Talk:First-person shooter/Archive 3

Call of Duty, and FarCry/Crysis
I took the liberty of looking at a bunch of top ten lists. There are a lot of intermittent mentions, like Shogun, or Resistance Fall of Man. But there are two names that keep coming up that should probably be included: FarCry/Crysis, and the Call of Duty series. Besides having a pretty devoted following, both of them really represent major refinements in the genre: FarCry in terms of graphics and open world level design, and Call of Duty in terms of cinematics and storytelling. (Not that I've played either game. That's just what I've read / heard.) Randomran (talk) 21:17, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Yeah, they're among a few recent games I was tempted to put in. My concern is that it's a bit early to know such games will have a lasting influence, as well as the fear of skewing the article in favour of the name dropping of in-vogue titles. I'm looking through some reviews now though. bridies (talk) 21:37, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
 * All right, done. bridies (talk) 22:02, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Looks good to me. A few token mentions doesn't hurt. We want the history to seem complete, without going into exhaustive detail about every single FPS. Randomran (talk) 22:09, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm wondering why Far Cry 2 was mentioned instead of the original. The original was far more ground breaking than the sequel.  I've never played FC2, but when FC was released it the game to judge all new games by.  I don't see how FC2 is even worth mentioning other than being just another above average FPS.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.234.60.130 (talk) 02:44, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Agreed, Far Cry was really the game that "broke new ground" in terms of "large, open-ended level design", with Crysis and Far Cry 2 really building on it's foundation. I'll see if I can't dig up a source. 206.125.94.244 (talk) 22:59, 18 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Far Cry 2 should indeed be deleted, it didn't broke new ground neither in terms of graphics (Crysis was way better) nor in terms of open-world or gameplay. But the original Far Cry should indeed be included for its advanced ennemy AI, open levels and the visual landmark that it was.
 * Why is Call of Duty not mentioned when it is the most commercially successful retail FPS franchise of all time?

Why is Perfect Dark not mentioned?
This game made GE007 look like a low quality, over easy hunk of junk. PD was of course made by Rare. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 125.236.190.83 (talk) 09:58, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
 * It's not meant to be an exhaustive list of every single game ever made. Randomran (talk) 15:50, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

No Mention of Marathon?
I noticed there seems to be (what I believe) to be an oversight. Marathon, made by Bungie made several advances only a year after Doom - 1994, such as Looking up and down (Before Dark Forces), A More powerful network engine than Doom, including voice chat. Polygon designed levels. A powerful physics engine allowing things such as adjustable gravity, and getting blown about by explosions. Dual-wielding weapons.

Oh yeah, it also featured a deep and complex plot. :)

Whilst Marathon only made a brief jump over to the Microsoft environment, it was a significant game (and subsequent trilogy) for Mac users.

Any thoughts folks? 122.49.134.163 (talk) 16:49, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Maybe. It's in one of the sources I used but it says it was "a technically superior game that no one paid any attention to"... bridies (talk) 17:40, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't have a strong opinion either way. I haven't heard much about it, but it sounds like there are some compelling reasons to include it as part of the history. If someone could find a source on it, I'd add a sentence or two. Randomran (talk) 18:58, 14 April 2009 (UTC)


 * It has been added into the article with a reference attached to it. --RiseRobotRise (talk) 11:11, 11 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Marathon (1994), and Pathways Into Darkness (1992), both Bungie games, are once again not mentioned in this page, but they should have equal billing with Doom and Wolfenstein 3D. They were Apple Macintosh games but they were every bit as good and popular as Doom and Wolf3D at the time. It isn't fair to simply mention Bungie games for the XBOX, the fact is Bungie made 3D first person shooters for the Macintosh and they were just as good as, if not better, than the PC games at the time, and they helped usher-in the era of First Person Shooters on personal computers.Radical Mallard (talk) 23:31, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

Reverts
Right:


 * 1. MIDI Maze needs a source. This is a GA, it cannot have unsourced material so this content will be removed until sources turn up.
 * 2. "Though first person shooters showed up on consoles as well as PCs, they did not attain much commercial or critical success." Actually, the source explicitly states: "The introduction of the Playstation in 1995 brought the first successful FPSs to consoles." Also "showed up" is bad prose.
 * 3. "Deus Ex appears to be a first-person shooter" Not necessarily. That's one opinion, other sources in the article don't consider it an FPS. So therefore "is sometimes considered".
 * 4. The metroid prime paragraph is thematically linked to the info on Deus Ex (genre-blending and such). If one is going to remove it from the Halo info Deus Ex should go with it. bridies (talk) 01:40, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Also re: "Metroid Prime, released in 2002 for the Nintendo GameCube, another highly praised console first person shooter, incorporated action adventure elements such as jumping puzzles which represent an evolution of the Metroid'' series (2D platformers) into 3D."

The source says:

"Nintendo's Gamecube had some pretty slim pickings as far as shooters went; that is until 2002 when Metroid: Prime was released. Despite numerous internal issues and widespread dismay from fans upon its announcement, Nintendo's in-house Retro game studio produced a top-of-the-line adventure. Based on the über-popular Metroid 2-D sidescrollers from the '80s and '90s, Prime followed the continuing story of space mercenary Samus Aran and her ongoing battle with the evil alien parasites, the Metroid. The mix of solid adventure standards like complex puzzles, exploration and platform jumping with beautifully designed enemies and a solid graphics engine produced what many said was the Game of the Year."

There is nothing in that block quote allowing the inference highlighted in bold above. bridies (talk) 02:13, 22 April 2009 (UTC)


 * By that logic we need to remove all mentions of Maze War, Spasim, and other unsourced information (they are just as sourced as MIDI Maze -- we have articles on them with some links but probably not RS). But generally instead of removing everything without a source, we leave in information that hasn't been challenged as possibly false or non-sourceable until we can find sources for it. Also, the UGO Games source probably fails WP:RS, especially for statements like ""The introduction of the Playstation in 1995 brought the first successful FPSs to consoles." This statement doesn't have context. Andre (talk) 11:12, 22 April 2009 (UTC)


 * There's definitely no source for this phrase: "The first passable console first person shooters were released in 1995, for the Sony Playstation." I object to the use of this UGO source for that statement, as it lacks context and probably falls under self-published source (it's a feature by a random editor for this website that was likely not fact checked) -- plus the use of "Passable" is ambiguous and not in the source. Andre (talk) 11:15, 22 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Source for MIDI Maze release in 1987: IGN, GameSpot, MobyGames. Andre (talk) 11:18, 22 April 2009 (UTC)


 * In re: Metroid, how does "Based on the über-popular Metroid 2-D sidescrollers from the '80s and '90s" not lead to "which represent an evolution of the Metroid series (2D platformers) into 3D."? These two are roughly equivalent and it's not an unreasonable inference to use the phrase "evolution." Andre (talk) 13:34, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

"The earliest two documented first person shooters were Maze War and Spasim. Maze War was the most similar to modern first person shooters, as it featured characters fighting on foot. Development of the game began some time in 1973 and was likely completed before Spasim, however its exact date of completion is unknown. Spasim had a documented debut at the University of Illinois in 1974. The game was a rudimentary space flight simulator, which featured a first-person perspective." The source states:
 * Like I said on your talk page, I'm pretty sure all the information in this article is sourced (and it has all been peer-checked). Sometimes there are two or three sentences in a row "covered" by the one citation. Again, I challenge you to provide specific quotes from the article which are not sourced. Since you say "all mentions of Maze War, Spasim" lets take the first mention of this in the history section:

Which two video games are the leading candidates for serving as the earliest documented game of the first-person shooter (FPS) genre?

Maze War and Spasim, both of which published working versions in 1974, are arguably the two earliest known FPS video games. Both feature a first-person perspective, pseudo-3D game environments, and an objective of shooting opposing players.

Which of these two came first? Maze War is the likely candidate, with development beginning sometime in 1973.

However, exact documentation of the "publish date" for Maze War isn't available, despite the fact that the game (also known as The Maze Game, Maze Wars, or Maze) got its start at the NASA Ames Research Center for use on Imlacs PDS-1 computers. From there, it spread to numerous platforms and organizations—notably MIT and Xerox—and somewhere along the way, its birthday was lost.

Of the two, Maze War is also the most similar to modern FPS games. Players wander through a 3D labyrinth environment, firing shots at other players, which appear as eye-like avatars. Versions of Maze War are still available for the Palm operating system, and the program's underlying logic inspired a number of early video games.

Somewhat ironically, it was a university—and not NASA—that developed the space simulator called Spasim. Unlike Maze War, Spasim had a well-documented debut in March 1974 on the PLATO network at the University of Illinois.

In simplest terms, Spasim was a rudimentary combat flight simulator. Players flew their craft from a first-person perspective in a 3D combat zone, while firing at opposing players rendered as wire-frame space ships.


 * WP:GACR states that all information in a Good Article must come from a cited source.
 * UGO is reliable, full-stop see here for example. Good luck getting consensus otherwise.
 * The statement (not a phrase) "The first passable console first person shooters were released in 1995, for the Sony Playstation" comes from the UGO source. It says: "The introduction of the Playstation in 1995 brought the first successful FPSs to consoles." It also says "With the possible exception of a port of Ultimate Doom, the first few FPSs on the PS1 kinda blew". Saying that they were "passable" seemed like a good way of saying they were successful, but according to the source, not that great (and and not as successful as GoldenEye). We can talk about changing the wording (specifically "passable"), but it's not acceptable to say they weren't successful when the source explicitly says they were.
 * MobyGames is generally not reliable and in any case doesn't back up what you wrote. Neither does the GameSpot source, which merely says it was an "action" game released in 1987. Your IGN source does, to some extent. Now you can say that it was an early FPS with networked play; but avoid any of that "demonstrates the same paradigm as Maze War" stuff, because it's not in the source.
 * Re: Metroid. "Based on the über-popular Metroid 2-D sidescrollers from the '80s and '90s" means just that: "based on". It does not necessarily or explicitly follow that it was an "evolution", indeed the source points out many fans were dismayed at the change. In any case I don't see how the "evolution" of an 80s platform series is relevant to an FPS history article. What is relevant is that it was a successful FPS which incorporated adventure and jumping puzzle elements. bridies (talk) 14:55, 22 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Just to check in and try and offer some balance... we should add anything that can be verified in reliable third-party sources, so long as it doesn't take this article off topic or ascribe too much weight or detail. This article is a "good article", meaning that it represents high quality content that meets all of Wikipedia's policies. I know it's tempting to just expand this with whatever we're interested in, but we can't let the standard fall. Randomran (talk) 20:39, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Let's start by including MIDI Maze with the IGN, GameSpot sources and go from there. I'll try to deal with my other edits in a different way, and we can drop the specific diffs for now. Andre (talk) 03:19, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Do we have a source that does more than verify its existence? It would be nice to have a little bit more about it, to explain why it's an important part of the history of FPSs. Randomran (talk) 05:30, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I think its very existence as a multiplayer first person shooter released in 1987 is significant enough, and the 1991-1992 ports to SNES and Game Boy also make it one of the earliest console first person shooters. I think the influence of Maze War is pretty obvious from a cursory glance at both, but I don't have a source for that. Here are a few more references for MIDI Maze's existence in 1987 as a multiplayer FPS: START VOL. 3 NO. 2 / SPECIAL ISSUE #4 / PAGE 75, 1UP. Andre (talk) 07:00, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
 * You hit the jackpot with that 1up feature. That's exactly the kind of reference I was hoping was out there. Great job. Randomran (talk) 07:49, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

Physics in FPS's
I'm wondering if anything could be made of the increasing interactivity in FPS environments in regards to physics technology and design, from basic object physics to developed ragdoll physics becoming standard, on to the innovations provided by Half-Life 2's gravity gun (afterall, one of the reasons why Half-Life 2 is regarded in the media as an exceptional FPS), and off into the future. The article doesn't touch on those aspects at present. -- Sabre (talk) 16:27, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
 * It's touched on a little bit in the "level design" section, although I see we haven't really mentioned it in the history section. I don't really know much about engines. bridies (talk) 17:39, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I think it's a good way to expand the article. Although researching these things are tough. We do have an entire (bad) article on first person shooter engines... maybe there's something to be said for summarizing a bit about how the technology has developed? Not sure. Randomran (talk) 18:45, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Article roadmap for expansion
As a video game GA on a popular topic, this article seems very aggressively watched and monitored. To avoid edit warring which seems pretty common, here are a few areas I would like to write about and would like to discuss: Andre (talk) 08:43, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Role of FPS games in U.S. army recruitment -- America's Army -- and inroads into popular culture and the media if any are sourceable
 * Improving eyesight with FPS titles
 * The common use of game engines such as the Unreal Tournament engine (which might have been in America's Army, can't recall if it was that or another commercial engine) in a licensing business -- merge from First-person shooter engine, which is a horrible mess of lists and original research, but might have some ideas for what to look for in sourcing the discussion, rag-doll physics, the role of PC graphics cards and such
 * Halo 3's stage-building features (I haven't tried the Forge myself so I might not be able to write this)
 * Late 80s FPSs
 * Dark Side, which is definitely an FPS from 1988, and Driller its prequel which might be an FPS, but is definitely an early first person game that led to Dark Side
 * The Colony, which also alleges to be from 1988, an early user of ray casting, but I have never seen
 * Phantom Slayer, 1982, very very primitive hardware but seems to be an FPS
 * Dungeons of Daggorath, same deal, also 1982
 * Zig Zag - an fps from 1984 for the Sinclair ZX Spectrum. I'm sure there are more, but this does have all the ingredients of an fps.  a_man_alone (talk) 15:18, 27 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Question: what's "stage-building" when its at home-and extending from that, why is it considered innovative for inclusion here? A Google search shows nothing that actually explains it for people like myself who've never heard of it. I'm imagining something like the random mission generator from Soldier of Fortune 2, but I'm probably wrong in that. -- Sabre (talk) 23:34, 24 April 2009 (UTC)


 * I'm not sure that I can answer that, I haven't tried it myself. Andre (talk) 23:51, 24 April 2009 (UTC)


 * A section about modifications that discusses development kits, particularly their use in making custom stages, might be warranted if a good article about them can be found. It's a pretty big deal with some games (id's Quake games and Valve's Half-Life games in particular). 206.125.94.244 (talk) 23:13, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Half Life wasn't the first fps to feature NPC's
The article quotes somewhere:''Valve's Half-Life was released in 1998. Initially met with only mild anticipation, it went on to become an unprecedented commercial success.[14][41] While previous first person shooters had focused on visceral gameplay with comparatively weak plots, Half-Life had a strong narrative; the game featured no cut scenes but remained in the first person perspective at all times. It featured innovations such as non-enemy characters but did not employ power-ups.''Now I know that non hostile characters were not a norm at that time but Half Life certainly isn't the first one to walk that path.The 1996 Doom Engine game Strife surely did before that for instance even if its not really that popular.So unless you give me a good reason I'm deleting/replacing that sentence. —Preceding unsigned comment added by TheSmasher42 (talk • contribs) 15:04, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
 * It's sourced. "Innovative" doesn't necessarily mean "the first"; if a game featured a rare, new feature then it's reasonable to claim, as the source does, that it "featured an innovation". Especially if any other games making use of it weren't popular. bridies (talk) 15:15, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

Controls
Should we include a section on the different control methods of First Person Shooters, and their Pros and Cons (Mouse and Keyboard, Gamepad, motion sensing, etc.)? "It's over 9000!" 07:34, 18 July 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by FstrthnU (talk • contribs)

Well at least something better than what's there; saying that keyboard and mouse is better than a controller requires more than two random references (10, 11). One is just an article on a mouse/keyboard plug for an XBOX (basically an advert) and the other is some random news article on Killzone 2 where the writer mentions his preference.--150.101.242.246 (talk) 18:00, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Er, no it doesn't. Feel free to provide sources stating otherwise. bridies (talk) 01:54, 24 July 2009 (UTC)


 * I agree that the article should include a little bit more discussion of control schemes than it does now. But obviously not to the extreme of how the article was a couple of years ago, when it featured a ridiculously over-detailed description of various control systems (which I confess I was largely responsible for). Still, maybe some short points from back then could be incorporated again, such as the fact that certain consoles like the Dreamcast have permitted the use of keyboard and mouse peripherals.
 * As for the reference to keyboard and mouse being "superior" to pads: perhaps the benefits should be explained more specifically (but still concisely), using a phrase such as "allowing faster and more precise aiming"? (The New York Times article on Killzone 2 used as reference #11 uses the word "precise".) -- Nick RTalk 20:47, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't see that we especially need more information on controls but people are welcome to add sourced information. The Team Xbox source just says: "the well known PC combo that has been the envy of many console gamers for years". bridies (talk) 23:21, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

PC controls can give a person a carpal tunnel much easier than console controls. The controls maybe fast and accurate but, it can be really sensitive when you move your mouse. Gaming consoles can be like fast and accurate like the pc controls by setting up the control settings. for example, Halo 3 you can change the sensitivity and make it fast when you aim. Major League Gaming plays mostly gaming consoles and they usually play with fast controls. PC or not, gaming is envolving to a higher level in controls like the Nintendo Wii for example, It uses a Wii remote and a Wii nunchuck. It is really sensitive when you play FPS games on the Wii depending on you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by LonewolfSoldier (talk • contribs) 04:31, 26 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Now, let's not be hasty. It's called "Major League Gaming," but it is far from the largest professional gaming league, and it is a console-oriented set of leagues. Just because it's an organization that has tournaments for multiple games doesn't mean that it's bigger than any of the Korean Starcraft 2 leagues or the European Quake leagues. As far as I can tell trying to defend the Wii as a proper gaming console for FPS is a pretty clear sign that you're grasping at straws. The Wii is good for many things, but rapid, precise aiming while simultaneously moving is not one of them. 70.62.62.18 (talk) 04:41, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

On the subject of overlooked games...
System Shock and its sequel certainly deserve a mention or three. While neither were huge sellers, they were both highly acclaimed and arguably more influential on the traditional FPS lineage than any game outside of Doom itself. Their respective wikis have more info, but to summarize, the '94 original contains a treasure-trove of innovative features such as jumping, climbing, crouching, leaning, floating in six degrees (in Cyberspace sections), flashlights, ungradeable equipment, multiple ammo types, tactical combat, and ridiculously advanced physics (weapon recoil, sliding down ramps, object bouncing, etc.), not to mention a strong emphasis on story through radio contact and text and audiologs (same as Bioshock). System Shock 2 is often regarded as a milestone for FPS/RPG hybrids and survival horror games - its scary atmosphere and rich sound-design easily supercede everything the current article says about Doom 3. The main SS2 wiki lists five major gaming sites that include it on "greatest games ever" lists.

On a different note, I suggest S.T.A.L.K.E.R. Shadow of Chernobyl (or perhaps ARMA/Operation Flashpoint) would make a better example of open world gameplay than Far Cry 2. FC2 seems to me to have too much controversy swirling around it over just how "open" it really is.

76.212.165.102 (talk) 08:37, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Those are fair points, all one has to do are find supporting sources. bridies (talk) 10:06, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

One more overlooked game is Freaks from 1983. It's very close to Wolfenstein 3D though with only 90 degree turns. It seems to be missing in the List of firs-person shooters too.. 93.106.58.166 (talk) 18:32, 28 October 2018 (UTC)

Chart of FPS games by date and engine
I've started this chart, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:FPSChart.svg, inspired by this one, http://i.imgur.com/JCF0L.jpg. IsaacAA (talk) 17:57, 20 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I've added references.


 * IsaacAA (talk) 16:54, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

History - Introduction of Pointer and Motion Controls
I think Metroid Prime 3: Corruption deserves a reference in the History section for its incorporation of motion controls. I'm not certain whether it's the first motion-controlled FPS, but it's certainly the first one that's used motions well. Thoughts? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.99.68.132 (talk) 05:08, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

Planetside not oldest FPS
Planetside not oldest MMOFPS, despite ref article. MMORGP shows release date 6/4/2001, and the wiki confirms that date. --Flightsoffancy (talk) 18:59, 8 March 2010 (UTC)
 * The IGN source explicitly supports the statement that Planetside "was promoted as the first MMOFPS", so kindly stop removing it. The MMORPG.com source does not, and your original conjecture regarding released dates in not permitted. It is doubtful whether MMORPG.com is even a reliable source. bridies (talk) 05:09, 9 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Simply look at the release date for the games. Besides this wiki pages Massively_multiplayer_online_game lists several candidates.  When I put WW2Online I did not say it was first, just included it.  in short, PlanetSide is not the first MMOFPS by any stretch.
 * PS: A date presented is a Publised fact, so it does not against the "This includes UNpublished facts," of not permitted--Flightsoffancy (talk) 20:28, 9 March 2010 (UTC)
 * A reliable source (i.e. IGN) calls Planetside the "world's first MMOFPS" and therefore supports the statement in the article. You are removing a reliably sourced statement, simple as that. By "including" the statement regarding WW2Online in its place you imply that it was first. The source you provided makes no such statement and in any case is of dubious reliability, certainly not as respected as IGN. Any inference you make using only a release date is again original research. Issues of genre and which is the first game in that genre have nothing to do with "facts", they are entirely in the realm of critical opinion and commentary. The article has a reliable magazine offering a critical assertion that it was the first MMOFPS. The statement in the article is also written in such a way that it shows that is critical opinion. Also, if we were to venture into original research, I would point out that the article is a contemporary source from 2004. This indicates that this was the first time "MMOFPS" was being applied to game's release. Finally, the statement has long standing consensus in the article and will remain in place until you can build consensus otherwise. Again, stop removing it with spurious arguments. bridies (talk) 04:26, 10 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Oh, and Wiki pages are not reliable sources and your inferences from them are again original research. bridies (talk) 04:32, 10 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Bridies, I never stated in article that WW2Online was first, and I never placed it in Planetsides place either. I included WW2Online with Battlefield, becuase both came out about the same time and cover the same genre, and the only reason to exclude it is you question the release date?   I grudgingly concur with you that the lack of other articles do put Plantside as "first", but I will agree it is one of the founders of MMOFPG genre.  --Flightsoffancy (talk) 17:12, 10 March 2010 (UTC)
 * FYI, IGN lists June 6, 2001 as launch date too. --Flightsoffancy (talk) 19:27, 10 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm not questioning the release date. I'm saying you cannot use the release date and the fact someone called it an MMOFPS as a basis to include it in the article (explicitly or implicitly) as the first (or one of the first) MMOFPS games because that would be original research and/or synthesis. You would need a source which says that explicitly. I also questioned whether MMOFPS.com is a reliable source, but that's secondary. Anyway, I added the commentary from the IGN source you linked above to the article. bridies (talk) 16:18, 11 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I can understand this need to avoid original research and/or synthesis, and you do an admirable job to stay the course and use only the best sources (kudos to you). I know I could have done better in this case, and am learning the nuances. 2 questions, with conflicting articles, are both noted, and how does one deal with well known events that may not be reviews/commented about?  To finish off, you last update gives an impression of the hopes by players in the early OL/MMO days, that is very good (gets readers to go further).  Sorry of being aggressive, and well done Bridies. --Flightsoffancy (talk) 19:31, 15 March 2010 (UTC)
 * If there are conflicted statements around, normally we just write that "Magazine X says this, but magazine Y says so and so". bridies (talk) 15:29, 16 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Done. bridies (talk) 05:02, 10 March 2010 (UTC)
 * In this case I think "world's first massively multiplayer online first person shooter" should be surrounded by quotes since its factual accuracy is dubious. SharkD   Talk  04:56, 10 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I won't say which was first. But I can say that we should always remember that even a reliable source like IGN might make mistakes every now and then, like any other reliable source operated by human beings. It might be worth mentioning in the article that although IGN named it the first one, others of the same kind already existed. NeoGenPT (talk) 07:49, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

IGN didn't say anything. This is a press release, not IGN's own opinion (see a mirror here: http://www.gamezone.com/news/05_05_03_05_04PM.htm ). I don't think this one statement qualifies as a reliable stateme nt, since it's obviously meant to be promotional in purpose rather than informative. Megata Sanshiro (talk) 13:42, 10 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Again, the article states that Planetside 'was promoted as the "world's first" MMOFPS'. This is the statement that the source supports. Although, IGN's own statement I refer to would not appear to be part of the press release itself and is not mirrored in the GameZone version. It's the heading which says "World's First MMOFPS Complete". Furthermore I still don't see any reliably sourced evidence for contending viewpoints. bridies (talk) 14:16, 10 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I added another citation for the noteworthiness of Planetside's persistent world feature, since it's a fair point the press release alone probably wouldn't warrant a mention in a history article. bridies (talk) 15:11, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Quote from Identifying reliable sources:
 * Self-published or questionable sources may be used as sources of information about themselves, especially in articles about themselves, without the requirement that they be published experts in the field, so long as:

Megata Sanshiro (talk) 20:42, 11 March 2010 (UTC)
 * 1) the material is not unduly self-serving;
 * 2) it does not involve claims about third parties;
 * 3) it does not involve claims about events not directly related to the subject;
 * 4) there is no reasonable doubt as to its authenticity;
 * 5) the article is not based primarily on such sources.
 * I don't see your point. It is being used as a source of information about the game itself. It's not really a self-published source either, Sony may have written it but in this instance it was published on IGN. bridies (talk) 05:04, 12 March 2010 (UTC)
 * IGN also repeated the claims in articles such as this one (a news story, not a press release) and made their own assertions at least re the persistent world in the review. bridies (talk) 05:13, 12 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Just because a game is promoted at being the first to do something doesn't make it true. GameAxis (bottom right of the page) lists Necron as "the first major MMOFPS title to capture mainstream attention" and the MMOG article states that there is debate between it and Planetside as the first.  The two articles should at least be consistent with one another. Also, the IGN review states only that it's Sony's first MMOFPS, not that it's the first MMOFPS and this story reads, "The first real MMOFPS is shipping to stores says Sony Online Entertainment." Note that they are repeating SOE's claim, not verifying it. The IGN news story quoted in the article and the GameZone article do claim that it's the first MMORPG. I strongly suspect that neither games were the first MMOFPS and that it's really a debate between which one was the first significant one, which, from what I can see, would be Planetside. UncannyGarlic (talk) 23:47, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

warning! 2 out of the 10 million players of Doom killed someone... connection? Undue weight removed
The Columbine massacre nonsense has no place in an article about the first person shooter, so I removed it. The reference doesn't link to the proper page, which is. The bit I removed gave undue weight, suggesting there was something valid in the case. The article says millions of fans agreed that the kids had other problems. It also says the lawsuit had no valid and was thrown out of court. And it says people needed something to blame, so Doom seemed like a good target. Also, common sense states that if 10 million people played a game, and only two of them killed people, its not caused by that game. That's why they didn't add a "Warning: One in every five million people who play this game will go crazy and kill someone" to the box.  D r e a m Focus  20:37, 11 March 2010 (UTC) As Ginsengbomb has said, this had massive media coverage at the time and did not "die down [...] rather quickly" if at all. It had very significant "real world impact" and is still being talked about in reliable sources both gaming and otherwise: the GameSpot article dates from 2009. As a further example, Dave Cullen's definitive book Columbine (also 2009) has a couple of paragraphs about Doom. bridies (talk) 01:19, 12 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm reverting your edit and would advise that you seek consensus on here before re-introducing it, although such is certainly your right (and I won't edit war your face off or anything if you do, don't worry :). The Columbine mention directly follows another discussion of a Doom-related controversy, and the event was extremely notable in terms of Doom's history and the history of FPS's. I don't see how this article can discuss the history of FPS's during the early-to-mid nineties without bringing up the controversies surrounding their rise, and the Columbine connection was arguably the most significant of them. I do not see how the reference suggests there was something "valid in the case" or gives undue weight -- it says and does nothing of the kind. If you think it's giving undue weight, I'd be fine with shortening the reference. The article isn't supporting the lawsuit (nor should it...and believe me, I'm with you in terms of your opinion of the whole thing, which was patently absurd, reactionary and sad...but it happened, and it was significant). ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡ  bomb  23:03, 11 March 2010 (UTC)
 * You believe it is significant for the first person shooter genre? Nothing came of it that affected the industry in any possible way.  It was just something stupid for a news story, which died down and was discredited rather quickly, and had no lasting impact on anything at all.   D r e a m Focus  00:49, 12 March 2010 (UTC)
 * It didn't -amount- to anything significant, in the long run, but a history of anything will incorporate events that were significant at the time. You can't seriously argue that it wasn't serious at the time -- the reference is to an article written about the event over 10 years later. And, honestly, I have no idea why you want to delete this. It's reliably sourced content. It is notable, significant, etc. Why do you want to delete it, aside from your personal distaste for it ever having happened? ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡ  bomb  00:59, 12 March 2010 (UTC)
 * The argument can also be made, although I don't see why it has to, that events like this one (not this one in particular) led to the gaming industry voluntarily introducing a ratings system. But, again, this seems to me irrelevant. We're talking about a brief mention of an event that was so significant at the time that it's still being talked about in reliable sources. ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡ  bomb  01:02, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

Some minor concerns
I have went through the history section and have added citation needed tags to two statements I find to be inaccurate or misleading.

"Apogee's Duke Nukem 3D, released in 1996, was the last successful sprite-based first person shooter"

They were several shooters (such as other Build engine games such as Blood, Redneck Rampage, and Shadow Warrior) which received at least moderate attention. I know Blood was viewed highly by critics even at the time.

"[Half-Life] featured innovations such as non-enemy characters"

Say what? The first game I am aware in the FPS genre to have NPC's being critical to the plot would be Strife. Also, both early Lithtech titles Blood II: The Chosen and Shogo: Mobile Armor Division featured them, and they were released slightly before Half-Life. There are probably more examples.

If nobody defends these claims, I will have to rewrite them. Comrade Hamish Wilson (talk) 17:27, 19 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I would also like to point out the main problem I have with these stamtents is the authoritative tone in which they are said. The simple addition of phrases such as "one of the first" or "one of the last" could do this article a whole world of good. Comrade Hamish Wilson (talk) 21:28, 19 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Now that you mention it, Terminal Terror had non-enemy NPCs as far back as 1994. And since most 3D Game Creation System games are really expanded TT mods, then even some of those cheap amateur games made with it had them too. I know for a fact Chub Gam 3D had them. So, there is a problem here. 18:08, 19 April 2010 (UTC)
 * The statement re Half-Life is taken from the GamaSutra article cited at the end of the statement. Admittedly it's not the best source as it's from an anonymous interviewee rather than the author; the article states however that the respondents were "industry professionals" and furthermore the statements would not have been selected for publication if they were not thought to be credible by the site. I could be persuaded that it should be removed if some reliable evidence to the contrary were to be provided, but so far this is not the case. The statement re Duke 3D is again sourced, but I have changed to quote directly as it is indeed subjective. bridies (talk) 09:46, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Here are some sources for Terminal Terror and Strife: http://www.abandonia.com/en/games/418/Strife.html http://www.abandonia.com/en/games/643/Terminal+Terror.html Comrade Hamish Wilson (talk) 16:58, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Also, we don't want these statements to be removed, just edited. It is true that DN3D was the last mega-successful sprite based shooter, but not the last successful one. Half-Life probably did help popularize friendly NPCs and maybe did do some new things with them. I haven't played Half-Life (and have no intention to unless they port to GNU/Linux as they have just done to the Mac), so I can't say for sure. We just want the language to be softened down. Putting the statement about DN3D in quotes has helped, as it shows its the journalist's view on history. All we want is the introduction of softer and less "its 100% the way we say it is" tones in the article. Other games did have NPCs before 1998, so it should be written in a way that shows what Half-Life did with them and not make it seem as it invented it in the first place. Then it will be better. Comrade Graham (talk) 22:18, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
 * It doesn't say that Half-Life invented them. It says exactly what the source says (they were an "innovative feature" or whatever; "innovative" does not necessarily mean "never seen before") and in any case there no reliable evidence supporting other viewpoints has been provided. Abandonia isn't a reliable source. bridies (talk) 09:52, 21 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Well, we are not asking to mention Strife or Terminal Terror in the article. We also never said that the section did say that Half-Life was the first directly, only that some could interpret it as implying it. However, we are not the only people who have taken issue with that section and as such it would be wisest to just tweak it. How about "It featured innovations such as an emphasis on non-enemy characters." That sounds accurate verified and at the same time true in reality and not just in the mind of the press. Agreed? Comrade Graham (talk) 18:19, 21 April 2010 (UTC)
 * The source says that one of the "notable innovations" was "non-enemy characters" and doesn't say anything about "emphasis". You can't misrepresent a source because you don't agree with it. Provide reliably published contending viewpoints, otherwise there is no reason to change it. bridies (talk) 11:42, 22 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I assure you that I am not trying to misrepresent the source, but at the same time "that" source is not the end-all of information for first person shooters. Though what I've heard made Half-Life noticed was scripted sequences that you encounter in-game, though again Blood II and Shogo had those before Half-Life. Also nitpicking, but it claims hubs as an innovation but again I have to mention Strife and even Hexen. Though this just confirms my theory that Half-Life is over-hyped. Also, many other games before it had different things to interact with besides doors, such as sIn which lets you crack into a bank account among other things. If Half-Life was innovative so were all the other games released around the same time. Anyways, you wanted sources: here is a contemporary to the game's release review by the GameSpot staff for Strife which has to be just as reliable as the editorial mentioning for Half-Life: http://www.gamespot.com/pc/action/strife/review.html?tag=quicklinks%3Breviews. Here is a quote: "Instead you must interact with (read: talk to) the different characters to gain valuable information and insight into the inner workings of the Order. Along the way, the individuals you meet may offer you gold and powerful new weapons in exchange for completing mini-quests. Your ability to converse and interact with all the characters gives Strife an extra, tangy twist, rare in most 3-D shooters, and the clear, crisp voice-overs during these sequences further immerse you in the game's fantasy setting." Sound familiar? Comrade Graham (talk) 18:36, 26 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Your "theories" are irrelevant per WP:V and WP:OR, as I have already pointed out. You need sources which make these claims. The GameSpot source is fine though. It can be added as a counterpoint alongside the Half-Life or be added at another appropriate place in the history section. bridies (talk) 05:23, 27 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes, theories. That is all that they are and that is all I intended them to be. However, I don't think simply discussing the sources provided is the same thing as adding original research to articles. I am merely discussing the source to give people things to consider and, if properly sourced, could later be added if important enough. Anyways, beyond that I don't wish to dethrone Half-Life's mention in the article so I won't trim it that much. I've just proven that there were non-enemy NPCs in FPS games before Half-Life. This edit should finish this discussion, say you don't have any issues with it. Comrade Graham (talk) 20:02, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

inventing the first person shooter genre proper
The history section has this text:
 * "...inventing the first person shooter genre proper."

Not sure what that means. There was a game on the amiga computer called "experts only mercenary simulator" that was a 3D first person shooter in the 1988 time frame. Daniel.Cardenas (talk) 15:40, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

Reverts 2
Re this edit and similar. Firstly I referenced this source over a year ago:. In any case, the source dates from 2008, before the release of Moder Warfare 2. bridies (talk) 05:56, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

Clarification needed
The text says, "During development, this led to Catacomb 3-D which was actually released first, in late 1991, and introduced the display of the protagonist's hand and weapon (magical spells) on the screen." Does this mean that the texture mapping in Ultima Underworld led to the development of Catacomb 3-D by id Software? I don't understand. SharkD  Talk  04:11, 9 October 2010 (UTC)
 * OK, I read the source, and apparently this is the case. I clarified that a bit in the article. SharkD   Talk  04:30, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

Two things regarding history.
It wasn't Quake, which "used 3D polygons instead of sprites". There are some sprites left even in Quake, plus The Terminator: Future Shock, which does that too, was released in 1995, while Quake came 1996.

Another thing: How often must it be mentioned, that Half-Life DOES NOT use the Quake II Engine? It was a heavily modified Quake Engine. Look here: http://web.archive.org/web/20080228162611/http://collective.valve-erc.com/index.php?doc=1028244478-62628500 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 164.128.248.180 (talk) 15:52, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

Speaking of Terminator: Future Shock. It not only should be mentioned as first use of 3D polygons, as far as I know it was also the first game to introduce free mouse look which is standard on all FPS now. Wesp5 (talk) 12:17, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

Cognitive effect
I reverted the add by User:Cestan, not realizing that he had done precisely as he had been asked in the original revert. Sorry about that. When I realized my mistake, I self-reverted. I still think that the whole issue is not a no-brainer; potentially a controversial addition to the article. In particular, the motivation to portray positively shooters or action games in general, while I personally don't mind, could violate Wikipedia's principle of WP:NPOV. There may also be issues with notability (since we don't seem to be talking much about possible negative effects either, so why include this particular study?) and (perhaps still) WP:UNDUE. -- Nczempin (talk) 17:36, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
 * The addition still violates WP:UNDUE. Two sentences based on one study does not merit another (sub-)section. If it can't fit into another gameplay section it should be placed at a pertinent point in the history section. bridies (talk) 09:34, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
 * So you would say the information should be in the article, and it's just not in the proper form? -- Nczempin (talk) 09:41, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Pretty much. bridies (talk) 17:32, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Well, I'll leave you and Cestan to work it out; I don't really have an opinion on the subject. I just want to take care that the scope of the information does not get OR-interpreted to encompass all action games. -- Nczempin (talk) 17:38, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

Way Out by Sirius?
I believe Way Out predated MIDI Maze by at least 4 years, and although not a "shooter" (no guns) it had some key FPS features amazingly early:


 * It had full-color solid-shaded 3D maze environments, which were extremely massive, human-desiged, and had both narrow corridors and open areas.


 * It had total free roaming and turning: you were not stuck moving from space to space on a grid, and you could look in any direction, not just 4 or 8. And the animation was quite smooth on C64.


 * It had an AI enemy, which you would sometimes chase and sometimes vice versa.


 * It had a "mini map".


 * It had distance-based simple 3D audio effects.


 * It had wind forces acting on you.


 * I think it had visual depth cues similar to modern fog distance: different shades of grey used in the distance for large spaces. But I can't find screenshots to be sure.

See: http://www.gamebase64.com/game.php?id=8530&d=42&h=0 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.155.82.129 (talk) 08:08, 11 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Agreed that Wayout was a significant first-person perspective game, in fact I thought it was so significant that I've created a wiki page for it, and it's sequel Capture the Flag.


 * One of the problems with the early history section of this article is that it spends too long concentrating on space shooters and combat sims, when these are only one half of the FPS story, the other being maze-based games, which developed the on-foot exploration of 3D environments that is intrinsic to he history of the genre. The early maze games, especially those in a free roaming environment like Wayout (ie. not fixed-perspective) definitely deserve inclusion. Cunningmunki (talk) 12:23, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

Second-person shooter
Isn't a first-person shooter technically in the second-person? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.45.19.42 (talk) 00:51, 15 May 2011 (UTC)


 * No. Cunningmunki (talk) 12:24, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

Right-Hand Weapons
I've always wondered when the standard position of the weapons in First-person shooters moved from the center to the right-hand side of the screen, and I'm almost sure Star Wars: Dark Forces was the first. I've looked through gameplay footage of all the games prior to SW:DF on YouTube and the only one where weapons appear on the right is The Elder Scrolls, where the player's sword appears on the right, but I can't find any where guns appear on the right; they are all in the middle of the screen, DOOM-style.

The only one I can find that was released in the same year is Bethesda Softworks' The Terminator: Future Shock, but I think this was released after Dark Forces. Worth a mention if it's true, surely?

Can anyone find a previous game with weapons on the right? (just to be clear, I don't mean where the player holds the weapon in their right-hand, but where all the weapons themselves appear on the right-hand side of the screen) Cunningmunki (talk) 12:44, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

-about cs go. Its a good game. I do agree it needs a pipe bomb though. peace, im out. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Asfd777 (talk • contribs) 17:13, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

'History' section
The part of the 'History' section entitled "Early first-person shooters: 1970s to early 1990s" is far too long and contains too much emphasis on arcade Shoot 'em ups and space sims. The third paragraph detracts from the development of on-foot games to mention no fewer than fourteen games, very few of which are technically relevant to the article!

Although the 'Definition' section mentions that "some commentators" consider these kinds of games to be first-person shooters, the article is specifically concerned with tracing the history of games such as Catacomb 3D, Wolfenstein 3D and Doom, which the phrase "first-person shooter" was coined to describe.

Both the first and third paragraphs need to be reduced to only mention those games which are historically relevant to on-foot shooters, and not just cite a list of games which would be better suited to an article about the history of space sims. Either that, or the "Early first-person shooters" section needs to be split between space-shooters and on-foot shooters. Cunningmunki (talk) 13:07, 3 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Agreed. I've just removed the whole first paragraph. The KLOV sources do not mention first-person shooters at all. The about.com reference does, but the most that can be inferred is that the game has been called a first-person shooter. The other content sourced to that article was at best a WP:SYNTH violation. I'll get to the rest shortly, but I'd suggest starting with the KLOV articles if you want to be WP:BOLD bridies (talk) 14:44, 3 November 2011 (UTC)
 * All right, pretty sure I've just removed the entire third paragraph as well. Ouch. None of these sources place the games in the context of FPS history. The most that can be inferred from some of the KLOV entries is that some of the games feature "first-person perspectives" (and for some of them not even that). The articles tend to refer to regular scrolling shoot 'em ups or at best Tempest-style shooters to draw parallels and provide context, not first-person shooters. The Hot Scramble allgame source calls its subject an FPS with no further information. The later allgame sources call their subjects FPSs but with no historical context or claims or historical importance or technical innovation, just gameplay descriptions. Basically, as with above, there is nothing to explicitly connect any of the games with FPS history, in any of the sources. Using a handful of mentions of "first-person shooter" or "first-person perspective" (and most of them did not contain as much as that) as license to list all of those miscellaneous technical innovations in this article is original synthesis, misrepresenting the sources or simply irrelevant. A lot of that content might actually be great at shooter game but not here. bridies (talk) 15:37, 3 November 2011 (UTC)
 * It looks so much better already! Cunningmunki (talk) 16:29, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

bridies, please don't remove entire paragraphs and sections in this section because you have an issue with a single citation within. I did a lot of research on those sections, and spent a great deal of time writing them and making them relevant to the article. If you have an issue with certain citations then please question the citations (unless they break rules, then just remove the citation, not the content). If you feel that any of the content is unsourcable or irrelevant then this can be discussed here, not simply removed whole. Perhaps if you actually read the sections I added instead of just going straight for the citation at the end of the paragraph, you may appreciate the relevance.

Also, your logic that sources must refer to a title as a first-person shooter to validate it's inclusion is flawed. Since the use of the term first-person shooter to describe the genre only came into popular use after the release of Doom, older games may not be considered FPS, but they can still be relevant to it's history, as long as they are referred to as "early" examples. Cunningmunki (talk) 10:41, 9 November 2011 (UTC)
 * All right:
 * Re this Maze War & Spasim: A reliable source calls them first-person shooters. This is enough to say that they have been documented as first-person shooters.
 * Re this edit. You need a source stating that "It is an example of an early iteration of an FPS".
 * Re this: The source is fine. The problem is that it does not support the claims attributed to it.
 * Re this. Inadequate sourcing is a very good reason to remove content. TV Tropes is a Wiki. Armchair arcade is for my money clearly unreliable. It's reference to "freelance submissions" is a thin veil for user-generated content and claims of editorial oversight dubious (similar to MobyGames, established as unreliable). I certainly can't find any consensus for this as reliable; point it out if I'm wrong. See WP:RS and WP:BURDEN.
 * Re this. If the content is indeed "very relevant", provide a source which says so.
 * This needs a source. bridies (talk) 10:56, 9 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Regarding your last paragraph, it doesn't matter. Later scholarship may refer to the games as "first-person shooters" as evidenced by the TechRepublic source you disputed. The sources you provided explicitly referred to them as things other than FPS games ("first person action adventure" IIRC). Sources need not refer to the games as FPS but the must explicitly say that they were influential on/relevant to FPS history is some way. The source which mention Id's shooters was I think the only tenable example you provided. bridies (talk) 11:00, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

Division into time periods
The division of the history of first-person shooters into time periods seems to be causing some problems; specifically, there seems to be disagreement over which time periods it should be divided into. The version that existed when I first saw this article didn't seem to be based on anything quantifiable or verifiable, and as far as I could tell, years were plucked out of the air at random. I replaced it with a system based on objective technical criteria (like the jump from DOS to Windows) and on which games and engines competed with which other games and engines. Duke Nukem 3D and Quake, for example, competed only with each other and with other games based on the Build and Quake engines; neither one competed with previous games like Doom, System Shock, Marathon, or RoTT, nor did they compete with later games like Quake II, Half-Life, or Unreal.

Neither system of time periods is "official" in any sense, so replacing one with the other strictly on the basis of "muh citations! muh verifiability!", or with accusations of "original research", is nonsense. The systems aren't even claims being made; they're merely a way to keep the information in the article better-organized.

I'd like to hear arguments in favor of one system or the other, or with simply cutting the "history" section down so that it doesn't need to be divided into time periods. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 73.70.13.107 (talk • contribs)


 * If you want more input, feel free to start a RFC (in a new section at the bottom of the page), but none of this justified the blanket reverting that is changing unrelated text. - MrOllie (talk) 23:17, 26 June 2022 (UTC)


 * (1) What is an "RFC"? (2) Actually, yes, it absolutely justified cleaning up the godawful mess that I found when I got here, especially given that the arguments I presented here went unchallenged for the better part of a year AND my changes themselves stood for several months before Maestro2016 performed a blanket revert. Maestro2016 did have one valid point, which was that the generation numbers weren't verifiable, which is why I restored his version where he removed the generation numbers immediately prior to his blanket revert. 73.70.13.107 (talk) 00:01, 27 June 2022 (UTC)
 * WP:RFC. No, reverting to a year old version is not going to fly. That Maestro2016 made a bad blanket revert does not mean that you should as well. You're making more of a mess here, not less. Your argument didn't go 'unchallenged' so much as unnoticed, because you dumped it in the middle of a talk page, without even a proper signature. MrOllie (talk) 00:04, 27 June 2022 (UTC)
 * (1) I reverted to a version from April 2022, which, last time I checked, is closer to 2 months ago than a year ago. (2) Your claim of "making more of a mess" is nonsensical and not based in facts. (3) Unchallenged is unchallenged. This is not changed by your speculation as to the reasons why it went unchallenged. 73.70.13.107 (talk) 00:14, 27 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Getting reverted is what being challenged looks like. The onus is on you to get consensus for your changes. MrOllie (talk) 00:18, 27 June 2022 (UTC)

Maybe include something about form/function of loadouts that are associated with FPSs?
Someone should include a statement regarding the specific loadouts available and weapon equipping/unequipping in FPSs. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Langaswh (talk • contribs) 14:27, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

Excessive trimming
Recently User:Bridies has removed nearly 20 MB worth of content in this series of edits. I find this to be a bit too excessive, so I'd like to see some justification for it. Jagged 85 (talk) 14:14, 5 September 2012 (UTC)


 * I think the changes are fine. Its removal of mentions of pet favorite games that aren't really strong examples highlighted by sources. --M ASEM  (t) 14:21, 5 September 2012 (UTC)
 * There was a lot of justification in all the edit summaries and if anything is excessive, it's adding 20MB+ of original research, synthesis, misrepresentation of sources and irrelevance. I assumed you'd have noticed already, but I posted about this here. It includes more in-depth explanations of some of the removals. Some others, off the top of my head: I removed the reference to the "second person-shooter" because the source did not say it was "a unique addition to the genre" (something like that), you just made that up. The guy in the interview said that he was trying to create an old-school action game and wasn't very familiar with either 3PS or FPS. Ditto with Killzone's new technology being "considered a new evolution in the genre". Complete invention by you. Regarding the huge swathe of stuff I removed under original synthesis, the only source I saw with any genre context was the Kotaku source which in fact said that the use of cover had been rare in FPS, with just a few exceptions, and mainly talked about Gears of War and other 3PS. There may have been some valid snippets in all of that but tbh, I've spent so many hours the last couple of days detailing all the discrepancies between the sources you've used and the statements you've added, that I couldn't be arsed to look for them. If there's valid material to be salvaged, you do it for a change. Another was that claim about Time Crisis 4 "resolving" the motion sensitivity issue. I'm fairly sure I added that source in 2008 and it wasn't to support that claim, which it doesn't. bridies (talk) 14:36, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

And regarding the removal of Gun Buster's game play description, the source does mention "deathmatches" (but not "team deathmatches") but does not say these were/are of any historical importance, which is what you are implying by sticking them into an article on the history of the genre. Merely writing that this game had deathmatches, with no commentary, is otherwise redundant here. bridies (talk) 14:49, 5 September 2012 (UTC) And regarding the second removal of the contested section on cover in FPS games: now all I see are a bunch of mentions that this or that game has a cover feature. On their own, these claims are both completely innocuous and completely redundant. Together, in the history section of this article, they constitute an implied claim of an important trend of cover in recent FPS games. If there's a claim to this effect in any of the sources, put that in. If not, leave it all out. bridies (talk) 14:54, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

I'm disappointed in you, Bridies. I assumed you were simply acting in good faith, but now it seems you have some kind of personal grudge against me. If you want to let false rumours and unproven propaganda cloud your judgement (and become too focused on the editor instead of the facts), then go ahead. However, I have no intention of returning to that RfC page (which has since become a cesspoool of bias, personal attacks and witch-hunting for overzealous editors with a specific agenda... not to mention numerous users who don't share their agenda have disputed that RfC over the past few years), or at least not any time soon. All I will do for now is dispute your false allegations against me on this page:


 * I did not add all those ~20MB of material, but nearly half (or at least a third) of that material was added by other users.
 * Nowhere did I claim Second Person Shooter Zato was "a unique addition to the genre", but what I said was that it's a "unique take on the genre", i.e. it did not contribute anything to the genre, but is simply an attempt at innovation within the genre. Also, you're wrong about the guy in the interview, where he clearly states "I enjoy and play these games" in reference to first & third person shooters.
 * Nowhere did I claim Killzone's use of 3D is "considered a new evolution in the genre", but that was added by a different user.
 * The fact of the matter is that the source does mention first-person shooters with cover mechanics; it's irrelevant whether third or first person shooters are the main focus of the article.
 * The Time Crisis 4 source states "this control actually works just fine, and feels like it could be the basis for its own game"; the review criticized the game's levels, not the control scheme like you were claiming in your edit summary. However, you're partly right that "resolve" might not be the right word, I'll give you that. All it needs is some re-wording though.
 * As for Gun Buster, it seems like you've already admitted you were wrong about the source not mentioning "deathmatch", yet you still removed it from the article again despite this? Also, where did you get the idea I was claiming it was of "any historical importance"? Nowhere did I ever make any such claim. Just because a game had no influence on Wolfenstein/Doom, that doesn't mean it deserves no place in this article.
 * And finally, about cover mechanics, this reference in the article specifically deals with the cover system and its evolution in both first and third person shooters. Just because it's not popular in the genre, that doesn't make it any less notable. Like WP:Notability says, "notability does not necessarily depend on things like fame, importance, or popularity." This is where I completely disagree with your stance that only the "important" or "popular" stuff should be included. Sorry, but I just can't agree with such a narrow, restrictive view of history.

Jagged 85 (talk) 16:29, 5 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Yawn*, I have commented on your edits and nothing but your edits. Amusingly enough, I wrote on that page that I've always assumed you to be editing these genre articles in good faith, just in a disastrously incompetent manner. You on the other hand have just linked a bunch of stuff and completely ignored all the evidence (relating to this video game article and nothing else). Anyway:
 * Nonsense, you added almost everything, if not everything that I removed. According to this diff you added the content on Killzone that you have disclaimed.
 * Yes, you added that it was a "unique take on the genre" and you invented that too. Aside from the fact that this is an invention, again merely by adding it to the history section implies importance. Now for the source: yes, it does say that he enjoys playing 3PS and FPS games. What else does it say? The developer says, after the statement you quoted: "However, I don’t really know the finer details of these shooter genres. While I definitely feel there was some influence, I don’t think I ever felt there was a specific spot in the game that came from a direct influence [...] more than like an FPS or TPS, I created this game in the image of action games from long ago." The writer says: "Many have played third- and first-person shooters. Not many have experienced second-person shooters, nor even have entertained the idea of what kind of game that would be", which implies a different genre for this type of game.
 * Now for that source on cover. He mentions some FPS games, with cover, yes, as exceptions (as I said). Because, when he mentions first-person shooters (the article is again largely about GoW and 3PS) he says: "Even though early cover game Time Crisis was a first-person shooter, cover has felt largely bound to third-person shooter titles." Which is completely counter to the point all your synthesis is trying to make (other than maybe one statement on Time Crisis, which is years prior to the period discussed in the section).
 * Regarding Gun Buster, no, I was never wrong about your invention that it contained an early example of team deathmatches. There is no mention of that in the source and there is no mention of "team deathmatch". Again, you have stripped the claim down a statement that "this game has deathmatches" which is totally redundant in the history section of this article. Without any claim of some kind of historical importance, it has no place in this article.
 * Regarding Time Crisis, sigh, I really don't have room to quote the whole article talking about a whole other genre of shooters, and when it does mention FPS it's to criticise the game's attempt at it as crap. What are you going to write, really? That an example of a different genre, on a different platform, tried to fix the problems that stymied motion-sensor FPS, but it was an still unsuccessful game. And no, this game of another genre that had some critically panned FPS sections, did not go any way to reversing the trend, or have any verifiable effect on the genre?
 * WP:N is irrelevant. WP:V is the policy you should be reading, since you have systematically abused it. My stance - and the stance of policy - is that the games that have had verifiable historical impact should be included. bridies (talk) 17:15, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

Jagged 85 (talk) 19:03, 5 September 2012 (UTC)
 * 1) Thanks for contradicting yourself. This diff you so kindly posted states "With the addition of 3D television and game designed specifically for 3D systems, such as games like Killzone 3, is the new evolution of first person shooter genera" BEFORE my edit. I didn't think you'd stoop so low with such a blatantly false accusation.
 * 2) I added it to the present-day section, implying the current state of the genre. It's talking about the present time, so how can anything in the present be "historically important"? I really don't get where you're trying to go with this.
 * 3) Again, there you go misusing WP:SYNTHESIS. You need multiple sources to create a synthesis, not a single source, which more or less discusses attempts at introducing cover to the genre, just like the article was. Besides, what "synthesis" point am I trying to make? All you're doing is resorting to straw man fallacies. Nowhere did I ever claim that anything I added to the article is "historically important". That what YOU are claiming, not me.
 * 4) As for Gun Buster, the source states it's a deathmatch mode involving two teams battling it out... so you're basically calling me out for calling it a team deathmatch mode? Well, I'm sorry for "calling a spade a spade", but you're really grasping at straws here if you're trying to prove that's an "abuse" of the source. Where does what I say contradict the source I've just cited in any way?
 * 5) Time Crisis has an FPS mode, yet you're trying to argue it's not an FPS? Again, what are you trying to prove here? That failed attempts at innovation have no place in the history of the genre?
 * Oh, so I've been systematically abusing WP:V now? Is that why I make all my sources as easily accessible as possible for other users to check them? If my edits actually contradicted the sources I was citing, then you'd have at least have some kind of argument, but none of the examples you've posted show any such contradiction, but nearly all of them simply boil down to being "irrelevant" to the article according to you, a completely unrelated issue. And if you think only games with "historical impact" should be included, then prove it. What policy are you referring to, exactly?

By the way, even though I said I wouldn't... I finally decided to comment here. I'm more than willing to settle whatever differences we may have, so feel free to respond there. Jagged 85 (talk) 20:28, 5 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Regarding Killzone, yes, a partially similar claim existed before, but you did add the expression that it "is considered an evolution for the genre" and you further tacked on a whole paragraph of irrelevant content to that statement. But, oh, you just hammed up and elaborated on someone else's false claim, without even cursorily checking it out? No biggie then. I note you modified your claim that you only wrote half of this stuff... so it's at least 2/3rds now?
 * Regarding the synthesis paragraph and that source. You used multiple sources in that paragraph to imply a trend of cover in recent FPS games. I highlighted that one source because it's the only one I've seen giving any real context and information about the trend of cover in recent shooters and because you referenced it here on this page. And again because that source runs counter to the point you tried to make. So to reiterate: you misrepresented a source and then synthesised a load of other otherwise redundant sources and information to expand on your falsified point.
 * Regarding Time Crisis, I have proved the source doesn't give any context or information about the "history of the genre".
 * As for "calling a spade a spade", go do that in the spade article, where I'm sure it'll be perfectly welcome. Previously, you made explicit, invented claims about this or that game's mechanics being "unique", "significant", "notable" or similar. Now you make the same claims implicitly by sticking redundant gameplay descriptions into the history sections. You are still abusing the sources by taking them out of context and implying claims they haven't made.
 * You're perfectly aware I'm referring to the basic verifiability and OR policies. The stuff regarding cover was an exemplar of "drawing inferences from multiple sources to advance a novel position" (from WP:V). The sources must directly support claims of historic importance, explicit or implicit, per policy. You are saying that a game/mechanic/technology/whatever need not have any historical significance to be covered in the "History" section? That's what you're saying? Really? You want us to cover every game ever called an FPS here, and to give a description of it too? You'll also note that the uninvolved editor agreed your additions have been "irrelevant". bridies (talk) 02:00, 6 September 2012 (UTC)


 * See my response here. Jagged 85 (talk) 15:51, 6 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Actually don't think that's the best venue for it. If you have anything new to add to this content dispute, do it here. Otherwise, even for the general descriptions and the synthesis of games, per Masem's comment I believe consensus is against their inclusion at this point. bridies (talk) 16:25, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

As mentioned on my talk page, I've decided to drop this dispute. It seems consensus is against me on this topic, so there's no point in me pursuing this any further. Regards, Jagged 85 (talk) 01:59, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

level up FPS
just wondering why in both the history and general changes to FPS sections this has not got a separate marker. in the last 10 years there has not been a single FPS game released with out the stupid xp level up o unlock guns features built in. it has completely taken over multiplayer FPS as the new norm yet pre-2000 barely existed at all in games. surely such a massive change to how gamers played FPS is worthy of a mention if not just a comment in development of the game engines.152.91.9.153 (talk) 22:17, 19 November 2012 (UTC)


 * I can think of three reasons to exclude it: (1) The key word here is "multiplayer". It doesn't affect single-player game modes. (2) It's purely a game-design choice rather than a technical innovation or improvement. (3) It didn't happen all at once, and therefore isn't useful to the division of shooters by time period. 73.70.13.107 (talk) 22:55, 26 June 2022 (UTC)

Timeline of FPS
Template:Timeline_FPS_games, is this used anywhere? And what is the criteria for the games entered? Thanks, Marasama (talk) 23:31, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

The most popular multiplayer first-person shooter
Do you think, Counter Strike is still "by far the most popular multiplayer first-person shooter"? I mean, each year the new Call of Duty game is breaking the records of its predecessor... Don't you think, CoD deserves that title? -- Mlasaj (talk) 15:23, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

They mentioned Peak players, and you have to realize the Counter Strike was also available online and not just retail, and like DOOM, was also released as shareware. So the sales argument does not really stand. COD has had players online a lot though. if anything it will be the best selling FPS franchise if it is not already at that point Leeroyhim (talk) 00:28, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

Example screenshots
With all due respect to Doom, I don't think a 320x200 screenshot is very helpful in showing off the primary feature of FPS games(that is, the first person perspective). Wolfenstein 3D screenshot is even smaller, but at least includes some easily recognizable themes(like humans) and the color palette is more readable than Doom's. Even the Half Life screenshot is small by modern standards, and I question its place in the article in the first place(the description says Half Life "featured in-game scripted sequences rather than cutscenes", which is not a topic of the screenshot itself - it's basically just "Hey! Look! Half Life!"). I think that, if a "show and tell" screenshot is to be in the article:: a) It should be in a typical modern resolution(1920x1080 or 1680x1050) b) It should present a simple and clear scene c) It should contain only familiar elements(so no starbases, monsters, giant death rays) d) There should be a short description of what is happening on the screenshot 213.216.70.34 (talk) 13:35, 31 January 2014 (UTC)


 * We're not allowed to use high-res screenshots of copyrighted games, if they are not freely licensed. Hence the small size. To show the common elements of an FPS, we can either find a game that has a free license, or mock up one ourselves. --M ASEM (t) 15:51, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

Header Length
I've shortened the header, as most points are covered in much better detail under History. And the abundance of weasel words made it lower quality than the rest of the article. The header may need to be expanded a little, I hope a more experienced editor than I can take a look at this Mr Pendulum (talk) 07:43, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

Citation needed for market share claim
"In the 21st century, the first-person shooter is the most commercially viable video game genre, and has more market share of any other genre in the gaming industry."

Although a fascinating bit of information, where is the citation for it? I looked through the article and couldn't find this claim elsewhere. Desire Mercy (talk) 01:01, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

John Romero statement about Ultima Underworld
John Romero posted in his personal facebook that he was never shown a build of Ultima Underworld but instead knew Paul Neurath was using it thanks to a phone call. Source in the article right now directs to an unrelated article. --Worm318 (talk) 18:21, 1 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Fair enough, I updated the language to reflect that. Indrian (talk) 18:33, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

Proposed merge with First-person shooter engine
Any reason why the FPS engine article cannot be contained in the FPS article? The sources in the former are mostly (apart from one) about the history of the genre and only one appears to deal with the history of FPS engines. The rest of the links are largely primary sources and borderline original research to string together this history. I think it'd be fine to cover any source-able history in the main article, which is already doing most of the work. czar 02:57, 20 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Oppose as is, instead possibly rename or merge to History of game engines I noticed we don't have an article for 3D game engines. We have 3D computer graphics which in its history section talks only about the noninteractive version. Then in Game engine the history seems like a repeat of First-person shooter engine except with both fewer sources and text. There probably should be a big article for game engine history. Also, the FPS engine article gets much more technical and if you were to integrate all of that here then it would be quite hard for people simply interested in the general history to read any of it. I am also opposed to the cutting up of the article on the basis of there not existing any "fanwiki" with identical information as has been the case with the many character lists we've dealt with before. --Mr. Magoo (talk) 23:22, 9 April 2016 (UTC)
 * , what secondary sources are you using to justify the split? Or to justify a separate article about the history of game engines? Standard procedure is to have a decent section in the parent article and then split summary style as needed. czar  00:13, 16 April 2016 (UTC)


 * Oppose as above - These articles address different topics, and each one of them is separately notable. Both articles are big enough to stand on their own. Most importantly, no one would expect coverage about a first person shooter game engine in a first person shooter article because the article would go significantly off topic, right? My suggestion is as above, to merge it into a new article. DS Crowned (talk) 13:13, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

Useful Reference
http://www.pcgamer.com/the-history-of-the-first-person-shooter/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.186.178.210 (talk) 16:22, 20 October 2017 (UTC)