Has the FPS genre actually truly developed any further in gaming since the original Doom, Quake or Wolfenstein?

Excluding the graphics, several things have changed over the years. Certain pioneering games, eg Call of Duty, Halo, introduced some changes that improved on the standard forms of game play and were quickly adopted by other developers. While I do not label these as advances really, I do feel that there are a few very important changes that have occurred since the games mentioned above.

Recharging Health Meter - Very common feature in modern FPS games. Doom, Wolfenstein and Quake all used collectable health packs. Most games these days simply no longer use them. The exceptions, often still use some form of recharging defensive measure or try to combine the two. Examples would be Halo's Master Chief's recharging shield, but his actual health could only be restored with med packs. Another is Rage, where the player has a recharging health meter but the player can also used bandages to instantly recharge their health to full.

Cover Based Combat - Most FPS games today provide the player with a plethora of useful waist high walls in most of their level maps. These were probably included to give the player plenty of places where they could duck and hide while their health meter recharges. Sometimes this works well, but occasionally can be over done and at times seem a little silly. Crysis 2 has some moments like this.

Limited carrying capacity - Classic FPS games like Doom or Half Life allow the player to carry hundreds of rounds of ammunition, scores of grenades and other devices, 10 plus weapons and usually a suit of heavy armour. However when Halo was released, suddenly this began to seem a little silly. The Master Chief could carry 2 guns and 4 grenades and that was it. Later games began to copy this more realistic style of inventory use, examples include Call of Duty, Duke Nukem Forever, Metro 2033.

So obviously FPS games have improved since the early days, however I feel that 90% of the improvements have been graphically focused. There is no doubt that modern shooters look amazing, have great atmospheres and can be truly scary. However they usually use extremely clichéd settings, such as the post apocalyptic wasteland (Borderlands, RAGE, Fallout, Brink, Metro 2033, Stalker, the list goes on) or World War 2 (Medal of Honour, Call of Duty etc). They are also often too short (usually less than 8 hours) and too easy for anyone remotely familiar with the genre. So a player will pay €50 - €60 for a game they will finish in 2 / 3 days. While it might have been visually impressive, the predictable plots, unchallenging game play and over used settings usually result in an overall lackluster experience (Crysis 2 for me).

Truly innovative and original FPS games are still rare but do appear (Mirrors Edge, Amnesia Dark Decent). But right now I feel the majority of modern shooters speak of a stagnant genre with a future of remaking classic games and churning out the same old crap to try to make as much money as possible. EA and Activision are the worst offenders. I feel we will have to wait until a brave indie developer comes out with something truly awesome before we see any actual advances in the FPS genre.