Since I've been gaming again I notice I quickly get bored with straight FPS gameplay. I usually only play one level and then am quick to save and quit. On the other hand hybrids like Deus Ex, Thief and Fallout New Vegas are some of my favorite games ever made. It seems odd to so love one and be so meh about the other, but maybe that's just where I'm at now?

How do your tastes for one genre impact a hybrid of it with another? Do you think LOVING New Vegas means I should at least LIKE playing F.E.A.R.? Or are they two separate things entirely? Also how many pure FPS games are still made really, outside of multiplayer? Hybrids like Far Cry seem to have taken over the market anyway, so perhaps I am far from alone.

Without going as far as genre hybridation there's the question of design features. I tend to like FPS only if they allow for some free roaming, some tactical approach from various chosen angles. Like Outlaws, Far Cry, etc. It's not exactly an RPG element, but still it's an added element (the same was as stats are an added element) without which the FPS genre easily bores me.

A bit like racing games or platformers require a particular gimmick (time manipulation, pedestrian crushing and car demolition, etc) in order to keep me interested, while the barebone pure genre is one I dislike.

So, it's another form of "purity". But it means that I won't necessarily enjoy a game that is just a part of a game I already like. So, I guess this is a more general answer to the question.

Also, while I enjoy tactical combat games, I never had any interest in tactical combat games that are just the tactical part of a RPG. Like Fallout Tactics, or Dungeon Rats. Which is a bit weird, as I might have been interested if the broader game didn't exist.

DOOM is pretty good.

Pretty much agree, while I don't mind the occasional "pure" FPS once in a while, I tend to prefer hybrids. Deus Ex (1,3,4 at least), Dishonored, the Stalker series and so on keep me entertained for a lot longer.

That said, I recently played through all Crysis games for the first time and I really liked them and the Bioshock games are some of my favourite games too. Nothing wrong with a shooter as long as there are enough features/powers to allow for a variety of play styles.

FEAR on the other hand was a really boring experience, in my opinion.

AMEN to this.

Variety of setting is big to me and the same one over and over and over can ruin any FPS for me, hybrid or not.

I think that's why the first shooter I ever really took to was Duke 3D. It had more than just the same walls and doors of Doom and Quake.

Just finished Shadow Warrior 2013, which is the first pure shooter I've played in years, and while I loved it, it wasn't good for the nerves. XD Probably going to start Crysis or Metro sometimes in the next few days.

I don't play this type of shooter (TES games are the most FPS-like games I've actually enjoyed), but I have found that I tend to prefer pure games. When you start mixing genres, you start getting the bad aspects of both genres, and I find that each genre tends to dilute the other genre.

One example is the numerous JRPG/VN hybrids that are out there (in fact, I think they're actually more common than pure JRPGs). What typically happens is that, at certain points, you need to wait before you can continue the game. It gets even worse when cutscenes are put in bad places, like right before a save point (so you have to watch the cutscene before you can quit) or right before a hard spot (like a boss) with no save in between (so if you fail you have to reload).

The other case that I have serious problems with are insta-fail stealth sections, where you effectively have to avoid invisible instant-death bullets in order to proceed. I actually consider this to be a deal-breaker; if I learn that a game has such a sequence (and there's no way to negate the difficulty or cheat past it), then I will not play it, and will de-wishlist the game if it's on my wishlist.

On the other hand: Stalker.

------

I prefer the RPG-FPS mix these days, but I also really like 'pure' FPS like Tower of Guns or even the old Battlefield 1942.

Yeah I agree. Walking down a corridor shooting people is just really boring to me now, when it wasn't during the Doom and Quake days (or even the early Medal of Honor and Call of Duty days). I guess I'm just over it and need that extra element you're talking about.

RPGs are by FAR my main video game interest, so throwing in RPG systems is a quick way to get me interested.

RPG elements make everything better IMO. Having said that, pure FPS are, well, more pure, action wise. They also tend to have better FPS mechanics and fewer bullet sponge enemies.

Except broccoli. Nothing makes broccoli better.

Yes, because RPG elements reduces gameplay to numbers and stats then kinetic skill

Depends what you understand by rpg elements, people above have mentioned Stalker...you can do quests there, have an inventory, can upgrade weapons and armour (at least in Clear Sky and Call of Pripyat), but there's no skill system. Firefights still depend on your skill as a player, not on some behind the scenes dice rolling.

Personally, I like Fallout 3 and New Vegas despite the sub-par fps mechanics. IMO the main strength of those games lies in other areas.

Unlike dtgreene, I'm rather fond of games that break up the monotony of the core game mechanics with other game mechanics every now and then. Sometimes it does feel like the big AAA titles are about to converge into one big mass of games with essentially the same features, however, which is a bit boring. But this is my outsider perspective, as I hardly ever play such games anymore.

Yeah, it might simply be a case of needing to be in the mood. All I know is I replayed all four Deus Ex games the last month or so and enjoyed it very much, while replaying FEAR is making me snooze.

Are you playing on a high difficulty setting? Because the bullet time mechanic makes FEAR rather easy most of the time. Also the game relies a lot on the scary atmosphere, which doesn't do much second time around.