If you were to make your own FPS game

[Faceman]

If you could make your own game with a team, what style would you start out with? The realistic shooter (not ultra-realistic like having to reload each round yourself after firing a bolt action rifle) or something more fantasy/sci-fi?

[DarkPenfold]

Something sci fi but class-based. No lasers though, they're cheap and they annoy me.

[Maxey]

How about a mix of both? How cool would it be if Call of Duty 6 was set in a highly futuristic sci-fi environment?

Anyway, I'm more biased towards the sci-fi genre as it gives more space to creative design and more epic looking games.

[RichyCunningham]

A futuristic game but with a medieval twist. Like having swords and shields but here's the twist...ROBO HORSES.

[jow]

Firefly - The game.

[Penguin]

Quasi-realistic sci-fi... ish. Like a sci-fi post-apocalyptic game in the same vein as Fallout, but with less camp.

[CrazyTalk]

sci-fi. im tired of realism based games (ww2 fps' and such) there's too many of em

[AFG]

realistic modern

[Buglunch]

Futurama of Defeat
;)

[Koobazaur]

The two are not mutually exclusive. Your poll choices are way too narrow, I refures to vote until this has been corrected.

On the 5th of April, Faceman did a great injustice to the internet...

[Shade-of-Grey]

i voted realistic, but i changed my mind...i would make a game like shadowrun, but without the suck

[WHEATLEY007]

Dawn of War - The FPS

[SimonS]

I'd make a battle simulator, where you face off against an enemy , kind of like an rts, but FPS, and you can see the effects of ongoing fighting in the actual place (collateral damage) and soldiers. FPS games BF2 for example, always look like the battle just started, I want that gritty 'gone on for hours' look.

I remember slugging over age of empires 2 for hours, and when you finally got to the castle you knew you had a fight because everywhere else was fucked

[Zyn]

A worthy successor to Planetside. Period.

[SMELLY OLD MAN]

>:(

The problem with realism is that if anything isn't, it's going to stand out. Science fiction means less wasted dev time, more freedom as far as design decisions go and extra control over the various aspects of the game.

[Dr. Crawford]

I prefer realistic. I love science fiction but just not science fiction games. This is why I prefer Goldeneye to Perfect Dark

[Penguin]

Dawn of War - The FPS
As long as it's nothing like Fire Warrior.

[Faceman]

Hmm.

Halo to me is pure sci-fi FPS, something like HL would fall into the realistic. HL isn't realistic like CoD4 but it's not all about aliens, space and lasers. So how would you classify it and games similar to it? Such as STALKER.

[SMELLY OLD MAN]

I see realism as everything that exists and science fiction as everything that doesn't. All games have some realism to them, Halo, for example, features humans, wheeled vehicles, gravity, plains mountains and rivers, things that we are accustomed to, that we recognize in our every day lives. These elements, if not portrayed in a realistic manner, the way we are used to seeing them, will break the immersion.

Science fiction on the other hand is less likely to break immersion because we can't possibly KNOW that an alien isn't realistically done, it's something completely foreign to us. We have nothing to compare it to. Of course, I mean this from a design standpoint as if the alien is simply awfully modeled it'll always stand out, although less than an equally awfully modeled human character.

All in all realism, if pulled off correctly, allows for the most immersion. The closer it is to OUR OWN reality, the stronger the feeling. The drawback is the breakability of it -- physics not behaving correctly, not quite 'human' human NPCs, etc. It doesn't take much for the player to snap out of it, whereas many shortcomings in science fiction can be put onto the account of the game being in a different world.