Talk:First-person shooter

Article merged: See old talk-page here

'Good' article? Where's the cultural/sociological stuff?
I was somewhat surprised to find that this 'good' article does not discuss issues related to the cultural, gender and racial elements associated with FPS history. These are all essential dimensions that any remotely academic treatment of the subject should incorporate. See, for example, here.

As it stands now, the piece seems to have been written (certainly in good faith) by players and fans, and is therefore overly abundant in technical, game-play and commercial-title-related information. It is also excessively descriptive and lacks interpretation and reflexivity.

In my opinion, a considerable editorial overhaul is needed. Sb2s3 (talk) 10:56, 14 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Is this still a concern? I can get the community reassessment process started for you (unless you want to go individual)? AIRcorn (talk) 23:46, 22 March 2018 (UTC)

why isn't quake ever mentioned or the first 3d fps?
quake was a defining game, and half-life even used it's engine; and, i know if this is the case, might have been the first 3d fps. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:40C:4302:2710:3424:E0AA:8356:D951 (talk) 05:16, 14 April 2020 (UTC)

Wrong information in article: Quake is not the first FPS with full 3D environment and enemies
Quake is not the very first full real 3D FPS. "Terminator Future Shock" had full 3D maps, models and enemies a year before that. As much as I love Quake since its release and playing it to this day, the information provided here is just wrong. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Resonicde (talk • contribs) 13:15, 24 January 2022 (UTC)
 * We'd need sources to make that assessment. --M asem (t) 13:23, 24 January 2022 (UTC)


 * I checked this out and some gameplay footage on Youtube (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pBNSThWSZu4) shows that, at a minimum, many of the powerups and environment objects (like barrels) are still bitmapped sprites. 73.70.13.107 (talk) 23:04, 26 June 2022 (UTC)

Name
The "First Person Shooter" Stand For, ... — Preceding unsigned comment added by WS2022isback (talk • contribs) 20:57, 25 December 2022 (UTC)

Fair use image problems
At this moment the File:Halflife ingame.jpg image does not seem to have a correct rationale, because it's not tied to any place in the article and has a generic "A player engaging in combat during an above-ground section in Half-Life." text which doesn't give any reasoning for why it's the topmost picture. Older version had a different text, and the lead section was also quite different, which looks like a valid fair use usage.

But at this moment the fair use rationale is not acceptable, and the "Entire screenshot to show game graphics and low-resolution UI to showcase the evolution of FPS video games" on the file page does not match the usage. Purpose of use isn't correct either -- "The image is placed at the beginning of a section discussing the work, to help the user quickly identify the work and know they have found what they are looking for.", which does not match the current usage.

So for now, this image needs to be replaced with a screenshot of any free first-person game which illustrates the "First-person shooter" term. Sleeps-Darkly (talk) 19:13, 20 October 2023 (UTC)

Rise of Virtual Reality Paragraph
I'm not a regular Wikipedia contributor, but I added a paragraph for Virtual Reality. Perhaps it needs more links or whatever, but I think it's entirely necessary for this wiki page to highlight the VR impact on FPS games. Rather than simply erasing the work, please share what needs to be improved to keep this paragraph. ￼ 173.25.18.35 (talk) 22:16, 28 December 2023 (UTC)


 * It was full of opinionated statements (see WP:NPOV) and was not based on reliable sources (see WP:RS). The whole thing would need to be rewritten based on other sourcing. MrOllie (talk) 22:36, 28 December 2023 (UTC)
 * I appreciate the feedback and your dedication to keeping the standard of quality in Wikipedia high. I would not agree with "full of opinions", but there were a couple and I've adjusted the paragraph to remove subjective wording, made the paragraph more concise and consistent with the wiki page and provided even more citations and added a couple wikipedia links.  I value any additional feedback while keeping this paragraph in-tact as it's important to the FPS genre. 173.25.18.35 (talk) 08:08, 31 December 2023 (UTC)
 * One more note on sources: I tried to find the most neutral sources with data (which some are), but some sources are opinioniated as they are the best sources I could find and still fit Wikipedia's Reliable Sources (see WP:RS) definition: "...reliable sources are not required to be neutral, unbiased, or objective. Sometimes non-neutral sources are the best possible sources for supporting information about the different viewpoints held on a subject." 173.25.18.35 (talk) 08:16, 31 December 2023 (UTC)

Dactyl Nightmare
Dactyl Nightmare was the first full 3d FPS, if not the first true FPS. Look it up, it's a 1991 arcade VR game rendered in full 3d, predating Quake and even Wolfenstein 3D. It was a deathmatch multiplayer FPS, the gameplay was full 3d (3 axis), and players could fire in any direction, unlike in games like Wolfenstein 3D or Doom.

This should definitely be mentioned in the article. Anyone up for adding it, or should I do it? Endianer (talk) 03:10, 4 January 2024 (UTC)


 * Do you have a source that specifically calls it the first true FPS? M asem (t) 03:41, 4 January 2024 (UTC)

Controversy in FPS Video Games
There have been a number of studies and significant debate on the effects of violence in video games. First-person shooters are often cited as the source for desensitization of youth. I linked a Wikipedia article on this topic in the "See Also" section. Would it make sense to add a short note to the "research" section? Something like:

"There have been a number of studies and significant debate on the effects of violence in video games. First-person shooters are often cited as the source for desensitization of youth. See more at ."

Or is it best to just leave it as is (in the "see also" section)? 173.25.18.35 (talk) 10:30, 4 January 2024 (UTC)

Tilkimo yhiceskjonmopritershin''yuu Diznrishine

@I initdnete'' 196.188.188.222 (talk) 10:00, 13 May 2024 (UTC)