Multiplayer FPS 101
by Jennie Lees 
{ Dec 10th 2005 at 1:00PM }
First-person shooter games have a long and rich history behind them, and bit-tech.net are taking a look at the
evolution of the genre, from Doom to
Quake 4, and speculating on the role of the FPS
now and in the future. They examine the difference between 'arcade' shooters like Quake and 'tactical'
shooters like Counter-Strike, and take a quick look at upcoming titles UT2007, Halo 3 and
Duke Nukem Forever.
With the increasing complexity of matchmaking allowing gamers of all skill levels to have fun while playing, and the
improvements in graphics adding much more depth to games (although the core engines aren't developing too much), we
should see some new titles that provide great FPS experiences and can be potential tournament games, as well as an
expansion of FPS on to console. Perhaps we'll even see the USB ports used on the Xbox 360 for
real control systems, not those pesky control pads.
Get a WordPress.com Blog
_thumbnail.jpg "Dynasty Warriors Strikeforce (Ryu)")
Reader Comments (Page 1 of 1)
Adrian @ Dec 18th 2005 9:38PM
improvement of graphics adding to the depth ?
I still feel that every shooter I have tried playing in the last 5 years pretty much ended up being quake with a different look and feel.
Only shooters I genuinely enjoyed anywhere 'recently' where system shock 2 and deus ex (the first one).
I'm thinking the revolution might change my opinion though. =)
gjd @ Dec 18th 2005 9:38PM
Yep, I know what you mean Adrian.
I'm a huge Halo fan, but the few others that I've tried are just like Halo but a little slower, or with different guns, or something else. (Heh, but how much difference really can there be?) In any case, I'm waiting for Nintendo to *revolutionize* the genre.
Not Impressed (Dmitri) @ Dec 18th 2005 9:38PM
I'll never understand the big deal about Halo. I get all Halo can give me and more from the original Call of Duty. Hell, Call of Duty 2 gives me more.
I guess the big thing is the fact that Halo is jam-packed full of children who like to teamkill.
Sagan @ Dec 18th 2005 9:38PM
To add to #1 and #2: I actually liked Doom 3 and Quake IV for their single player. I didn't like Far Cry, and I was disappointed by Half Life 2 (though I enjoyed it). My favourite Multiplayer shooter is Call of Duty deathmatch. Call of Duty 2 seems to play about the same way, so it should be fine, too. So I'm definitely the arcade shooter guy. I liked Deus Ex, too, but I didn't play it as an ego shooter but more as a stealth game, so that doesn't count for me.
Well I'm definitely looking forward to Metroid Prime Hunters and Metroid Prime 3, because I want to know how shooters play with these new controllers. The only console shooters I've played so far are Golden Eye and Metroid Prime 2, and from those I am convinced that shooters don't work without keyboard+mouse. (both of those games are great games, but they would play better with keyboard+mouse) For that reason I played Halo on PC and didn't try Halo 2.
About that article: Looks pretty well to me. I quickly scanned over it but didn't read thoroughly. But I was disappointed that he didn't give his opinion about the two upcoming Metroid Primes in the "Upcoming Titles" section.
BlackYoshi @ Dec 18th 2005 9:38PM
Sagan, a keyboard and mouse would suck for Metroid Prime 2. You know why? Because its an action adventure game, and not an FPS. Just because you shoot doesn't make it a shooter. Due to lock-on, it takes pretty much the main mechanic out of a shooter game: aiming. Metroid is exploration, puzzle solving, and some combat.
Slashbunny @ Dec 18th 2005 9:38PM
"I'm a huge Halo fan, but the few others that I've tried are just like Halo but a little slower, or with different guns, or something else."
Erm. The genre was already getting boring before Halo came around. That's why most people who've been playing 3D FPS since Quake will tell you Halo is an extraordinarily average game at best. Somehow Microsoft hyped it so well that people believed it was some type of new standard in first person shooters.
"Arcade v Tactical" argument is pretty weak. Arcade will make a comeback because the new UT will be the best looking game and they will give away cash monies in tournaments? Welcome to the past 6 years. All FPS tournaments have had an "arcade" DM portion and Q3A was better suited for such play over UT. Now CS and such have been put into tournaments, but the DM games are still there. The new UT just hopes to be the #1 DM game in all tournments, I guess. That doesn't mean "arcade" games are going to make a comeback. In addtion, the UT engines have always been visually impressive. The U2 engine didn't save the associated UT games from getting clobbered in popularity by CounterStrike, a game using a modified Quake 1 engine.
Also the lack of mention of Half-Life on the first page is disturbing. It's multiplayer was buggy, but still had loads of players. Team Fortress Classic came out and was the biggest FPS game online for quite a while. In addition the popularity of other mods such as CS and DoD which spawned from HL are worth a mention. But those are just the big ones. In the early days a year or two after HL's released there were tons of great mods with pretty big followings. Even before CS was big the HL community was probably bigger than anything else when you combine the numbers. And without question the current online multiplayer mods which are of such high quality nowadays are a direct result of the Half-Life modding community. Quake1 planted the seeds, but HL took it to a whole other level and made it mainstream.
Here's a list of other things I don't like about this article:
"1999 - Unreal Tournament. Arriving close to Quake, this offered awesome arcade action with a twist - objectives. If Quake 3 became the game of choice for pure deathmatchers, this offered a little extra for those looking for something a little more interesting. The Assault mode created an objective-based game that was far more fun to play online, and can be considered the precursor to Battlefield, I think. The original version sported possibly the greatest multiplayer weapon ever - the sniper rifle - which, combined with the incredible Facing Worlds map, made for hours and hours of genius sniping gameplay."
UT was not original. UT took ideas from many other multiplayer games and shoved them in a poorly designed DM game. If you want good CTF or territorial control play TF or TFC. If you want good assult gameplay, play CS. If you want good DM, play Quake3. And in the very next sentence, he mentions the sniper rifle. The sniper rifle of UT is the most poorly designed weapon in a multiplayer DM game- EVER. When designing weapons for multiplayer, you have to make sure you balance rate of fire, power, ammunition, effective range, hitscan or projective, and accuracy, amoung other things. The sniper rifle in UT is a perfect example of how _NOT_ to do it correctly. This thing has a super high rate of fire, high accuracy even on the run, very high power, and unlimited effective range. If you want an example of how to make this weapon balanced, look at Quake3's railgun. If something is that powerful and that accurate at any range, you slow the rate of fire down. Otherwise its lame and unbalanced.
He complains that they took out the sniper rifle and 2fort-like map. Wonder why? Because it was no fun trying to go across the map and get sniped by 50 people? It's fun for the camping bitch like this author, and no fun for everyone else and ruins the gameplay. That sniper rifle should be reserved for single player only. HIs constant mention of the sniper rifle only highlights how little understanding he has of competitive gaming.
In fact, every weapon is unbalanced or just plain spammy. Every weapon just fires shots all over the place. Sure, its fun. For a while. But it's no good for competitive purposes. That's why the game of choice was Q3A and not UT when there was money involved.
And CS isn't a realistic shooter. It's a hybrid. It's psuedo-realistic. Realistic is Rainbow6 and Operation Flashpoint. CS is in-between realistic and "arcade". That's why it's so popular. Extreme realism just isn't as fun for the majority of people out there, but they like to feel like they are in a real situation.
This implication that Q2 was the first "real" tournament game. Poppycock. Quake1 was. Q1 is still being played competitively. And no mention of TF2 in the future games. I wouldn't list it either, but they mentioned DNF. TF2 was supposed to carry the team multiplayer torch before CS/BF1942/etc came out.
Now it's been completely redone, probably redesigned, taking a little less "arcade" approach compared to the original TF or TFC. It's funny, reading all those TF2 interviews from around 1998. All the great innovations they talked about in TF2. Now none of them are innovations. All their ideas can be found in a variety of games and mods. No wonder they don't talk about it anymroe :p
Anyways... at the very east, UT2k4 should be removed and Day of Defeat added. Between DoD and DoD:S they are getting almost 300million player hours. UT2l4 has 11million player hours. That's sad. Every UT game has been getting beaten by user created mods for the Half-Life enigne. CS and CS:S get about 6 billion hours, by the way. A mention of Half-Life and even the Steam delivery service (where all these games are available) is absolutely essential if you are going to discuss "Multiplayer FPS 101". The significant majority (CS had ~70% by itself at one point) of multiplayer FPS gaming over the past 8 years has been on the Half-Life engine (on numerous mods) and now via the Steam service.
Jonathan @ Dec 18th 2005 9:38PM
I agree with everything #6 said.
I really, really, really don't get what makes halo better than a lot of other FPSs.
jl @ Dec 18th 2005 9:38PM
For Halo 2 in particular, it's both the setting and the integration with Xbox Live to make playing really, really easy. No servers, no worries about ping, bots, etc, etc; easy matchmaking, integrated friends list, and voice chat. The sci-fi setting is enjoyable compared to the gritty war/terrorism settings of many other FPSs -- shooting a faceless Spartan or a Covenant Elite is fun because it's less "real". Halo 1 had better weapon balance; I think the setting and the ease of LANning appealed to a lot of people, too, though I don't think it's anything particularly special on PC.
KilgoreTrout XL @ Dec 18th 2005 9:38PM
#6 You little Halo bashers sure are funny!
"That's why most people who've been playing 3D FPS since Quake will tell you Halo is an extraordinarily average game at best. Somehow Microsoft hyped it so well that people believed it was some type of new standard in first person shooters."
I guess I don't fit into your special category, since I've been playing 'em since Wolfenstein & Marathon. I think that still lets me tell you that you're full of sh*t though.
Cheers!
Adrian @ Dec 18th 2005 9:38PM
God I loved team fortress.
I didn't at first .. but TFC changed that.
My favorite trick was running into the enemy sniper nest as a spy, disguised as one of their snipers, and then waiting until the snipers zoomed in, and then stab them in the back with a knife.. feign death .. and change clothing ..
rinse. repeat.
And infecting their entire base with the medic, while doing grenade jumps everywhere.
Zaki @ Dec 18th 2005 9:38PM
Why can't we have other First Persom genre games beside shooters? Metroid Prime have been a First Person "Action Adventure." Why can't we have more First Person Adventure ala Myst but with total control of the Avatar and the environments around us? How about first person spots games like soccer or football? First Person dating sims? There's potential there, with the the help of the Source engine to help us connect better with the characters.
First Person views don't always mean shooters. Since we see the action up close and personal, why not take advantage of that view to connect with the characters as they travel with us along our adventures?
Nik @ Dec 18th 2005 9:38PM
"...and take a quick look at upcoming titles UT2007, Halo 3 and Duke Nukem Forever."
Duke Nukem Forever?!?
HAHAHAHAHA That's the funniest thing I've ever heard. I've been waiting for that game since 1997. All I can say is R.I.P. Duke.
Adrian @ Dec 18th 2005 9:38PM
Zaki .. that's why I think the Revolution is going to be so amazing for first person games.
Instead of having only a direction you are facing, you can have actual interaction with the world around you .. ie .. pick up the ball and throw it, etc.
Zaki @ Dec 18th 2005 9:38PM
Indeed. We might have a First Person equivalent of Lucasart or Sierra point & click adventures, with total movement of the avatar, complete interaction of the virtual environment and total immersion in the worlds they've created. Hopefully, the Rev should have enough power for designers to create a virtual solar system (at least) for FP adventure games. Or we should settle for FP Dating games. First Person games should go beyond mere shooting stuff. There are other genres worth exploring in FP views.
Another thing. Aren't First Person games an improvement over what Virtual Reality is trying to achieve?