Black's Creator: Modern FPSes Are Eff-Star-Star-Star-Ing Boring

Stuart Black, he of the eponymous 2006 FPS for Xbox and PS2 (that would be the game called "Black", not "Stuart Black") has caught on with Codemasters and now declares he "can't be bothered" by the slow-pace of cover-based shooters.

Speaking to Official Xbox Live Magazine, which is drawing out the tease for whatever it is Black's working on now, Black fires up that current FPSes are a bit too ponderous for his tastes.

There's a lot of cover-based shooters out at the moment But when a guy hunkers down behind something, you've just got to sit there and wait for him to pop his head up. Pops up, couple of bullets to his head, pops back down again ... and I'm waiting for him to pop back up again? F***ing boring. I can't be bothered hanging around like that.

You know, last night I was in Borderlands. While its enemy AI leaves plenty to be desired, it is a cover-based shooter. And I noticed that my aggregate gameplay hours are about four more days than I've spent in Black. There are tons of boring FPSes out there. But it's not because of the cover mechanic.

Black Creator: Current FPSs are "F***ing Boring" [OXM via Hot Blooded Gaming]


Comments

    Are they ever going to make a sequel to "Black"? The end of the game kinda led the audience to believe that there was going to be one.

    I agree with Black. Everything is trying to be a war simulator these days(or rather CoD4 clone),so that the gameplay becomes tired and dull. Bring back the Unreal style games (Open world), Quake and UT style games (Arena!) and the Doom style games (Run and Gun!). We've seen enough pop and drop.

      Cellfactor came out last year on XBLA, a fine arena shooter. But nobody bought it. People will just keep playing QIII and moan that there aren't any arena shooters.

    "I couldn't get a decent cover system working to flow with the gameplay of my newest project, so I decided to rag on cover systems present in the top-sellers. This way I don't have to acknowledge that more and more people like cover systems AND I save some money in implementing such a system. I win!"

      That is, people in the real world use cover as it is a realistic tactical choice. Why shouldn't we use it in games? If you're so concerned about people cover-camping then make destructable cover OR give players a means to counter it.

      to me this reads more like a complaint with enemy AI than cover per say. It's just cover, wait, shoot, wait, shoot.

      I think Killzone 2 had flashes of this but enemies don't just sit in cover all the time and wait to be shot, they move around, throw grenades, retreat, advance etc, though it wasn't perfect. There would still be cover, wait, shoot moments.

      It'd be cooler if multiple enemies would work against you, ie. one lays cover fire, and another tries flank you, they retreat from cover, put up smoke screens etc.

    Then he should stop moaning and go play Quake/Doom - I much rather the realistic approach of a cover mechanic then old-school circle strafing matches...

    http://www.kotaku.com.au/2010/02/black-creator-to-shoot-for-fps-heights-again-at-codemasters/

    Yeah because Black wasn't an effing boring shooter was it....

      Yep says it all, he made a generic as all hell FPS with zero coherent story and no idea of what the hell was going on, and a boss fight that involved nothing but ever spawning enemies and destroying a concrete wall.

        I would have avoided calling the game 'Black' if that was my last name, it just makes the guy sound like a douche.

        Mr Douche, enemies don't hide behind cover so you can line up your next shot and wait. When an enemy in hiding behind his crate, this is when you move to a better angle of attack, throw a grenade, or my favourite, run up to his crate and shotgun him in the face (if they popup when I'm close that's a bonus). Sometimes, unknown to the player, the enemy might be having a crate party which can add a twist to the shotgun or grenade tactic. This all adds to the enjoyment & suprise of the cover-based shooter.

    Borderlands a cover based shooter? I can't remember the last time I took cover in borderlands.
    It certainly isn't filled with conspicuous waist high walls.

      Didn't play a soldier, I'm guessing?

    I actually somewhat agree with him. And I find that Mass Effect 2 is one of the biggest offenders when it comes to cover based combat being boring. Boxes/crates in that area ahead, but none where you are currently? No prizes for guessing where the enemies are going to make an appearance. It also tends to create an over reliance on the more powerful and accurate weapons such as Sniper rifles and pistols, since there they are normally quicker and more efficient at picking enemies off as they stick their head out from cover. Spraying them with inaccurate fire from your machine gun ends up taking longer and is a waste of ammo...

    Granted when it comes to multiplayer FPS, TF2, DoD and BF2 are more my sort of thing, but I've played a number of cover based shooters (don't even get me started on the fact that they are all 3rd person as well!), and I personally can't see the appeal.
    I understand seeking cover is 'more realistic'. But then I never missed the ability 'hit space to hide behind that box' when playing the Rainbow 6 and Swat games. Back then, we had lean keys, crouch keys and our own damn intuition to protect ourselves from enemy fire!

      Fair enough about the, "oh i see some boxes and crates up ahead, looks like theres going to be a firefight" statement of Mass Effect 2, but you do realize, you are also referencing almost 90% of TPS and FPS anyway.

      Even Uncharted 2 "suffers" if you call it that, from what ME2 does. I could pick a gun fight in Uncharted 2, 5 minutes before i got to the situation. Predictable? Maybe. But it was still entertaining and enjoyable, much like Mass effect 2.

      If you that so called problem of repetitiveness with cover system and firefights - it doesn't really matter if the game is enjoyable. So for Mass Effect 2, it isnt a problem, cause its a fun game. It's different if its a boring game with nothing to mix it up. ME2 offers weapons and biotics plus controlling your squad mates - you are spoilt with choice. If you fail to mix it up or choose different choices, then its your own fault really.

      yeah i think alot of games have really contrived cover and it just becomes predictable and boring. ME2 was a prime offender.

    Wait, wasn't Black that FPS that was supposed to be a shooter where you were given basically infinite ammo and scored points and combos for headshots, double kills, terrain and vehicle destruction etc, and the enemies were given crazy amounts of health to give you more opportunities to get a bigger score? Then they decided to drop all of that and instead gave us a shit-load of cutscenes involving chins? Oh, and they also took away the infinite ammo, but left the enemies with massive amounts of health? Turning something that was pretty orginal into another ho hum FPS? Yeah, yeah it was that game....

    I think he's pretty far off base. Cover based shooters force you to play more tactically than running and gunning. Flanking and using team mates to your advantage and gives you a moment to think while under fire.

    Mass Effect 2 as a boring cover game? You must have played a different ME2 to me, when I was in cover I was sending commands to my squad mates to use their special abilities and prepping my own biotic powers.

    What makes FPS's really boring is repetition, not evolving gameplay.

    Black was a great game, and if they are doing a sequel then i guess it will be a change from the generic CoD series

    As Yahtzee Croshaw would say... CHEST HIGH WALLS!

Join the discussion!