OK all flame baiting aside, I think the release of killzone 2 is a good catalyst for discussion about the direction the genre is heading. We all know that FPS are the mainstay of the "hardcore" gamer (even though I hate that expression) and I felt I should clarify some of my opinions towards it in a less aggressive and sensationalistic manner. Which means this blog will get about 4 hits, but that's ok. I'll just masturbate out my window for the attention I desperately need. look out below!!!
I tend to have immediate, gut reactions to things, as some of you who know me may have discovered. I'm not easily swayed by reviews, and have kind of a weird taste in games. Like I said yesterday I think Saint's Row 2 and Mercs 2 were some of my favorite games of last year. I play racing sims like Dirt and Grid and may have been one of ten people who enjoyed Blazing Angels 2. Not to mention puzzle games. My favorite genre is probably RTS and my favorite game of all time, in all seriousness, might be Medieval 2: total war. But that's neither here nor there.
I definitely love me a good shootin. Wolfenstein 3d may be one of the first games I ever played on the computer, (actually it's probably Battlezone) and it blew my mind. I've loved shooters ever since. It has seemed to me that there should have been a natural progression as the genre evolved, and for a while there was. Deus Ex took the shooter and turned it into a quasi RPG/Adventure game. System Shock 2 amped up that involvement and the level of detail in that game is excellent.
But I, like many of you I suppose, have a pretty short attention span. Maybe I expect too much but when I buy the next seriously hyped FPS I DO want it to bring something new to the table. Am I alone in this? I understand that sequels walk a fine line between trying to do something fresh and keeping old fans happy, but when the genre begins to stagnate, it worries me. Are we doomed to play the same exact game over and over again, with different set pieces? (pun intended) Is that really what makes people happy?
I mean honestly, consider other genres, and how upset people would be if they released tetris 2 where the only thing they changed were the tile colors. Maybe I *am* getting too old for this shit, but if I have to run through one more brownish-grey rusted steel corridor with an assault rifle I think I may actually be done gaming forever. I mean, these future soldiers in killzone 2 can transport an army to another planet but they're still essentially using weapons technology from world war 2?
Give me a fucking break.
oh well. there goes objectivity...
So the question remains, when a game steals its cover system from rainbow six vegas, its weapons from Call of Duty 2, Multiplayer from TF2/Resistance 2, faceless humanoid minions from half-life and control scheme from Halo, what is left to make it interesting? I swear I'm not even trying to flame bait, I'm asking an honest question. what do you guys want from the "perfect" fps? How important are new mechanics and fresh ideas for your enjoyment?
To answer my own question, I would say as long as there is at least ONE thing for me I haven't seen before or experienced I can have fun and ignore a games' flaws. That is why I play games, after all. To experience something I've never done before or could never possibly see in real life. To expand the limits of my brain and try to think about the world in new contexts. And by now, the space marine exacting revenge on humanoid aliens is about as new to me as running to the grocery for milk. Well, except for that whole lactose intolerance thing. That can make things a little exciting.