Console Shooters No Longer Innovate, Says Original GoldenEye Director

Sisko

Yay I win

I am a fanboy , doesn't change the fact that I'm right. & its not just pure power, the platform itself allows for more creativity and creativity breeds innovation.

Scream fanboy all you like but that doesn't change that fact. Its like calling me a cinema fan boy when I say the screen is much bigger and the sound is much louder then at home

Seems more like you just hate the platform and are biased against it.

Whatever though, no hard feelings.

Magill

Sisko wrote: »

Yay I win

I am a fanboy , doesn't change the fact that I'm right. & its not just pure power, the platform itself allows for more creativity and creativity breeds innovation.

Scream fanboy all you like but that doesn't change that fact. Its like calling me a cinema fan boy when I say the screen is much bigger and the sound is much louder then at home

Seems more like you just hate the platform and are biased against it.

Whatever though, no hard feelings.

No... you dont win... i just cant be arsed having a discussion with someone that obviously cant ****ing read !!!!


I hate the platform... i'll quote what i said in an earlier post (Which was a reply to you) that you obviously didnt understand....

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.

Seriously... theres no doubt in my mind that i have been PC gaming for at least as long as you and would without a doubt have considered myself a hardcore gamer... this thread is about ****ing console shooters.. oh wait... you obviously cant read the title cos your too busy bum ****ing your PC and drooling all over your keyboard. Im trying to make some points about how flawed the OP's article is and all i can make from your posts is "OMGZ PC SO BESTER THAN CONSOLE LOL, CONSOLE GAMES SUCK LOL".... so please.. just shhh

Sisko

And I thought you were no longer arsed

I could have just quoted what you said there so your further edits didnt hide it but I'll leave yea too it , if we continue this thread will get locked and by the looks of it you'll prob get banned for personal abuse.

I was just making the point that innovation generally starts on the pc then trickles down to the consoles but we're getting less and less of that now as more and more money is being made from the console shooters etc etc. Continuing on from the article overheal posted.

Magill

Sisko wrote: »

And I thought you were no longer arsed

I could have just quoted what you said there so your further edits didnt hide it but I'll leave yea too it , if we continue this thread will get locked and by the looks of it you'll prob get banned for personal abuse.

I was just making the point that innovation generally starts on the pc then trickles down to the consoles but we're getting less and less of that now as more and more money is being made from the console shooters etc etc. Continuing on from the article overheal posted.

Quoted what i said ? I edited for spelling mistakes.... I see no personal abuse in my posts either..

innovation "USED" to start on the PC... Anyway, that is all. Bed time.

Mr E

Magill wrote: »

oh wait... you obviously cant read the title cos your too busy bum ****ing your PC and drooling all over your keyboard.

Preeeetty sure that counts as personal abuse.

If you can't make your point without lowering yourself to comments like this, maybe its best to take a step back. The next comment like this will earn you a break from the forum (the same goes for everyone posting in this thread).

Blowfish

Sisko wrote: »

Or maybe they'll get smart and finally add proper mouse and keyboard support for all FPS games.

Now that would be a serious blow to PC gaming.

I actually don't think it would. The biggest advantages for PC gaming actually have nothing to do with the control system and everything to do with the PC's flexibility and lack of barrier to entry. Both of those promote innovation.

NeoKubrick

Retr0gamer wrote: »

Even Halo with it's so called impressive AI isn't all that advanced. It's mostly just smoke and mirrors hiding very low level scripting. Bungie have done a good job of disguising it but after playing the games it becomes obvious how all the cause and effect strings are attached together. Gearbox did say that the only clever thing about Halos AI was that it was good at avoiding scenery. Sure even Stalker suffers from this as well. I suppose someday we'll get better AI and it's not as obvious what triggers cause the AI to snap into the next behaviour string and the whole thing is more believeable.

Can you point to me the "smoke and mirrors" in Halo's artifical intelligence? On what basis do you think that Bungie tried to diguise the 'cause and effect' strings?

Sisko

Blowfish wrote: »

I actually don't think it would. The biggest advantages for PC gaming actually have nothing to do with the control system and everything to do with the PC's flexibility and lack of barrier to entry. Both of those promote innovation.

Your right ,good point.

Retr0gamer

NeoKubrick wrote: »

Can you point to me the "smoke and mirrors" in Halo's artifical intelligence? On what basis do you think that Bungie tried to diguise the 'cause and effect' strings?

I'm saying something positive about your precious Halo this time. All AI is is basic cause and effect. In a lot of shooters I find you can see the AI snapping from one AI state to another and it can get pretty obvious in bad cases. Bungie did a better job than most at disguising it but it's still noticeable after a while.

Sabre0001

I think over the years, the PC scene has been more open to innovation because it's more accessible for modders. Valve, iD Software, EPIC, etc were all good for releasing the development tools with games and as a result, we have seen impressive mods and people changing things.

This may change - XBox now features Indie games so hopefully we will see progression.

I do agree that there's only so much that can be done with shooters but games have evolved. Cover systems, ability to look up (go back and play Doom - very disorientating!), superpowers / dual wielding an ability with weapons, regen health (not a fan but still, it's different), etc.

PogMoThoin

Most successful games have had mod tools, Unreal SDK, Fallout SDK, Crysis SDK, DICE's mod tools for BF series, HL2, CSS, Far Cry, Bohemia mod tools, etc. These led to innovating stuff being created by the community and prolonging the life and excitement of a game

Modding on consoles is now frowned upon and means hacking and cheating. Very few modern games come with tools, MW2, BFBC2, MoH etc

Retr0gamer

I think some of the excuses for not providing modding toolsis silly. For the Frost engine Dice are saying it's too advanced and the thing is basically only running due to how optimised it is. However developers forget all about people coming in doing free mods and improving on games and how the code is run. Many of the best developers started as mod makers. Sure activision can keep blocking mod access. I'm sure valve won't mind when they keep snapping up mod makers and being rewarded with games like Counterstrike, Portal and Left 4 Dead.

Magill

Retr0gamer wrote: »

I think some of the excuses for not providing modding toolsis silly. For the Frost engine Dice are saying it's too advanced and the thing is basically only running due to how optimised it is. However developers forget all about people coming in doing free mods and improving on games and how the code is run. Many of the best developers started as mod makers. Sure activision can keep blocking mod access. I'm sure valve won't mind when they keep snapping up mod makers and being rewarded with games like Counterstrike, Portal and Left 4 Dead.

I would say thats one of the biggest reason why valve's hl1 and hl2 have been so successful, the amount of content in the form of mods available for hl1 was absolutely huge. There was the 3 big ones in CS, Day of defeat(IMO it was better than cod1/2) and CTF, then there was a load of other really good ones like The Specialists and Natural selection, the quality of these mods were incredible tbh. Even on games like cs there was tons of mini mods and custom gametypes that really helped build the community up to its peak.

Its the main reason i want valve to hurry up and make HL3, because i hope it'll spark the same sort of modding boom that hl1 and too a lesser extend hl2 did.

Jazzy

Sisko wrote: »

And I thought you were no longer arsed

and I thought you 'won' ?




Im seeing it as essentially 2 versions of the same game. for single player there isnt much difference beyond control system. you might have better graphics on the pc or something but at the end of the day the game itself has to hold its weight.
for multiplayer you are dealing with different crowds. a lot of console fps gamers are very casual and have a far broader attitude to games while a lot of pc gamers get very into the games and really nerd it out, hence modding communities and the like. thats beginning now on the console and i really hope it continues as its a benefit for both the industry and the consumers. to say there isnt any innovation on the console for fps games is a bit daft though

NeoKubrick

Retr0gamer wrote: »

I'm saying something positive about your precious Halo this time. All AI is is basic cause and effect. In a lot of shooters I find you can see the AI snapping from one AI state to another and it can get pretty obvious in bad cases. Bungie did a better job than most at disguising it but it's still noticeable after a while.

The point is that you're not saying anything about the Halo series that's correct - it's irrelevant whether that is positive or negative. The artificial intelligence for the Halo series was explicitly designed to not disguise the 'cause and effect' strings; hence, Grunt shouts "runaway" when he transistions from the 'fight' to the 'flee' state; Elite crouches when recharging shield; Elite has a specific animation and battle cry when he changes from the 'Fight' to 'Angry' state et cetera. No lead AI programmer wants to disguise the 'cause and effect' behaviour, because 100% randomness isn't fun behaviour to react to.

Retr0gamer

Whatever.

cherryghost

NeoKubrick wrote: »

The point is that you're not saying anything about the Halo series that's correct - it's irrelevant whether that is positive or negative. The artificial intelligence for the Halo series was explicitly designed to not disguise the 'cause and effect' strings; hence, Grunt shouts "runaway" when he transistions from the 'fight' to the 'flee' state; Elite crouches when recharging shield; Elite has a specific animation and battle cry when he changes from the 'Fight' to 'Angry' state et cetera. No lead AI programmer wants to disguise the 'cause and effect' behaviour, because 100% randomness isn't fun behaviour to react to.

That doesn't support your argument at all. If anything it's quite the opposite.

NeoKubrick

cherryghost wrote: »

That doesn't support your argument at all. If anything it's quite the opposite.

Your post is vague. Explain what argument you're referring to, and what doesn't support it and why it's the opposite, and we can have a discussion.

cherryghost

NeoKubrick wrote: »

Your post is vague. Explain what argument you're referring to, and what doesn't support it and why it's the opposite, and we can have a discussion.

Well judging by your post, who in their right mind would enjoy playing against predictive AI? It's one of my gripes with Halo. It's painfully obvious when the states of AI change.

'No AI Programmer wants to disguise the 'cause and effect' behaviour'? Show me where they said that and then maybe I'll give your post some kudos, because it's just rubbish you're spewing to be honest.

The fact you're defending the Halo series AI by basically pointing out the fact that it's rubbish and clear as daylight is laughable. At least in other games like Arma II (AI adapt to your actions) or even the Call of Duty (covering fire or varying set pieces) there is some intelligence shown by the AI.

And yes, I accept the simple fact that AI programming hasn't advanced to such a position where they could be challenging and unpredictable, but yet have some sort of coherence to them.

Skerries

is there anywhere that consoles and PC can go in the forseeable future as regards FPS's?
barring new technology jumps it will come down to new innovations in the way people play and execute shooters
so for the moment i think they will start tacking on external hardware like they are with the wii and PS3's move, tbh who wouldn't want to have a full sized auto rifle that would work like the real thing and interact with the game

Magill

Skerries wrote: »

is there anywhere that consoles and PC can go in the forseeable future as regards FPS's?
barring new technology jumps it will come down to new innovations in the way people play and execute shooters
so for the moment i think they will start tacking on external hardware like they are with the wii and PS3's move, tbh who wouldn't want to have a full sized auto rifle that would work like the real thing and interact with the game

Sounds like hardwork.

Retr0gamer

Controls aren't really a problem. I doubt we are going to get a better control scheme than keyboard and mouse. Move and Wii seem like they would be good for FPS games but while they are better than analogue sticks they just don't match a keyboard and mouse.

As Cliffy B says the future of FPS is in RPGs and I believe he is correct. I think the next step is huge open world FPS games were set pieces are created by the environment and AI with less relying on scripting. AI that can deal with an open world setting were it's not tightly controlled by a level designer, the AI will have to be more dynamic and adapt to the enviroment. NPC interaction as well as inventory management to make it more immersive. Fallout does a good job of this but Stalker is the best example we have. AI in combat is excellent and the best I've seen in a game and it's open world but it falls down a bit in the character interactions and gets less immersive. Outside of towns it's excellent though even if not truly open world.

The only problem with a game like this is that it's a huge undertaking and very ambitious. Publishers would much prefer a safe corridor shooter like Halo or CoD than take a risk on an ambitious project. It's why I think the next big leap in FPS gaming will be on PC from an independent eastern european developer without being massively tied down by a publisher and I think that when some one nails it it could be the next GTA. I don't think we will see it though until the next gen of consoles. The sweet spot for it to come out will be in the first year or 2 of a consoles release.

NeoKubrick

cherryghost wrote: »

Well judging by your post, who in their right mind would enjoy playing against predictive AI? It's one of my gripes with Halo. It's painfully obvious when the states of AI change.

'No AI Programmer wants to disguise the 'cause and effect' behaviour'? Show me where they said that and then maybe I'll give your post some kudos, because it's just rubbish you're spewing to be honest.

The fact you're defending the Halo series AI by basically pointing out the fact that it's rubbish and clear as daylight is laughable. At least in other games like Arma II (AI adapt to your actions) or even the Call of Duty (covering fire or varying set pieces) there is some intelligence shown by the AI.

I'm still unclear as to which argument you were referring to, what doesn't support it and why it's the opposite. Retr0 claimed that the Halo series' AI was good at disguising the 'cause and effect' strings; I pointed out that that is simply incorrect because the specific design of the AI is to not disguise the 'cause and effect' strings. That's not an argument for or against anything: it's a fact. Can you point to a single example in my previous where I defended Halo series and by, in your words, "pointing out the fact that it's rubbish and clear as daylight"? You can't, because it doesn't exist in my two previous posts.

The only argument I stated was that "100% randomness isn't fun behaviour to react to". This is a truism, and the fact that you demand a quote for you to accept this truth is indicative of your lack of knowledge of the subject of game AI. Game AI programmers don't want to create behaviour that the player is unable make a prediction about. So, they seldom want to disguise their created behaviour for the player to be unaware of it which would make predictions impossible.

There is a lot of "intelligence" in the Halo series' artifical intelligence. Are you claiming there isn't?

Retr0gamer

The problem with Halo's AI is it becomes totally predictable after a while and some of the AI programming is a bit rubbish at times. AI's reaction to grenades is suspect at times. You can count on the AI jumping out of the way even when it can't see the grenades and sometimes straight into walls. Take down an elites shield and instead of going for cover it will stand there, do a stupid roar thing and let you take it out. I was more referring to the fact that you can see the AI snap from one AI behaviour to another and it became predictable as well as the triggers. Having a few AI behaviours per trigger and a toning down of the more noticeable acrobatic ones would help make it less predictable and obvious that there's code behind the AI controlling everything. Also the AI never worked together. Bungie did a good job at making it seem like it did but it didn't and gearbox pretty much said so after reverse engineering the code and tbh it's pretty obvious anyway.Sure there's some silly stuff like grunts being more likely to run if there's no elites but that's not AI really interacting with each other to carry out flanking manoeuvres. That's the smoke and mirrors.

norrie rugger

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. 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.

I would love to remove invunerability.

Where you shoot a guy in the leg and he stands there, takes aim and fires.
If someone shot me in theleg, I would fall to the ground and not be able to casually take aim at his head. So if you get shot in the hand, you can not longer use that hand. Shot in the leg means a limp with no running etc

Magill

norrie rugger wrote: »

I would love to remove invunerability.

Where you shoot a guy in the leg and he stands there, takes aim and fires.
If someone shot me in theleg, I would fall to the ground and not be able to casually take aim at his head. So if you get shot in the hand, you can not longer use that hand. Shot in the leg means a limp with no running etc

The problem with this is not that game developers can't do it, but that it just turns the game into a simulator, you'll never be able to have big action scenes because they would be too difficult for the player. Just look at how much you get shot in say mw2 single player, even on the easiest difficulty you get shot quite a bit. The only way this would work is if it was a more mystery/adventure type game with very little in the form of shooting or in more hardcore form of hitman. I think it would be excellent if it was done in the right kind of game tho with a great story and some intense sneaking etc Knowing that one shot could kill you would keep you on edge the whole time.

Sisko

ArmA2.........................

Skerries wrote: »

is there anywhere that consoles and PC can go in the forseeable future as regards FPS's?
barring new technology jumps it will come down to new innovations in the way people play and execute shooters
so for the moment i think they will start tacking on external hardware like they are with the wii and PS3's move, tbh who wouldn't want to have a full sized auto rifle that would work like the real thing and interact with the game

Again ArmA2 , you can use a webcam or trackIR with it, allowing your virtual head to move freely with out moving your virtual torso/arms/body.

FPS generally act like your constantly moving your body around when looking about. Like people have no necks.

I make use of this feature a lot in the game without trackir etc, I'll push a button on the side of my mouse which enters 'head tracking mode' and now my mouse controls where my head looks.

Picture sprinting across a road to cover, click the side of your mouse, looking left and right as your still sprinting in the same direction. Once in cover clicking the mouse again bringing your gun back up and your back into 'staring through the crosshair of a gun mode'

Any other fps you'd have to stop sprinting and strafe to get a quick baring of your surrounds as you move in the one diction.

Its not massive but its nice. Retro is right, until we can hook our machines up to our brains lol I can't see much moving past the mouse and KB. Small things that help you control more parts of your character is all. The rest will be largely due to the innovations of the interface in the games themselves.

There may be improvements in controls for consoles though that help bridge the gap. I deffo think two thumbsticks can be improved on, just like the thumbsticks were an improvement over a d-pad.

Jazzy

Retr0gamer wrote: »

Having a few AI behaviours per trigger and a toning down of the more noticeable acrobatic ones would help make it less predictable and obvious that there's code behind the AI controlling everything.

thats the biggest problem I have with AI. as you said, watching an elite in Halo stand there and shout a bit while you lay into his head is a bit dumb. There are things you can do in first person games that always manipulate and trick the AI and they are the same things for the past 12/13 years.
I much prefer a game in which the developers know this and counteract by having the enemy set up different traps for you that is more fitting the atmosphere of the game and the particular level you are in.
the worst thing about the Halo single player to me was the extreme boredom factor of having the same firefights over and over with maybe a slightly different mix of bad guy. the AI didnt really matter, it was more the particular size and mix of the enemy. Half Life 2 though would have a very light mix of bad guys but was 50 times more exciting due to how they came at you and how the game set up the next encounter. there was atmosphere and a proper sense of dread as you played through certain sections for the first time.. in Halo it was just 'what vehicle' would be waiting for you that made it exciting and nothing to do with the actual atmosphere and feeling of the game. I played through the most recent edition (Reach) and it still felt the exact same as Halo 1. you werent waiting for an actual adrenaline rush, it was just 'what toy is next?'. a case of too much cream and a very very broad way to make a game appeal to its audience, heck, thats probably one of the reasons it sold so much.

Retr0 wrote:

As Cliffy B says the future of FPS is in RPGs and I believe he is correct. I think the next step is huge open world FPS games were set pieces are created by the environment and AI with less relying on scripting

yeah, id agree strongly with this. The next real innovations will come from the world that is created within the game and how that effects the player. I know im a bit of a fanboy, but I really cant wait to see Rage by id software. id have never really approached the RPG shooter genre so it will be interesting to see what they do with it.

Sisko

I suppose Dues Ex 3 is the next big RPG shooter , we'll see what happens there.

I've high hopes but its not pc exclusive so its already got heavy limitations on what it can be built in.

norrie rugger

Magill wrote: »

The problem with this is not that game developers can't do it, but that it just turns the game into a simulator, you'll never be able to have big action scenes because they would be too difficult for the player. Just look at how much you get shot in say mw2 single player, even on the easiest difficulty you get shot quite a bit. The only way this would work is if it was a more mystery/adventure type game with very little in the form of shooting or in more hardcore form of hitman. I think it would be excellent if it was done in the right kind of game tho with a great story and some intense sneaking etc Knowing that one shot could kill you would keep you on edge the whole time.

That would be amazing in single player.

They try to do this in Multi player but 1 shot kills are crazy.

I do not mean that you die after the single shot but that your character gets wounded/stunned (even if only for a few seconds). Stops a guys who has been well hit, from just running away.
I just hade it when you pump a clip into someone but because they are running, they just seem to have nothing happen. They then turn around and aim a single shot at your head.