First Person Shooters

[ResidentZoidberg]

When the shooter genre first came to life as popular games, they came in the form of classic NES games and arcade games featuring gun peripherals. These games were purely for entertainment purposes. You usually don't go to arcades in order to play 100 hours epics. You go to arcades with a few dollars in hand, and try to make the most out of ever quarter by staying alive and playing the game as long as you can. So it's only natural that shooters, some of the arcades most popular games, didn't need an overwhelming story to stay fun and popular. I never cared what the story was behind "CarnEval" or "Time Crisis". I just wanted to take those shotguns/handguns [Respectively] out of the 'holsters' and start popping virtual bullets into my enemies. Whether you're fighting zombies, criminals, terrorists, aliens – it never really mattered why you were doing so, it's just fun to do it.

And of course, early home consoles like the NES and even the ones before it all descended from arcade games. The premise was to take what you normally can only experience in arcades, and play them at home. So al lot of things remained the same as the arcade predecessors. This is the reason that most old school shooters didn't have or need stories as well. Older games, even ones that were not shooters, tended to be much more gameplay/entertainment based, rather then story based.

However, of course games have evolved since then. We began seeing epic games, such as long RPG's. If anything, games at least had a story behind them that you were curious about. In Donkey Kong, you would just climb the steel girders, simultaneously hopping barrels along the way, and all to reach the top and save the chick in the pink. Why were you the one to save her? Why was she taken in the first place? The real question is: "Who Cared?" You did it just to do it, and it was fun. But, as I said, games progressed. You began wanting to know why it was you saving her, and why she was taken in the first place. The industry then responded to our incisive nagging about the stories behind games, and started including them. And thus, stories became a large part of the game.

But I digress. This post is about the shooter genre [Specifically First Person Shooters, we're getting there] Once more, I tried to keep this little history lesson both brief and easy to understand. That's why I used either general terms, or common known things such as the NES and Donkey Kong. Of course the NES wasn't the first console, but it's the first many know about, so that's why I use it. The history lesson was a brief introduction, so I hope you well informed people won't bother questioning/correcting me on it, as it's not the main point of the thread. [Which I will get to soon]
I tried to use general things that most people can relate to and know about.

*Erm* Let's get back on with this. So, as I said, games evolved and the story became a fairly important aspect behind the game. In newer platformers, you have a reason for jumping from panel to panel. In newer action games, you have a reason viciously murdering every enemy you can find. Gamers want to know every possible detail about the game. Why do you think RPG's are such a popular genre? So many people care about great stories. In God of War, you wanted to know how Kratos got his powers and why he intended on taking revenge on the Gods. Would Kingdom Hearts be half as good without the story and characters behind it? No. It'd most likely be just another hack'n'slash game.

Now, comes my question. [Yes, I know it took a heck of a lot of time to get here. Kudos for the few of you who read all that, or even skimmed it.] Why are shooters, first person shooters more specifically, so commonly regarded as games meant solely for multiplayer and online play? Now I wouldn't mind if people thought the best part of FPS's was the multiplayer/online, but I hate how people think shooters have no story elements to them at all. It's a stereotype of the genre that I question why it hasn't been able to overcome yet.

People still regard shooters as they do with there arcade counter parts. Console shooters have evolved far past "CarnEval" and "Time Crisis" [Not to say those games are bad] Shooters followed the industry when they introduced stories in games, but no one seems to see that. The reasoning for that? Well, I have a few theories.

Shooters are great multiplayer/online games – some of the best. There is no denying that. And of course, because they're great in that aspect, vast amounts of people play them multiplayer or online. Even more, because of this, there are many people who buy shooters just to play them online, and they rarely bother with the story mode. But just because there are people who are too unfocused to go through the story/campaign modes, that doesn't mean they aren't good.

Here's another thing. Campaign modes don't have to be too long to be good. Some shooters have great Campaign modes, which are around the 10-hour mark, more or less. But once you beat the campaign, you're more inclined to play the game online/multiplayer, despite how much replay value the game has. Let me use an example – Resistance: Fall of Man. Resistance has a bountiful, 30 mission campaign. I played to about mission 20 or so before even going to play online – and that's only because I got stuck. I probably would've beaten the game all the way through if I hadn't. After a good deal of playing online with my friends and having a great time, I went back to the campaign mode. Then I played through it to the end. It was great; one of my favorite story modes in a game of all time. Sure, we have a slightly clichéd plot – and alien invasion, but it was executed very well with amazing gameplay. And even though I'm still playing online regularly, I can't wait until I replay the story mode again. For one, it was extremely fun. Second, there are new guns I can unlock on and use that I can't wait to try out. [Especially the Reapers, dual-wielding handguns that home in on enemies once your crosshair goes over them] Just to reiterate my point, sometimes shooters have great campaign modes, but once you beat them, you're more inclined to play online for a new experience. That just adds to the replay value.

So, my main point has been about the story mode of shooters, but it seems I've been talking more about the gameplay, and not an actual story. You know, the thing with an interesting plot and all that. Well, you can't complain, I'm going to talk about that right now! [With one specific, recent example in mind] So, sure games can have very fun campaign modes that you want to play, but what about the RPG crowd who wants deep plots and character development? Well, shooters can have that, too. And one new release shows this point so well; I'm going to talk about it.

The Darkness. I'm sure you people have heard about this new shooter for the PS3/360. Your character Jackie receives strange powers on his 21st birthday. The Darkness, a primeval force, uses Jackie as its vessel to cause mayhem in New York City. Jackie's only claim to heroism is that, despite being a hitman for the mob, he's killing men who are even more evil. The recent issue of Game Informer managed to say it all quite well. Here are some quotes.

"For emotionally packed story-telling, it's hard to beat Starbreezes' latest effort. It includes some of the most exciting, terrifying, and heart-wrenching scenes I've encountered in a game"

Interactive story-telling is rarely this good, and there are few game endings that make you sit back and think, "Man, what if I did this instead?" like this one does. For its amazing narrative and believability of characters, and the twisted joy that comes from being a slave of a demon, The Darkness will keep you enthralled"

Hoping this is the end? I'm sorry, but not quite yet.

I will very easily admit this one thing – there are quite a few shooters with lackluster campaign modes. But isn't that true with any genre of game? If an RPG has a horrible storyline, then people just classify that particular RPG as a bad game. If a shooter has a horrible Campaign/story, then that particular shooter is a bad game. Now, maybe that shooter has a decent multiplayer coupled with its horrible story mode. Think of it this way. Which would you rather have? The RPG with a horrible story and no multiplayer, or the shooter with a horrible story, but a decent multiplayer? That shooter still isn't good, but it does have at least one aspect to enjoy, while the RPG has no aspects you can enjoy. The only thing that the decent multiplayer does to the shooter with a horrible story is make it better then the RPG.

So now I suppose I must do some type of summary. For those of you who read this whole post [I thank you], you can just skip this summary. Unless you couldn't make heads of tails of my rambling =p. *ahem*

All video games started with no story mode behind them. [Pong, anyone?] Then the gaming community began to want to know everything about the games, which made developers start incorporating stories into games. As games advanced, all decent games came with something of a story. However, so many people still think of shooters as online games with no stories. I disproved that above, with a few reasons. Reasons such as some people who only play the games online. People complete the story modes, and then have more 'replay value' playing the games online because you get a new experience every time. In addition to that, shooters can have amazing and compelling stories behind the gameplay, such as The Darkness. Of course, you people who just bothered reading this summary don't get the full effect of this epic thread =p

So, "discuss". Some possible things that can be discussed are you opinions of the first person shooter stereotype. Why shooters are so widely regarded as games without stories. Of course any topic I touched upon in my post. [Excluding the history lesson, for those you who read that paragraph]. And anything else you can think of that is relevant. I want to get some good discussion going here.

Oh, and once more, let me thank you all for reading this. I never dreamed it would turn out to be 4 pages [I'm typing in Word] It just kind of happened like that. So kudos to anyone who read the post in its entirety, or at least did a fairly good skim job of the whole post. As for you who just read the summary, or select parts..... Still reply at least to what you read. As I said, I want some good discussion.

[Commander Awesome]

When I think 'FPS' a certain Egoshooter comes to mind: The one that one-upped Goldeneye 007 as best console FPS, and perhaps the best to date, Perfect Dark.

Interesting narrative, although I remember the arcade days. :P

[_Ichimaru_Gin_]

tl;dr

[Commander Awesome]

tl;dr

Ah, the internet.

TC, I would reccomend summarizing that in one sentence. The internet has no attention span.

[ResidentZoidberg]

Interesting narrative, although I remember the arcade days. :P

Darn, and I was hoping I could cut corners on that section. Oh well, it was written originally for NSider, during the summer, and most of them there are too young. ;D

Also, Perfect Dark <3.

[Psycho_Ivan]

... If I should ever find myself bored, I might just read this entire thing... >>;

[Commander Awesome]

Interesting narrative, although I remember the arcade days. :P

Darn, and I was hoping I could cut corners on that section. Oh well, it was written originally for NSider, during the summer, and most of them there are too young. ;D

Also, Perfect Dark <3.

Yes, Perfect Dark is epic win.

You did pretty well on that section, actually.

[_Ichimaru_Gin_]

tl;dr

Ah, the internet.

TC, I would reccomend summarizing that in one sentence. The internet has no attention span.

I have an attention span, it's just not very big. I read the first three paragraphs, but it was way too long to finish.

[Commander Awesome]

tl;dr

Ah, the internet.

TC, I would reccomend summarizing that in one sentence. The internet has no attention span.

I have an attention span, it's just not very big. I read the first three paragraphs, but it was way too long to finish.

I read it entirely and got first post... :O

[_Ichimaru_Gin_]

tl;dr

Ah, the internet.

TC, I would reccomend summarizing that in one sentence. The internet has no attention span.

I have an attention span, it's just not very big. I read the first three paragraphs, but it was way too long to finish.

I read it entirely and got first post... :O

I got to the third paragraph and got second post

[ResidentZoidberg]

tl;dr

Ah, the internet.

TC, I would reccomend summarizing that in one sentence. The internet has no attention span.

I have an attention span, it's just not very big. I read the first three paragraphs, but it was way too long to finish.

There's a cheater's summary at the end.

[ResidentZoidberg]

Interesting narrative, although I remember the arcade days. :P

Darn, and I was hoping I could cut corners on that section. Oh well, it was written originally for NSider, during the summer, and most of them there are too young. ;D

Also, Perfect Dark <3.

Yes, Perfect Dark is epic win.

You did pretty well on that section, actually.

Thank you. Though I caught a couple corners I cut, some general terms, etc.

Perfect Dark's multiplayer, too. <3 And great weapons. Laptop gun <3. Also, "Meat Slim" <3

[Commander Awesome]

Also, they may not seem like it, but Bungie has gotten fame for using greatly deep stories in their two FPS trilogies. Marathon's story is much more apparent, though, and gets intercourse ing confusing with time traveling/dimesion swapping.

[Silverhawk79]

Nicely written. Yeah, I read the whole thing, don't feel like typing a huge response. :P