Top 5 things to make me happy in a shooter

With Wolfenstien coming up in less than about 3 month's time, its nice to dream and hope it'll be fantastic. Being a massive FPS fan who's been repulsed by modern trends and desperate for a real and solid triple A corridor shooter, I have every reason to hope this game delivers. Yet does it really contain what I love in shooters? Well... actually I think so. I sat down and really thought about what makes me really adore the shooters that I do. It turns out there's more to a good shooter than just good mechanics, though that helps a lot. I have a funny tendency to adore certain ones over others for odd reasons, and also I'm able to adapt and forgive things I commonly preach against if the shooter does something special to go beyond my expectations. For example why is it that I adore Killzone 2 far above Resistance 3 when R3 has far better mechanics and depth to it? I eventually came up with 5 things that either catch my attention, or make me keep a tight hold on a shooter if it hits these marks, and it also reveals the priorities of each piece. Now that isn't to say that a shooter has to have these to be objectively good. Its just about what I personally prefer and what I like to see in the genre. Maybe some people have a different take, and that's just fine. However this is my list of the things I usually adore in a shooter...

5) Enemy Novelty

It sounds a bit silly I know, but I do care about the types of enemies I'll be facing. It effects the gameplay more than you'd think to. A b-movie them putting you up against demons, fantasy creatures, robots, or all of the above will certainly be a different experience than a shooter full of army guys, or zombies. When you have a game full of zombies, you know you can expect a feeling of being swarmed full of dumb AI and you will probably be able to find the atmosphere predictable. Meanwhile a plot full of army guys... best case scenario is the Helghasts or Half-life 1 (HL2's AI can't compare) marines with intelligent maneuvers and some interesting suit designs. However for the most part you'll get pot shot dull lifeless enemies likely taking place in a game that either takes itself too seriously or is trying too hard to be a casual blockbuster experience rather than a good shooter. I obviously lean more towards the side that wants to decapitate lizard aliens, or watch an army of disfigured mutations spawn out of fire walls butchering my allies and throwing interesting circle strafe worthy attacks at me. On top of that, I just love the raw creativity of some of the bad guys that go on behind some of the games that get more wild with enemies. I mean look at the doom 3 picture above... Freakin' armored skeleton man looks pretty awesome! Then there's the lizard dudes from Turok, those zerg things from Metro, that epic widow maker boss fight in Resistance, and when you hear that poison zombie in Half-life 2.... just wow, its so awesome to see and hear for the first time. I just love creature designs, and gaming and specifically shooters and RPGs are a breeding ground of great ideas towards aliens, monsters, and fantasy variations. However where as RPGs usually turn it into a giant calculator, FPS actually puts these creative monsters into live and intense combat with unique pros and cons to test both skill and reflex. If your a shooter with great and creative enemy types, you have my attention slightly more than those without them. However with that being said... you can still go so very wrong with it, and honestly I'll take pot shot enemies that work over a broken game that failed to use any enemies up to potential, or even worse... annoyed me with them.

4) An engaging slice of fiction

I say this a bit weirdly because I'm essentially dodging around "good plot", but I don't want to mislead you by saying that directly.... because saying I like a good plot really is a bit off. I like one that grips me, and I like the universe and fictional elements more than I do characters or morals that build up what people expect to be the good plot. So saying "engaging slice of fiction" feels much more honest, even if it sounds weirder. Now you could be taking this a bit weirdly... Either your picturing I'm a massive fan of Half-life style games and that I play them because I somehow see a big awesome epic within it. Well I suppose that's not totally off, but not quite right either. I'm not that picky about games to desire only that, and I don't totally agree with the way those player controlled cut-scenes are done either. The other thing your probably thinking is that shooters can't have a good or gripping story piece at all, and your probably laughing at this. Well... to be honest I'm kind of sick of that attitude, along with a couple other smug mockeries people assume the whole genre goes under. I suppose I'll get around to that another time though because getting to the point: shooters are a lot more creative than they get credited for.

I like a lot of FPS stories actually, and I think that's a big part of the reason I love the genre more than most... until more recently where it just seems to be about army men and terrorists with some nuke threat thrown in. However it doesn't take me much to be invested in your story. I don't need an objectively grand plot with some stupid "relatable character", romance, or other hollywood formula BS. I play games to get away from those stupid story formulas. Yeah you read the last part right, I actually favor the old method of game premises over the common formulas out of movies, and industry that is supposed to capitalize on story. Honestly games sort of felt like a more mature version of what Saturday morning cartoons put out. They had some silly super villains, failed experiments, over the top action that looked too ridiculous to take seriously, and sometimes there were rockin' tunes to back it all up. You know what makes that even better though? You were into it, looking into that world and concept through your own eyes and actions. You got to read documents on those experiments and abominations, look into military intelligence on the threat, hear audio logs from other people going over past events, you got to fight important villains through climatic boss fights at times, and you did it along with taking on piles of faceless enemies. Gaming also fixed problems I found with those cartoons. It was allowed to be violent, it encouraged more creative monsters and enemy types for the sake of gameplay, and it didn't end in 20 minutes. Even your bigger story driven games were in this boat. You can try to justify Half-Life 2 as a legendary plot made to bring shooters closer to high art, but at the end of the day I got into that story because I wanted more details on that awesome strider machine, I wanted to feel what it was like to be in this slice of fiction where the world has become our prison by aliens, and I wanted to be a part of that rebellion when it all got uprooted, and I'm still excited to see the alien face behind the threat so that I can blast them with a trash can powered by a gravity warping beam gun. If this were all done in a movie or any other medium, it would be as cheesy as hell, but its actually considered a new high for gaming for its better detailed scripts. I love this sort of story telling in shooters, screw the naysayers.

However it can go beyond the typically cliche sci-fi stuff. I even find character development done better in some of these games. The Last of Us made me care about what might as well be otherwise another The Walking Dead inspired zombie drama. Why did it make me care? It was longer than a movie and more fleshed out while having a solid beginning middle and end pattern, it let you see parts of the world for yourself with its subtle clues and big shocks left for me to see rather than a fixed camera, and it was all digital meaning they could build all sorts of awesome creatures rather than dressing up people for lazier monsters (this is also why there are more and better uses of aliens in gaming). However to top it all off your with Joel and Ellie their entire adventure, with a lot fewer cuts than there would be in cinema, and a lot more control over them during their more stressful times. By the end of the game the plot all ties together because you worked with them, you saw what they saw, they were a part of your life rather than some director's, and you struggled to get to that ending... even if its hardly a true struggle in games today. Heck you can also take a quick look at Killzone for yet more reasons to love a weird take on video game story. Its more about the war itself and the worlds in danger rather than characters, and in doing so you have a nice sort of gothic medieval vibe in space with propaganda blaring, civilians being pushed around and troubled by the war, a questionable background of the conflict spinning around questions on who's the bad guy, and a presentation that ends up being more amusing than pretentious or serious like you would see with most "grim dark" stuff in other mediums. You don't need aliens and lasers to appreciate how awesome this cheesy world of Killzone is. At the end of the day I want these type of stories delivered by great shooters and great games more than anything else, and I feel like this is a strong point a good shooter game can handle. I look forward to Wolfenstein doing this as well, as its already got the stage set for a good cheesy grim dark setting with a nice world to escape to and shoot up in my free time.

3) Solid input, depth, and player options

Pssst.... Hey, want to know a secret about gaming? Its interactive, so take a clue from common sense and make use of that to let the player have a ton of control. While your at it, use intelligent design choices to really make use of the game's potential. When I talk about gameplay depth I'm thinking of all the mechanics that the player has to take in, and use to shape the world around them... or what the world may use against them. FPS has always had some of the best balance within depth, often not being so open that is all down to raw numbers and precision, yet its open enough for a lot of strategy and player expression to overlap perfectly with a well refined linear experience. Good player input in an FPS is as simple as letting them feel in control over the situation to some extent. Like giving them a wide selection of weapons, a variety of enemy sorts to face, multiple ways to hurt them, and a feeling that when they mess up it was a true moment of brain fart on the player's end rather than some bad or limited game design.

A good example in Serious Sam 3 was a moment where you had a mounted automatic Minigun turret that fired at waves of enemies by itself. You could choose to help the gun take them out, pick it up yourself and take all the glory but risk ammo depletion (as it was tied to a limit once detached), or sit back and relax only picking off what few enemies made it around. Then once all was said and done you picked it up and moved on to a massive hoard of enemies. There were massive brutes that fired rockets, but only a handful while what was literally over a hundred fast steer skeleton foes were the main body of this stampede. This part took me forever to get past because it required a massive balance between ammo, resources, pacing, and gunning, but it was all down to my end and I had so many guns to use to fight back and had the challenge but freedom to prioritize the destruction of my enemies. I mostly killed two big guys with rockets before saving up the rest of that and pulling out my minigun for the steer. Once I was running out, I retreated and shot at them with a variety of shotgun and assault rifle rounds before falling back to a stash of minigun ammo I was saving for later because I choose to manage that for emergencies, and that strategy worked.... after a couple of tries of course, it was still a tough fight. This is ideal depth in a game. By contrast many games now have turned towards linear scripts, uninspiring lack of choice, and mechanics too shallow to get a real feel for. This doesn't instantly make a game bad, but it is a very lacking and uninspired way to go for a linear shooter and is not going to grab my attention easily.

However what if you're not making a game that is linear? Well.... options! Options for everything. Take notes from Timesplitters and Unreal Tournament as well as the modding community on Teamfortress2 if we're talking multiplayer. Seriously, those games could be played over and over again way out of their potential life cycle all because of player freedom and full interactive rule changes. Let me pick my character model, let me choose what guns I do and don't want in a match, and let me feel free to enjoy tweaking some rules so that I may enjoy any mode if I put down a massive chunk of money on a game. Also of course, add bots whenever you can. This is why I put so much time into Unreal Tournament 2004, why many of my multiplayer comparisons revolve around TF2, and why Timesplitters was one of the greatest FPS games to grace the PlayStation 2. Screw your matchmaking and stock rules, give me depth, user friendly interface, and above all the power to tweak the gameplay so that its fun for me and my friends. With options players can give new life into the game every now and then. Actually... even without MP and offline MP in mind or even shooters, this still applies to a strong game of any kind. Give me remappable controls, give me HUD options, give me FOV sliders, etc. The list can go on and on. Freedom and good user interface is a fantastic and beautiful thing. Please... stop leaving it out. I think Wolfenstien is on the right track by not only seeming deep in mechanics, but also I've been told by a friendly fan that the next generation consoles have FOV sliders.... something nobody except Mag runner has done. That on its own deserves a ton of respect, but I hope they also continue that trend with button mapping so I can have my R3 toggle aim.

2) Awesome gunplay

Do not ever underestimate the awesome feeling of weapons with some serious effort put into their aesthetics. Especially if your a multiplayer driven military shooter. I put up with and played one of the most objectively worst modern military shooters, and stood up for its multiplayer, just because the gunplay was so damn fun and so much less interrupted than most games of its kind. Talking about Medal of Honor Warfighter of course. Then again... honestly this is the giant 1-UP military shooters have over most old school shooters, and I adore it. While older focused on crazy and silly weapons with awesome functions, the military shooter job has to make iron sights look as interesting as possible... that means recoil, multiple sights, deep thick sounds, the feeling of unloading heavy metal piece by piece into a foe before you. It makes for better immersion than circle strafing some point and click plasma railgun or triple barrel rocket launcher ever was. Now that's not to say gunplay in old school sucks... quite contrary, its just in a weird league of its own and captures a different feeling to it than military shooter gunplay. Secondary fire, and crazy functions can lead to some awesome gunplay experiences, and then there's games like bulletstorm that turn gunplay into a meta game of how creative you string it to the level environments and you foot. However more than just how the gun feels goes into gunplay. You have environmental impact, body impact, and of course even mechanics can lead to how this feels. Despite how much I adore this idea that a gun needs to sound and feel powerful, I actually want the health to be higher than the bullet pain making for an ironic bullet spongy experience. I come from this Killzone 2 sort of mentality for a good reason though... its just more fun this way. As much as that sounds subjective in general, I can't help but carry it in my head as fact because of just the countless outweighing bits that benefit the game in larger health. You don't have corner campers because its not a worthy advantage if people can turn around and shoot back. Bigger health gives players a feeling of real battle, and a reason to know that two shooting on one guy (kill assists) is a very strong helping hand encouraging team work. Bigger health lets the player feel like they can take more risks even though its still just as easy to fail but this sense of carelessness leads to a sense of fun chaos in addition to other mechanics that game may offer. Then to state that obvious... it avoids making the whole game into a big reflex contest, and gives players a chance for skill and aim to overcome a poor player getting a fast shot in. By contrast the only good things I can name out of small health is that its great for intentionally fast reflex based games (likely aimed to a more casual focus), and it can be good for tense and heavy consequence tactical shooters. For the most part though big health is just great, and feels so right when its done well. Finally, there is the fact that gunplay just needs to be a big core focus considering it is a shooter, and little to get in the way... that even means keeping guns simple but heavy on the delivery of each one. No 30+ weapons that have no substance, and while Vehicles and Killstreaks may sound fun, they detract from a straight up match and can get in the way of the good side of simplicity. I have nothing against a small thing to shake stuff up, and honestly StarHawk's execution of vehicular combat was just perfect to still keep gunplay strong, so extra stuff can still work... just be careful and don't overdo it. So to recap, one of the biggest factors for a game to grip me is great gunplay. To have this, you need great aesthetics, the proper amount of simplicity, and the right balance of health leaning on a higher end. Few games do this 100% perfectly, and honestly that's one of the main reasons I put Killzone 2 as my personal top PS3 game (though its since beaten by Dark Souls, but 2nd ain't bad).

However its also worth mentioning to add on to what I was saying about military vs old school gunplay: Military shooters can and have been older-school before, just look at Killzone 1 and Resistance (though it wasn't the best in gunplay) that have strong ties to both pieces. Heck both actually got converted from old to new and worked pretty damn seamlessly because they can hope the fences so easily. That's kind of where I see the new Wolfenstien and part of what gets me excited, its taking military style weapons with beefy and strong metallic depth and throwing it into a world full of health packs, enemy types, weapon wheels, crazy power, and making it compatible with both iron sights and circle strafing alike. Sounds amazing, and I'm hoping it delivers well. Also just.... look at the gore!. Its not exactly common to talk about how great virtual gore feels, but honestly if your buying a shooter you shouldn't expect puffy smoke and flat ragdolls as your impact effect. There should be gore honestly, and it should be over the top. Its a silly, cheesy, and action packed shooter... don't be afraid of the M rating. It delivers home that idea that your guns make a solid impact, and it works well with grim dark themes some of these games set up. Wolfy here choose right to go all out in this department, and I'm very excited to see the gunplay deliver in every form possible.

1) Level Design and the general execution

I don't actually think much of this... but in all honesty it is the biggest, most important, and downright crucial part to getting me to truly adore your shooter. I don't think of it much, you can't see it in previews, but its there... always effecting the mood and opinion on a game, especially after your initial completion. I've seen quite a handful of shooters get practically everything on this list except this one detail down right, and it suffered in some way for it. Resistance 3 got held back pretty far on my top PS3 list for this reason, because the levels just weren't all that memorable or gripping. They were there, worked the first time, and occasionally I come back for the gameplay, but nothing in the events and level itself were all that great and this put a bit of a damper on it when I wanted to replay. Some parts I even despise. This could be said or even amplified for Bioshock infinite, and its the reason why I couldn't give it a GOTY run as it just lacked a feeling of value and replay after that original run. Meanwhile this is also why I enjoy some generic shooters as well or even play them more than a game that gets its mechanics right. I'm not exactly a COD fan, but I'll play and enjoy some designs of their games but what mostly keeps me around are the maps or certain campaign levels. Modern Warfare 2 had did everything on this list wrong and yet I kept coming back again and again and again even more so than some awesome mechanically sound games. Why? Because it had better and more entertaining levels, maps, and a feeling of more satisfying execution with what it had. Well... that and the modern military shooter routine was new back then and worn out now, but that's besides the point. Sneaking through cliffhanger just feels right. That level with the EMP and wolverines were a great "shooting galleries" as people would like to say. That one whee you're leading a tank's aim through a neighborhood with a wide view of exploration was just incredible! Oh, and then there's the forest level that is just perfect without any major scripts and the set pieces aim at just shoot outs. I kept coming back looking at small details, and challenging myself to find new ways to run through the level even knowing it had shallow mechanics to hinder that sort of attitude. I can still hate on the design for incorporating a ton of scripted junk and for being a generally linear and shallow game, yet I just can't stay mad at it if it keeps me coming back and remembering the levels I went through.

However what happens when you take this sort of amazing level design and throw it into a game with better traits? Well, its a ton better, that's what. Killzone 2 checks off most of these aspects given here and on top of that absolutely amazing level design and an interface that allows you to jump into any piece of it easier. I put over 30 hours of play time into a generically short campaign. It might have a couple shallow elements like regenerating health that put it on the Military shooter fence, Yet this is why it prevails over so many old school shooters.... it executes levels so perfectly in addition to hands down the best gunplay, multiplayer input, and an interesting setting with iconic enemies and thought provoking undertones. Resistance 3 might sound like a game that better appeals to me with full old school mechanics, aliens instead of humans, and crazier weapons and a more absurd plot, but because its level design feels a bit... flatter, I just never make a bigger deal of it than to say its a blast to play for the gameplay... and only in terms of mechanical depth and interest in rule sets. Meanwhile Killzone 2 and Modern Warfare 2 have me coming back with solid gameplay, and because I remember how cool X or Y level was set up, or had the perfect alignment of cover and enemies, or even though this is rare it may have had just the right set piece to make me want to go back. Resistance 3 did one thing right about its level layout.... minimal scripting. About everything else is just dull, which is sad as that seems to send the opposite message a scriptless shooter should be. Yet Alpha Prime, a $5 mediocre copy cat indie shooter, does both so much better and ends up hitting home on all 5 of these major marks now that I think about it. It might sound like I'm being hard on R3, but I do really love it. Its just that missing this one key mark... leaves me with a feeling of disappointment, especially if the gameplay itself was so good.

Of course there's also more than just if the level feels good. Was the game built for it right? Did it do everything well enough, feel well grounded, and present the ability to enjoy it all over again? Singularity was an awesome game, but didn't give me anything but continue or new game when it was all over. So I haven't touched it since I completed it. Bioshock Infinite was fun, but has a sloppy way to load up levels and on top of that is no actually broken in its control scheme so I can't replay that. Oh and a quick glance at its gunplay... enemies shrug off headshots, terrible execution there.  Yet Killzone 2, one of my favorite corridor shooters ever, lets me load levels by bits and pieces while executing some of the best gunplay, and level design I've seen and just enough enemy AI and options to give me some depth to it all. See why its one of my favorites? Yeah that's really nice. The sad thing is this last and most major key point is almost impossible to tell before you pick up the game. As much as I'm looking forward to Wolfenstien, this is one thing I'll have to go on out of a risk. Will it be successful in level design? Will it be fun to replay? I sure hope so.