Re: No Innovation in First Person Shooters
The stories are always the same because action movies always have the same story, and because there's no sensical way for a FPS to exist without that story: YOU'RE SOME UBERBADASS (or have some badass suit ala Halo and HL) who has to get out of the place/defeat the demons/aliens/robots before they kill you/earth/steal your chicks. If this logic weren't in the game, the idea that one dude could blast his way through hundreds of guys would be ridiculous and absurd. For example: Imagine playing Raven Shield. Now imagine using Raven Shield AI and damage in Doom 3. The monsters would own the **** out of you. You couldn't move fast enough, aim fast enough or shoot fast enough to survive against them all. And that's how it would really be (as 'real' as anything based on demons invading a space station can be). What you SHOULD be doing is getting mowed down like all the other marines, but through some magic of game-logic you're the most hardcore sun'bitch to ever land on Mars.
So you can really only have two types of shooters: Tactical shooters and action shooters. You've got RPGs as a third branch, but they're always mixed with one of the two. Deus Ex was an action shooter with RPG elements, Elder Scrolls can be tactical if you play on high enough difficulty, etc. But other than that there's really no way to go about it. The only thing that can be added to a 3d shooter is a storyline that isn't completely repetitive and interesting weapons/monsters/physics, something they usually fail to do. NO MILITARY FORCE IN THE WORLD DEPLOYS WITH SHOTGUNS, DAMMIT! They might have them for special, specifically defined missions. Otherwise everyone has an assault rifle and a sidearm. But no 3d shooter has understood this simple fact so far, and they probably never will, just like they'll never understand that machineguns are more accurate than magnum pistols and nightivision which lasts more than five minutes actually exists.
Keep Your People Armed
It's for the Children