If you don't recognize this screenshot, you're probably reading the wrong blog.
Image Source: doom.wikia.com
Shooters are one of the most prevalent types of games in the industry today. The simple idea of playing somebody with a gun and shooting anything hostile in your way can get a surprising amount of mileage as long as the violence is all imaginary, it seems. Generally Shooters are classed into first- and third- person based on camera perspective, but given their similarities I'll be covering both here.
WHERE DID WE FIND THE GUN?
Shooters are not only common, but have a long history. An excellent summation can be found on Wikipedia. Despite not technically being the first made, the first shooters most of us remember are the original trinity of Doom, Wolfenstein, and Duke Nukem. Of these, Doom's most recent release is in 2005(with an upcoming sequel), Wolfenstein had a new game in 2009, and Duke Nukem... well, we all know the story behind that one. The point remains, however: Shooter game series have incredible longevity. Even relatively recent popular series such as Halo already have at least a trilogy under their belt.
With this genre being as popular as it is, the market has been inundated with an endless number of Shooters, not all of which are worthy contributions to gaming. It's also a label falsely applied to many games, which may seem to make it even more common. In some cases this even degrades the game in question, since it does not hold up to Shooter standards--instead conforming to a different genre. Here's a pro tip: just because you shoot at things in the game does NOT make it a Shooter. Metroid Prime is not a First Person Shooter. Metal Gear Solid is not a Third Person Shooter.
So then, what does make a Shooter what it is? In addition to the required shooting(which is sometimes, especially lately, supplemented by some degree of melee brutality as well), the game must be action focused and generally mostly linear. While older shooters in particular had more free-ranging movement through levels, there was still generally a single path to take to victory(though the side paths had more ammo). Multiplayer in Shooters has removed the latter requirement, and some Shooters have even based singleplayer matches off of that model--Unreal Tournament being a primary example. This is the exception, not the rule, however.
When it comes down to it, what makes a Shooter a Shooter is simple--the point of the game, the main focus from start to finish, is SHOOTING THINGS TO DEATH. There's little to no puzzle solving save perhaps keycard puzzles, plot is generally laid out in between missions, during the action, or in visceral cutscenes, and you spend your downtime reloading, watching for new enemies, and moving on to the next battlefield.
WHAT WE'VE LOST or OUT OF AMMO
How often in a newer Shooter do you find yourself following around some bossy NPC who doesn't let you stray off the beaten path? If not that, you're likely running through a preset series of checkpoints in a level, with not many options of where to go besides directly to the next checkpoint. Shooters didn't used to be like that; while they were still largely linear as mentioned above, they had more freedom of movement than they do today. Doom is a great example of this; remember how you used to be dropped into the beginning of a level in Doom? A couple guns, no map, facing a general direction that might not be the overall direction you need to go, and a horde of demons between you and the exit... wherever it is. Have fun with that! You know what? We DID have fun with that. Modern Shooters should learn to be less controlling. It feels more like walking from scene to scene in a war movie than actually moving around an organic level with enemies stalking its corridors.
A small section of the map in just one level of Star Wars: Dark Forces. Also note the shields, health, and lives counter in the bottom left.
Image Source: www.mobygames.com
Of course, if they had to make a larger area to wander through on the way to the goal, they'd have less control of where the fights happen, and it would be harder for them to put in the necessary torso-high fences, walls and rubble. Yes, the necessities of a cover-based firefight system. What happened to the 'run and gun' style action of the old games? You didn't take cover unless you were totally overwhelmed--you just ran, strafed, and shot down the enemies with a wide range of weapons that you could inexplicably carry all at once. Realistic? No. Fun? Hell yes! Cover-based combat is fine overall, especially for games aiming for more realism, but most of the time it's just not done right. Killzone 2 is an excellent example of a cover system done right--you can use any object as cover to peek out from, so not every piece of terrain is a piece of rubble or broken-down vehicle of exactly the same height as your stomach. It adds a lot to the verisimilitude.
Something that changed around a similar time as cover-based systems was health systems. Where the hell did health bars go? While the cover-based firefight system aims for more realism, the removal of health bars in favor of regenerating health takes us a huge leap AWAY from realism. It's a confounding dichotomy. Like cover-based combat, regenerating health CAN be done right--it just usually isn't. The biggest way to make it work is to make it so that, one way or another, health just does not regenerate during fights; only in the lulls in between. "But my regenerating health is my shields!", cry the fans of Halo and other such games using a lame hand wave explanation. Ok, fine, your health is your shields, and a couple bullets under the shield kills you. Now the health packs are shield packs instead(and/or your shields only regenerate out of combat). Regenerating health takes a lot of the skill out of a Shooter, replacing it instead with the ability to hide for a while. Not exactly an action-packed style.
WHAT WE'VE GAINED or EXPANDING THE ARSENAL
So while old Shooters had many things going for them making the levels feel more open and interactive, as well as health bars encouraging actual skill in the firefights, they had some gaping holes, such as... why was your character killing these guys again? Hands up, who remembers the plot of Doom? "You're a marine on Mars and there are demons", you say? That's not a particularly great plot. Also, what? That doesn't make sense. While not every old Shooter was quite so lackluster in the story department(Marathon in particular is a standout story), the Shooters of today by and large blow them out of the water. Call of Duty: Black Ops, for example, has an intriguing story full of intrigue, action, and a clever framing device to tell it all in. This is partly due to advances in technology allowing excellent cutscenes and voice acting, the better to make you feel like you're in a movie.
Every game has a different story, and nowadays they also play in different ways. While I pointed out that the open level, run and gun style of old Shooters was a positive thing that we're lacking nowadays, the problem is that EVERY old Shooter was like that. Modern Shooters have a staggering variety--here are just some variants. Military Shooters, largely characterized by lack of weapons you can carry, and they were the first ones where reloading was a necessity. First and Third person camera styles, which can add a very different feel to the game--in particular, cover-based combat works very differently from third person. Melee Shooters, where your character's hand to hand prowess is just as important as their marksmanship. Shooters range over a quite a large spread of styles in modern days--I just want to know why we can't include the old Shooter traditional style as well.
Moving with your squad to assault a building full of enemy troopers--moments like this are really where newer Shooters shine the most.
Image Source: www.dailygame.net
Another thing better gaming technology has allowed Shooters to have is larger battles and smarter enemies in those battles. Even the biggest battles in older Shooters were largely just one decent sized room with perhaps a dozen enemies in it. In games like Gears of War, you often fight waves upon waves of enemies in much larger areas, not to mention bigger, more impressive enemies. The enemy AI is such that flanking their cover position or tossing a grenade into their machine gun nest--you know, tactics that might actually get used in REAL LIFE--are actually viable. Likewise, the enemy AI will try to outflank you, hide behind cover when it is wounded, and run away from your grenades. This all makes the battles, set pieces though they are, that much more engaging and intense, and thus more fun in the end.
WRAP-UP or SAFETY ON
Shooter progression, as we've seen, is not all good or bad--it's kind of even both ways. If we could blend old and new, we could come up with something amazing. Imagine, if you will, a Shooter which has an open, free-roaming level design like an older Shooter, with enemy patrols roaming it which will intelligently try to catch you/your squad in crossfires, use their knowledge of the corridors to retreat and harass you, or perhaps get caught in a trap you laid using extra weapons you stumbled upon while looking for a health cache, having been worn out after your last battle. It sounds pretty good to me!
There are even some elements in Shooters which I feel have been overlooked. A good example is from an older game called Medal of Honor: European Assault. Instead of restarting you from the beginning of the level(or a checkpoint) if you died, this game had a 'revive' system, where you had X number of revives and upon dying, you would stand back up a moment later through a heroic effort so that you could keep fighting(this would use up one revive). Extra revives were gained by doing bonus objectives in the level. I think this system is frankly brilliant, and I have no idea why more games don't use it. It keeps the game flowing, keeps you in the action, and is less frustrating than the normal system. In addition, it rewards you in a meaningful way for doing bonus objectives, without making them feel mandatory if you've got the skill to survive the main objective on your own.
If I had to recommend any one modern Shooter for you to play, the first one that jumps to mind is Killzone 2(Image Source: www.wikipedia.org). While it isn't perfect, it exemplifies everything good about modern Shooters, while avoiding some of the problems of them. It does use a checkpoint system, but the levels feel organic enough that there's some variety in getting there and winning each battle. It has cover(but done well, as I stated above) and regenerating health, but the latter is very slow to kick in and MOSTLY only happens outside of battle. Running and gunning for short periods is definitely possible, so long as you aren't too badly outnumbered. Check it out if you've got a PS3, and keep an eye out for the improved sequel, aptly but blandly named Killzone 3, coming out early 2011. That's it for now folks. See you next time, and game on!
