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.