It was already mentioned, but Mirror's Edge comes to mind as a FP game that tried to do something different with the genre, and didn't exactly succeed: fantastically fun game, first person parkour is a blast, and the "runner vision" system meant that you were rarely, if ever, stuck on what to do next, but it was a little "too" innovative. A lot of people apparently had trouble with the fact that you couldn't tell exactly where your feet were, and the infamous "roll landing" caused a lot of headaches and nausea.

I don't think that FPS's are going downhill, but I do think that a certain kind is reaching ascendancy: the fast-paced, run and gun multiplayer shooter is basically being polished to a mirror finish. As for Single-Player experience. . . well, the F.E.A.R. series did pretty well for me (by pretty well, I mean kept me up late at night holding a large stick hoping that a little girl in red wouldn't come to pull out my bones.)

You pretty much nailed it.  What we're seeing now is a resurgance of the 'Doom-clone' era, only it's the 'Halo-clone' era now.  For a while, that's all developers spit out on PC; medoicre FPS' desperate to get in on the gravy train.  Then gamers smartened up and released most of these games were terrible, and the overflow of FPS' slowed down to allow quality to seep through again (Duke Nukem 3D, Half-Life, etc.).  Lazy developers are just doing the same on consoles these days, and it too will eventually cause a backlash as people get sick of the genre.

well, not every FPS would be a clone of Doom/Wolfenstein. I'm pretty sure my beloved Battlefield series (even though EA is pure evil; it is good that DICE makes the Battlefield series, and EA only markets it, though EA has nearly ruined it with the draconian DRM) isn't a clone (Battlefield was probably one of the most innovative FPS games of its time IMO).

One thing I do like is interactive environments (probably one of the few features I liked in MW1). This is one of the reasons I have simply fallen in loved with Epic's UDK. The potential to create the perfectly destructible environment. Not just interactive, but perfectly destructible. It would be simple perfection to craft a beautiful (in terms of quality that is) map/landscape, and then let loose some crazy players with the most destructive weaponry possible to rapidly place in game, and watch the ensuing carnage.

That, and new techniques for making the games are likely part of the answer.

Most games today use several modelers/texturers/coders/ad nauseum to create and implement their content. But there are a few games out their that are beginning to see what I consider the wave of the future- procedural generation.

Procedural generation (not to be confused with "random" generation) is like a basic algebraic function "machine" at its most basic (procedural generation (henceforth- "PG") that is) iteration. You put a value/set of values in, and you get a result/set of results. If you put in different values, you get different results. But put in the same value, you get the same result EVERY SINGLE TIME.

Procedural generation is entirely code-based, and, if provided with a basic database of resources (basic people, ship/vehicle/weapon parts, animals, scenery components), could easily create an entire universe.

There are already several games that use/are going to use PG. The Elite series (probably the biggest space sim game of its day, and a major milestone of that genre) was initially going to have 282 trillion PG galaxies, each with 256 star systems. Big, ain't it? The in-development (public beta product released) FPS-type game ".kkrieger" (I believe that is how its spelled) is entirely procedurally generated. The upcoming Space Sim MMO "Infinity:The Quest For Earth" will use procedural generation. The Evochron Legends game also used PG for its planets (though I:TQFE will use it for an entire galaxy).

I do understand what you are saying. Developers and game companies simply need the incentive to make great games. And it just seems they don't have it anymore.

a ninja FPS wouldn't actually be an FPS, but an "FPx" or Action/Adventure game. That, and most games of that sort are usually 3rd-person (which is kinda cool but kinda not; an option to switch between 1st/3rd person view, like SW:Battlefront II would be perfect for that kind of game).

I think that that is an excellent idea though.

*drools at lbgsloan's suggestion* I like the idea. Ninjas FTW!

I agree with the statement, the genre kinda hit the wall. Multiplayerwise i think they managed to lead the genre to its perfection almost ten years ago with the Quake 3, original Unreal Tournament and until today my personal favorite Medal of Honor Allied Assault. From there it was all about more or less succesful attempt to recreate the quality of those games - but for me personally, aside Call of Duty none succeeded. Even with better graphics i do not find newer games as fun as this trio. But again i surely did not play every single FPS, respectively not multiplayer.

When it comes to singleplayer for me it is all about story and the dense atmosphere. The games i enjoyed most in this regard were old Project IGI and in fact not quite FPS - Call of Cthulhu: Dark Corners of Earth. The Modern Warfare parts of CoD series managed to close on the quality of the former (though i still have fonder memories fo IGI, for something like Cthulhu i am still waiting. But yet again i did never play the Shock games or Deus Ex, which perhaps share similar qualities { lot of talking, passages without weapon. therefore lot of running out of danger   and unprecedented feeling of fear in a game}

In short, i do not think there is much space for evolution and the possibilities to evolve are IMHO connected to the way the game is controlled, not the game itself.

I think FPS is here to stay.   May not be improving that much right now, but it was just sooooo fun to begin with.   Nvidia's got their 3D cards coming out, and with better video and still better megabaud rates on the net, there's still more fun to be had.   With finer video resolution we might start seeing more snipers shooting from 500 yards out, and a big part of your challenge is just spotting them.    Plus now we've got 3-screen setups now, which spells peripheral vision.   Watching your 10 o'clock and 2 o'clock (and not on radar) is cool.   If reliability and baud on the internet keeps going up, I would like to start seeing some massively-multiplayer FPS.   How about some 500-on-500 capture the flag?

2-screen setup for a FPS sucks.   It's like you get the same forward-only view you had before, except now it's blown up and you get this big seam right down the middle.   It could still be made to work, though, if developers would dedicate one screen entirely to your frontward view and the other screen your radar, your ammo, your grenades, weapons on hand, health, etc..   But even that I would probably want some of that in my immediate view where I didn't have to look off to the side.

I'm sure 3-screen setups will be fairly common in about 12 months.   Just wait till the $100 video cards come out and people start keeping their spare 19" screens instead of tossing them.   It still needs some support from game developers, though.  Otherwise all you have is one big forward-only view with TWO big seams down the middle. 

Man, we do need a ninja game on PC.

As for FPS's these days I tend to look for my shoot-em-up experience in the mod world. Fallout 3 can be modded to become a decent FPS game (well, with roleplay elements of course ). For online play look no further than Battlefield 2 mod Project Realism, or if you fancy WWII action, check out Red Orchestra (mod turned standalone game). Definitely check those two out if you're sick of the run-and-gun FPS games. Project Reality has sniping across the map in some cases. You can't even see the guy if he's good. And if *you* are good, there's special satisfaction in sneaking for twenty minutes (matches often last for a couple of hours), bayonetting him and his spotter (if he's good he has a spotter buddy) and then nailing a few of his team mates with his own sniper rifle. That pisses them off real bad... 

Though you usually end up hunkering down in a building and calling in a chopper to strafe his ass.

Red Orchestra is the same thing only WWII. Forget COD series, this is for the big boys. Little boys log in, try to run-and-gun across a street and get picked off by my trusty Kar98 from so far away all I saw was a little speck moving. I never seem to get to grab a sniper kit...

It sounds like you would enjoy Project Reality then. I mean, you can pretty much expect realistic ballistics from every weapon. I had frags with assault rifles equipped with tactical scopes which would in any other game be called extreme sniping (for example I had to actually fire above the target to account for the bullet drop). One bullet usually kills, unless you got a medic around to stop your bleeding. Team play is an absolute must, however, but is actually very enjoyable because the whole mod is designed for it, there's very little ramboing going on. If you find yourself a squad which uses teamspeak, and most squads do, it can be a very cool experience.

Don't expect a gazillion frags though. You get more points for following orders than for fragging other players anyway.

Yes, they are. It's mostly the fault of the consoles. You can't have a tight, detailed shooter when your control scheme is as accurate as a drunken camel. There's only a certain number of things you can do well with a gamepad, and mindlessly blowing up everything in sight is one of them.