Talk:First-person shooter/Archive 1

This is an encyclopedia and as such it should contain encyclopedic knowledge of its subjects. In fact Doom, etc etc. ARE notable, and did introduce important new features, etc etc. and they should be included, in fact EVERY first person shooter should be included. - Advocate

I would like to note that games are only notable in the eye of the beholder. And, would like to say once again, it is NOT the GAME that is notable, but the engine that runs it. This is but an advert for everyones favorite retro games.

Make a different list, but in another issue, the lenght of this article is just beyond obscene, one example of how badly written this article is, the "gameplay" section which goes into unnecesary details, such as : "realism", "narrative and structure"(!?), "combat and pacing", "multiplayer" and then it goes into "conventions" (which as full of useful information as the "laser combat" article). This article even has a section for controllers!, its beyond fancruft. More serious articles dont even dream of getting this level of detail. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 201.215.168.240 (talk) 00:00, 10 May 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Does Duke 3D deserve to be added to this article as a significant FPS? Its 3D engine, Build, was something of a halfway point between Doom and Quake in that while it wasn't true 3D, it allowed for rooms above rooms, spiral staircases, mirrors and such things that Doom couldn't. (Admittedly this was something of a hack; the engine couldn't handle it properly if you could see into two stacking rooms from each other, but you could still do real elevators instead of pseudo-elevators that were really teleporters.) It also had an excellent and well-defined main character as the protagonist. --Jonathan Drain 05:55, 7 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Technologically: probably not, IMO. Apart from mirrors, the earlier Descent did all the other 3D stuff, and more. Character-wise, I'm more open to persuasion. I can't think of anything earlier where the lead character had such a strong personality. Whether that's enough to count is another question. It definitely influenced Serious Sam in that regard, but I can't think of much else without straying off into RPG territory, so it may not get in on the "influential" argument. And I'm not sure this should be a popularity contest.Blufive 21:40, 7 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Yes Duke Nukem 3D deserves to be there. On a social scale alone it was almost as influential as Doom, almost as many, if not more, people have that fond rememberance of it being their first FPS experience. Aside from that, Ken Silverman first created the Build Engine which developed into Duke 3D for his personal game Ken's Labyrinth quite awhile before Descent took the scene and as far as the merits of that engine go, I can only say that it was far more widely used both commercially and otherwise than the descent engine. There is an interview with him on my site: firstpersonshooters.org that goes into a little of the particulars if anyone feels like adding it around here somewhere. <Advocate>

Okay, enough already, I'm convinced! :) "There is an interview with him on my site: firstpersonshooters.org". Um. Where? I've had a good look, and I can't see it. Anyhow. Based on Ken's own timeline at [1] the first commercial build game appears to have been Duke 3D, so I'll stand by Descent being ahead tech-wise (aside of anything else, Descent was using polys to render enemies and had proper 3D, before Duke3D (which still used sprites and, IIRC, faked look up/down) was even released) Blufive 20:20, 3 Mar 2005 (UTC)

firstpersonshooters.org/games/Ken's%20Labyrinth/index.html The Ken's Labyrinth page] is where the Ken Silverman interview appears. His pages at [2] go into alot of particulars. I haven't memorized it or anything but It was definately a commercial game (Epic). <Advocate>

Should Descent even be in this article? It's more of a space shooter. Duke3D, if not in raw technology, was at least innovative in interactivity with the environment. You could break or use almost anything you could see. But what it was really known for was its sense of style and humour. As well as the prominent lead character(who speaks!), I don't remember other games of the time attempting modern streetscapes and buildings. And what about the gimmick weapons, like holodukes, tripmines, remote detonation pipebombs? Or the shrink and freeze rays, ie. changing an enemy's properties without killing it? Or the working remote cameras? --24.114.252.183 06:48, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Descent: yes, it should be here. While the later games in the series (particularly D3) did drift off towards dogfighting, with movement models approaching flight sim territory, the original was very much a corridors-and-rooms FPS. Controls were forward/backward, rotate, strafe (albeit extended into all three dimensions). IIRC, the throttle was added in the sequels, which also became much more joystick-friendly. In gameplay terms, D1 absolutely belongs in the category, spaceship or no spaceship. Re: Duke 3D. I'm open to persuasion. The gimmick weapons were rare at the time, and like I said above, the strong-lead-character aspect is still pretty rare today. Do a decent write-up, and we'll take it from there.Blufive 18:47, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I vote no, but then my definition of FPS doesn't include vehicle-based games. I think they belong in a sub-genre of flight sims or driving games. It was inarguably influential. <Advocate>

The main reason I'm saying "yes" is the gameplay/control/map design style - Descent used (primarily) Doom-style keyboard controls, the levels were made up of corridors/rooms, the weapons were FPS-style, the get-the-key-open-the-door game dynamic was straight out of Doom and its ilk, and so on. It just felt far more like Doom than a Flight Sim. I'm much more ambivalent about (say) Descent 3, for much the same reasons (moving off into flight-sim land, joysticks a-go-go, wide open spaces, much more mucking about with homing missiles). Blufive 20:20, 3 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I include Descent on my site as an exception to firstpersonshooters.org/fps.html my criteria] for those reasons, So I guess I should vote yes. <Advocate>

I vote no too: descent was not an FPS... michaelb

The timeline in the article states that BF1942, released in 2002, paved the way for vehicles in FPS games (been available since 1997 in Tribes, mainstream at least since Halo in 2001) and the MMOFPS (the example cited is WW2 Online, which was released in 2001). Is there a reason for this incorrect entry or should I go ahead and fix this? BonzoESC 20:37, 12 Oct 2004 (UTC)

This is obviously wrong. Driveable vehicles were even hacked into Quake, and Tribes was the influential archetype for extensive use of vehicles in an FPS. You can just fix these kind of errors when you catch them. --Twinxor 21:44, 12 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I think Corridor 7 at least deserves a mention - it came out at the same time as Doom and had several fascinating features that FPS later copied (shape-shifting monsters, for example.) -- ObscureAuthor 21:30, 27 Aug 2003 (UTC)

You can always add the info yourself. :^) —Frecklefoot 16:35, 2 Sep 2003 (UTC)

---

Proposed mechanism for including games in the list. I don't feel like the issue of "notability" of a particular game usually deserves voting or very deep discussion, so if you disagree with some placements, feel free to edit the list according to your understanding. Just don't forget to justify the edits by explaining how exactly was the game (or wasn't) revolutionary, influencial or popular (very popular). If other users strongly disagree with the changes, they will fix it. The best criteria for including in the list is probably recognition by FPS developers and FPS players, and there should be enough FPS players around here to define the general consensus.

Paranoid 12:44, 1 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Perhaps we should have a line after each title summarizing why the game/series is particularly notable? - Fredrik (talk) 14:38, 14 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Sounds good to me. :-) —Frecklefoot 15:42, Jun 14, 2004 (UTC)

I concur. That will let the list start getting pared down according to particulars instead of someone's general idea about it. I recently noticed Soldier of Fortun being removed which I found to be premature without further discussion since it was the first with location damage of any note. <Advocate>

---

I removed these two games from the list of notable FPS games:

• Under Ash
• Special Force

They seem rather obscure and probably are only noteworthy because of their pro-Middle-Eastern slant. Unless someone else can provide evidence as to why they should be on the list, I vote to leave them off. —Frecklefoot 16:35, 2 Sep 2003 (UTC)

Who determine what is notable and what is not? What is so notable with Heretic for instance? // Liftarn

Well, it was incredibly popular for one thing... —Frecklefoot 17:53, 2 Sep 2003 (UTC)

But that hardly makes it notable, it's just Doom in a fantasy setting (same engine, same weapons, same monsters et.c.). On the other hand, why aren't Under Ash and Special Force notable? They are highly interesting due to the reactions they have stirred up. // Liftarn

Well, their subjects certainly are controversal, but I haven't heard any notable mainstream reactions regarding the games. I think few if any people outside the Middle East have heard of them at all. I'm in the game industry and I didn't hear about them until I saw the links you posted. —Frecklefoot 14:36, 3 Sep 2003 (UTC)

Since they seem to be sold only in some countries in the middle east and gaming magazines are driven by advertising that's hardly suprising, but it has been covered by gaming sites such as EuroGamer, Gamers Hell, Game Girl Advance, Gamer.nl et.c. Both "Under Ash" and "Special Force" have however been covered by mainstream media such as BBC, Australian IT, The Age, News Tribune et.c. // Liftarn

I added the Delta Force series, because I think Novalogic has done great work from the ground up, making this series (especially when they release Joint Operations: Typhoon Rising) a solid entry.

I decided to be bold and force my biased opinions on everyone. ;) I removed Delta Force (IMHO it's not that popular, revolutionary or influencial), Soldier of Fortune (only moderately popular and not revolutionary or influencial) and Medal of Honor (popular, but not particularly revolutionary) from notable games and added Counter-Strike (popular, influencial and revolutionary) there.Paranoid 12:44, 1 Jun 2004 (UTC)

On a related note, I also added No One Lives Forever (popular) and Trespasser (influencial, in that it delayed wide adoption of decent physics in FPS games by terrible implementation that scared developers) to the additional games list. Paranoid 12:44, 1 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Soldier of Fortune is particularly notable for it's location damage (might have been done before, but if it wasn't the first, it was the biggest first, I think it was both) Medal of honor is one of the few games which was influential as a series, although I don't believe the title itself was. I'm about to remove series from practically everything in the list because with the possible exception of MOH and COD, no games were important in any way as an entire series. Even those two are only generally important as being a well-done franchise after many titles, not revolutionary. I'm also about to add a comment area for the "important" titles so that they can be weeded more specifically. I say we institute an informal policy of not adding or removing a game from that particular section without at least a week of discussion in here... what do you say peeps? <Advocate>

As I've said before, I think the list of notable games is redundant with the history section. --Mrwojo 22:50, 13 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I agree. There are already lists of games by genre, and the history section already lists notable games. -Sean Curtin 01:06, Mar 14, 2005 (UTC)

GoldenEye had location based damage as one of its hyped features, pre-dating SoF. -Syphoon!! 12:52, 17 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I think Medal of Honor: Allied Assault should be included as influential, or at least notable, as it garnered a lot of attention at the time, with PCGamer (UK) declaring it a 'Half-Life beater'. It also had THAT beach landing level in it. Not to mention that it inspired Call of Duty and the like. The other Medal of Honors, perhaps not. Makron1n 15:52, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I did some research and found Catacomb 3D (aka The Catacomb Abyss). That used the same engine as Wolfenstein 3D, but was actually released earlier (and it was in EGA). Another early example is Hovertank 3D, released in April 1991. Catacomb 3D may have been the first FPS that included the player's hand. // Liftarn

That doesn't sound right to me. How could C3D use the same engine as W3D when id hadn't even finished developing it?? And how could id have sold the engine in EGA when they were developing the engine in VGA (or Super VGA)? Do you mean C3D used the same technology as W3D?

Regardless, Wolf3D was still the FPS that started the craze. I don't think very many people have heard of Catacomb 3D, but sure did hear about (and play) Wolf3D. —Frecklefoot 14:36, 3 Sep 2003 (UTC)

To be correct it's actually Wolf3D that uses the C3D engine. Ofcourse it's not exactly the same engine, but a later version of it. The C3D engine is probably based on the Hovertank engine. Most people probably haven't heard about them, but perhaps they should be included in the history section. // Liftarn

Wolf3D's engine may be based on the same technology as Catacomb 3D, but it isn't based on the same engine (unless Catacomb 3D was developed by id). Also, Catacomb 3D, unless by the same company as Hovertank, probably is based on technology similar to Hovertank, but not using the same engine. I know we're just talking here, but engine and technology are not the same thing and we don't want to carry over any misnomers into the article.

Personally I don't object to the addition of notes on these games to the article, but it should be clearly noted that Wolf3D started the craze, though technically these games appeared first in the marketplace. —Frecklefoot 17:10, 3 Sep 2003 (UTC)

Yes, I used the word "engine" a bit sloppy. It's not the same engine, but the same technology and to a great extent the same code used. Yes, both Hovertank and Catacomb was developed by id's John Carmack. // Liftarn

Cool, well as long as you can cite some references, I don't see any reason not to include mention of them in the article. Yes, if Carmack did program both of the previous games, it's likely that Wolf3D uses a lot of the same code as the previous games. —Frecklefoot 14:17, 4 Sep 2003 (UTC)

I think http://www.spectrum.ieee.org/WEBONLY/publicfeature/aug02/id.html should be a good source of information about the early history of FPS. // Liftarn

That's a great link—I'm going to add it to the id article (External Links section). Thanks, Liftarn! —Frecklefoot 15:14, 4 Sep 2003 (UTC)

It would be good if we could add some screenshots. It's interesting to see that the same pink, muscular monster appears in Hovertank 3D, Catacomb 3D and Doom. // Liftarn

---

I just found an interview with John Romero at http://www.projectdoom.com/romero.html where the question about FPS is answered with Well, there had already been first-person games on the market for several years back then like Rescue On Fractalus, The Eidolon, Way Out!, MS Flight Simulator, etc. but there was nothing that was really fast and nothing that actually had you shooting guns at enemies. When we decided to do Hovertank in 1991, Carmack wanted to get into 3D programming and at that point we were already doing side-scrolling shooters so we just made the 3D game a violent one. Not until Wolfenstein 3D, with its extremely fast pace and violent action, did the term FPS need to be invented.. // Liftarn

Do you want to integrate that information into the article? —Frecklefoot 14:17, 4 Sep 2003 (UTC)

I'll give it a shot. // Liftarn

When I was living on Long Island in 1987/1988, I played a game called "Muon" that was supposed to be an arcade FPS. It was 3 vs. 3 and had many features of modern FPS games. I believe it must have been the first multiplayer FPS, but I don't know if it ever received funding for full development.

Players got into a small chamber with a video screen. Inside the game, players would chase each other through mazes, shooting each other down. Killing better players gave you more points and made you harder to kill as you advanced through levels. Conversely, if you killed a top-ranked player, it gave you more points proportionately.

Each team could talk to other team members, similar to the voice chat we have today. There were also special "energy" areas that were targets to kill. There was an overhead map on which you could see other players. If you stayed still, you didn't show up on the overhead map, creating ambush possibilities. Players could bring in their own maze configurations and give them to the administrator.

I have never been able to find out the developer's name. The game was played on networked Amigas, if I remember correctly.

Does anyone have more information on this game? It was VERY similar to modern FPS games in concept and it's a shame I've never seen it mentioned. It was a clear precursor to the Doom-style games and I always felt like the two had to be related somehow.

Gosh, if they were using Amigas they probably aren't around anymore. How long have they been out of production? —Frecklefoot 15:40, 19 Feb 2004 (UTC)

I haven't seen them since that time period (1987/1988). A friend's father was the developer. His name was pronounced "Jay-ma," but it was a weird spelling, like "Dzjiema," but I haven't been able to figure out the exact name. Muon was (in all respects) the basic multiplayer FPS concept: 3 vs. 3; shooting characters that were supposed to represent other soldiers; voice chat; 3D mazes; a player nickname; etc... The main difference was that as you killed other players, you advanced in experience points and would gain weapons/armor that made you harder to kill. It was also more crude than today's games (not much in the way of sophisticated textures).

Location was Suffolk County. About 10-20 teens would get together to test the thing. An admin would set up matches between players with different nicknames. The small compartment that you physically got into was supposed to represent the body armor (floating, open ship - you looked a bit like an astronaut on a spacewalk) that you were in. Physically, there were two joysticks, similar to flight joysticks. One was for moving and one was for flying. There were buttons for firing.

For many years, after Doom, etc..., came out, I would think, "Boy, I hope that guy made some money off of his idea...." I always thought that: a) he was involved in the development of these other games; or b) he had his idea stolen or copied; or c) it was a huge coincidence.

I had someone tell me once that Muon eventually made an appearance as an arcade game in New Jersey, but I'm not sure if that's true. Obviously, it was designed to be an arcade game because it was multiplayer and home PCs were just starting to get popular. On-site game centers like PHOTON and Laser Tag were also growing in popularity those days, and I suspect they thought Muon would catch that wave.

Scott99999

Here's the reference I found, from the person that told it to me on a message board. The information seems to match my recollection of the game, though I still can't figure out the developer name.

"Muon showed up as "Chambers of Muon" in an arcade at the Echelon Mall, in Voorhees, NJ, if it's the same game. Seperate little booths with joystick controls and screens, chasing around in these little, hovering frames, shooting each other. It was run on a set of standard Amiga boxes, and had fairly cool 3D graphics for the time.

I don't know what happened to the one in Voorhees, I assume, it was just sold off, or junked when the arcade got rid of it."

MY ADD: I actually called the mall to see if some manager remembered the game, and the operator told me the arcade was shut down 3 years ago. :( Some online searches turned up the name of the arcade: "Exhilarama." I'll see if I can do some more digging. Although Carmack might be able to claim the first modern "PC" FPS, this would (potentially) be the first modern FPS before Wolfenstein/Doom (but after or concurrent with Battlezone).

Scott99999

Greetings. I can confirm that the Chamber of Muon game was indeed in use at the Echelon Mall in Voorhees, NJ, circa 1990-1991. The arcade that used it was called Video Village, but it is long since gone. I played Muon dozens of times there, being sucked into the arcade's $2 for 5 minutes of playtime ploy. And it was a blast! The six chamber pods took up a 10 x 10 foot space in the rear of the arcade, with two rows of three stalls. You could either be on the Red team or the Blue team, and depending on your level, you could choose your "chamber" exosuit. Scouts were very fast but did little damage, more heavily armored ships moved slower but had more powerful weapons. A number of ships were not available to you until you reached a certain level, and your profile was saved on the central lone Amiga 500 server that ran all six chambers.

I have always wondered why there were so few references to Chamber of Muon online. If indeed it was only ever commercially used in this one arcade, that would explain it.

Fugazi2112

I played Chambers of Muon as well at Echelon Mall. It was my understanding that there were two of these games created. Each with different names. One was at the Echelong Mall in Voorhees, NJ and the otehr I beleive was in a Mall in Chicago. I spent a small fortune playing that game around 1988-1989. I played as "Maverick" (Top Gun ref given the time). The best player was a person named "Klyss". He acheived the highest level. I was 3 or 4 levels down of the many possible (10 or 12?). A friend named Earl worked at the arcade where we would lock up when the mall closed and play until late in the night. This game would be killer, even today in concept.

Superfreaker

This due to that they both go against the initial description of what a FPS game is.

"A first-person shooter (FPS) is a computer or video game where the player's on-screen view of the game world simulates that of the character and the gameplay emphasizes shooting."

These games do not emphasize shooting and should therefore not be noted under this category.

Thank you for your contribution. While I agree with your removal of Thief, I've played Deus Ex and, while it is not all about shooting, a great deal of it is. Some of the gameplay involves stealth like Thief does, but is has enough shooting to merit it entry in this category.

Also, please sign your posts. You can do this with 3 or 4 tildes (~~~ or ~~~~). If you're concerned about privacy, get a free account. It gives you more privacy, not less. :-) — Frecklefoot | Talk 14:56, Aug 30, 2004 (UTC)

I think Deus Ex should be in the list, it may not be a pure run and shoot action but its a great example of the genre. Parts where you dont shoot evrething you see can be considered in-game charecter development for later shootin and making choices as to who to shoot! surely ;D Deadaline 18:16, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I felt that notable developers and small descriptions of their relevance were important for the page. It seems to me that having a list of exceptional games that contribute to the genre is one thing - but to exclude a list of the most popular developers is like not talking about specific bands or specific directors within the medium of music and film. Although game fans recognise series, they also recognise the names of developers and follow specific developers as much (if not more) then they follow specific franchises.

SpaceCow

There are mentions about Halo 2 and Half-Life2, but in slightly round words. I edited the HL2 part for clarity, but can someone who has actually played them make them more precise? --fbjon

Got it. Halo 2 might need more work though since it was gushing.

The bits on the newest games should probably be rewritten to emphasize their historical significance. (For example, it's not good enough to say "advanced AI" — every generation has had its own advanced AI, we must be specific on advancements/achievements and how they affected the genre.) --Mrwojo 01:49, 19 Nov 2004 (UTC)

The first flat-polygon (hidden surface) game was the single-player Colony (1987?).

All the references I can find for a game called "Colony" in 1987 lead to "The Colony" by Mindscape, which appears to have been an RPG, rather than FPS.

In general, this history seems to have a gaping hole between the 1974 Spasim and the late-1980s offerings on the Atari ST/Amiga and contemporaries, with only Battlezone (1980) in the middle. Being bold, I've added a reference to the 1982 TRS80/Dragon32 game Phantom Slayer which, gameplay-wise, was undoubtedly an FPS (albeit graphically crude even by comparison with the earlier battlezone) There must be other examples in this period, surely?Blufive 16:04, 26 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Right, I'm being bold. Hopefully I'll not upset anyone too much. I've mostly just re-arranged existing content (without deleting anything) and re-written things to try and improve the overall cohesion, so it doesn't read so much like a list of disconnected paragraphs. There are one or two additions in there, too, but nothing too contentious. Along the way, I've discovered that there are two pages out there covering mods: Mod (computer gaming) and Modding. There's some degree of overlap between these two articles, and they could probably do with some love to cross-link them and distinguish their subject matter and content. Blufive 00:59, 29 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I linked computer gaming mod from modding and left a note on Talk:Modding. --Mrwojo 01:14, 29 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Next up, I'm going to pound on the history section. Similar drill - I'll try to improve the grammar, add a little detail and sort stuff into better chronological order (the gaping hole I saw between 1980 and 1988 looks much less empty if I put all the 84/85/86/87 games in the right place) In the longer term, I'd appreciate any comments on some other changes that I have in mind for the future:

• Rescue on Fractalus!. Every resource I can find seems to indicate that this is much more an arcade flight sim than an FPS - given the surrounding text, I think it's only there becase it was mentioned in the Romero interview mentioned above by User:Liftarn. I'm very tempted to delete it from this article.
• Selected important games/selected ground breaking games. These lists are mutually redundant, surely? If I'm being really picky, I'd even say that they were duplicating information that should be in the history section.
• Additional games. Surely, it would be better to link to the existing list of first-person shooters and merge any games not listed there?
• First FPS - it seems unclear whether this honour goes to Spasim (March 1974) or Maze War ("1973-1974"). Can anyone help resolve this?

I'd also like to say thanks to everyone who's been catching my typos/busted links and so on. Blufive 13:56, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)

On a similar note, the game "Way Out!" also appears to be mentioned here purely because of the Romero interview. As far as I can tell, it was a relatively obscure labyrinth/maze game released in about 1982/1983 for the Commodore 64 and Apple II - further details are few and far between. Blufive 15:01, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I think that both lists of games should be removed from the article. The "notable" games should be mentioned in the history (or not at all if no one can explain why they're notable). The other list is best done through the categories/list articles. --Mrwojo 15:45, 8 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I think BZFlag should be added to notable games. It's popular and GPL.

I haven't heard of it. Do you have data on how popular it might be?

Also, please sign your posts with ~~~~. Twinxor 08:36, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I quote BZFlag, but you can also search Google for it:

"BZFlag is quite popular, especially being the third game on SourceForge.net to reach 1 million downloads on December 11, 2004. The average amount of servers that are active at any given moment is around 90[1], and as of June 11, 2005, over 3,100 players are registered at the official BZFlag bulletin board[2]. BZFlag was also selected as SourceForge.net Project of the Month for April 2004[3]."

~~~~

I combined the two versions of influential games into one. They're not really sorted much now although I put titles from the lower list more or less in chronological order. The reason for this was primarily because there was no difference. but in particular the bottom list had everything as series. While it was a good list of influential Titles, there is no FPS series that was influential, only the first game in each series or far future sequels like Doom3.

I'm going to change the statement at the top from shooting to combat because many FPS' use melee weapons or magic etc etc and so forth rather than actual guns. Also I changed it to "high percentage" because many borderline RPG/FPS' are still Doomy enough to enter the gates of the genre. This can probably be better stated but I feel my change brings it closer to the concensus.

Now to introduce myself. I run firstpersonshooters.net/ and as such consider myself somewhat of an expert. I've been following the genre since Wolf 3D which I played when I was supposed to be practicing with AutoCAD in my drafting classes in tech college. I started using AutoCAD to make maps of each level 'til I discovered it took a really long time and it'd already been done anyway.

I intend to make a lot of minor changes around here. Obviously my site is where the real work goes but I feel it's my duty to help guide the general knowledge of the genre in the right direction. If anyone feels uppity enough, go grab The List on my site and put them all in over here. Keep in mind that I don't inclde rail, mech, or vehicle based shooters on general principle. <Advocate> 20:08, 3 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I would welcome any help on my site. There are myriad tasks to be undertaken including checking facts, gathering screenshots, etc etc. Pleast let me know if you're interested: advocate@firstpersonshooters.org

Thanks for the list merging. As I've already mentioned above, I'd personally prefer to move the list of games out of the article body altogether, and fall back on either the List of computer and video games by category#First-person shooters or the Category:First-person shooters. When we've got a dedicated list article, and an automated category list, having a manually-maintained one adding length to this article seems pointless. Must get around to actually doing that someday, since there didn't seem to be many objections when I mentioned it last time... Blufive 21:11, 3 Mar 2005 (UTC)

The list of games is moved as per your directions mein herr. I'd like to see a better coagulated section devoted to the genre but since i don't know wiki i don't know what would work for that sort of thing. <advocate>

Would it be a good idea to add this type of material for particular titles?

My site has all that stuff, but then since it's just me working on it and I'm poor it doesn't have that much exposure going for it atm. Perhaps there is some way to add a wiki extension over there? Perhaps I'll just keep doing my thing and let you all leech as hard as my connex allows. <Advocate>

ps. my site, firstpersonshooters.org is, has been, and always will be totally non-commercial, an encyclopedia for the genre

The main issue with screenshots is copyright. See Wikipedia:Copyrights. For the most part, I think a game screenshot would probably be considered |fair use, particularly if it's a publicity shot specifically released for press use by the game's makers. But I'm not a copyright lawyer, so don't take anything I say on the subject as gospel. Blufive 21:01, 3 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I'm coming to this discussion late in the day, but I think it'd be a good thing to have more screenshots in the article (especially of the genre-defining games). I don't think the copyright issue matters for the fair use reasons given above. Anyway, if you've got some shots of the most famous titles, put them in I reckon. --Plumbago 14:22, 1 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I've moved the links to this site from the main body text to the external links section. While the list of games there is impressively comprehensive, linking to it with the first mention of the phrase "first person shooter" in the "overview" text of this article is getting far too close to self-promotion for comfort, IMO. To the anon contributor who added them (<advocate>?): thanks for your other edits, all good stuff and your help here is appreciated. Blufive 20:52, 3 Mar 2005 (UTC)

The first link might arguably be considered inappropriate, but as for the one at the "other titles" section, self-promotion is irrelevant. My site is completely non-commercial, was specifically created to be a complete list/resource for the genre, and The List on my site spedifically fulfills the entire point of "other titles". So until someone copies it into here, I'm putting that link back.

As my tag-line on The List notes, this is the only comprehensive list of first person shooters in existance in the entire world. SO yes, toot my horn I must, but that too is irrelevant. It is what it is, and that happens to be perfect for a link as the first part of the "other titles" section. As far as it being "an attempt" it's the best anyone has ever done, and though it is not complete, it is easily over 95% complete. I welcome any help finding titles I missed (particularly in consoles since I haven't got any). <Advocate>

On second thought, I just imported my entire list to the *games sorted by genre* page and changed the link to there. Now you've got 600+ FPS titles to play with, Don't even think about not crowning me FPS god!

My apologies if my initial comment was a little harsh; when I first saw some of your changes, my link-spam-detector went nuts. With hindsight, and having seen your other edits since, it's obvious that I was overreacting. Blufive 10:36, 5 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Don't suppose you'd be interested in helping with my site? I have yet to find any Rabid FPS Fans to help me fulfill it's promise.

The URL is down for a little while now. But I still have the only comprehensive list of the genre on the internet :P and it'll be back soon.

Should these lists be split off on to a seperate page? Orange Goblin 18:10, 12 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Do we really need a game conventions section? I edited and "improved" (I hope) this new section, but personaly I don't think it's really necessary.--Vertigo200 18:33, 24 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Am I the only one who has a problem with: "the survival horror game aims to maximise tension, created by a combination of dark, ominous atmosphere and large numbers of opponents such as zombies (examples: the Resident Evil, Doom3 and Alone in the Dark series)"?

The other subgenres listed are direct offshoots of FPS and can still be called by that. Survival horror is only a distant cousin of the FPS, if that, and is more directly related to the third-person shooter.

I would propose to delete that line entirely, but it mentions Doom 3 among the game examples (which is indeed a FPS). I'm not sure if public opinion agrees with me, but I don't consider Doom 3 a survival horror game.

Either way, I suggest that we either just list Doom 3 as an example (since Resident Evil and Alone in the Dark are in no way FPSs) or delete the whole subgenre entirely, considering survival horror is too far departed from FPS.

For now, I'm going to just delete the line (it's bothering me too much :) ), but feel free to revive it and discuss. --ZombieBite June 28, 2005 17:10 (UTC)

I remember that in the early '90s, before FPS games expanded out to large outdoor environments, games like Zero Tolerance and Corporation were commonly referred to as corridor shooters. Should this be mentioned somewhere? I don't know about references, if they're necessary, since I'm not sure whether I've still got any magazines that use the term. --Nick R 16:02, 19 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure if this is general consesus, but this page reads like a computer-games-magazine article, and not like the encylopediac reference it should be.

Some examples of this are;

"Quake was the first FPS game to really break out of the LAN and gain a widespread fanbase dedicated to multiplayer Internet gaming."

"In 1997, GoldenEye 007 was released for the Nintendo 64 and was praised for its realistic setting (incoroprating elaborate bullet-hit detection, impressive artificial intelligence and animation, and well-designed environments based on the GoldenEye movie's sets) and a varied split-screen multiplayer deathmatch mode."

"Painkiller, Far Cry: both title featured vast and highly detailed environments, indoors and out. Also, they had sophisticated AI and physics systems rounding out the feature set."

"Half-Life (1998) — Used a lot of scripted events to tell its story and set the mood; the level of artistry inherent to both the story and gameplay raised the standards of the FPS industry to new heights."

We really should quantify statements such as "widespread" with relevant figures (ie the activity of servers) and remove some of this subjective opinion based wording ("raised the standards of the FPS industry to new heights" should change to something like; "Half-Life was a strong influence on future games in this genre {find some examples}"

Generally, this has only affected the areas pertaining to individual games; much of the Overview section seems to be free of this (leading me to think that its just people gushing on their favourite games). I haven't made any changes yet (I don't want to intrude on what seems to be a highly-developed page), but does anyone else notice this and if so can we start to counter it? CalPaterson 20:57, 28 Aug 2005

The section "Free Online FPS Games" is redundant, as there is already a separate Free First-Person Shooters page. Does anybody object to zapping out the "Free Online FPS Games" section?

Robby Berry 19:43, 8 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Since nobody seems to object, I'm gonna zap it out.

Robby Berry 17:40, 11 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I'm curious as to why there isn't much in the article about the recent spate of "realistic" (esp. WWII-based) games and mods of Doom, Quake, etc. being used by the US Military for training in infantry tactics.

Some examples would be the Rainbow Six series, Call of Duty, Medal of Honor and the America's Army game that was originally developed for the US Army and is now available to the general public.

I may not have all my facts straight on this, but my impression from what I read out there is that it's a significant and growing subgenre, no?

Great article overall, tho. It was very informative and well-written.

Metroid Prime is already nicely discussed in the section above. Also, there is no link to the interview where "one of its creators" (which one?) "admitted it was just an FPS" (like they were trying to trick consumers by calling it a first-person adventure?). I'd say delete the whole Prime 2 entry.

I agree, could the person who changed give us a link for the interview. Otherwise, we should probably just delete the whole paragraph, it really isn't very good or necessary.--Vertigo200 20:41, 15 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I aslo need to see the weakling interview,
But i agree, Metroid Prime is a First Person Adventure

You can tell by the differences between other FPS gameplay & Metriod's Gameply

Other FPS has shield, smart A.I, vechile, mostly you always have a goal, to do something

But Metroid's gameplay, is always backtracking, where enemies always revive, you only have objects

The game is like, HAlo Mappack, like a whole huge map, and it has all level in it

Metroid gameplay isn't action, that is why it's called Adventure.

Action games, action happens anytime, take Half Life for an example,

Nintendo always make adventure games, take Zelda for an example, to get some actions liek fight baddies, you have to go to a mountain to fight them

This is just like Metroid, you have to go to a site & fght enemeies, when you go back they are there again, accept bosses >x<ino 14:56, 1 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

It was previously stated in the article that The Colony was the first game on home computers to use solid 3D graphics. It wasn't, it was preceded by Driller by a good few months. Besides that, The Colony wasn't really a true solid 3D game and wasn't a first-person shooter. Driller was both. I've corrected that. Jamyskis Whisper, Contribs 09:11, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

1. doom removed lives, you could re-try as many times as you liked if playing in an "arcade" style

2. doom removed the concept of "score", the previous id incarnations up to and including wolfenstein 3d (and some doom betas) had the player collecting items (usually treasure) to up their score, and a high score table to compliment this. essentially making them the "3d" equivelant of most 2d platform games (e.g. booty: collect treasure, avoid pirates). the only goal of doom was "to kill stuff"

3. it was fast, and i dont mean in terms of FPS. less messing about generally, i.e. give the player a shotgun and let them "run". again, a simple distinction but something that carried through to quake, in fact modern FPS games (e.g. halo, ouch!) have slowed the player and gameplay "rate" down since doom and quake. see: couterstrike gampleay vs quake deathmatch, i prefer the latter. no messing with menus and selection, just fight to the death, every 10 seconds or so

cycloid 15:39, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Nexuiz is notable in that it is the most sophisticated/popular open source first person shooter, and possibly one of the most popular open source games period. It got first place with 154 votes in this http://www.linux-gamers.net/modules/xoopspoll/pollresults.php?poll_id=71 poll for game of the year, over games like Quake4, Battlefield 2, and UT2004. As that section is for notable FPS, I think Nexuiz more than qualifies. I assume it is not just for notable proprietary/commercial FPS.

Tell me your thoughts.

EDIT: oops forgot to sign michaelb 21:54, 11 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Do you really think this is as notable as games like Quake and Half Life in defining the first person shooter genre? It looks very derivative of other games, and doesn't even have a single-player campaign.

It Show how good endless gunning could be?

While I have no idea what you are trying to say in your statement above, I thought I should add that I agree with at least your heading. In my opinion TimeSplitters should be added to notable games along with maybe Free Radical Design being added to notable developers. If they don't deserve their own bullet, I think maybe mention of them should be included in Rare's profile as this was the team behind Goldeneye 007 and Perfect Dark and after they broke off from Rare went on to create what some would consider "a continuation of the popular FPS style Goldenye 007 induced." -HumanZoom 11:02, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What do you call a player who likes to hide in a spot or corner where she is hard to reach, and just waits for somebody to pass by so she can shoot them? Is there a term for this behaviour?--Sonjaaa 15:01, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That would be called "camping", and is usually frowned upon, as it generally makes the game less fun (if everybody camps, then nothing every happens). Also, some cheap camping techniques can be used: camping on a valuable weapon, maybe a rocket launcher, and blasting any brave sould who tries to uproot you. This sort of camping is considered especially cheap, and the mark of a poorly designed level. Waiting around corners or hiding isn't as despised, but it is still disliked. You'll see this a lot in Counter Strike, where it's still frowned upon, but people do it, and whine about it even though they themselves camp. Finally, camping while sniping is perhaps the most acceptable form of camping, but still is considered unsportsmanlike. I hope that answers your question. michaelb 23:54, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=camping&r=f

Maybe we need to add a subsection that discusses different player styles or strategies that people can use, along with the terminology used to describe that behaviour.--Sonjaaa 12:37, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That's a very good idea. I'll maybe try to write one if I get time--although I am no expert in FPS's. michaelb ^{Talk to this user} 22:24, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This isn't a strategy article. That stuff is best left for forums, strategy articles, and the game itself. bob rulz 08:08, 13 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Camping is a notable enough strategy that it has it's own article at Camping (computer gaming), so I think it's entirely reasonable to mention it somehow. Seeing as it has it's own article I think only a brief mention is warranted, though. — Saxifrage ✎ 07:24, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Just curious, does anyone ever feel nauseous after playing FPS games for a while? Shawnc 00:56, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't, personally, but PC Gamer has gone of this many times, and if I remember correctly, they suggested motion sickness pills. Gewehr

I get nauseous from only a few minutes of FPS to a point where i can't play them. Pills do help but the idea of drugging myself up to play a game seemes abit excessive!

Splinter Cell should be removed as it is a third person steal based game. Gewehr

Agreed. It is very much not an FPS. michaelb 23:32, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Is it really necessary to include Wolfenstein and Quake in the notable examples of the genre in the opening paragraph? I used the games Doom, Half-Life, and Halo because they are all very different games and each represent a different era in FPS games; The beginning of the genre, the shift into more modern-style and realistic gameplay, and the rise of the console FPS, respectively. Additionally, these games are easily some of the most recognizeable examples of the genre and it's popularity. On the other hand, I think you would have a hard time saying that Quake was remarkably different in terms of gameplay than Doom, or that Wolfenstein was a superlative force in defining or popularizing the genre.

Beyond that, I think this gives the article too much of an iD-worshipping slant. iD most certainly made some seminal and very high quality FPS games, but the genre has come to be defined by more than just the groundwork that they produced in their heyday.

First off, Wolfenstein DID do much to revolutionize the genre. It was what you could consider the first modern FPS in many ways. Quake was the first game that popularized online play and brought multiplayer to the status it is today (Doom was more pre-modern multiplayer; Quake introduced many multiplayer features not seen before that are now standard), and you can't argue that online play isn't important to FPS games. bob rulz 01:42, 2 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Did Wolfenstein or Quake do as much for the genre as Half Life and Doom? I think that's a pretty solid 'no'. Wolfenstein wasn't very far beyond the other first-person maze style games of it's time, and Quake's multiplayer was only a continuation of what had been established by Doom. They made important changes, but only incremental ones. Whereas a game like Half Life completely changed things by introducing narrative gameplay, an expanded storyline and dialogue, realistic environments, advanced AI, and revolutionized the mod scene. There only really needs to be about 3 examples in the intro paragraph, and I think that the ones I used before were most appropriate, because they represent a very large range of styles of FPS games while at the same time focusing on the most important developments that have influenced the genre. Rodeosmurf 23:17, 2 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Have you read the article at all? It makes it fairly clear that Wolfenstein did quite a bit for the genre. Also, I can say that Quake was almost as influential as Half-Life (not Doom, though). It isn't the fact that it wasn't the first to have multiplayer, it's the fact that it was the first game to implement multiplayer in such a way that it became immensely popular, therefore becoming the first multiplayer-dominated game in existence. That's not just immensely important for the genre, but also gaming as a whole. It was pretty much the first game where multiplayer was the focus of and was more popular than the single player.

On another note, how is Halo so important? GoldenEye007 and Perfect Dark were both FPS's that were very popular on the console long before Halo came around, and Halo didn't really do a lot to revolutionize the genre either (unless you count it as one of the first (not THE first, mind you) games to smoothly and successfuly integrate vehicles). bob rulz 01:25, 3 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't much like Halo, but even I have to admit that it has defined the way console FPS games are played in the modern era. GoldenEye and PD were certainly very good early attempts, and great games overall, but weren't as fully realized in terms of gameplay, and weren't anywhere near as popular as Halo.

Anyway, the point here isn't to debate which game was more influential than the other; the point is to determine a short list(shorter than it is right now) of games that represent various facets of the genre's ongoing evolution, while at the same time providing examples that are beneficial to someone who isn't exactly sure what constitutes a FPS (people who might be reading this article!). Even though people like us who play games will instantly say "oh yeah, Wolfenstein was really a standout FPS", someone who just wants to know what an FPS is will have no frame of reference there. Rodeosmurf 02:21, 3 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

How would they not have a frame of reference? bob rulz 02:25, 3 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Let me ask you this: If you told the average person that you were working on a game similar to Wolfenstein, and then you told another average person that you were working on a game similar to Halo, which one do you think would know what you're talking about? Rodeosmurf 02:27, 3 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

So can I change it back now or are there further objections? Rodeosmurf 02:23, 4 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I guess it really doesn't matter that much. As for the other one, though (Quake) I'm sure everybody knows what you would be talking about there, and I think it's relevant just for the fact that it popularized multiplayer to the extent we see today. I guess you can take off Wolfenstein, but personally I would keep Quake. bob rulz 06:05, 4 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, fair enough. Rodeosmurf 17:00, 4 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I know Marathon is not a well-known game but I don't think it's getting enough credit. Quake was not innovating in encouraging modding, Halo was not innovating in having narrative gameplay. I know about WP:NN but isn't it rather silly to say a game innovated when it did not? I don't propose it be added to Marathon in the notable games section, Marathon_(computer_game) speaks pretty good for itself if anyone is interested. --Fabjan 16:17, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think that someone should add a citation, or at least some details, for the claim that still in 2005 Counter-Strike is the "most popular multiplayer FPS". As it is, it sounds like an advertisement. --fudo 15:29, 13 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

According to http://steampowered.com/status/status.html, Steam has over 2.76 million unique users per month. The vast majority of that is Counter-Strike. 63.252.64.106 21:54, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Strictly speaking, these games can also be regarded als FPS. What do you think? Meursault2004 13:19, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rail shooters shouldn't be confused with FPS imo CheapAlert 20:49, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. I don't include rail shooters on my site. Then again, mech shooters, vehicle shooters or hunting games either, as a general rule.

=Advocate (Advocate@firstpersonshooters.org)

IMO the Doom clone page should be merged into First-person shooter. The doom clone page seems to contain a lot of original research in as much as it offers no reliable sources for the neologism Doom clone. I don't really know enough to do this merge myself. -- cmh 22:52, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think the Doom Clone page stands well enough on it's own, and the information there would seem superfluous here. This page is about the genre and the history thereof, and should focus on notable games, developments in technology, and changes in style that have occurred over the years. The Doom clone page covers a distinct set of information regarding the outmoded term, it's history, and it's usage. Putting that info here would just crowd the page and detract from the overall meaning of the page. Rodeosmurf 23:58, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I alao disagree with merging the two. A first-person shooter is a type of video game. I believe that a different ID game, Wolfenstein 3D was the first one to do this, not necessarily "Doom" or any clones of it. Thus a "doom clone" is simply a type of first-person shooter and is not the focus of this article. Paul Robinson (Rfc1394) 11:45, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Same here, this is a really bad idea for a merger as "Doom Clone" typically refers to games using Doom stylization of gameplay, i.e. Non-polygonal 3D, 2d sprites for characters and enemies as well as a first person shooter. Look up "Doom clone" on Google groups, that might provide you with some insight on the history of the term.--Mofomojo 15:45, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

While I myself did not put the Halo image that was here before at the top, I see no problem with the wording that was in the caption of the image. Halo is one of the most popular first-person shooters of all time, judging by how well-known it is and its game sales (one of the best-selling console games of all time). If that wording is not appropriate for Wikipedia, then hundreds of thousands of other passages of similar terminology (such as numerous things in here that mention "some of the most influential games in the first-person shooter genre" and other things such as "Doom is among the most revolutionary first-person shooters and defined what the genre is today") must also be removed. And anybody should know that we shouldn't do that. There was absolutely no "fanboyism" or POV in the caption of that Halo image. bob rulz 01:17, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Doom screenshot is a far better choice for this page, because of the degree to which Doom defined the FPS genre. At any rate, there was no reason for someone to remove the Doom image, which has been on the page for quite some time, and replace it with the Halo image. Additionally, when the Halo image was first added, the caption read "Halo (video game series) series is one of best first person shooter genre.", which, in addition to not being a proper english sentence, is a clear case of fanboyism. Rodeosmurf 21:22, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Also, I just noticed that the Halo screenshot in question was stolen from worthplaying.com; Granted, it's just a watermarked version of a shot that was probably released for promotion by Bungie/Microsoft, but we shouldn't be putting watermarked images on wikipedia. Rodeosmurf 21:24, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Why this particular Doom image? certainly there are better representations, or is this a legacy, a classic which cannot now be modified without risking ire? I would like to propose a javascript image rotation scheme but don't know if that's possible within wiki. -Advocate (Advocate@firstpersonshooters.org)

Doom is certainly iconic, but I don't think it's representative anymore. The lead image of an article should represent the subject, and a Doom screenshot just doesn't do that anymore. On the flip side, I don't think a Halo screenshot is the best choice to represent the whole genre either. If we were going to replace the image with something more representative of today's FPSs, what would editors like to see? — Saxifrage ✎ 16:15, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Article says: > there is no epidemic of youth violence in America.

Not true. Certainly there is. All other places in the world watch with horror the amount of violance in USA. Negro kids become copkillers by the time they turn 12, white kids shoot teachers and classmates in secondary school, latino teens grow up to be car robbers. The whole american society and culture is very much violence-based and kids and teens are not excluded.

The source refered to in the paragraph (http://www.gamerevolution.com/oldsite/articles/violence/violence.htm) does not strike me as particularly objective. Though it uses data from offical American bureaus it makes claims beyond what is substantiated by the data. For instance, it would be ,very interesting to normalise the violence graphs against the changes in the economic climate, which is not done, and then corellate the incidence of real violence with artificial (video and game etc) violence. Mikademus 11:49, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Isn't that a problem with America, rather than FPS games, though? I'm not going to go look for sources, but I think it's safe to say people play as much violent games in other countries. --Fabjan 15:48, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Why did anybody even bother to respond to this? It's obvious he was just trolling. bob rulz 22:16, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. In addition to being racist and lacking any kind of factual data or statistics, the original comment here is complete ignorance. The violence seen on sensationalist television news programs does not translate into actual levels of violence seen in the real world.

Im removing the Beltway sniper attacks from the controversy part because there isnt any explanation of what the link between the attacks and violent games is, and neither is there any reference to the sniper attacks-violent games link in both this article, and the Beltway sniper attacks article itself. --Anonymous 21:06 19-09-2006

I think that PREY should be included as a notable game (since it has already been released) becuase of its already mentioned relativly new and ground breaking use of portals (wich are realtime) and gravity tracks (that the player can use to change his point of view by walking on walls ect.). The game is also based on the iD software doom 3 engine (omptimized) wich is mentioned in the article . I dont know if the game is too new to be included . --201.250.7.207 15:23, 4 August 2006 (UTC)Cristov[reply]

I also forgot to mention the game has a spirt realm in wich the player may leave his body and control his spirit who can access other areas of the game that are unavailable or unreachable otherwise . Also if not in notable games maybe in a inovative catagory . including themes like bullet time, medics , squad based AI tactics , vehicle comand, scripted events and many others that have all been used to the point of being standard in games of there genra. ( and yes i spell terrible and have no grammar , thats why i didnt edit the page )--201.250.7.207 15:30, 4 August 2006 (UTC)Cristov[reply]

Because it hasn't been released yet, it hasn't had any impact on the history of first-person shooters. As such, it shouldn't be included yet. (Wikipedia is not in the business of predicting the future of things.) — Saxifrage ✎ 16:06, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

While I don't know whether Prey is truly a Notable game or not, it was released in early July. Charlie Wiederhold 03:00, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is not the place to make contentious statements like "Metroid Prime is a first-person shooter," or "Thief: The Dark Project is a first-person shooter." The status of these games is heavily contested. Go anywhere and you will see arguments about what Metroid Prime really is, with little to no decisive evidence for either side - and as such it is a violation of Wikipedia:Neutral point of view to state that the game is "absolutely" one or the other. If mention of the game is to be made here, its contested status should be detailed and sourced using reliable sources. The same goes for System Shock 2, Deus Ex and the rest of the Metroid Prime and Thief games.

An example of what may be deemed "absolutely" one or the other without violating WP:NPOV would, of course, be Doom - the game is considered to be the very definition of the term by a vast majority of people. An example of what is absolutely not a first-person shooter would be Tom Clancy's Ghost Recon: Advanced Warfighter for the Xbox 360 (I might add that this game is classified as a first-person shooter within the article). Debating these is like debating whether or not the 16th President of the United States was Abraham Lincoln - it just goes against logic and reason to do so, and as such they may be asserted as fact (see Wikipedia:Neutral point of view).

Until this matter is entirely resolved, I am tagging the article with {{pov}}. JimmyBlackwing 06:06, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Also note this horribly POV statement:

"Duke Nukem 3D (1996) — This early FPS is better remembered by more fans of the genre than even Doom. Serious fans generally accept Doom as more important, but Duke was more widely publicised in its time and so has a greater mass appeal."

And that's just one example. This article needs a serious rewrite and serious referencing until I can say that it's even a remotely good article. bob rulz 17:18, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There can be no doubt that SS2 is an FPS, despite it's high amount of RPG content. Thief is a FPS (sneaker) certainly, but melee has always been an acceptable alternative to "shooting" in a true FPS. I can't speak to Metroid or Deus Ex. There cannot probably ever be a fully useful definition of FPS but we can come up with one for a "pure" FPS, ala Doom, etc. and list possible exceptions as such. First Person isn't really debatable but games increasingly have FP for combat and third person for movement. Perhaps a "greater than 50%" limit there? And shooting I think can be resolved by "primary gaming feature". Thoughts? --Advocate

First, this is not an 'article', this is a fan page. In order to reform it to an article you MUST remove ALL references to external games that is truely not needed. I understand that you want 'references' to show how games have progressed, but the end issue is that ALL games show a degree of progression. This means that as long as you keep referencing the GAMES instead of achievments you create a means of bias.

Second, 'notable games' is another way of keeping this as a fan page. In effect the notability of games can not be proven nore referenced. It is more so (This game is cool, then the game being a major break through). i) The majority of supposed 'breakthroughs' either already existed or was being worked on at similar times. The fact that remains is that the 'breakthroughs' are rare at that due to the similarity of the technology being worked on or that the technology being presented is nothing more then the result of the increase of computing power. ii) The addition of a minor gimicks that barely change gameplay does not constitute a 'notable addition'. For instance the use of elaborate 'portal' technology is in the end run just a doorway. Or having an elaborate physics system does not change that you aim a weapon and shoot.

Third, the majority of this 'discussion page' is just asking about adding in games or deleting games, I propose removing entries regarding games that have already been added in or deleted. Also, I propose the 'arguments' which basically are about what game is better (basically citing supposed 'technological advances' as means of 'coolness')

Finally, if you are going to cite a game, cite the COMPANY saying. The GAME did not make the achievments, it was only the way it was shown to the world. It is like saying that the lamp that implemented an electric lightbulb changes the world, instead of Sir Humpery Davy who made the electric light bulb. (No, Edison INNOVATED a better bulb, he did not INVENT it). Merry [date: unknown, sanity: very low] (131.247.240.244)

Though the IP user's tone is a bit objectionable, the core point is right. This article is mostly original research. I imagine most statements can't be sourced, so a radical cutting and rewrite might be in order. Thoughts? — Saxifrage ✎ 20:51, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think the list of developers is OK to keep, since the number who focus almost entirely on FPS games and related engines and technology (e.g. id, Bungie, Valve) is very low and it's easy enough to list them all equally. Listing those who have made a few highly-regarded FPS titles among many other genres (Rare and LucasArts) is more subjective, but should still be possible by citing sales figures and reviews.

However, the section "Selected important games in FPS development" is probably the weakest section of the article. The main history that takes up most of the article has its own problems balancing mentioning notable titles while keeping the whole thing encyclopaedic, and yet this section mainly just repeats that - why repeat content if that content is already problematic? And the majority of the article is already arranged chronologically, so this additional summary section doesn't fill an empty role. Finally, compare other, better articles on genres, like Western (genre) and Rock music; they just have the history, and don't have a "List/Timeline of significant works" at the bottom. So I think that that section should be removed, and we should focus on referencing and maintaining the history described in the rest of the article. --Nick R^Talk 05:00, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

...and what sort of article would this be, and how useful would it be if it DIDN'T mention Doom as noteable? etc etc. -- Advocate —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 72.236.136.26 (talk • contribs) 15:27, 13 September 2006 (UTC).[reply]

If Doom (or any other title) is mentioned in the main history section, then it's notable. We really don't need an extra section repeating the same information but summarised. --Nick R^Talk 11:47, 16 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"...you MUST remove ALL references to external games..." This is an encyclopedia and as such it should contain encyclopedic knowledge of its subjects. In fact Doom, etc etc. ARE notable, and did introduce important new features, etc etc. and they should be included, in fact EVERY first person shooter should be included. - Advocate

I've done a bit of editing of the early part of the article. I felt that there was too much discussion on the precise definition of an FPS for a lead section, so I moved that paragraph down to the Overview section below, alongside the description of the use of first-person views in third-person shooters (which I expanded in that series of edits). However, that section now consists almost entirely of a comparsion with other genres, rather than the "overview" implied by the section name; I considered renaming it to something like "Relationship to other genres", but it didn't seem appropriate to have that as the first section. I'm not really sure of the best way to improve this.

Also, I'm not too keen on the "sub-genres" section, which I've now renamed to become the main part of a new "gameplay" section. I think that rather than using the term "sub-genres", which implies fairly definite distinctions, the extent to which all those variations are blended and evolved should be decribed in a different way. ("Gameplay elements" perhaps?) At the very least, that's the section which I think needs to be focused on now. I'll make a start on it... --Nick R^Talk 00:33, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"A start," I said... I've ended up making quite massive changes to the section. But I like to think I've improved it. Right, that's all for now! --Nick R^Talk 02:09, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the improvements to this article! It definitely needed it and it's a massive upgrade over the previous version. I think this gives me a good basis to see what I can do to improve it; I couldn't think of any good ways to do it before. bob rulz 03:03, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

We should mention it because while not particularly popular it's a fanasy shooter and those are almost non-existant I can't think of another one Jamhaw 18:23, 13 September 2006 (UTC)jamhaw[reply]

Heretic & Hexen in particular,although WoT may be notable for being a knock-off of a popular fantasy book series or for it's magic instead of weapons deal. - Advocate

I think we're confused as to what exactly the Halo health system is here. It's getting changed to say that it's part of the seperate health/shield system, when in fact it serves as both at the same time. The replenishible shield in Halo is essentially the health system, as well. If Half-Life deserves exclusive mention for how it introduced the continuous progression, entirely in-character POV, then Halo should be able to be mentioned as introducing the instant replenishing means of health/shields. bob rulz 19:19, 17 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Your edit described Halo's health system, but I felt it didn't explain how it was representative of the variation in FPS realism, which is what that section should be focused on.

Half-Life was one I thought it was worth mentioning by name as it was a convenient way of explaining the distinction between two narrative styles: taking you away from the character to progress the plot, vs keeping the first person POV the whole time.

But Halo's health system doesn't represent such a strong split between game types. It's a very specific refinement of the extremely common system, "separate health and armour meters". The refinement comes from the balance between them (it's strongly weighted more towards the shield than the health) and the method of recovery (it recharges over time, rather than relying on collecting items). That generalisation also covers the systems used by Half-Life (recoverable health and armour) and GoldenEye (non-recoverable health, recoverable armour), both of which, unlike Halo, provide approximately equal balance between the "health" and "armour" meters.

Believe me, I've been trying hard to redraft this section to describe all such variations in FPS health systems. But every time I just kept getting bogged down in comparisons, lengthening the paragraph far too much and reducing the clarity. So in the end I wrote a very broad generalisation which covers most games: Within this structure there is much variation regarding the balance between the two meters, whether one or both of them can be replenished, and if so, how. --Nick R^Talk 23:41, 17 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, the current write-up is better than the original one. I see you're point, too. But Halo didn't really have anything beyond that one system, which is what I'm trying to emphasize. The two systems are essentially combined; you can only take a couple of hits after the bar is depleted, and there's no actual health bar to measure it. For all intensive purposes it is both a shield and a health bar. It's also quite different than the traditional system, since it replenishes the bar almost immediately, which can have a significant effect on the gameplay. It's counterbalanced by the fact that this shield/health bar is limited compared to many other games. I think the differences between them deserve a bit more mention. bob rulz 05:23, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Should System Shock 2 really be described as "the first game to successfully implement an interesting story"? I feel this is subjective and should be either reworded or removed. TheButcher 07:04, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There are numerous problems with the "Selected important games in FPS development" list, mainly due to assertions like that - see #Multi Reform section above. No-one's gone ahead and deleted it all yet, but I think that someone should remove the section, transferring the good parts into the main prose. --Nick R^Talk 10:11, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Battlefield 2: why ain't it here? I thought it was pretty notable...

Since gamesutra is widely recognized as an authority in what game design means, I find it expedient and reasonable to let them have some say in this whole notable games business, so I'm adding a link to "The Gamasutra Quantum Leap Awards: First-Person Shooters".

--Advocate (Advocate@firstpersonshooters.org)

I think that the Call of Duty series (Call of Duty, United Offensive, Call of Duty 2, Call of duty 3) should be added to the notable games as it is probably the most popular WW2 series that is around. Also the "Aim down the sights" feature is fairly unique (some other games have it but usually not for all the weapons).

Maybe xfire, teamspeak,and vent should be mentioned as well as they are a part of the multiplayer first person shooter.

67.71.55.80 03:37, 19 November 2006 (UTC)Angry Penguin[reply]

Ehm, it didn't introduce ANYTHING new. Not notable to the concept itself. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by E-Magination (talk • contribs) .

I had posted a link previously but it got deleted in the grounds that it's "non-notable blog entry; hardly any content there". I had forgot to login so the change was done by my ip (sorry), but I think the point of the link was missed when reverting: yes, there's a blog with some individual analysis there, but it's not the main point on the site, it's just at the home. The point of the site is measuring the size of online FPS communities, as can be noted on the games and mods graphics (graphics being the keyword here). So I'd like to ask permission to add the link to the list, and if needed be, with direct link to the graphic pages then, as that's the real content of the site (and I disagree that there's "hardly any content there"; I think it was just missed by the person who clicked it before removing it). --zeh 13:29, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There is a play called First Person Shooter as well, though I cannot find any information about it (except the fact that some of my classmates have been performing it over the past few weeks). Shouldn't there be a disambiguation page or reference to this? (The play is also mentioned in School massacre but links to First Person Shooter. --RazorICE 04:18, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This has come up before, but it's still an issue with the article. A large proportion of the article is taken up by the section "Selected important games in FPS development". There are several problems with it:

1. It's far too long for a list that's supposed to be a summary. This seems to be because people have been intent on forcing their favourite games into the list.
2. By being in chronological order, it's a redundant repetition of information in the main "History" section of the article. By contrast, the "developers" section is useful because it collects the game list together in a different way (by company rather than year), offering alternative opportunities for commentary. (For example, the section could be used to describe the directions that different companies have pursued in their FPSs: Bungie's focus on sci-fi, Rare's on spy-themed games, Red Storm's on tactical shooters...)
3. I'll repeat an argument I used when this came up before: compare other, better articles on genres, like Rock music. The main body of the article is one big "history" section; there's no "List/Timeline of significant works" at the bottom repeating that same information.

Before the argument comes up again that "we've got to mention that Doom or GoldenEye or Half-Life or Halo or whatever is a notable FPS": if it's notable enough to be mentioned in the "history" section, then its notability doesn't have to be emphasised by repeating it elsewhere.

So does anyone else have any comments on this before the section is removed? --Nick R^Talk 17:45, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. The section does not need to be there. bob rulz 05:12, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Get rid of it. DonQuixote87 14:23, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yep, I vote to make sure all the info is already in the history section then clear almost all of them. I'd keep the section with maybe 5 or 6 titles instead of 30 or whatever it is. Think of it as what people a hundred years should see; a few that were influential, innovative and popular amongst fans and critics. In my opinion: Wolf3d, Doom, Quake, Deus Ex, Half Life and one massive multiplayer perhaps.Kansaikiwi 17:08, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I believe that the section should be included. Perhaps we should use a set criteria of Most Important Firsts (are those something we can agree on?), First polygon models, etc, then hash out which game fits. In any case I believe it should be limited to say 10 titles.

Advocate

Why is Red Steel in the future section still, when it has been released for a couple of months now? Mattyatty 13:06, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The article states "It is also the first "true" FPS with an in-depth storyline." Marathon is also listed in the notable games, it came out a year earlier, and had an extremely in-depth storyline. So unless someone explains what makes Dark Forces any more of a "true" FPS, I'll delete this line because it's false. After that, it may be worthwhile to reassess whether Dark Forces is notable. Crater Creator 20:48, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dark Forces is a notable game because it was one of the very first games to expand upon the traditional Doom formula. However, it is true that Marathon came out earlier. That section should be removed. bob rulz 05:12, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The article currently states:

The first true 3D flat-polygon (hidden surface) first-person shooter was the single-player Driller, in 1987, using the acclaimed Freescape engine.

First of all, I'm not entirely sure what is meant by a "true 3D flat-polygon (hidden surface) first-person shooter". It seems somewhat ambiguous, but I'm proceding on the assumption that the meaning is "a game where the player can move freely in a 3-dimensional environment (that is rendered using flat polygons with hidden surfaces removed, e.g. via backface culling) and shoots at enemies". In this case, does not Elite (1984) qualify as an earlier example? JulesH 16:46, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Elite is wire frame, Driller is filled polygons. I believe the 'flat' is referring to flat shading, which was a pretty big technical milestone at the time. I'm also not sure that backface culling is true hidden surface removal - it removes some hidden surfaces, but doesn't handle forward facing polygons occluding each other. Ehheh 16:59, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In that case, I've rephrased to make it clear that the polygons being filled is an important aspect of this. That paragraph as a whole was difficult to follow, anyway. JulesH 13:11, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm removing the following statement:

Notably, however, Pathways Into Darkness had preceeded the release of Wolf3D, and Marathon was released only a few months after Doom and had superior graphics. The Macintosh-only nature of these games limited their popularity.

Part of this is simply wrong. Pathways Into Darkness was released in August 1993, Wolfenstein 3D in May 1992, more than a year earlier. Marathon was indeed released a few months after Doom, and it is notable for making the genre popular on the Mac, but at that time FPS was already going strong on the PC. Besides, Marathon 2 had a Windows version, but found no followership on that platform. — Graf Bobby 02:41, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In reference to Unreal Tournament and Quake 3 Arena: "Both games were widely acclaimed by game-industry critics and laid the basis for their respective franchises to continue onward: the Unreal Tournament series with Unreal Tournament 2003 and later Unreal Tournament 2004, and the Quake series with Quake 4, released October 2005."

This is kind of a frivolous statement, especially the use of "laid the basis for" in the case of Quake. "The basis" had not yet been laid for UT as a series, but the Quake series was already firmly established as a staple of the genre by this time. More importantly, Quake 4 took a completely different direction after Quake 3 Arena, with gameplay falling more in line with Quake 1 and 2.

In short, saying that Quake 3 Arena "laid the basis" for Quake 4 is misleading, in terms of both the longstanding popularity of the series, and Q3A's (relative lack of) influence on future gameplay.

Daeval 22:24, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Should the touch screen count as a control method (e.g. on the DS and PDAs)? I see the PSP mentioned, but this can just as easily be emulated on the GBA.Samx 20:17, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Wiimote section reads more like a list of FPS for the Wii, and can be improved. GreaterWikiholic 22:21, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The "modern" FPS screenshot at the top of this article (as of the date tagged to this comment) was made 7 years ago. Maybe something like Gears of War or Battlefield 2142 or something from 06 or 07 should be there. At least one could take out the "modern" tag on it. In fact, I think I'll change it until someone responds. --76.188.148.173 01:02, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have an issue with the picture being of one of the most disappointing games in video game history. Surely there are better games to choose from than Diakatana? bob rulz 04:26, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

FPS is also a term used by tactical response teams as the person who shoots first. << what?

I'm moving my site to the top of the links list because:
"The List" is the most complete list of First Person Shooters in existence in the universe.
I'm working on it being the most complete Resource anywhere.
It's probably more useful (generally) than any other site, though not necessarily on any specific title (yet).
I'm actually a person with a site, those other links are mostly just companies who don't give a fudge about FPS'.

Advocate (Advocate@firstpersonshooters.org)

Also removed the Counter-Strike link. Yes, very important/popular title and all that, but please for a second just imagine if we start adding links that are for only a single game!

I've removed firstpersonshooters.net. It doesn't add anything to the article. I don't think there is anything notable about the site, I think the link is spam more than anything and also the site main claim (a complete list of FPS titles) doesn't hold as it doesn't even include some modern games that have been out for months now. --Phydaux 21:28, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What it adds, besides the list, which is in and of itself a resource of note, is information, ie content, about most of the titles. Further, there is no spam as there is nothing commercial about it. The claim does hold. It is up-to-date with not just titles but with movies and screenshots for most newer titles. If there's any missing, that doesn't make a difference, it's still the most complete listin existance, anywhere, ever, period. Furthermore, it's been happily accepted here for about a year now with no issue. For you to single-handedly and mean-spiritedly remove it is just wrong.

I think if a crate rating system is more important to you than my site, you probably shouldn't be here.

BTW, what titles am i missing?

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on First-person shooter. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20100809065209/http://uk.guides.ign.com:80/guides/884680/page_8.html to http://uk.guides.ign.com/guides/884680/page_8.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20090303140130/http://www.newstatesman.com:80/200512050036 to http://www.newstatesman.com/200512050036

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 22:45, 29 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 3 external links on First-person shooter. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20110713005112/http://uk.games.ign.com/articles/400/400835p1.html to http://uk.games.ign.com/articles/400/400835p1.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20100810145528/http://uk.guides.ign.com:80/guides/15922/page_7.html to http://uk.guides.ign.com/guides/15922/page_7.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20090114200710/http://ve3d.ign.com:80/articles/news/35295/Call-of-Duty-4-First-Impressions to http://ve3d.ign.com/articles/news/35295/Call-of-Duty-4-First-Impressions

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 04:09, 25 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on First-person shooter. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20120304104257/http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9B0CE4DF123BF933A25756C0A9679C8B63 to http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9B0CE4DF123BF933A25756C0A9679C8B63

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 04:36, 2 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 3 external links on First-person shooter. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080525134030/http://www.gameinformer.com/News/Story/200803/N08.0305.1634.21173.htm?Page=2 to http://www.gameinformer.com/News/Story/200803/N08.0305.1634.21173.htm?Page=2
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080401032528/http://www.gameinformer.com/Games/Review/200705/R07.0323.1414.37101.htm to http://www.gameinformer.com/Games/Review/200705/R07.0323.1414.37101.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080731162901/http://www.gameinformer.com/News/Story/200806/N08.0605.1635.16706.htm?Page=1 to http://www.gameinformer.com/News/Story/200806/N08.0605.1635.16706.htm?Page=1

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 22:40, 9 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on First-person shooter. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/*/ to http://www.gameinformer.com/News/Story/200803/N08.0305.1634.21173.htm?Page=2
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/*/ to http://www.gameinformer.com/Games/Review/200705/R07.0323.1414.37101.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/*/ to http://www.gameinformer.com/News/Story/200806/N08.0605.1635.16706.htm?Page=1
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120307112326/http://www.computerandvideogames.com/28003/features/games-that-changed-the-world-ultima-underworld/ to http://www.computerandvideogames.com/28003/features/games-that-changed-the-world-ultima-underworld/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 06:56, 21 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on First-person shooter. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.xbox.com/en-US/games/tips/noviceguides/firstpersonshooters.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110713005112/http://uk.games.ign.com/articles/400/400835p1.html to http://uk.games.ign.com/articles/400/400835p1.html
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://videogames.yahoo.com/feature/controversial-games/530593
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://ve3d.ign.com:80/articles/news/35295/Call-of-Duty-4-First-Impressions

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 01:47, 1 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on First-person shooter. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://uk.gamespot.com/features/6143094/index.html?tag=result%3Btitle%3B2
• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://uk.gamespot.com/pc/action/dukenukem3d/review.html?om_act=convert&om_clk=gssummary&tag=summary%3Bread-review
• Added archive https://archive.is/20120715075641/http://uk.gamespot.com/n64/action/goldeneye007/review.html?om_act=convert&om_clk=gssummary&tag=summary;read-review to http://uk.gamespot.com/n64/action/goldeneye007/review.html?om_act=convert&om_clk=gssummary&tag=summary%3Bread-review
• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://uk.gamespot.com/pc/action/tomclancysrainbowsix/review.html?om_act=convert&om_clk=gssummary&tag=summary%3Bread-review
• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://uk.gamespot.com/gamespot/features/pc/gamecollector/0907/
• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://uk.gamespot.com/features/6171044/index.html?tag=result%3Btitle%3B2
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090429100856/http://uk.gamespot.com/wii/action/residentevilseries/review.html to http://uk.gamespot.com/wii/action/residentevilseries/review.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 09:28, 1 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]