Indie FPS: Is it possible? Thread

I'm a bedroom programmer. I'm considering starting work on a dream project of mine. A single player and co-op FPS game I will make mostly on my own.

There is a problem though. I haven't seen anyone manage to do this.

Just to be clear, I'm not expecting to make Battlefield 4 or Halo 3 overnight. FPS games are long projects and will be simple graphically compared to AAA games.

However, while there are a few notable exceptions such as Receiver, it's fair to say that most indie FPS games either aren't that good, or fail to materialise.

I want to know if it's realistically possible to do?

Thanks.

Sure. Doom and Quake were done by what would be considered "bedroom programmers" by today's standards.

Yes*
Can we hear more over ice cream?

TheHappyFriar wrote: Sure. Doom and Quake were done by what would be considered "bedroom programmers" by today's standards.

Umm, one of those programmers became a rocket scientist and electrical engineer because it was fun.

There's not much in the FPS genre that hasn't been done so many times already. There's plenty of options for FPS gamer probably one the most popular genres on the market and not much of demand that goes unanswered. That's why it's not really a lucrative field for indies.

You *can* make an FPS game working solo and as an indie studio. It won't be the nicest looking, the most versatile, the most open, the most fun, or most anything else shooter out there. But it's something you made. The question is whether that's enough for you to stay motivated and push hundreds and thousands of hours on the project.

I'd say it's mostly a matter of whether you've got the time and skill. You could make a game graphically comparable to some AAA titles, and you could also be capable of giving it all the bells and whistles, and great story and whatnot as well, but it really comes down to your skill. Without a AAA-size team, it'll be far harder and of course without being paid, less financially rewarding, but it's certainly doable.

I'd say keep the scope small, and don't build a FPS you will most likely end up with something that doesn't really stand out from the crowd pick an interesting idea/mechanic that you would like to see implemented in an FPS and build around that, even if the game only has one map then your mechanic will be your selling point to enable you to expand your scope.

hello im new to this site and i have a daughter and we both love pokemon i saw that there is a 3d pokemon game and i immediately downloaded and went to play it however its not working its showing up black i can hear the music. when i load up the game its working then at the top left corner it says username i type in mine and click single player then it goes black says connected music plays and thats all what do i do

You'd be better asking on the project page instead of random thread.

somonels wrote: Umm, one of those programmers became a rocket scientist and electrical engineer because it was fun.

Still had to start somewhere, and making games in his bedroom is where he got started.

I want to believe... that it is possible, and that it could be more fun than AAA FPS games. Maybe Indies will look simpler than AAAs.

Also I want pizza and ice cream

Not sure if it is relevant, based on my own experience, frankly no.
For the basic FPS you need levels, actors, other static 3D models, programming skills, textures, sounds and so on; and last but not least a simple game engine. It makes no sense to make it all by yourself.

I stopped torturing myself, so I switched to what I like to do in the first place (what I do now is irrelevant to this post). In short, if you want to make games, start with simple 2D games and gather a team for larger projects. If you just want make AAA stuff, pick the aspect(s) you are good at and join a team.

Thank you guys for all the responses. I don't really have anything to add. ^_^;; I've been reading and thinking about what's been said.

First, I want to say I've made 2D games before and messed with modding L4D and Doom, just nothing I consider release worthy. Mostly stuff between me and friends. I'm aware of the scale and amount of work involved, which is monumental.

I also want to ask about this idea of wanting to build a FPS being inherently flawed, since it's not really something I considered.

I don't want to come across as defensive or insulting, but these are the kinds of games I enjoy. I'm not a big fan of AAAs filling every game with tedious grind, serious army jargon and micro transaction DLCs (£4 for hand grenades in Payday 2), and I also don't like the indie approach of throw away gimmicks and "me too" cash grabs (want minecraft: the fps, a retro style roguelike or yet another portal clone?).

I'll admit there's nothing particular to my ideas individually that hasn't been done in some way else where, although I don't recall them being put together this way. In my mind it's different from the typical FPS fare, but that might be just me. Either way, I doubt someone else is going to this kind of game as I want it, so I'm going to have to make it myself. Plus I like FPS games and want to see what goes into making them. While I understand it won't be the "best" FPS ever made, I do think it will be lots of fun should it ever be completed.

But most important-

J_C_A wrote: Also I want pizza and ice cream

Pizza flavoured ice cream?

Well, you modded Doom, you already HAVE proof a single person could make an FPS on their own. Aliens Doom, one person, six months. Changed pretty much everything. Action Doom 2: Urban Brawl had five people (three dev's & two for audio media specificly).

So yes, there's even proof out there that a small (very small) number of people can develop an FPS on currently released tech.

Urban Brawl is one of the few indie games I've bought too (when you could), and it is an awesome game.

shadowflar3 wrote: There's not much in the FPS genre that hasn't been done so many times already.

Agreed. The FPS genre has truly been conquered, and re-worked in every way.

That isn't to say someone can't offer something original in their own FPS, but I think people feel less of a creative opportunity and so don't bother.

I personally feel the FPS to be one of the least exciting kinds of game to develop.

Edited by: MelonMason

I don't agree, but agonize over every any use of the term FPS.

Here are the technical requirements of making a FPS game:
A: first person or over the shoulder view fixed to the player position
B: asicaly
D: one.

What it usually refers to is an aesthetic and problem solving through the use of guns. Go, SabreXT, get your beak wet and break the mold. Notch did.

Edited by: somonels

No, that would be a game with a first-person perspective, not a first-person shooter. Yes, FPSs often involve the shooting of guns because of the keyword "shooter." If you're going to obsess and get upset over semantics, at least be correct.

Crypt wrote: No, that would be a game with a first-person perspective, not a first-person shooter. Yes, FPSs often involve the shooting of guns because of the keyword "shooter." If you're going to obsess and get upset over semantics, at least be correct.

A gun is an aesthetic, the function is interaction. You are taking my point and driving it back to the whore's bar where I got it from.

Over the shoulder isn't from the first person perspective. That would be a third person shooter.

But it is a shooter because the main interaction of the player is to shoot. If you don't shoot (IE you build by pressing the fire button, or sit, or talk, etc) it's not a shooter. I don't think I've seen a first person game where you don't shoot that's mainstream. Thirty Flights of Loving didn't have you shoot. I want to say Portal wasn't a shooter, but you pressed a button (mouse) and fired a gun. So it's a shooter.
Half Life 2 had to be the most pure shooter ever. You did nothing (no interaction with world) EXCEPT shoot. No buttons, no talking, no nothing.

somonels wrote: A gun is an aesthetic, the function is interaction. You are taking my point and driving it back to the whore's bar where I got it from.

There's no need to be so caustic. Especially when objectively and demonstratively incorrect.

Simply put, it's called first-person shooter for a reason. It is a shooter, and the perspective happens to be first-person. That's all. If it is not a shooter, then it is not an FPS, rather a game (of variable genre) with a first-person perspective. For example, as you gave, Minecraft. Minecraft is not a shooter, it is a sandbox. It is also first-person. Therefore it is a first-person sandbox. Penumbra, not a shooter. First-Person survival horror. Portal is arguable I guess. It's not a shooter in the tradition sense, but you technically shoot portals. (And to avoid intentional misunderstanding, no, FPS in this context doesn't stand for "first-person sandbox")

That said, I agree FPSs are getting somewhat tired. First-person perspectives are actually my favorite though, and I'd love to see some more non-FPS games using it.

Octomelon wrote:

shadowflar3 wrote: There's not much in the FPS genre that hasn't been done so many times already.

Agreed. The FPS genre has truly been conquered, and re-worked in every way.

That isn't to say someone can't offer something original in their own FPS, but I think people feel less of a creative opportunity and so don't bother.

I personally feel the FPS to be one of the least exciting kinds of game to develop.

Why is it less exciting to develop? Or are you referring to your creativity point?

As for creativity though, the idea that FPS is somehow perfected, I disagree. Mario 3 "perfected" 2D platforming, that didn't stop Braid, Limbo, Castlevania and others from existing and bring something new. Likewise, the idea that FPS being done seems, well, a bit limiting. Doom, Half Life, Unreal Tournament, Halo, CoD 4 and others have all taken the FPS genre and made substantial advancements. I don't claim to have something that good, but instead want to show that there is room to grow. Also, growth isn't 1 fixed path. Yes, FPS has grown to the point where it's hard to imagine where the spectical driven set piece FPS has left to go, but there's stuff that hasn't been explored. Serious Sam, while not revolutionary, did try to grow a FPS in a different direction. RPGs are a good example. Yes, there's lots of orcs and elves grinding levels, stats and loot hunting, but then there's stuff like Skyrim that ditches those conventions and instead goes open world with a focus on freedom. Games like ARMA and Receiver likewise go their own way.

Even if we just look at theme. Games like Payday tap into a fantasy to play out the classic moments of great heist films, but it took 15 years for someone to actually do it. So even within the "aim at man, fire gun" gameplay, there's still plenty of room to experiment imo.

Edited by: SabreXT

Once you conquer the AI hurdle, anything is possible.
Otherwise give up or make a zombie fps.

If you haven't yet, download Unity3D and start messing around with it. You'll definitely be able to make a decent FPS game, just don't try to make something too big

Sorry for being away so long.

vmenge wrote: If you haven't yet, download Unity3D and start messing around with it. You'll definitely be able to make a decent FPS game, just don't try to make something too big

Already on it.

Hey, anyone can create a FPS game, it just requires skills, time and dedication. Sometime not very high skills is required at all really, but what makes it all worth while is your plan towards building that Dream Game. That what you need to focus on as since you know programming already it not hard to pick up unity, cry engine, unreal engine and dive into codes and make gameplay. SO if you can dedicate yourself to a project then yea by all means Get started

As for starting You should get a game design plan, From what I've seen that most decent FPS takes about 4-6 month depending on how big game is, quality, and team size. So i might suggest to build a prototype which normally can take you 1 month - 2 month tops, keep it simple, example:

Took there guys about a week to get the networking up as far i can remember, and you can see they did no graphic work, just build a simple geometry style level and that what the internal prototype is being test with, i do build the public alpha will have a better looking environment, but if not i still would enjoy this environment very much.

So YES you can make your Dream FPS game, but it will require tons of time crunching even a days without sleep. As for graphic, i wouldn't work so much as you can easily save up and out source some modular assets. If you use unity, you have its store to shop around in, if u use unreal engine 4 (what i using to build my RPG Game) it has a fairly new market store but by time you finish the coding prototype version of game it should have alot more stuff.

I would recommend UE 4 because u can code in C++ and level designing and that stuff is mad easy. In just 1 week i build an entire AAA quality Level from just playing with post process effect and engine free assets. So here is your basic plan map out:

1. Research engine you can use to build your game. (i would say avoid cry engine as its powerful but super complicated, you sit and pull you hair out 1 by 1)
2. Plan out a simple prototype that shows some basic and advance stuff. (Example my rpg prototype will focus on 1 class combat and movement system so i focusing on combat movements, spells, basic movement, etc)
3. Work on prototype.

As you work on project you will know where to go from there.

Hope this help.