Making an FPS in COD's World

[fearsomepirate]

Obviously, Call of Duty owns the FPS market right now. It seems like everyone is trying to mimic it in one way or another, usually with disappointing sales results. Here's the main problem:

1. You are not going to unseat COD, so don't try. I don't mean stop trying to make a great FPS. Stop trying to out-COD COD, because it's not going to happen. COD's star will fade when gamers get tired of it, and when they do, they won't be looking for a COD clone anyway. I've seen developers eliminate unique, popular features of their games to be more like COD. Look, your FPS is NOT going to sell COD-like numbers. That ship has sailed for this generation already. It's okay to borrow some things that succeeded in that series, but not at the expense of throwing away stuff people liked about your game in the first place. Maybe people play your game because they don't want to play COD all the time.

2. COD's SP campaign has very little to do with its success, so stop mimicking it. I've lost track of how many games I've played have a lackluster multiplayer mode, but mimic COD's "5 hour roller coaster" model of SP gameplay. If your game's multiplayer isn't an overwhelming strength, and this is the case for the vast majority of games, just ignore what COD is doing entirely, or you are headed straight to the bargain bin.

3. Count the number of maps in your game. Now count the number of maps in the latest COD. Which number is smaller.
You want to know one reason COD's on top? The sheer quantity of content. There are 14 maps in Black Ops. There are 16 in MW3. Killzone 3 had a mere eight, only seven available in Warzone.

4. Never, never make the unlock system central in design decisions. I've seen several games cripple otherwise brilliant multiplayer features because they mistakenly thought that people buy games primarily for the thrill of grinding through experience tiers. For example, KZ3 stripped out all the great customization options and the server browser from KZ2 because they could be tweaked to grind through the XP system more quickly (such as all-pistols matches). HUGE mistake.

5. You are not going to beat COD on quantity, but you can beat it on quality.
Here's a little secret, developers--most of the game modes in COD are not very good. Designing maps to be playable in a huge number of game types mean a "jack of all trade, master of none" design. One way to stick out is to be really, really good at a few things, like the Battlefield series does.

 

[TheChefO]

Interesting post.

I agree, trying to mimic COD will do nothing other than point out that title x isn't COD.

Finding an edge/niche will be necessary for a game to outdo COD.

Another good point is, COD has this gen locked up ... but it does leave a potential opening for nextgen.

A launch title which brings something new to the table, looks great, plays great, and has a good online component may be able to dethrone COD (hopefully).

 

[upnorthsox]

Madden owned last gen (at least here in the states) but the generational shift did not treat it well. That's not to say it will happen to cod too but the possibilty is there.

 

[Cheezdoodles]

Tbh cod strength for me is not the quantity. IMO the treyarch games are mostly crap for me. They usually have the quantity but not the quality of the IW versions.

IW games have, for me, the best gun mechanics in a console game ever. The guns have a unique feel I cannot explain, aiming just feels right! although the latest bf3 is also pretty good.

I agree that trying to copy cod is a BAD MOVE. Uniqueness and originality is usually rewarded.

 

[tuna]

Which game has ever tried to copy COD? The one defining gameplay characteristic of COD is the (close to) 60 fps gameplay, the roller coaster SP and the really great MP modes. Which game has done that besides COD?

 

[Prophecy2k]

Tbh cod strength for me is not the quantity. IMO the treyarch games are mostly crap for me. They usually have the quantity but not the quality of the IW versions.

IW games have, for me, the best gun mechanics in a console game ever. The guns have a unique feel I cannot explain, aiming just feels right! although the latest bf3 is also pretty good.

I agree that trying to copy cod is a BAD MOVE. Uniqueness and originality is usually rewarded.

You mean the sticky auto-aim? Or are you talking about something else?

Personally i think the biggest reason for COD's success is the responsiveness of the controls (i.e. high framerate) and the sticky auto-aim that makes the game uber uber accessible. COD is all about pick up and play, and you don't need to be a seasoned PC FPS competitive gamer to be able to pick up a controller and rack off a few kills in COD. Together with all the perks and kill streaks, it makes the game even easier for those who start getting better at the game.

Re the whole, "no game should bother trying to out-COD COD" malarky, as much as I agree that attempting to make a shameless COD-clone is a bad idea, I also think that the view gamers have of the games they accuse of doing this is based on a silly and unfounded premise.

What alot of these gamers that rant and rage at other games for copying COD don't see, is that alot of what COD does has been done before in many other games before COD. The elements that make up COD's SP & MP modes exist in other games also and have done for years. However simply because COD is popular, these vocal gamers like to hate on any other games that add elements to their gameplay similar to what exist in COD. It's just silly. So if another shooter has an unlock system in their MP it's, "oooh it's copying COD". And if another game has a 5 hour long SP campaign its, "oh its copying COD".

The truth is, very very very few games at all try to ape everything that COD does, and even the thing that they do borrow are more than often modified so as to make sense for the game in which they're implemented. The many games that take the popular mechanics that exist in COD (as well as many other modern games) get unfairly lambasted imho for trying to improve their gameplay and modernise their mechanics, simply because they are doing something that has been popularised through COD. It's just silly really.

The copying and improvement of successful and enjoyable gameplay mechanics in games have been happening since the inception of the industry. Yet somehow now, whatever a FPS does that even loks remotely similar to COD, its copying COD and the game deserves to be DOA... as if COD invented all these things.

I personally think that there's lots of room in the industry for games that imitate COD's mechanics somewhat, as well as games that are very different. As it turns out though most games are very different. The only games i can personally think of that i'd say were even remotely similar to COD were Homefront & MOH, and i enjoyed both those games immensely. At the same time however I don't irrationally think or accuse other games, that are nothing like COD, of copying COD, and thus are able to enjoy those games for what they are.

I just personally think the whole, "OMG there are so many FPS games released that are COD clones" sentiment is fundamentally flawed and completely none-sensical. If anyone here can name more than 5 games released this gen that are COD clones then i'll buy them a beer.

 

[Phil]

As a CoD gamer.... KZ2 > *

Okay, so CoD is pretty good and very different, but IMO KZ2 was the only other game that delivered a very different FPS experience and a lot more focus on the tactical aspect and teamwork.

I dislike KZ3 exactly because it's more like CoD which IMO was a very bad move.

 

[Prophecy2k]

As a CoD gamer.... KZ2 > *

Okay, so CoD is pretty good and very different, but IMO KZ2 was the only other game that delivered a very different FPS experience and a lot more focus on the tactical aspect and teamwork.

I dislike KZ3 exactly because it's more like CoD which IMO was a very bad move.

Are you only speaking about the MP? Because this kind of thing is exactly what i don't understand... KZ3 as a game and FPS was nothing like COD in my opinion.

It was 30fps, the gunplay was completely different and pretty much exactly the same as KZ2. The only differences were with the MP and (imho poor) attempt to make the SP more "cinematic" with a stronger narrative. Even then the SP was nothing like a COD game. Even if the MP systems were similar to COD in the way the unlocks worked etc, the fundamental gunplay was so different that saying "it wasn't good because it was like COD" is a bit disingenuous. The game was different to KZ2 granted, and some of the changes weren't for the better agreed, but looking at the game critically, the changes didn't make it any "more like COD" at all imo... just made it less enjoyable than the first game.

Again, i feel like gamers should try to qualify their criticisms a bit better when scrutinising FPS games, and not just resort to (what is effectively) blaming COD when a game's sequel is not as good as the first.

For me KZ3 wasn't as good as KZ2 mainly because of the way the SP campaign was structured. They tried to shoe-horn in a narrative that was out-of place for a game like KZ. KZ3's pacing was detrimentally affected by the fact that the cutscenes were too many and too frequent. Also, the game felt a bit disconnected as you often randomly jumped from one section to another, which reeked to me of whole sections of the campaign being cut out or an unfinished game being rushed to market. Even despite the fact that KZ3 tried to tell a story, it was still a story that was absolutely nothing like any in a COD game.

 

[Phil]

Are you only speaking about the MP? Because this kind of thing is exactly what i don't understand... KZ3 as a game and FPS was nothing like COD in my opinion.

It was 30fps, the gunplay was completely different and pretty much exactly the same as KZ2. The only differences were with the MP and (imho poor) attempt to make the SP more "cinematic" with a stronger narrative. Even then the SP was nothing like a COD game. Even if the MP systems were similar to COD in the way the unlocks worked etc, the fundamental gunplay was so different that saying "it wasn't good because it was like COD" is a bit disingenuous. The game was different to KZ2 granted, and some of the changes weren't for the better agreed, but looking at the game critically, the changes didn't make it any "more like COD" at all imo... just made it less enjoyable than the first game.

I must confess, I was only speaking about the MP. in SP, IMO, KZ3 was in every way better than (or more enjoyable to me) than KZ2 - except for the end boss that didn't exist. But that's a different topic...

Talking strictly about the MP, in my view, they took a brilliant MP that worked in KZ2 and made several key changes that made it more like CoD. They eliminated home-bases and replaced them with random spawns and dumbed down various key elements/mechanics which differentiated KZ2 from CoD, e.g. tactical spawn grenades etc.

Now, of course there are some that will say that the home-base spawns didn't work because there were too many games flawed by base-camping etc. Instead of solving that issue with solutions that could have worked, they opted to ditch the entire system and go for random spawn points which brought a lot of new problems and new issues. Even worse, IMO the tactical nature of the game took a huge step back.



I like CoD. It has issues, but on the whole, it's easy to play and the framerate and the weapons feel sells it for me. The sad thing is, I loved KZ2 for being different and tactical and it worked - just as MAG worked as well. Or RFOM. All other games IMO have just tried to become more CoD which is where IMO they have lost their original appeal.

 

[fearsomepirate]

The main thing KZ3 changed to be more like COD was the removal of public custom games and forcing everyone to play ranked, predefined matches in order to earn XP. This was not a trivial change. And I think we can indeed point to COD as the reason for the ubiquity of XP-based unlock systems in first-person shooters, much like we can point to Halo for the sheer number of poorly-implemented vehicles in FPSes last gen.

Killzone is Call of Duty in space...run down a corridor with fancy 3D wallpaper, aim down the sights, chuck a grenade, push forward, switch to an on-rails vehicle section, doors are merely comsetic, etc. There weren't infinite enemy spawns, but I'm getting tired of the "fancy-looking corridor" school of level design.

whatever a FPS does that even loks remotely similar to COD, its copying COD and the game deserves to be DOA... as if COD invented all these things.

No, it's not "as if COD invented all these things." It's "as if COD sold millions of units doing these things, and publishers have come to believe they need to do those things to sell millions of units, too."

I also completely disagree that 60 fps is the reason COD is so popular. People on this forum live in a bubble IMO. Working on a college campus as I do, the most common things I hear students talk about are:

-Customizable classes
-Killstreaks
-4-player split-screen (every gamer over 25 vastly underestimates how important this is to someone in high school or living in a frat house/dorm)
-Lots of maps
-Lots of modes
-Lots of weapons and attachments
-Fast-paced action (for which 60 fps helps, but is not essential)

I think a game is trying to out-COD COD whenever it puts in a 5-hour "roller coaster" campaign and tries to make an unlock-driven multiplayer the real meat of the experience that sells the game, because those are the easiest parts of COD to copy. And from my observations, neither of those things are the reason COD sells mega-millions in the first place, while most of the things that do make it so successful are things most studios can't afford to mimic (there are over forty guns in each of the last couple CODs, for example).

 

[Cheezdoodles]

You mean the sticky auto-aim? Or are you talking about something else?

Personally i think the biggest reason for COD's success is the responsiveness of the controls (i.e. high framerate) and the sticky auto-aim that makes the game uber uber accessible. COD is all about pick up and play, and you don't need to be a seasoned PC FPS competitive gamer to be able to pick up a controller and rack off a few kills in COD. Together with all the perks and kill streaks, it makes the game even easier for those who start getting better at the game.
.

Responsiveness and How the guns "feel" when fired. The sticky aim is not particularly sticky nowadays (I turn this off so I don't really know- but I assume this because people really suck at console cod)

The aim assist in single player is not the same as in mp. In single player u basically have an aimbot

 

[fearsomepirate]

Personally, I've always felt like the guns in the IW games feel too accurate (except the shotguns...which are stupid in the vast majority of modern games). Obviously a preference thing, since Black Ops continued the trend of increasing sales.