my character breathe. Games like Escape from Butcher Bay and F.E.A.R made good progress in this area (and Project Origin seems even better - Far Cry 2 seems to have some good ideas, too) but I think the whole thing could be done in a much more realistic way.I'd like to be able to stumble and fall (not in a stupid way, but maybe if I'm sprinting and I quickly change directions - humans can't circle strafe very well at all in real life), I'd like to be able to hop over objects - and visibly see my legs swing over, rather than just some generic jump animation where my character launches into the air. I think it would make FPS games much, much more immersive. Just seeing my hand extend and connecting with the door would make any game better for me.I also want developers to start building the world, then build the game around the world. I hate how linear games are. I hate that I can smash this door in, but I can't smash that door in. I hate that I'm a highly trained soldier, but I can't hop over a hedgerow. I think if developers started building their world as a whole (an entire office building, an entire city block - whatever), then mapped out where they want the player to go - and then add artificial contrivances (some are necessary), I think level design would be far more enjoyable than the way things are currently done - which is the opposite.I also want destructable environments. Why does planting an explosive charge not take out these windows? Or this door made out of wood? I have a shotgun here, why can't I shoot the lock off this door? It would make level design much harder - and there would still need to be some artifical constraints, probably - but I think playing in realistic words would make games better.If I find myself playing in a realistic, non-linear world I can interact with in realistic ways - with as few artificial restraints as possible - while also feeling like my character inhabits this world, and that he can perform all of the maneuvers a real human can perform, and the animations reflect this in a realistic way, I think I will find that FPS games have just gotten a hell of a lot better. [/QUOTE]Well said for the most part. Especially about characters being part of the environment. I dont like seeing doors open as if Jedi force powers opened them.Idunno though, part of me thinks that, concerning your level design suggestions, it would just take insanely long to build a game with such detail. Isnt that one reason why STALKER and Oblivion took so long to make, because of the detail put into the environment? But they sold well and were excellent games in that perspective...no hedgerows stopped me from going anywhere, and entire buildings were mapped out.Then there is the whole gameplay factor. Again, Oblivion had a detailed world and was good in this respect, but I think most people thought that after 3 minutes of trekking through a forest they got a little tired of seeing tree, tree, tree, flower, WOLF!, tree, tree, tree...Its hard; do we prefer an entertaining and brief straight line through a level like CoD4? Or do we prefer a rich detailed open world that eventually becomes monotonous? STALKER suffered from this as well; after you realized the side quests were pointless and repetative, there was little reason to deviate from the straight line from objective A to B.I cant imagine making a game like GTA and having every one of those buildings be accessible with hundreds of rooms and offices. And if it did, then the design would get bland and repetative....I think developers would just copy and paste rooms so eventually an office looks like a hotel room, only one has a bed one has a desk. And, if I were forced to choose, I think I would choose a visually deep and complex world (albeit skin deep) over a deep and detailed world (thats extremely bland from lack of effort). I mean, when youre being shot and and chased, is that detail really necessary when you dont have time to smell the roses?Dont get me wrong, a game with your suggestion be truly awesome. At first. But after a while I think players would naturally gravitate back to playing their games on ''a straight line''. People like to be efficient and practical, and the most efficient way to progress through a level is with as striaght a line as possible. Whats the point of having a door you can break down when there's nothing behind the door.Destructible environments would be awesome though. Imagine being Juggernaut and bustingthrough walls like him. Awesome.
Yeah, mrbo, I agree with you to some extent, but if mfsa's way of making new games became the norm, don't you think that capable devs would take advantage of that and make you want to explore your surroundings? It all comes down to what experience the dev team is trying to give you. CoD 4 works as a linear game because it's cinematic, highly intense and requires you to follow a certain path so that the action does not get ''diluted''. Not every game has to follow the same path though, I'd love to have a highly destructible and detailed GTA-like city to run freely in while shooting things if I have to. The main objectives would be inaccessible of course, but otherwise it's ''do what you want''.And I don't necessarily agree on ''players would naturally gravitate back to playing their games on ''a straight line''-remark. Exploration is part of human nature. If it were not, US would not have 250 (or something like that) mil inhabitants right now. We would not bother to see sci fi flicks about deep space travel and no man would have set his/her foot on the Moon, the Everest or the North pole. Why do you think sandbox- and free roam games like GTA sell like amphetamine in a crack house the moment they are out on the street? Freedom in games is highly sought after, and there is a reason for that. More freedom means devs will take advantage of that and give deeper gameplay (after a while of course).If anything such a game would be awesome to ''horse around'' in.
I would love to see more FPSs that emulate real combat. The Ghost Recon series does an O.K. job, well it did. I just want to see a game that has all of the military working together at the same time just like real life. CoD 4 is extremely far from real life, it is all action based...
Legitimately location-based damage and reactions. Like shooting a guy in the arm (or being shot in the arm) could make his aim all FUBAR and a hit in the foot would drop you to the ground. I'm not sure how one would fix those injuries, perhaps it would have to be a heal-lite system of like bandages or something.