Hell, I'm even agreeing with a lot of things josh is saying and we are usually on different sides of the arguement. To say that all FPS are the same and follow the same format and story is like I said, calling all third person perspective games the same. Imagen if I bunched up the following games and said they were the same because they all share the same perspective in game:

GTA 3/VC
Lara Croft
Mario Kart
Splinter Cell
Metal Gear Solid
Ratchet and Clank
Socom

Now imagen if I haven't played them all and made that claim. Of course my words would seem meaningless and it wouldn't be worth arguing with me about now would it? My race comment was to make the point that just because you bunch up a group together doesn't mean it's true. Just because they look the same doesn't mean they play the same or are the same.

FPS come in all shapes in sizes. You can't tell me Battle Field 1942 is the same as Counter strike or Half life or hell you can't tell me that Medal of Honor is the same as BF1942 and both are WWII games! the gameplay and feel of each aswell as the story varies. Quake I had a different story and feel then Quake II and Quake III. all were different.

Now it's not your bag and I respect that, but you are just grouping them together and procliaming it as fact when you really have no knowledge on it all.


as for the market comments. You do realize that in the console world once one new idea is out there it is spread around like the town whore aswell. Look at all the GTA copy cats. When the simpsons does it, you know it's successful. Tony hawk/skate games are the same as Bike games. same formula so really, you can't say that everything on console is fresh and new and a lot of copy cat games are out there. It's part of the market. I do realize that a lot of PC games are indeed FPS, but then again you shouldn't make a judgement till you turn around and see the many other type of games on PC. Micro Mangement not your thing either? Well what is? console's run, run run solve small puzzle and then run some more type of games? is that it? both systems have it's benefits. You shouldn't make a bold statment like that till you do more investigating because not all FPS are the same. simple as that.

Well, this discussion has strayed off course. I guess it's my fault for listing mostly FPS titles coming out... I can't help it - that's my favorite type of game. FPS games aren't all that's coming out in the next year that will contribute to the resurgance of PC gaming... still, it's the one genre that really hooks PC gaming enthusiasts more than any other. I'm not trying to ignore the Warcraft or Diablo type of games either... We'll know more after E3.

Well, I'd have to agree with the FPS-bashers. In my opinion its been the onslaught of FPS/3d-shooters that have really killed off a lot of interest in PC gaming. I was a mega-gamer back in the day, but once PC games started to move towards the first-person/3d platform, my interest steadily died off.

I'd have to agree with the people saying they are basically all the same, because they really are. Sure, they have their slight nuances, and you do have a few that break the mold (like Thief for example). But in general, doom, quake, tribes, Unreal, etc are all the same game. Yes, some have different storylines/goals/etc. But in essense its all the same game. It's like if you took Baldur's gate and just released tons of different mods, new storylines/quests, upgrades, etc to it. It changes the gameplay some, but its still the same game underneath it all.

There is only so much you can do with a FPS to make it look genuinely different than the others. One can arguably pick up any FPS game and be proficient in it just based on their previous FPS experience. It's all basically a cookie-cutter genre now. The same is coming true for the RTS genre as well.

The PC 'glory days' were back when there were tons of different types of games out there. Now its largely a been-there/done-that type of thing. You really don't get too many innovative games out on the PC now. Its mostly just games from the standard genre's with updated graphics. It's the consoles now that have the unique and interesting games.

When you mention PC gaming to someone, the first thing that comes to their mind now is an FPS game. While 'die-hards' love them, there are tons of people that really dislike them. I'm included, mostly because I'm so sick of them and they don't bring anything new to the table. I'm bored of the whole genre. Unfortunately, thats all they keep churning out.

Don't blame yourself, it's my fault.

But I still think I have been singled out. Al_bundy made a similar comment and neither Josh nor Jackskeleton made any reference to it.

[QUOTE]Originally posted by al_bundy

]This is why I agree with you. All FPS games are basically the same. Run around and kill each other. You can change the story, the graphics and the engine but it still is the same game. Was there anything different at the core of Doom and Quake? Same thing with fighting games and a lot of RTS's. And if you look at it multiplayer for most games is the same. Deathmatch, team death match and a few other variations of the above. Diablo was unique in that it offered coop play in solving the game. I think the next successful games will be the real multiplayer games with online worlds where you can really work together to accomplish objectives.

I have 2 games for my PC now. Ghost Recon and Medieval Total War. GR is also my only x-box game because it's pretty unique among the mass of games. No getting hit by missiles 10 times before you die. You have to use real team work and tactics to win.

And a few others have agreed with me. But I bear no ill will. Jack you'd make a great debater.

LOL after reading all this I can truly say, to each his own.

If FPS games are all the same (although I really don't agree with that, can see why it would be said though) I don't really care...bring em on Someone mentioned putting a game box down as soon as they saw it was a FPS...heh I do the reverse, seeing it's something other than a FPS usually makes me put it down. I play a few other types of games, don't get me wrong, like Mafia, the new Indiana Jones game, some sports and racing, but FPS games are the s*** as far as I'm concerned.

There's certainly enough variety in the genre for me...I mean Serious Sam vs Iron Storm...they couldn't be more different.

Yep, good things coming in the next year. Although personally past year or two as still had some very good games come out IMO - Jedi Outcast, MOHAA and Spearhead, SOFII, RTCW, Iron Storm, UT2003...but them I'm relatively easy to please in this genre.

Well, I guess since this discussion won't drift back on track, I'll chime in on this whole FPS debate. FPS games are all the same only in that your perspective is first person and you are equiped with some sort of weapon. That's about it. Sure, some FPS titles are alot like other FPS titles, but not all of them are the same. That's an ignorant thing to say. I used to have friends who would say "all punk music sounds the same" (this was before punk got all big on MTv)... punk music doesn't all sound the same. That's retarded. The only thing it all has in common is that there are instruments and people play them.

Saying all FPS are the same you might as well just say that all video games are the same - You move something around and go "ptew ptew". You all just sound like some old ignorant grandma that just wants peace and quiet during her needlepoint time. If FPS games aren't for you, then there's really no reason to talk about them at all. I can understand why someone would say all first person shooters are the same - it just means they haven't played enough of them to have an informed opinion... I'm the same way about those diablo warcraft starcraft games. They all seem like the same exact thing to me, but I'm sure they're all quite different. It's just that I haven't played them enough or enough of them and I really just don't find them that interesting. There's nothing wrong with that, but I don't go around bitching about how there's so many of them on the shelves and how they all suck and are the same thing.

My original point was that PC gaming is gonna get hot again in the next year. First Person perspective games aren't the only ones that will be huge, but they're the ones I'm paying attention to. Others in this thread have mentioned other games in other genres that are also on the horizon. I wasn't trying to suggest that everyone like FPS games... I know there will always be people who just don't want to like them... some people don't like action games. Some get motion sickness. Some played Doom and a few others back in the day and think that's what they're still like (run run shoot shoot grab key open door run run shoot shoot). It's this kind of thinking that spawned the whole Metroid controversy...

Those who were into Nintendo and Metroid were excited for a new Metriod game for their Gamecube. Once they found out it was gonna be a FPS, they freaked out. They already had a predefined idea of what a FPS was and they didn't like it (that's partly why they were playing Nintendo instead of a PC or something)... all FPS are the same, they thought. So they decided to come up with a new genre that they could slip Metroid into so it wouldn't be just another FPS (which are all the same, don't forget). FPA - First Person Adventure. As if changing it from shooter to adventure they refined the game and made it something completely different. The fact that FPS games have been adventures for the last 5 years meant nothing. They were determined to make sure Metroid was set apart from the pack at least in their own minds so they could enjoy it. Well, I've played through half of Metriod and to me, it's more like the original Doom in terms of FPS-ness than any FPS that's come out for the PC in the last 5 years.

To me Metroid Prime felt just like the old metroid games. More so than an FPS. Of course you can't comment on that as you've admitted before that you haven't played the old metroid games.

I mean it does feel like an FPS to an extent, but in every FPS I've played (doom, quake 1 and 2, Jedi Knight 1 and 2, Metal of Honor, Metal of Honor Frontline, goldeneye, perfect dark, and probably a couple more I'm forgetting) the main emphasis seemed to be on shooting, with some other elements mixed in in some games (i.e. a little stealth in goldeneye).

When Metroid was annouced as a first person game, I had reservations. I was afraid it would play like the games I listed above. It didn't kill my interest in the game, as I liked the above games. However, I was only casually interested in them, where as Super Metroid is my all-time favorite game.

I didn't have to redefine it as something other than and FPS to enjoy it. I just hoped it wasn't a typical FPS (like the ones I listed above). After playing it, it felt like Metroid. I played solely to explore the world, find hidden items, try to get to places I couldn't before etc. In other words it felt like an adventure game.

I don't call it and FPA to enjoy it. I just simply prefer accurate descriptive labels for things.

Too many people seem to lable most any game in a first person perspective as an FPS.

I prefer to label them more specifically. If the emphasis is on exploration (like in MP and I'm sure many PC FPSs I haven't played) then call it an FPA. If the emphasis is on stealth, call it a First Person Stealth or Spy game. And so on.

Maybe doing so would help get rid of the stereotype that all "FPSs are the same."

First Person Stealth
First Person Shooting
First person slashing (Saber's/swords)
First person driving
First Person Adventure
First Person Role Playing Game
First person Mouse clicking
First Person Sports
First Person skate boarding

What else? I'm thinking of ways to get rid of the FPS are all the same.. Why not call them for what they are? I mean I don't go around saying
Third Person Skate Boarding
Third Person Adventure
Third Person Shooting
Third person sports
Third Person tomb raiding
Third person mario game

I call it what it is. Action, Adventure, RPG, etc. etc.

People naturally assume a game is third person (console games anyway) unless it has the first person moniker attached to it because the vast majority of console games use a third person perspective.

So if some says ______ is an adventure game. I'm thinking Zelda type game.

Thus it is necessary to say FPA for something like Metroid Prime.

Console gamer here. Here's why: I can play games on my big TV screen and hear the sound around my room. I can sit on a couch, rug, chair or wherever, not stuck in front of a keyboard. Don't need to worry about having enough memory, slowdown, graphics card, and more importantly a small game library.

I'm not sure what was the point of this response. we aren't talking about the difference between PC and Consoles and which is your choice/better. we are talking about 1.) The future of PC gaming getting back in the spot light 2.) the issues with FPS and how they vary in complexity and shouldn't just be put into one set fit as "This is a FPS"

As for set ups.. You must not have seen many PC gamers set ups. It can be even more comfortable then a console set up.. not to mention the sound systems.. trust me, the whole "I can sit anywhere I want and listen to it on big speakers holds no real weight since a good PC set up will just about equel that in no time.

That's great. I have over 200 good PC games in my library and my office chair is more comfy than any other seat in the house... and my couch is damn comfy. I have Klipsch 5.1 surround speakers hooked up to my PC and they sound phenominal. I also have a 22" monitor that can display resolutions much higher than any TV. I don't have to worry about living room clutter or cords or getting up to change games. I don't worry about my PC being compatible or capable of running games - it just is. In a year or so, it'll be time to throw a couple hundred bucks at it maybe - but it's not something I worry about. I like messing with my PC.

I do have consoles and among the 6 consoles in the house, 2 ever get played and we own a total of about 50 games for all the consoles... half of which aren't worth playing again. It's all a personal preference. Some people are gonna like PC gaming and others are gonna prefer console gaming. That was never my point in the first place. I never intended this to be about console vs pc or FPS are sukekekeke. I don't even know why so many people who are anti-PC gaming even bothered to post in this thread since it wasn't even about anything they're interested in. It was a post for PC gamers who - like myself - have noticed the poor PC gaming support lately and that's all.

Well, I have played several side-scroller games and since saying I never played a Metriod game, I have played one. It's a typical side-scroller. The Gamecube Metriod game wasn't anything like it. It was a FPS. I can see why fans of the original Metroid games would be pleased by the similarities in gameplay since it's basically the same character in a first person view doing essentially the same run and gun stuff. You can feel whatever you want to feel about Metroid, but that doesn't exclude it from the FPS genre.

I mean, of the FPS that you listed - you listed the ones that are classic run and gun and find the key... Doom, Quake, and Quake 2 are all basically the same game with updated graphics... The Dark Forces series is kinda the same as well, but with a Star Wars theme. Goldeneye and Perfect Dark are kinda the same thing as each other and IMO weren't very good examples of a FPS anyway - alot of people will disagree citing Goldeneye as being revolutionary. I don't remember having to find keys to open doors in Medal of Honor - it was more of a war re-enactment that you could participate in.

Where's System Shock or Half-Life or Unreal or Undying or No One Lives Forever or Deus Ex in your list? I mean - I guess you can boil any game down to elements so simple that they all sound like the same thing - run, shoot, open door, find stuff, run, shoot, rinse, repeat - that sounds like virtually every game on PC or console. That's Super Mario Brothers in a nutshell... that also describes Metroid, Final Fantasy, Metal Gear, Space Invaders, Resident Evil, Centepede, etc etc... Everything except for Sports and Racing and Civilization/Sim type games. Of every game ever made, half of them have you running and shooting at something. So what? If you have some religious thing against shooting, then stick to Tetris and Mario Kart and Need for Speed. Oh wait - can't you shoot things in Mario Kart? Anyway - you know what I mean.

I just prefer games in a First Person perspective cuz they are more immersive. I also prefer the types of FPS games where you have to think and you only encounter enemies every so often rather than games like Serious Sam where you get slammed with enemies you have to mow down non-stop.

I would like to see more Monkey Island type of games on the PC, since those are the only ones I play. It seems like they are now a dead genre .

The old Metroid games (especially Super Metroid) weren't typical side scrollers at all.

A typical side scroller was just go through short levels killing crap, fight a boss, repeat.

The difference with the Metroid games was it was all one interconnected world and the main point of playing was to explore the world and figure out how to get to new areas, rather than just staying alive and killing things. Shooting stuff is entirely secondary to the exploration element.

That's what sets Metroid Prime (and other FPS with more emphasis on exploration, stealth etc.) apart from the sterotypical FPS games like Quake. And that's why I think the genre needs more specific labels like First Person Adventure, First Person Stealth.

First Person is simply a persective, so the following word should be indicative of the main focus of the gameplay, as certainly not all first person games emphasize shooting as the main element. All these types of games shouldn't get the "shooter" suffix because in many of the games shooting isn't the main gameplay element even if you do a lot of it in the game.

More game-play relevant labels would go a long way towards getting rid of the "all FPSs are the same" stereotype.

Oooooohhh... that's sooooo different. It's like a completely different thing alltogether - it's not even a Video Game anymore... it's a Video Reality! This foreign concept that you can re-visit the same area you've already been to is so revolutionary. I never knew until just now how tired I was of all those games that had just a jumble of pointless levels that had nothing to do with each other... my eyes are open now.

The graphics are better on PC. I play Ghost Recon on PC and can make out enemy from a long way away. On the X-Box on the TV it's a lot harder because the resolution is horrible. And I'll take my intellimouse over a console controller any day.

And my old P3 933 with a Geforce 4 can run Ghost Recon at 1600x1200 with all effects maxed out. Much better than the X-Box or PS2 can ever dream of running it.

Small game library? The game library for PC is greater than all the consoles combined. And I don't mean all the consoles in this generation. I mean all consoles. Ever.

I never said it was a completely different thing, but it is a different thing.

The main difference isn't the interconnected worlds, but rather the emphasis on exploration, rather than just killing stuff and getting through the level.

In typical side scrolling shooters like Contra, Mega Man etc. you simply kill everything in your path while trying to stay alive.

In the old Metroid games your main focus is on taking your time, exploring the world, looking for hidden stuff. The shooting is secondary, and staying alive isn't a big deal except for bosses because after a couple hours into the game you can take a lot of damage before dying.

That's why most people classify the old metroid games, and the new one, as adventure games.

If the emphasis isn't on shooting, why label it shooting.

It just annoys me that everything that's in first person gets labeled an FPS.

I mean if Splinter Cell was in first person most people would label it an FPS. Then people that don't like FPSs wouldn't give it a chance, even though it isn't a shooter at all, but a stealth game in which shooting is usually the last resort.

Again the genre label should reflect the main element of the gameplay.

We already have this with 3rd person games as Jack pointed out. They simpy get called, adventure, stealth, shooters etc. They don't need the 3rd person label because most games are in third person so that's taken for granted.

But with first person games, the "first person" part is necessary to set it apart from all the 3rd person games. Unfortunately, somehow the damn "shooter" suffix gets attached to 99% of games in the first person perspective, regardless of whether shooting is the main gameplay element.

IMO just because a game is in first person and you shoot stuff doesn't make it a FPS automatically. It shouldn't be labled a shooter if you are encouraged to sneak past enemies and shoot as a last resort. If the main emphasis is on exploration and finding hidden things, then it shouldn't be labeled a shooter just because you shoot stuff along the way.

I know you'll disagree and just come back with another typical smart ass reply, and that's fine.

Keep your lame, broad labels and shut the hell up when people continue to say "all FPSs are the same."

Actually, it is fairly different. Your typical side-scroller was an extremely linear game where you tackled it one level (or stage within a level) at a time. There was one clear path to follow and the challenge was getting from point A to point B without dying (and picking up as many coins/bananas/etc) as you could.

With Metroid and several others, you were still playing a basically linear game, but the linearity of it wasn't as obvious. You could go anywhere you want, however, you couldn't get past a certain point until you have the necessary equipment to get past the obstacle. This is typically the distinction between an Adventure game and a Platform game. Platform = very linear. Adventure=Linear without being linear.

Back to the FPS debate. I don't consider Metroid Prime a FPS. Its a first-person game, but I don't consider it a shooter. The main goal of the game is not to go out and shoot things. It's an adventure game that just happens to have a first-person point of view. I said before I really don't like FPS games. I do however really like Metroid Prime. What's the difference? I like the 'adventuring' aspect of Metroid Prime. Is there 'adventuring' in PC "FPS" games? Sure, but thats not the primary focus - the primary focus is the combat. And the combat in just about every FPS game is the same. The presentation is different, but overall its the same concept. You got your various pistol, shotgun, railgun, etc weapons and your various types of grenades. Insert bad guys of your choosing, level theme of your choosing, and storyline of your choosing, and you got a game. Vary name of weapons, name of enemies, theme of level, overall storyline, and you've just created 10 popular FPS games that are basically identical without being identical. These are the type of FPS games I object to, just as I'd object to the same type of thing in any genre.

Now if you can break that mold and offer something truly innovative and different, then the FPS game will have my respect. However a lot of the games that get mentioned as good FPS games really do nothing to set them apart from any other FPS games other than changing the variable parameters I mentioned earlier. There are notable exceptions like NOLF and stuff that offer more than just standard FPS gameplay.

The problem is its just too easy for companies to not innovate and just put out an FPS clone with new scenery/theme and call it a new game. This is what the current PC game market is flooded with and why PC gaming is generally uninteresting to me now. There are too few unique games to make it worthwhile to keep up with the ridiculously frequently hardware requirement upgrades in order to stay up to date with PC gaming.

Look, I can see the point you're tying to make - you're taking issue with the labels that are being placed on games. Well, I'm not the type that gets all hung up on labels - I never have been. I hear First Person Shooter and all that tells me is that I'll be in a first person perspective and I'll probably be able to shoot stuff - beyond that, the game can have adventure elements, rpg elements or tactical or stealth elements. I'm certainly disappointed when I pick up a FPS and that's all it is - like Serious Sam... it was a First Person Shooter and that's all it was. Thankfully though, most FPS games in the last several years have been alot more than just First Person and Shooting. Either way, I don't get all hung up on the label and dismiss a game just based on that. I really don't care if other people think that way and so the FPS label doesn't bother me one bit.
These comments are completely uncalled for with or without a winky face. This is the type of stuff you've been suspended for in the past.

Well, IMO - that doesn't make Metroid any less a Side Scroller than anything else. Essentially, you're still having to collect this or that to get to the next area. It's still a side-scrolling game. You still have to shoot stuff. Just because you can see a distinction between this game and that game doesn't make them completely different genres. Duke Nukem and Abuse were both totally different from each other, but essentially they're both still side scrollers.

You're wrong. The PC market isn't flooded with clones at all. How long as it been since you've even played a PC FPS? Metroid Prime is a FPS. The only difference between it and most other FPS games is that you revisit the same areas you've been to before and now you can get to a place you couldn't before because you have some upgrade. That's not a feature that's exclusive to Metroid. There is one other difference I guess - the controls are much easier because you lock onto targets allowing you to effortlessly dispense of them... in that way, I guess I can see why one would say the focus isn't on shooting - however, it is... you still have to make sure you have the right gun for the right enemy and every area you go into you have to shoot enemies... even on a revisit. If the focus wasn't supposed to be on shooting, they should've made it so you didn't have to clear out the same area every time you visit. That said, I'll admit that Metroid sets itself apart from the pack as much as other top PC FPS games have. I still do and always will consider it a FPS... I'll never consider it an adventure because my definition of adventure games is stuff like Syberia, Day of the Tentacle, Sam and Max, and Grim Fandango - not platformers that console gamers think are adventures.

So - that's my take on that... My point here is that labels don't matter... everyone has their own ideas of what game is what. Who cares as long as the game is good?? I really wish this thread could go back on topic, but I know that's hopeless at this point.

The main difference in Metroid Prime is that theres little if any emphasis on shooting.

You go into a room, band on the auto aim and shoot buttons for like 5 seconds and the 1 or 2 guys in the room are dead. There's some exceptions with some tougher space pirates and stuff that actually take some thought.

But mostly the shooting is tacked on to the exploration aspect.

But I'm not going waste anymore time arguing with you over it. I'll enjoy MP as an FPA and continue to avoid FPSs like the plague.

Maybe you should've avoided this thread entirely since you don't even play PC games to begin with.

You were talking about a resurgance in the popularity of PC gaming, so the opinions of people that have totally lost interest in PC gaming are totally relevant to the topic as people like me regaining an interest are the key to any "rebirth."