Belegarsson
Think about hairy dwarfs all the time ( ͡° ͜ʖ ͡°)
Quantum Break is actually playable (and somewhat fun) without using cover tbh.
What's taking the place of linear popamoles, open world popamoles?
Open world games where you do the same 4 mission types over and over for 30 hours, plus collect random shit.
Was this kind of game even popular? Most of them had/have a focus on multiplayer.
Despite having too many cutscenes and a few other problems, Max Payne 3 should have been celebrated. Rockstar finally made a shooter that plays well, one of the last good run and gun action games, but most people didn't even notice and went on to buy 80 million copies of the much inferior playing, more boring GTA V. Now all we're gonna get from them is watered down open world games with grindy multiplayer. Even Remedy can't do it anymore. Quantum Break fucking sucked. It had mediocre gameplay with one of the most disruptive, tedious, uninteresting movie stories I've ever watched.Max Payne 3 was made by Cockstar, though, and it is indeed pure and utter shite.
Oh, right, wait a second, it's about multiplayer shooters with loot crates
In the sense that a single one lasts longer so there's less "names to remember to ignore" yes.Oh, right, wait a second, it's about multiplayer shooters with loot crates
Still better tbh
Dow1 has cover too...I watched a Dawn of War 2 vid by accident today while browsing for DoW 1 mods - I couldn't believe that game had a cover system. I knew the sequels were shit, but didn't know a popamole killed that series.
Bad game fads come and go, the number of quality releases doesn't really seem to depend on it.
If you say so. I would never make a first person shooter if I had the money to do third person.Yeaah sorry, that's not the case. Third person shooters were generally-speaking fun and worthwhile in the 90s and rather diverse in style, even though FPS was and always has been the better style.
Well, you have to realize the reason behind the cover shooter popularity - and the reason it's dying out now (I guess), and that's basically the console controller and the console FOV. I guess now the controllers are generally much better and more responsive (and aim assist is also a lot better), so the console players are getting a fair bit more in terms of fast-paced action games, whether they're FPS or TPS. So, that removes the need of hiding behind chest-high walls.Bad game fads come and go, the number of quality releases doesn't really seem to depend on it.
Yeaah sorry, that's not the case. Third person shooters were generally-speaking fun and worthwhile in the 90s and rather diverse in style, even though FPS was and always has been the better style. 2000s, there was a bit of shit as to be expected, but the TPS was still going on relatively well...up until Gears of War/X360 decline of gaming as a whole era. Since then, near-EVERYTHING is a shitty cover shooter, meaning slow-paced and realism-based, plays very similarly to one another, and your options are to either get mediocrity or shit because nobody even attempts to do much with the style. I don't expect this to change, this is just a celebration of the death of the very worst form of cover shooter. So, this was what I was getting to: Singleplayer TPS, much like FPS, is near-universally shit now. This isn't just a fad but a staple, and furthermore it absolutely does influence the number of quality releases, especially in the respective genre. Hence why I like approximately 30 third person shooters pre-Gears (1995-2007) and about 4 post (2007-2018). 1995 being approximately when the free camera, behind view control of a humanoid in 3D space became a thing. What was the first, Fade to Black? Wasn't very good but it was a very early attempt, those rarely are.
Um, well, yes, but seriously, what the fuck did you expect? For gaming to remain a bastion of the hardcore nerd? The market goddamned boomed after the games and their controls were dumbed and slowed the fuck down. Of course those companies would sell out and make it as dumb as possible. And yeah, the audience is really different....no it isn't. 3D shooters existed for more than a decade on consoles just fine before the decline era hit and snail pace braindead cover shooters became the norm. And as I explained here way back, PC shooters back in the early to mid 90s were played with the keyboard only, using directional or num keys to aim. That is a vastly inferior method of play than what a PS2 controller was capable of, let alone modern pads, objectively. Yet that didn't mean devs had to make absolute garbo games...just 'cause. You're falsely attributing to controllers you what should be attributing to devs selling out and making piss easy retardo games for the mass market/people who don't like games, as well as the ever increasing desire for realism (also tied to the desire and rise of realistic graphics).
You can even see this originating on PC with the military and WW2 shooter boom of the early 2000s, where things slow down quite a bit and game mechanics and level design placed emphasis on realism as opposed to skillful abstract gameplay. This only escalated where PC graphics and realism whoring was at its absolute peak in the mid 2000s, and the FPS was already dead before cover garbage had even been popularised on the console market (by a sellout PC dev unfamiliar with the console market no less -- EPIC Mega decline).
Everyone in the multiplayer has that advantage, though. It doesn't make the game unfair.Gameplay differences between the perspectives
First person shooter:
-no camera humping around corners/over cover, allowing you to observe the enemy from complete safety. I think doing this is more bad for gameplay than good. Definitely with competitive shooting or stealth games. It's not too bad in singleplayer though.
Yeah, with a zoomed in field of view that gives you poor spacial awareness and a big gun in the lower right that cuts off more of your view. I know the character near the middle of the screen also cuts off your view, but it's honestly not as bad as those two factors combined. I get a good enough view of all that stuff you mentioned in third person, but I also get to see how MY character reacts and animates. I get to see them dance, roll, slide and throw themselves through the hellfire of bullets and debris, use their whole body as they melee enemies, and get thrown around by explosions.-More visceral gunplay, the weapon animating in detail, effects, gore, enemies reactions etc all right in your face.
Not sure what kind of environmental interaction you're talking about. I don't want to be forced to interact with little things in the environment so much that I'm gonna get bored not killing anyone. The new Prey bored me. I definitely would want my shooter to be a purer kind of action game, like the Max Payne series. But, there's some decent environmental interactivity in the older Metal Gear Solid and Splinter Cell games.-Better interactivity. Because the camera is close up without the character's ass in the way, you can make interactivity with the environment more involved, as well as hide shit in the level design more thoroughly.
Like I said, I would never make a first person shooter IF I HAD THE MONEY to do third person.*minor bonus development cost thing: you don't have to animate the player character
I find third person potentially more immersive. Holding the gun always up in your arms, unable to move your head/eyes without making a full body turn, isn't very believable to me. And, at least in third person, you have a visual of the body that you can't feel in first person view.*additional note regarding the games made over the years: while there's been plenty good, very competent TPS (mostly old games on console), hail to the king that is FPS with Doom, build engine games, Quake etc
*Note 3: better immersion potential. Not that relevant to high octane FPS tho.
Military/WW2 games popularized a completely different kind of a shooter mechanic, the hitscan damage model, which brings its own can of worms. It also became very popular because it promoted deceptively quick gameplay, required little effort on creative weapon design, and, well, also ended up being a major reason behind cover mechanics since you needed some way to protect yourself from the hitscan now that you couldn't dodge the projectiles. And of course these games were generally brought in by the behemoths of the gaming market, so of COURSE everyone wanted to emulate their success, thus just adding more and more shitty design decisions and perpetuating it ad nauseam.
Multiplayer-wise too, really, and attributed to pretty much putting the arena shooter into a coma for over a decade. Well, that, and some certain company choosing to make cinematic cover shooter bro-op EPIC GAMES instead of continuing to work on their arena FPS. Assholes.The military shooter boom was such decline, singleplayer-wise.
It doesn't make the game unfair.
Not sure what kind of environmental interaction you're talking about. I don't want to be forced to interact with little things in the environment so much that I'm gonna get bored not killing anyone. The new Prey bored me. I definitely would want my shooter to be a purer kind of action game, like the Max Payne series. But, there's some decent environmental interactivity in the older Metal Gear Solid and Splinter Cell games.
I kind of like retarded third-person cover based cinematic games - they're perfect for consoles in that you can sit back and chill on the couch while you play.
They existed, but they didn't become a dominant genre on consoles until they adopted a 2-weapon limit, slower movement speed, some form of regenerating health, iron sights and all the staples of the modern FPS. You don't really think that's just a coincidence?...no it isn't. 3D shooters existed for more than a decade on consoles just fine
Which games are you referring to?You can even see this originating on PC with the military and WW2 shooter boom of the early 2000s
"Anyway, this argument makes very little sense. Console games completely dwarf the sales of PC games, so much so that until recently many developers didn't even bother to port their FPS games to PC, so how could PC games be trendsetters for consoles?"
Gears of War is a third-person shooter game, with its core concepts being derived from Resident Evil 4's "over the shoulder" perspective, Kill Switch's cover system, and Bionic Commando's swinging action akin to moving between points of cover.
They existed, but they didn't become a dominant genre on consoles until they adopted a 2-weapon limit, slower movement speed, some form of regenerating health, iron sights and all the staples of the modern FPS. You don't really think that's just a coincidence?