I thought of a few new features for fps games, but i don''t know if they''re good or if they''ve already been implemented. Gun skill: your gun starts out very shaky and as you kill more enemies it gradually becomes less so. Bullet locations: where you hit the enemy matters. For example, if you are shot in the eye, your vision decreases and your aiming skills decrease.

A number of games have implemented similar aspects. Deus Ex has steadier sniping if your skill is higher. And head shots count for a lot more in many games nowadays.

Some games waggle the firing cone of the gun to reduce its accuracy if you are walking or running.

Eye shots? Hmm haven''t heard of that one

The gun skill factor is pointless, and would prove to be very aggrevating.

The physics for nearly every FPS is different; thus, you can't be a god at playing Quake 3, and expect to have good aim in, say, Counter-Strike.

The people playing your game will have to spend enough time adjusting their OWN skills to your game. You would just be adding a needless hassle. If a player eventually becomes good with your game's handling, why should he have to suffer needlessly because his kill count isn't up to your game's "standard"?

[edited by - munkie on June 14, 2002 5:48:10 PM]

I don''t know, a lot of people dig that kind of thing. Take the infiltration, strike force and sas mods for UT. Shaky when running, less accuracy when hit (sometimes with an indicator ring), it just fleshes out the atmosphere. It depends mainly on what kind of audience your going for but that''d be dictated by other content.

I just thought I''d say, yes, I''d play it.

Yes, but that raises yet another point: The general FPS puts you in the position of a tough-ass guy in the middle of a mission. Why would you have been assigned to a mission when you can''t even shoot an enemy, let alone hold the gun steadily? It doesn''t make much sense.

If anything, I''d suggest modifying the inaccuracy ratio to a very low number. Meaning, if you tried aiming at a vital spot on the enemy, such as the head or heart, the bullet might stray a few inches, and hit the arm instead, merely handicapping the opponent.

I think if you''re shot in the eye you''ll have more problems than just not seeing straight.

Deus Ex and Soldier of Fortune have (respectively) increased gun accuracy through skill (experience), and location based damage.

IMO, they didn''t change gameplay dynamics too much but they were interesting aspects and a nice little feature. The gun skill made the game difficult in the beginning which is not a great thing since the player has to learn the game too, so by the end of the game when you''re used to the controls, you''re REALLY good thanks to the skill boost.

Location based damage is really cool (SOF 2 is sick!) but it doesn''t make a game any better. AT ALL. How is it advancing game play, or driving the story???

Look for something there, not in gimmicky features (that in SOF''s case probably took 6+ months to implement and perfect and when I play the game I don''t even notice anymore after a while).

If you''re going for the ''realistic'' style of FPS (e.g. Rainbow Six, Hidden and Dangerous, etc.), then having a shaky aim is definitely a good thing, it heightens the realism in a way that is IMO good for the game. In a quake-style FPS it *could* be good, but the type of people who like such games probably wouldn''t appreciate it much.

I still see no sense in artificially simulating shaky aim in the game. Why not simply leave this to the player? If the player can keep his cool during a scary/nerve-wrecking/tense situation in the game, then good for him. If not, then let the twitchy hands be the fault of his own wits. The game should respond to a player''s own skill with the mouse, it shouldn''t force it, or alter it, on him.

Also, not just eye shots - if you get hit in the leg you limp, if your arm is shot off you lose some of your weapons - i''m talking incredibly realistic.