While the first-person shooter is one of the most popular video game genres around, it often relies on tried and true mechanics and concepts. That reliance on stale ideas can often lead to creative stagnation.In a group interview, Gamasutra sister site IndieGames.com gathered the opinions of six independent first-person shooter developers, who discussed where the genre should innovate, and what old tropes should be revisited or retired.But first, a bit of relevant history. The origins of FPS games have been traced to the 1970s, with titles such asand. However, modern FPS titles are often compared to the id Software titles of the 90s, such as, and, or more recent titles. Those hits from the 90s were often made with small teams, similar to the size of "indie" teams today.The genre has since diffused mechanically (even mixing with other genres) and financially ( over $50 million budgets ). Yet, maybe to evolve, the genre just needs more attention from teams similarly sized to those who brought it to life.Joining the interview are Alan Wilson of Tripwire Interactive (developer ofand), Kedhrin Gonzalez of Illfonic (), Alex Austin of Cryptic Sea (), Michiel Beenen of Interwave (), Oscar Jilsen of Coffee Stain Studios (), and Mladen Bo�njak of Misfit Village ().We're always keen to try new elements out - like a real first-person cover system. Peripheral vision done well. All sorts of stuff like that. Those things that really make me feel immersed in a game. That is one of the key points about an FPS for me - that it gives me the most real, believable perspective on whatever the game world is. [It] doesn't have to be a "real" world - but I want to feel part of it, from the perspective and the way I interact with it. FPS games, at their best, give you the best possible chance to be "in" the world.There is also a whole debate about how we pay for games and value for money - and I wouldlike to see that getting explored more. I've always been on record as saying that I have yet to see a game I really believe is worth $60 up front. I want to go on enjoying my games.There's a lot of room for innovation in FPS games, the main one I'm focused on right now is movement. Every FPS game right now uses the same movement asessentially, with a few hacks like prone position or moving your aiming reticule when firing a weapon.The reason for this is there is a huge gap between simple Quake movement and realistic human movement, and if you don't make it over that gap almost everyone will hate it. The only game that I know of that ever tried to make it was, and that was not received well. I'm currently trying to jump that gap with. We'll see if I make it, but so far it's encouraging. I have a video of what the movement system allows : In recent gaming history, titles such asandhave demonstrated how the 'Shooter' in FPS games is but one of the gameplay approaches that the genre permits. We'd like to see more and more games find and develop these alternative styles, where shooting is but a single component of a great, cinematic FPS adventure.: It's a hard question, as I have not been thinking about it a whole lot.Most FPS games right now seem to just be repeating the same process. Ever sincepopularized the two-weapon standard and regenerating health became the norm most recent FPS games feel similar. It is hard to answer that question because the name "First Person Shooter" kinda locks down the possibilities, it demands that you can shoot from a first person perspective.What I would like to see from First Person Perspective games is more games likeand: to focus on interaction with the environment and to use the perspective differently. Amnesia does this well when they punish you for looking at enemies, that is a very smart and interesting twist to the genre that more games could utilize.The FPS genre is pretty straightforward, when you add elements and start innovating, it goes into different genres (add inventory and a few choices, it's already an RPG), so I don't think you can innovate the FPS genre in particular much without it stretching its "First Person Shooter" name.I think, the largest step FPS games can take at this point, is a new peripheral that gets players more involved with fewer restrictions. They've tried it with the Wii, Move and Kinect, but they're lacking precision control. Aiming at the screen to turn just doesn't work well enough! I do have an idea that can work (I think)... but I can't really discuss it. It's pretty direct...The thing is, you can't take this entire genre, throw in new controls and expect it to immediately change. Today's day and age isn't like 1996 whenallowed +mlook and it changed everything. It also isn't likewhere the thumbsticks came in with gameplay catered towards console play. Things are a lot more expansive now.Turning is [also] one of the most important things in an FPS. It has to be smooth, easy, and controllable. Take that away and you just don't have a fun FPS. I'd love to play around with all of these ideas to further expand on what we can do with the genre. Let's face it, First Person View is the most important genre because it will lead into Virtual Reality. The people mastering its craft today will be the ones deciding VR's fate.Other than that, I think FPS is going towards FPS RPG being the main focus. It gives progression over repetition. It drives commitment within a game. Reward the player with lush story, but also give them hardcore gameplay. I thinkis the best example of this. Although the game had some serious flaws that prevented it from seeing its full potential, it is a star role model of things to come for FPS Games.I personally am a big fan of the secondary fire feature that was common back in the day. It (usually) made the weapons a little deeper and invited the player to switch up their tactics.I've been replaying bits ofrecently. I always loved the whole terrorist hunt mode in that game. [I'd like] more tactical games, that don't revolve around some Hollywood plot type of thing.FPS games have been losing the exploration factor. This is due to short attention spans. The majority of FPS fans just want non-stop, in your face action. I prefer exploring, getting into the environment. It was awesome running aroundand laughing at all the stuff., I mean come on. That was so fun! Games take you on a linear track because developers want constant engagement and don't want to spend resources doing some crazy event players might miss. This goes back my FPS RPG argument. They almost go hand in hand!Well, I thought thatwas going to bring back the old-like fun of just shooting hordes of guys, but that's just not working for me anymore. I think that developers making FPS games should look back on the originalandand see how great just shooting all of those weapons feels. I remember how I always used the ripper injust because it was fun to shoot, also the minigun fromand the one from the original. They just don't make them like they used to.Difficulty. Not every game needs to be murderously difficult, and talk of 'hardcore' switches is plain silly. However, we feel that modern FPS games place too much emphasis on coddling the player from one glorious moment of epic accomplishment to the next.Games are starting to feel like highlight reels of these unreal, impossible heroes that it's hard to feel connected to them. Kill the player, make them fear the dark and their enemies, and don't make victory a foregone conclusion, please.I would like to see games use some elements of pre-Quake FPS games like Ultima Underworld, System Shock or Terra Nova. All of those games had a lot of detail and complex interactions; unfortunately, everyone followed the id Software path of shoot everything. Also someone should remake Hidden and Dangerous 1 with a new engine so I can play it with my friends.I could go on about regenerating [health] and the two-weapon standard. But that's common knowledge. Something I think is overdone at this point is the "cinematic effect." There seems to be more watching than playing in modern FPS games; you constantly get interrupted in the middle of gameplay. If I wanted to just sit and watch, I'd be watching a movie.Don't get me wrong, though, I don't have anything against cut scenes. Not if they're used at the right moment. But modern FPS games seem to be some kind of half movie-half game hybrids.Modern warfare, bad takes on asymmetric warfare (i.e CT/COIN), immensely expensive scripted story-line pieces with dodgy voice acting. That sort of thing!Well, I do think multiplayer games have become too slow. I'm not saying those games are bad. But every FPS game? Give us back the right to really brag about being a good gamer. FPS games got slower because of howdominated the console market. I think multiplayer is fun inand, but not every game needs to mimic them.is pretty overdone as a series. I think thatandare hurting their developers in a way that they're not innovating enough. There's only so much you can do in the warfare scenario. DICE did a great thing with, but they can't build on that because EA is probably pushing them to make newfranchise installments.As for particular game elements I don't know if anything is overdone, maybe just not done enough. I'd like to see more bullet time in AAA FPS games.andare the last ones that had it that I have played, and both of those games aren't really good.Linear story. Multiplayer where you run in, shoot a guy, die, respawn and repeat. Perks. Basically,Martial themes could be turned down a notch or two. These days, it's impossible to have an adventure, it seems, without being some kind of elite commando master sergeant of awesomeness who was removed from service for being too cool for the army.'s main character was a nerd with glasses,'s was anything from a technician to a psi expert. Drake from(not an FPS, but still) is a rogue adventurer. People who don't spend 29 hours a day polishing their shotgun are cool, too. They can go on adventures, as well!