First Person Shoters then and now

[Yora]

I think we all have gone this way... :smallbiggrin:

If Quake was done today (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W1ZtBCpo0eU&feature=player_embedded)

I don't think it's that bad, but it's not entirely untrue either. :smallbiggrin:

[Spiryt]

Ha, that was pretty funny.

With all the changes you always gain some, loose some.

General simplification for the sake of simplification is definitely one thing I don't exactly get.

[Hazzardevil]

I think we all have gone this way... :smallbiggrin:

If Quake was done today (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W1ZtBCpo0eU&feature=player_embedded)

I don't think it's that bad, but it's not entirely untrue either. :smallbiggrin:

Well,
Call of Duty simply seels itself through the title, whoever makes it doesn't need quality anymore to sell it.

Battlefield 3, that is a good game that has the virtue of not having one shoved out after a year to the public as a brand not well known. (I had no idea there was a shooter called Battlefield until a year ago when a friend bought it at a store along with another random shooter.)

Medal of Honor will likely make a loss on the new game due to the "small child mind-warping properties" thus blocking it off from most of the western world. Shame really, Medal of Honor has made a lot of good shooters over time.

[tensai_oni]

What a bad video. Modern FPSes suck but not for reasons this video shows. They are bad because they have a "real is brown" aesthetic with a lot of generic bulky marines hiding behind cover and being glued to your aiming crosshair. And even then, there are exceptions, and there were a lot of bad FPSes back in the day too. Just nobody remembers them.

Instead, we get generic "games in my day were hard, now it's all easy mode" grognard whining. The games didn't get easier, you simply got better. And the video at the end that shows how you "played" Quake 1? Nobody played it like that. It wasn't even a speedrun. It was just showing off.

[Yora]

When it comes to RPGs, I am actually a huge fan of the many simplefications we have seen in recent years. I'm no longer having fun spending 20 minutes in the 6 inventories of my characters to switch items around that I get the most cash when I get to the next store while still keeping any character from getting overloaded. Neither do I like checking 25 houses for the one irrelevant character to say "here is the amulet that some random stranger on the road gave me for you two weeks ago".

I had fun with that 12 years ago, but now I just can not get myself to play such games again. Even though they are really great.

About shoters I am unsure, I havn't played online matches for years, and the last thing I played a lot was Quake Live. Singleplayer I only played Half-Life and Jedi Knight, which really were not that much different to how shoters are today. Only more primitive. :smallbiggrin:

[Fargazer]

Battlefield 3, that is a good game that has the virtue of not having one shoved out after a year to the public as a brand not well known. (I had no idea there was a shooter called Battlefield until a year ago when a friend bought it at a store along with another random shooter.)

Honestly this statement surprises me. Obviously we've had pretty different experiences, but in the many places I've been, I've never met anyone who was familiar with first-person-shooters who wasn't at least aware of the Battlefield series. Games that don't recieve at least a fair amount of popularity don't generate sequels, and Battlefield had been a pretty respected brand for a long time.

You may have noticed that its Battlefield 3, a sequel to a sequel. Between Battlefield 1942, Battlefield Vietnam, Battlefield 2, Battlefield 2142, Battlefield 1943, Battlefield Bad Company 1 + 2, and a bunch of expansion packs for various games in the series, I really don't understand how they justify calling it Battlefield 3. Note that all of these have come out since 2002, not quite a yearly basis, but still a signifigant number of games. Its certainly not obscure.

On topic: It looks like the person who made this video equates the FPS genre with running around and rocket jumping to insane stunts. I've never seen them at the same thing at all. At its basest parts, the FPS genre is about running around and shooting things from a first person perspective. I've never really seen how that somehow HAS to also involve doing crazy jumps by shooting yourself with rockets and crazy reflexes, assuming you went through the trouble of mapping out the level first.

Its a different taste really. Maybe I'm wrong, but I can't see a game entirely based around doing those sorts of wierd rocket-jumping wackiness becoming mainstream. FPS developers took their games in a direction they thought would be more fun for everyone, and in the end they took the route of actually make their games FPS's. Nothing wrong with that. Anyone can exaggerate the faults of something and say, "Look, this sucks now." It would be just as easy to create a video of someone trying to rocket jump all over the place, but falling in lava over and over again and having to start over.

[tensai_oni]

Its a different taste really. Maybe I'm wrong, but I can't see a game entirely based around doing those sorts of wierd rocket-jumping wackiness becoming mainstream. FPS developers took their games in a direction they thought would be more fun for everyone, and in the end they took the route of actually make their games FPS's. Nothing wrong with that. Anyone can exaggerate the faults of something and say, "Look, this sucks now." It would be just as easy to create a video of someone trying to rocket jump all over the place, but falling in lava over and over again and having to start over.

I do not disagree with your opinion, I just want to say that rocket jumps still exist as a gameplay element. Team Fortress 2 has them for three classes, two of which don't even use rocket launchers. And what you can achieve with them looks very spectacular both from first person perspective and for observers.

This video first makes an exaggerated construct of what its author thinks today's FPSes are like, and then argues against this construct rather than against actual FPSes. This is the very definition of strawman.

[psilontech]

http://furiousfanboys.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/11/BITmX.jpg

:smalltongue:

[Occasional Sage]

http://furiousfanboys.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/11/BITmX.jpg

:smalltongue:

Totally unfair to modern FPSs! You're making the path much twistier than it really is....

[Grif]

Totally unfair to modern FPSs! You're making the path much twistier than it really is....

It's quite true you know. :smalltongue:

(Except for Borderlands, but that's because it had a distinct lack of cutscenes.)

[Djinn_in_Tonic]

Totally unfair to modern FPSs! You're making the path much twistier than it really is....

Unfair to modern FPSs indeed. It takes a lot of work to build a level, and, these days, a game also has to look good. A lot of those really complex level games had fairly crappy graphics by today's standards, and expanding the graphics to make a much larger and still graphically excellent level takes time and money. The more time and money put into the game, the less profitable the end product. So the game companies (even those that would like to make more complicated games) are sort of caught between a rock and a hard place: better gameplay with worse and/or repetitive graphics, or simpler maps and game progression with more "shiny bits."

[warty goblin]

Unfair to modern FPSs indeed. It takes a lot of work to build a level, and, these days, a game also has to look good. A lot of those really complex level games had fairly crappy graphics by today's standards, and expanding the graphics to make a much larger and still graphically excellent level takes time and money. The more time and money put into the game, the less profitable the end product. So the game companies (even those that would like to make more complicated games) are sort of caught between a rock and a hard place: better gameplay with worse and/or repetitive graphics, or simpler maps and game progression with more "shiny bits."
I'm not sure I agree with this. There are a non-negligable number of quite open shooters with major graphical chops released in the last half-decade. All three STALKERs, Far Cry 2, Crysis+Warhead and to a slightly lesser extent Crysis 2 all have lots of wide open explorable spaces, enormous levels and are graphically between good and outstanding. If you expand your horizons to include third person open world action games the number of graphically impressive open-environment games increases drastically as well.

And weirdly enough, many of us do not find wandering around a convoluted maze looking for the red key to be anything like fun. I play FPS games to shoot things in the face, not to try to remember if the exit is three lefts then a right, or three rights then a left. That said trying to figure where one is supposed to go without being murdered by the lethal invisible walls that seem to show up disturbingly often anymore isn't much better. I've got nothing against corridors and the shooting of things within them, but I'd rather they were reasonably wide and had sensible boundaries to them.

[Djinn_in_Tonic]

I'm not sure I agree with this. There are a non-negligable number of quite open shooters with major graphical chops released in the last half-decade. All three STALKERs, Far Cry 2, Crysis+Warhead and to a slightly lesser extent Crysis 2 all have lots of wide open explorable spaces, enormous levels and are graphically between good and outstanding. If you expand your horizons to include third person open world action games the number of graphically impressive open-environment games increases drastically as well.

And I promise you the design times and expenses that went into doing that were much higher than if they had done it differently, and/or use a lot of repeated geometry. 3D modelling takes a boatload of time, and isn't cheap.

[Psyren]

So Doom, Duke 3D et al. were better because you had to go keycard hunting on every level? Screw that.

@ "Brown FPS": Crysis, that is all.

[MCerberus]

http://furiousfanboys.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/11/BITmX.jpg

:smalltongue:

Are you sure that's not RPG dungeon design?
Looking at you, Warcraft.
loot tubes.

[Trixie]

Are you sure that's not RPG dungeon design?

Actually, you reminded me of a certain game map... :smallamused:


FF XIII map design in full glory:

http://img695.imageshack.us/img695/9213/finalfantasyxiiiextremeh.jpg

[Mando Knight]

@ "Brown FPS": Crysis, that is all.

Halo, as well. There are a few brown levels, but in order to get the "Real Is Brown" effect, you need to go into the Forge (the map editor, for the uninitiated) and turn on the (probably named with tongue in cheek) "Realistic" effect. Covenant ships would have you believe that real is purple and blue.

[MCerberus]

Personal opinion: Heroes of Stalingrad is the only game to pull off 'real is brown' well in my book.

[GolemsVoice]

Dull colours are by no means a recent invention in shooters. Let's have a look at three classic shooters!

http://dl.openhandhelds.org/caanoo/screenshots/quake1.gif
They're really rocking that.... grey, and that... brown there.

http://spieleprogramme.de/SpieleProgramme.de/upload/screenshot2135-2.jpg
Avert your eyes, for there's a rainbow of... greenish brown and grey!

http://www.hthiele.de/hl-1.jpg
Damn that fancy brown and grey.

[Starwulf]

So Doom, Duke 3D et al. were better because you had to go keycard hunting on every level? Screw that.

@ "Brown FPS": Crysis, that is all.

I'd argue that Doom, Duke Nukem, and others of that ilk, aren't true FPS in any sense of the word. More like shoot-em-ups with a decent emphasis on Puzzle.

[Spartacus]

I'd argue that Doom, Duke Nukem, and others of that ilk, aren't true FPS in any sense of the word. More like shoot-em-ups with a decent emphasis on Puzzle.

I don't think you can possibly say that they are not FPS games. They certainly aren't the same as modern FPS games, but they are first person, and the primary interaction with the game is shooting things. That kinda makes them first person shooters.

[GolemsVoice]

If they aren't, then what is? If we discount those, what's left in this period? Half Life, and maybe the original Battlefield 1942, which isn't exactly a rainbow either. But maybe I'm missing some.

[Grif]

I'd argue that Doom, Duke Nukem, and others of that ilk, aren't true FPS in any sense of the word. More like shoot-em-ups with a decent emphasis on Puzzle.

How could games that had a strong emphasis on YOU killing baddies in large amounts not be classified as shooters? :smallconfused: I mean, yes, keycard hunting were a large part of the game, but I found the maps more or less railroaded you towards where you need to go anyway. (With several notable exception, particularly in DooM. *shudder* The Chasm.)

[Starwulf]

I'd classify Doom and Duke Nuke'em as more akin to morrowind, or Thief, or Gothic. First person games, but in the case of Doom and Duke, they just happen to have guns as the default weapon, but they also have enough other elements to stop them from really being true FPS, which completely revolve around "Kill this person, or this group of people". As has been pointed out before, in FPS, you don't go around hunting keycards, or even exits really(sometimes, like if you need to be helicoptered out of an area or something), you have to hunt down the enemy, and kill them. The Enemies in Doom and Duke more struck me as merely being obstacles to stop you from getting to the end of the level, much like Goombas and Turtles in Mario attempted to stop you from reaching the flag at the end of the level.

[Trazoi]

I'd argue that Doom, Duke Nukem, and others of that ilk, aren't true FPS in any sense of the word. More like shoot-em-ups with a decent emphasis on Puzzle.
Now I'm curious as to what you consider the list of true FPSes are, if a game like Doom is too puzzley to qualify.

[Starwulf]

Now I'm curious as to what you consider the list of true FPSes are, if a game like Doom is too puzzley to qualify.

Read my above post, but if I made it to obtuse to figure out(which I often do, something I'm prone to), here it is: A FPS is a game where the sole objective is to eliminate every enemy on the map, or to eliminate a certain target, or accomplish a specific objective(like rescue the hostages, or plant the bomb), and that is all it is, just in different forms throughout the game. Duke Nukem and Doom, you didn't have to kill any particular enemy on the map, unless you actually encountered them(at least until boss battles that is). The enemies were there as obstacles to get past, not necessarily kill. The real objective was to get to the end of the level, and exit the level via the elevator or door, or teleportation portal, or what have you.

[Avilan the Grey]

I'd argue that Doom, Duke Nukem, and others of that ilk, aren't true FPS in any sense of the word. More like shoot-em-ups with a decent emphasis on Puzzle.

Sorry, but to say that DOOM isn't a FPS is like saying that Baldur's Gate isn't and RPG...

[Grif]

Read my above post, but if I made it to obtuse to figure out(which I often do, something I'm prone to), here it is: A FPS is a game where the sole objective is to eliminate every enemy on the map, or to eliminate a certain target, or accomplish a specific objective(like rescue the hostages, or plant the bomb), and that is all it is, just in different forms throughout the game. Duke Nukem and Doom, you didn't have to kill any particular enemy on the map, unless you actually encountered them(at least until boss battles that is). The enemies were there as obstacles to get past, not necessarily kill. The real objective was to get to the end of the level, and exit the level via the elevator or door, or teleportation portal, or what have you.

You do realise most FPS also do this right? :smallconfused:

Unless you're saying Half-Life is now not an FPS, because technically, you don't need to kill enemies to get to the other end of the level, because you totally can.

[Trazoi]

I meant I'm curious as to what games are out there that are so pure about shooting stuff that they qualify under the definition of being solely about shooting things, because I think it would be fairly small. Although you've expanded your definition with your reply.


A FPS is a game where the sole objective is to eliminate every enemy on the map, or to eliminate a certain target, or accomplish a specific objective(like rescue the hostages, or plant the bomb), and that is all it is, just in different forms throughout the game.
It looks like you're trying to limit the definition to multiplayer team FPSes like Counterstrike and Team Fortress, however by that definition the Doom-like games qualify. They're all about achieving a specific objective - get to the end of the level, press the button.

The usual accepted definition of FPSes is a game in first person perspective that involves a large amount of shooter based gameplay. There can be some debate about whether games like Deus Ex apply, but rarely about Wolfenstein 3D and Doom. Mostly because they were the games that defined the genre, to the point where back in the day everything in first person used to be called Doom clones, even if it was nothing of the sort like Magic Carpet.

[Starwulf]

I meant I'm curious as to what games are out there that are so pure about shooting stuff that they qualify under the definition of being solely about shooting things, because I think it would be fairly small. Although you've expanded your definition with your reply.


It looks like you're trying to limit the definition to multiplayer team FPSes like Counterstrike and Team Fortress, however by that definition the Doom-like games qualify. They're all about achieving a specific objective - get to the end of the level, press the button.

The usual accepted definition of FPSes is a game in first person perspective that involves a large amount of shooter based gameplay. There can be some debate about whether games like Deus Ex apply, but rarely about Wolfenstein 3D and Doom. Mostly because they were the games that defined the genre, to the point where back in the day everything in first person used to be called Doom clones, even if it was nothing of the sort like Magic Carpet.

To be honest, it's probably just me. I just don't see them as shooters, due to the aforementioned reasons, and the fact that they just feel so confined. An FPS to me is CoD, or Battlefield, or something of that sort. IE: Games I can't stand, whatsoever. On the other hand, I played the hell out of Doom, and Wolfenstein, and Duke Nukem, and even some of the original Quake. I even enjoyed Goldeneye 64, which is precisely the last shooter game that came out that I enjoyed. Might be because my tastes changed, or just because the genre changed to what it is now, but whatever the reason, I don't consider those older games true FPS.

[Spartacus]

I will say that modern FPS games often seem to be a different genre than older ones, but anyone who says that DOOM isn't a true FPS cannot be more wrong, in my eyes.

[Treayn]

I think one of the problems with modern FPS'es is the lack of variety. It's mostly "Realistic" military shooters that dominate the market.

Problem is, you can only do so much with realism and a gun.

Aside from TF2, I can't name any recent, good, Quake-like shooters.

(Keep in mind I'm talking multiplayer-wise. Nowadays I look more to immersion in singleplayer games, like the original Bioshock.)

[Starwulf]

I will say that modern FPS games often seem to be a different genre than older ones, but anyone who says that DOOM isn't a true FPS cannot be more wrong, in my eyes.

If it's a different genre, by your own words, how can it still be considered an FPS? Can't it be considered something else, a hybrid of sorts? A Shooter/Puzzler combo? Because that's what it reminds me of the most. I won't deny at all it's a Shooter, but I don't see it as strictly FPS.

[Trazoi]

If it's a different genre, by your own words, how can it still be considered an FPS? Can't it be considered something else, a hybrid of sorts? A Shooter/Puzzler combo? Because that's what it reminds me of the most. I won't deny at all it's a Shooter, but I don't see it as strictly FPS.
We must have been playing a different Doom. Finding keycards and buttons to open doors are puzzles only in the broadest, ludological terms. :smalltongue:

Doom and Wolf3D are classic arcade FPSes. The modern FPSes tend towards realistic warfare sims, although there's plenty of exceptions. They're all FPSes IMO if they're games in a first person perspective that revolve fundamentally around shooting things - just in different sub-genres.

[Starwulf]

We must have been playing a different Doom. Finding keycards and buttons to open doors are puzzles only in the broadest, ludological terms. :smalltongue:

Doom and Wolf3D are classic arcade FPSes. The modern FPSes tend towards realistic warfare sims, although there's plenty of exceptions. They're all FPSes IMO if they're games in a first person perspective that revolve fundamentally around shooting things - just in different sub-genres.

lol, that may be true now-a-days, but back then, those were genuinely considered puzzles. Albeit they were absurdly easy, but still considered puzzles. Not by todays standards no, and even back then, other games had far more difficult puzzles, but finding a switch for a door, or a keycard, was still considered a puzzle at the time. now-a-days, that's more considered "fetch quest" then anything.

[Worira]

Saying Doom isn't an FPS is like saying Super Mario Brothers isn't a platformer.

[Trazoi]

lol, that may be true now-a-days, but back then, those were genuinely considered puzzles.
I was a graphical adventure game player, so "find the red keycard" barely rated a blip on the puzzle meter. :smalltongue:

With the id games, the keys seemed to be staple throughout all of their games. Commander Keen had keygems, Wolf3D had gold and silver keys, and Doom had the keycards. They liked designing levels around locked doors and getting the player on a key hunt.

[Mx.Silver]

I'd argue that Doom, Duke Nukem, and others of that ilk, aren't true FPS in any sense of the word. More like shoot-em-ups with a decent emphasis on Puzzle.

Let me get this straight: you are trying to say that games like Wolfenstein 3D and Doom, the games that essentially invented the FPS genre, should not in fact, be considered FPS games "in any sense of the word". This is the thesis you have chosen for this discussion: that the games that codified the FPS genre, the games without which the genre would not exist, are not FPS games.
Now it would seem to me that if your definition for a genre excludes the works that are basically created said genre in the first place then what you have is a bad definition. It'd be like if someone defined the fantasy genre in such a way as to exclude Lord of the Rings, or defined the Heavy Metal genre in such a way as to exclude Black Sabbath. Yet, this is what you're arguing, on the basis that current FPS games tend to involve fewer puzzle elements and have less emphasis on exploration (Half-Life would seem to present a problem here, but I'll assume don't consider it a 'true FPS' either).

That alone is patently not enough to claim that they aren't the same genre, for the simple reason that gameplay variations can happily exist between games that are nonetheless in the same genre. Compare, say, Baldur's Gate with Might and Magic 6, two distinctly different games that are both nonetheless in the same genre (RPG). The point being that what counts in terms of genre-classification is that both games share the same fundamental focus in gameplay; which in the case of first person-shooters means that the gameplay primarily revolves around shooting things and is played in a first person perspective - under which definition Doom indisputably qualifies.

Presumably this is why you're try to argue that Doom is in a fact a hybrid puzzle game because at some points you have to find keys to open doors. It's already been pointed-out that this barely counts as a puzzle (indeed by that logic you'd have to classify pretty much all TBS games with a single-player element as puzzle games, and you could make a very strong case for doing the same with 'Metroidvania' games), which brings us to this:


lol, that may be true now-a-days, but back then, those were genuinely considered puzzles. Albeit they were absurdly easy, but still considered puzzles. Not by todays standards no, and even back then, other games had far more difficult puzzles, but finding a switch for a door, or a keycard, was still considered a puzzle at the time. now-a-days, that's more considered "fetch quest" then anything.
"Scavenger hunt" if you want to be technical. Nor is it the case that these terms did not exist by 1993, (note that adventure games and RPGs - two genres which use them a lot - had already existed for years before then). In fact, even then they're status as 'genuine puzzles' was very shaky specifically because they are overcome by exploring the game-world not by solving an actual puzzle via brainpower. There is a reason scavenger hunts and fetch quests are seldom, if ever, included in pure puzzle games (in the case they are, they're more often than not used as motivation to solve the puzzles said game will through at you). And again, puzzle games were fairly well-established at this point in time and nobody considered putting Doom in that category, even partially.
Even if we are to grant that it does constitute a puzzle that is still not enough to classify it as hybrid-puzzle game for the simple reason that said scavenger hunts are not a fundamental gameplay mechanic. Just including some puzzle elements in a game is not enough to put it into the puzzle game category, it has to be a fundamental part of the gameplay. To use an example, quite a few modern action games (e.g. Dante's Inferno) allow you to upgrade your character's abilities - an RPG element. They are not generally considered RPGs, hybrid or otherwise.



A FPS is a game where the sole objective is to eliminate every enemy on the map, or to eliminate a certain target, or accomplish a specific objective(like rescue the hostages, or plant the bomb), and that is all it is, just in different forms throughout the game. Duke Nukem and Doom, you didn't have to kill any particular enemy on the map, unless you actually encountered them(at least until boss battles that is). The enemies were there as obstacles to get past, not necessarily kill. The real objective was to get to the end of the level, and exit the level via the elevator or door, or teleportation portal, or what have you.
Now, it should be blatantly obvious to anyone that trying to define a videogame genre solely by end-goal without any reference to game mechanics is never going to work. By this definition, Fire Emblem is a series of FPS games, as is Starcraft, Myth, Advance Wars, Ground Control and god knows how many other TBS and RTS games.
Leaving that aside, the goals 'reach the exit' and 'plant a bomb' both treat enemies as obstacle in exactly the same way. I mean, I'm guessing you Consider CoD: Modern Warfare 2 an FPS, but its 'No Russian' mission (which can be completed without firing a single shot) seems to deem it not an FPS under your definition. Hell, it doesn't even exclude all the games you it want to exclude as the end goal of Duke Nukem 3D is to kill the leader of the alien fleet and destroy the invasion force (by shooting them). Wolfenstein 3D is back in as well, due to the goal of the game being to kill Hitler.

[Mando Knight]

Commander Keen had keygems,

Speaking of, the Universe has been Toast since '92. We got Nukem Forever, where's my Commander Keen?

Six words, people.

Pogo Stick.

Bean with Bacon Megarocket.

[Starwulf]

Let me get this straight: you are trying to say that games like Wolfenstein 3D and Doom, the games that essentially invented the FPS genre, should not in fact, be considered FPS games "in any sense of the word". This is the thesis you have chosen for this discussion: that the games that codified the FPS genre, the games without which the genre would not exist, are not FPS games.
Now it would seem to me that if your definition for a genre excludes the works that are basically created said genre in the first place then what you have is a bad definition. It'd be like if someone defined the fantasy genre in such a way as to exclude Lord of the Rings, or defined the Heavy Metal genre in such a way as to exclude Black Sabbath. Yet, this is what you're arguing, on the basis that current FPS games tend to involve fewer puzzle elements and have less emphasis on exploration (Half-Life would seem to present a problem here, but I'll assume don't consider it a 'true FPS' either).

That alone is patently not enough to claim that they aren't the same genre, for the simple reason that gameplay variations can happily exist between games that are nonetheless in the same genre. Compare, say, Baldur's Gate with Might and Magic 6, two distinctly different games that are both nonetheless in the same genre (RPG). The point being that what counts in terms of genre-classification is that both games share the same fundamental focus in gameplay; which in the case of first person-shooters means that the gameplay primarily revolves around shooting things and is played in a first person perspective - under which definition Doom indisputably qualifies.

Presumably this is why you're try to argue that Doom is in a fact a hybrid puzzle game because at some points you have to find keys to open doors. It's already been pointed-out that this barely counts as a puzzle (indeed by that logic you'd have to classify pretty much all TBS games with a single-player element as puzzle games, and you could make a very strong case for doing the same with 'Metroidvania' games), which brings us to this:

"Scavenger hunt" if you want to be technical. Nor is it the case that these terms did not exist by 1993, (note that adventure games and RPGs - two genres which use them a lot - had already existed for years before then). In fact, even then they're status as 'genuine puzzles' was very shaky specifically because they are overcome by exploring the game-world not by solving an actual puzzle via brainpower. There is a reason scavenger hunts and fetch quests are seldom, if ever, included in pure puzzle games (in the case they are, they're more often than not used as motivation to solve the puzzles said game will through at you). And again, puzzle games were fairly well-established at this point in time and nobody considered putting Doom in that category, even partially.
Even if we are to grant that it does constitute a puzzle that is still not enough to classify it as hybrid-puzzle game for the simple reason that said scavenger hunts are not a fundamental gameplay mechanic. Just including some puzzle elements in a game is not enough to put it into the puzzle game category, it has to be a fundamental part of the gameplay. To use an example, quite a few modern action games (e.g. Dante's Inferno) allow you to upgrade your character's abilities - an RPG element. They are not generally considered RPGs, hybrid or otherwise.



Now, it should be blatantly obvious to anyone that trying to define a videogame genre solely by end-goal without any reference to game mechanics is never going to work. By this definition, Fire Emblem is a series of FPS games, as is Starcraft, Myth, Advance Wars, Ground Control and god knows how many other TBS and RTS games.
Leaving that aside, the goals 'reach the exit' and 'plant a bomb' both treat enemies as obstacle in exactly the same way. I mean, I'm guessing you Consider CoD: Modern Warfare 2 an FPS, but its 'No Russian' mission (which can be completed without firing a single shot) seems to deem it not an FPS under your definition. Hell, it doesn't even exclude all the games you it want to exclude as the end goal of Duke Nukem 3D is to kill the leader of the alien fleet and destroy the invasion force (by shooting them). Wolfenstein 3D is back in as well, due to the goal of the game being to kill Hitler.

Wow, would it have troubled you to much for a TL:DR? That is one MASSIVE post, and I can't say I'm looking forward to sifting through the entire thing. I'll try anyways though.

First: As I've already said(but I guess you skipped this) is just that they don't feel like FPS to me. I'm not denying they are shooters, they are, they are, as many have said, the originators. I just don't feel they are solely Shooters, not as defined by the industry standard today. They are more of a hybrid, at least in my mind.

next: I've never played Half-Life. I'm not sure if you missed it, but I DETEST FPS games, and anything of their Ilk. I haven't even played borderlands because it borders to much on an FPS for me, despite the massive amount of customization it offers. The only Exception is Deus ex, and that's solely because, and I don't care what ANYONE says here, Deus ex is NOT an FPS. It's almost literally the perfect hybrid of RPG and Shootes, and perhaps one of the greatest games of all time because of it. So, I can't comment on whether or not Half-Life is "an FPS" by my standard, because it's close enough that I've never played it, nor will I ever play it. It's the one genre of video game I just don't enjoy.

everything else: I don't really have a comment on, as it appears to just be a sort of rant explaining to me why my opinion is inherently flawed, which I have already admitted is 99% likely the case here. But, it's me, it's my opinion. You're not going change it. I just threw it out there on spur of the moment. Wishing I hadn't now, since no-one else seems to share it, which is fine, I'll admit I'm wrong, but inside my head, they still don't feel like FPS to me. They are something different. If the FPS genre still went by their standards today, I'd still be happily playing them. As is, I want to smack the hell out of my best friend every time he swoons over the newest Call of Duty, or Gears of War, or Halo, or Battlefield. I want to scream at him "Don't you remember the glory days of Goldeneye 64? Of Doom and Quake? Of wolfenstein, arguably the progenitor of ALL FPS games? How can you stomach this trite crap that is continuously thrown at you with the exact same thing year after year, barely changing anything, just putting it in a new, prettier box?!?!"

Ok, rant over. LOL. TL:DR I've already, in a previous post, admitted that I'm pretty much horribly wrong, that it's just my own twisted view that they aren't true FPS games(or, I could twist that around, and argue that todays games aren't true FPS games). Continue with your regularly scheduled debate on the history of FPS and what not. ^^

[Psyren]

To be honest, it's probably just me.

Glad we agree.



Aside from TF2, I can't name any recent, good, Quake-like shooters.


There are a few out there, like Brink and maybe Rage. But over time RPG elements have crept in and diluted the run-and-gun somewhat.

[GolemsVoice]

Space Marine, which I'm currently playing, manages to be very fun though offering next to no variety. I'm not sure yet how it does this.

[Avilan the Grey]

If it's a different genre, by your own words, how can it still be considered an FPS? Can't it be considered something else, a hybrid of sorts? A Shooter/Puzzler combo? Because that's what it reminds me of the most. I won't deny at all it's a Shooter, but I don't see it as strictly FPS.

The point is that it's the other way around; DOOM / Quake etc are the pure FPS games; modern "FPS" games have move away from that; it's not the other way around.

[GolemsVoice]

If it's a different genre, by your own words, how can it still be considered an FPS? Can't it be considered something else, a hybrid of sorts? A Shooter/Puzzler combo? Because that's what it reminds me of the most. I won't deny at all it's a Shooter, but I don't see it as strictly FPS.

Also, if you say it's a shooter, that's the S in FPS. Considering that these games are also in the first person, I don't know where you're going there.

[Knaight]

http://furiousfanboys.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/11/BITmX.jpg

:smalltongue:

Have some modern maps - and note that most of these have heavy use of 3d, and multiple floors within rooms and similar, and many are tiny subsets of larger maps. Granted, this is the Metroid Prime series, which might be a bit better than most as far as map variety goes.
http://jansenprice.com/metroid/met5_mp/mp_map_haffner.gif
http://metroid.retropixel.net/mprime2/metroidprime2_map_light_sanctuary.jpg
http://metroid.retropixel.net/news/metroidprime3_maps.gif

[Drascin]

Have some modern maps - and note that most of these have heavy use of 3d, and multiple floors within rooms and similar, and many are tiny subsets of larger maps. Granted, this is the Metroid Prime series, which might be a bit better than most as far as map variety goes.

Metroid Prime, however, is not quite what you'd call a normal FPS. Hell, I'm not sure you could call it an FPS in the sense of "first person game that focuses primarily on shooting dudes" - first and foremost it's a Metroid game, and the "wait, where the **** was I going again?" feeling is a part and parcel of the gameplay that the fans expect (Fusion got a lot of flak for being more linear despite being actually being a pretty decent game). In Metroid, especially in Prime 1, the run-and-gun is kind of incidental to the exploration - you could take most of the enemies out from Prime 1 and the game wouldn't really suffer all that much. The maps and the exploring of the nooks and crannies thereof are the whole point of the thing. Of course they'd be well-designed! :smallbiggrin:

[Psyren]

I find it especially bemusing that keycard hunting can be considered "puzzles." Portal is a FP-Puzzler. Half-Life 2 had puzzles. Duke 3D had wank. (Almost literally in some levels.)

[Trixie]

Speaking of, the Universe has been Toast since '92. We got Nukem Forever, where's my Commander Keen?

Six words, people.

Pogo Stick.

Bean with Bacon Megarocket.

Ever seen level 32 in Doom II? :smallamused::smalltongue:

[Trazoi]

Ever seen level 32 in Doom II? :smallamused::smalltongue:
Nuh-uh. Dopefish lives! (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dopefish)

[Airk]

First: As I've already said(but I guess you skipped this) is just that they don't feel like FPS to me. I'm not denying they are shooters, they are, they are, as many have said, the originators. I just don't feel they are solely Shooters, not as defined by the industry standard today. They are more of a hybrid, at least in my mind.

A hybrid of what and what? There are no games that are strictly walking around a map and looking for keys, there's nothing to hybridize here. You just have TOO NARROW a definition. Period. That's not a question of "opinion"



next: I've never played Half-Life. I'm not sure if you missed it, but I DETEST FPS games, and anything of their Ilk.

But you obviously DON'T. You've just decided to categorize FPS games you like as "not FPS games" even though they are, as if you need some sort of arbitrary dividing line.


I haven't even played borderlands because it borders to much on an FPS for me, despite the massive amount of customization it offers.

But how do you -know- this, since A) You haven't played it and B) You don't have a working definition that can clearly separate the games you like from the ones you don't?


So, I can't comment on whether or not Half-Life is "an FPS" by my standard, because it's close enough that I've never played it, nor will I ever play it.

See above.


everything else: I don't really have a comment on, as it appears to just be a sort of rant explaining to me why my opinion is inherently flawed, which I have already admitted is 99% likely the case here.

This is twice wrong. First, it's not a rant, second, he's not talking about your subjective opinion. He's talking about the entirely objective terms you are trying, incorrectly, to use to define a term that already has a well accepted meaning that you, for some inexplicable reason, choose not to accept.

He's not trying to change your opinion, save from the perspective of getting you admit that the "facts" you are using as part of your "definition" are in fact, false.


As is, I want to smack the hell out of my best friend every time he swoons over the newest Call of Duty, or Gears of War, or Halo, or Battlefield. I want to scream at him "Don't you remember the glory days of Goldeneye 64? Of Doom and Quake? Of wolfenstein, arguably the progenitor of ALL FPS games? How can you stomach this trite crap that is continuously thrown at you with the exact same thing year after year, barely changing anything, just putting it in a new, prettier box?!?!"

Am I wrong, or did you just admit that all those games are FPS games after all?



Ok, rant over. LOL. TL:DR I've already, in a previous post, admitted that I'm pretty much horribly wrong, that it's just my own twisted view that they aren't true FPS games(or, I could twist that around, and argue that todays games aren't true FPS games). Continue with your regularly scheduled debate on the history of FPS and what not. ^^

I'm sad to say that you still seem to be having issues. To be a "first person shooter", a game needs:

#1) To be in the first person perspective.
#2) To involve lots of shooting.

It's probably one of the most clearly defined genres on the market right now, up there with "sports" and "Racing." There are some hybrids in the space - Mass Effect and Deus Ex being good examples - but that doesn't make those games NOT FPS's, it just means they are ALSO other things.

It's perfectly FINE that you hate CoD/Battlefield/Whatever with a holy passion. I can endorse that. But you need to stop acting like there's something inherently wrong with ALL FPS games, and just intelligently and clearly state that you don't like what pure, modern FPS's have done with the genre.

No one is trying to change your opinion of what you like and don't like. Everyone is trying to get you to use the same terms as the rest of the world. What we have going on here right now is you essentially saying "I don't like salad" and defining "salad" as "pasta salad, tuna salad, or anything involving spinach". No one is contesting that you like what you like, they just want you to call it what it is.

[Treayn]

There are a few out there, like Brink and maybe Rage. But over time RPG elements have crept in and diluted the run-and-gun somewhat.

Brink seemed like a very good multiplayer companion to TF2.

And then it flopped.

Rage... I'll need to check it out... probably when it isn't $60.

[GungHo]

Space Marine, which I'm currently playing, manages to be very fun though offering next to no variety. I'm not sure yet how it does this.
Two things:
1) It doesn't take itself too seriously, without making it a big, dumb joke.
2) The simplicity of the gameplay is supported by the simplicity of the source material.

Warhammer 40k, while having tons of lore and tons of things going on, is, at its core, about standing there and beating your enemy into submission through attrition. You don't need to hide, sneak, and be crafty because the only people that do that are disgusting aliens. You don't need to save any princesses or puppies. You don't have a girlfriend to be wistful about. You want to kill your enemy because he stands in the way of you doing the thing you want to do the most... kill more enemies.

[Starwulf]

A hybrid of what and what? There are no games that are strictly walking around a map and looking for keys, there's nothing to hybridize here. You just have TOO NARROW a definition. Period. That's not a question of "opinion"

But it's my opinion, and I"ll have it if I want to, sorry.

But you obviously DON'T. You've just decided to categorize FPS games you like as "not FPS games" even though they are, as if you need some sort of arbitrary dividing line.

Who are you to tell me what I do or don't like? Seriously man, get over it. I don't like FPS games. Quite honestly, I don't even like stuff like Doom anymore, so by all accounts, I don't like FPS, whether or not I classify Doom and their Ilk as FPS or not.

But how do you -know- this, since A) You haven't played it and B) You don't have a working definition that can clearly separate the games you like from the ones you don't?

See above! I don't like what I don't like. Get over it.

See above.



This is twice wrong. First, it's not a rant, second, he's not talking about your subjective opinion. He's talking about the entirely objective terms you are trying, incorrectly, to use to define a term that already has a well accepted meaning that you, for some inexplicable reason, choose not to accept.

It was overly long and overly complicated to say what could have been said in a few words, and entirely unnecessary, as I had already admitted I was wrong. If I want to cling to my wrongnesss, that's is my right and my prerogative. ><

He's not trying to change your opinion, save from the perspective of getting you admit that the "facts" you are using as part of your "definition" are in fact, false.

See Above

Am I wrong, or did you just admit that all those games are FPS games after all?

I admitted a while ago that you all were right, which is why I'm unsure as to why in the hell you decided to make this massively long post. The thread had moved past. While I am wrong however, I still don't consider them FPS inside my head. Sorry.

I'm sad to say that you still seem to be having issues. To be a "first person shooter", a game needs:

#1) To be in the first person perspective.
#2) To involve lots of shooting.

not having any issues at all, you are though. Congratulations for harping on a subject that was closed and done with buddy.

It's probably one of the most clearly defined genres on the market right now, up there with "sports" and "Racing." There are some hybrids in the space - Mass Effect and Deus Ex being good examples - but that doesn't make those games NOT FPS's, it just means they are ALSO other things.

It's perfectly FINE that you hate CoD/Battlefield/Whatever with a holy passion. I can endorse that. But you need to stop acting like there's something inherently wrong with ALL FPS games, and just intelligently and clearly state that you don't like what pure, modern FPS's have done with the genre.

Nope, I hate ALL fps nowadays, including Doom and quake and all of those. I wouldn't load them up for nostalgia's sake like I would other games of my past. So, wrong again man, congrats!

No one is trying to change your opinion of what you like and don't like. Everyone is trying to get you to use the same terms as the rest of the world. What we have going on here right now is you essentially saying "I don't like salad" and defining "salad" as "pasta salad, tuna salad, or anything involving spinach". No one is contesting that you like what you like, they just want you to call it what it is.

This entire post of yours is trying to change my opinion,that I should be forced to conform to what everyone else thinks and consider them FPS. I don't have to do anything I don't want to, I'm nearly 30 years old, if I want to have an opinion that is blatantly wrong, that's my right.



Was this post really necessary? Really? I already admitted that I was completely wrong, that it's just my own personal viewpoint. What is the point of ripping into my viewpoint after I already admitted I was wrong, but that I wasn't going to change? Very annoying man, very annoying. Also, piss-poor example at the end, I don't like salads, and I do define Tuna Salad and Pasta Salad, as salad. ><

[GolemsVoice]

Warhammer 40k, while having tons of lore and tons of things going on, is, at its core, about standing there and beating your enemy into submission through attrition. You don't need to hide, sneak, and be crafty because the only people that do that are disgusting aliens. You don't need to save any princesses or puppies. You don't have a girlfriend to be wistful about. You want to kill your enemy because he stands in the way of you doing the thing you want to do the most... kill more enemies.

Darn straight. While I wouldn't say that one can't do a complicated game with a well developed plot and multi-faceted characters in the world of Warhammer 40k, it's called Space Marine for a reason. It's not called Space Diplomats. (Still, SM was the first game where the Marines actually look like real people, not like Grimface McBald. This caught my eye the very moment we see Titus and his men) Although the idea of Titus phoning his girlfriend between missions is hilarious.

[Talvereaux]

I suspect in about a decade, people will be making similar potshots to 2021's FPS market, while using this era's Valve games as a frame of reference for 'the good old days' for the genre.

Every generation has good and bad media. We just remember the good things because they feed our itch to be nostalgic about things.

[chiasaur11]

I suspect in about a decade, people will be making similar potshots to 2021's FPS market, while using this era's Valve games as a frame of reference for 'the good old days' for the genre.

Every generation has good and bad media. We just remember the good things because they feed our itch to be nostalgic about things.

More than that.

People remember the good stuff, and the interestingly bad stuff. Mediocre bad stuff just gets forgotten.

Honestly, I'd say the current trends in mainstream shooters for on rails might get worse, and isn't good, but Doom style keycard searching is just busywork.

There's always Serious Sam for pure as they come, frantic FPS action.

[Talvereaux]

Yeah. What matters is everything was a classic and an icon of a now-fleeting golden age yesterday. Today's games that will be remembered this way tomorrow are treated as the sole exception to everything being shovelware today.

It's a hateful cycle that can be applied to every era in the history of everything ever.

[Emmerask]

I think one of the problems with modern FPS'es is the lack of variety. It's mostly "Realistic" military shooters that dominate the market.

If only they would actually make realistic military shooters instead of those action games shoved into a realistic setting :smallfrown:

I would take hidden and dangerous over battlefield3 etc any day.

[Trazoi]

If only they would actually make realistic military shooters instead of those action games shoved into a realistic setting :smallfrown:
WWI: The Great War Realistic Military Shooter. You sit in a muddy trench getting shelled for several years, then leap out and get shot.

I don't think it will catch on.

[Talkkno]

Their is Operation Flashpoint Arma, and Red orchestra, those are pretty realistic.

[MCerberus]

Yeah. What matters is everything was a classic and an icon of a now-fleeting golden age yesterday. Today's games that will be remembered this way tomorrow are treated as the sole exception to everything being shovelware today.

It's a hateful cycle that can be applied to every era in the history of everything ever.

10 years from now:

Episode 3 is coming out, but it can't be as good as HL2 was.

[GolemsVoice]

S.T.A.L.K.E.R. isn't bad as far as realism of equipment and fighting goes, and you can mod it to make it even more hardcore. The setting itself not so much, however.

[Spartacus]

I haven't even played borderlands because it borders to much on an FPS for me, despite the massive amount of customization it offers.

It really shows here that you haven't really looked into Borderlands. As it turns out, it's a good thing, because it offers relatively little customization and is almost entirely an FPS.

[warty goblin]

I suspect in about a decade, people will be making similar potshots to 2021's FPS market, while using this era's Valve games as a frame of reference for 'the good old days' for the genre.


Man I hope not. I found Half-Life 2 to be quite dull,and Killing Floor wiped the floor with L4D in every way possible. By which I mean the guns were fun to shoot. When it comes to horribly outdated tech I'll take Unreal 2.5 over Source anyday, movement and aiming in Source always feels a touch kludgy to me and the level sizes are a sick joke.

Personally, the only upcoming shooter I maintain much hope for is Far Cry 3

[Squark]

WWI: The Great War Realistic Military Shooter. You sit in a muddy trench getting shelled for several years, then leap out and get shot.

I don't think it will catch on.

*snicker*

Thank you. I needed a good laugh.

[MCerberus]

World war 1: the great missed genre in modern shooters

Sit behind cover for a while, then pop out.
AND EVERYTHING'S SUPPOSED TO BE BROWN!

[Misery Esquire]

World war 1: the great missed genre in modern shooters

Sit behind cover for a while, then pop out.
AND EVERYTHING'S SUPPOSED TO BE BROWN!

"You're aiming for the enemy trench. Fire a few rounds and advance on the double."
"Where is it, sir?"
"Well, you see that brown patch over there, with the burning tank?"
"Yeah."
"And then the torn barbed wire over there, along with what looks suspiciously like a minefield?"
"...Yes..."
"And then there's those concrete blocks covered in mud and ash, that look mysteriously to be a machinegun nest?"
"..."
"Yeah, it's about 500 meters past that."

[Gwyn chan 'r Gwyll]

I could design you an awesome WWI video game. Well, I couldn't do the coding or fancy shiznats like that, but I have written, in the past, a concept for a WWI FPS set in the trenches, singleplayer, and a multiplayer works as well: imagine more BF style multiplayer, where the emphasis is more on teamwork than CoD or Halo style multiplayer, where the emphasis is more on exploding people.

[Thufir]

Man I hope not. I found Half-Life 2 to be quite dull,and Killing Floor wiped the floor with L4D in every way possible. By which I mean the guns were fun to shoot. When it comes to horribly outdated tech I'll take Unreal 2.5 over Source anyday, movement and aiming in Source always feels a touch kludgy to me and the level sizes are a sick joke.

Prepare for disappointment, because you're massively outnumbered in that opinion.

[warty goblin]

Prepare for disappointment, because you're massively outnumbered in that opinion.

Oh I'm well used to that disappointment. Fortunately however modern FPSs don't seem to be taking all that many queues from Half Life 2 et al, so with luck the legacy of silent protagonists stacking blocks on seesaws to progress down corridors will remain minimal.

Mind you, I'm not sure that modern FPSs are progressing towards anything all that interesting, but at least they're avoiding that shortcut to vague and samey boredom.

[Trazoi]

Oh I'm well used to that disappointment. Fortunately however modern FPSs don't seem to be taking all that many queues from Half Life 2 et al, so with luck the legacy of silent protagonists stacking blocks on seesaws to progress down corridors will remain minimal.
I'm fond of the whole silent protagonist thing but I think the original Half Life did a lot of things better than the sequel. Half Life 1 had this great setting of a massive science complex all going to hell and the player was mostly solitary. Half Life 2 had all these weird interactions with named characters going on which didn't work as well with the silent protagonist thing. And they really loved their physics and gravity gun puzzles. Admittedly it is fun to defeat an entire squad of Combine with a mattress, but it kinda turns them into alien Keystone Kops.

[toasty]

I'm fond of the whole silent protagonist thing but I think the original Half Life did a lot of things better than the sequel. Half Life 1 had this great setting of a massive science complex all going to hell and the player was mostly solitary. Half Life 2 had all these weird interactions with named characters going on which didn't work as well with the silent protagonist thing. And they really loved their physics and gravity gun puzzles. Admittedly it is fun to defeat an entire squad of Combine with a mattress, but it kinda turns them into alien Keystone Kops.

I just shot people mostly. :smalltongue: Completely ran out of 9mm ammo at Ravenholm and then was sad that I never got any more after that level. :smallsigh:

[The Linker]

...No more pistol ammo after Ravenholm? Uhh. I'm not sure how you could get that impression. :smallconfused:

[Grif]

I just shot people mostly. :smalltongue: Completely ran out of 9mm ammo at Ravenholm and then was sad that I never got any more after that level. :smallsigh:

Um. Ravenholm does have a dearth of 9mm ammo, but the levels after that are chock full of 'em. :smallconfused: I mean all the Combine troopers are carrying them and your beach car has an unlimited stock IIRC.

[The Linker]

Is he referring to the submachine gun? I have no idea. I just google image'd '9mm' and got pistols. I really don't know my millimeters as they relate to guns.

If it is the submachine gun, that's even crazier.

[Trazoi]

I usually beat the Combine to death with a garbage bin, toilet or a live defence turret tripod. Or ran them down in the car. Or threw this one broken doll at them that Gordon Freeman was lugging across the entire game as a symbol of the state of humanity.

[toasty]

Um. Ravenholm does have a dearth of 9mm ammo, but the levels after that are chock full of 'em. :smallconfused: I mean all the Combine troopers are carrying them and your beach car has an unlimited stock IIRC.

What?

THe 9mm is the first gun you get in the game. I'm pretty sure I never got a single 9mm bullet after Ravenholm.

SMG ammo is different than 9mm ammo, IIRC.

[Grif]

What?

THe 9mm is the first gun you get in the game. I'm pretty sure I never got a single 9mm bullet after Ravenholm.

SMG ammo is different than 9mm ammo, IIRC.

Sorry, it's been years since I played the game, but yes, you still can get 9mm ammo past Ravenholm. Just not frequent enough to be noticeable. (My pistol ammo was remarkably full when I reached Nova Prospekt, implying I picked some up along the way.)

Also, yes, you cannot interchange pistol and SMG ammo, I was thinking of Half-Life 1 for that. :smalltongue: (Where you do share ammo.)

[The Linker]

Enemies may not carry pistols after Ravenholm, but to not get any pistol ammo, you'd really have to make an effort to avoid ammo crates and boxes and not check any houses or stray from the main road whatsoever. :smalltongue:

[MCerberus]

I wish more games would take their weapon-strength cues from FEAR, the fun shooter with a nonsense plot that had no sequels or expansion packs. Sure the pistol was lame. Then you got two of them and went, "I'd still use this if I didn't have to give up this glorious shotgun, the gun that pins people to walls, or the sniper rifle that leaves only charred skeletons"

[GolemsVoice]

Now, I didn't think FEAR 2 was too bad.

[toasty]

A) I'm bad at exploring
B) Maybe I did get pistol ammo. I forget.

[Grif]

Now, I didn't think FEAR 2 was too bad.

The end destroyed any credibility it had being a sequel. :smalltongue:

[Mewtarthio]

Now, I didn't think FEAR 2 was too bad.

"She covets you, man. She's a coveter. You're like free pizza at an anime convention: She can smell you, and she wants to consume you."

[MCerberus]

It wasn't just the ending of FEAR2. It was the whole thing. Replicants lost the little uniqueness that made them different than videogame soldier template #15387 (FEAR 1 had great art design). They replaced the iconic g2a2 with M16 ripoff #2134 as well.

And the sniper rifle.
Was a sniper rifle.
It just shot bullets.

The sequel just seemed to ditch what made the first good so it could add in VEHICLE SEGMENTS.

[warty goblin]

I'm fond of the whole silent protagonist thing but I think the original Half Life did a lot of things better than the sequel. Half Life 1 had this great setting of a massive science complex all going to hell and the player was mostly solitary. Half Life 2 had all these weird interactions with named characters going on which didn't work as well with the silent protagonist thing. And they really loved their physics and gravity gun puzzles. Admittedly it is fun to defeat an entire squad of Combine with a mattress, but it kinda turns them into alien Keystone Kops.

There are times silent protagonists bother me, and times they don't. For a first person RPG like Oblivion I'm cool with it, because I don't feel so much silent as simply lacking a voice actor. I'm still responding to game characters so it's not weird. For some reason complete voicelessness didn't bother me in Far Cry 2 either, perhaps because the complete removal of the player's humanity over the course of the game was entirely the point.

Most of the time however it just leads to needlessly awkward dialog. In general I prefer my FPS protagonists minimally voiced - Nomad in the first Crysis talks just the right amount. When command tells him to do something he responds, radios in to inform them of mission progress and generally does the requisite minimal amount of communication. It makes things feel more plausible, but isn't distracting or anything like that.

[Yora]

World war 1: the great missed genre in modern shooters
That's because americans are not the heroes. Sure, there were some american troops involved, but they didn't do anything that anyone remembers.

And who would want to publish a game in which America does not save the day?!
USA! USA!

[warty goblin]

That's because americans are not the heroes. Sure, there were some american troops involved, but they didn't do anything that anyone remembers.

And who would want to publish a game in which America does not save the day?!
USA! USA!

Either that or the lack of a really good antagonist, it's easy to have Nazis be a feel-good disposable enemy nobody feels bad about fighting. The Central Powers just don't have the same evil punch that way because they were basically fighting for the same stupid reasons everybody else was.

And it lacks a satisfying conclusion compared to WWII. Nobody stormed the enemy capital, or really much of anything*. Hell, even most of the battles basically ended as stalemates, or victories so bloody as to be nearly Pyrrhic.

*Excepting the Eastern Front, but that doesn't count for a videogame because a) it's the Eastern Front and b) the Germans won there. You are only barely allowed to have levels about Russians in shooters, and certainly not levels where the Germans win.

[Yora]

Even in Germany nobody remembers the eastern front of WW1. The western front was much more exiting and the entertainment-producing countries of the 20th century were not present there at all.
And I guess even in eastern Europe any stories and memories of the eastern front in WW1 are completely overshadowed by WW2. I think WW1 in the east was a rather regular war. A mighty big one with its fair share of attrocities, but when you look at the region in the 20th century, it doesn't really stand out so much.

[Squark]

That's because americans are not the heroes. Sure, there were some american troops involved, but they didn't do anything that anyone remembers.

And who would want to publish a game in which America does not save the day?!
USA! USA!

I think it's more WWII has become sort of a battlefield of Good and Evil because of the Nazis, so it's easier to sell as a storyline. Also, the postwar disillusionment with WWI still clings to the Great War just as strongly as it did 75-90 years ago.

[Talkkno]

Even in Germany nobody remembers the eastern front of WW1. The western front was much more exiting and the entertainment-producing countries of the 20th century were not present there at all.
.

The eastern front wasn't bogged down by trench warfare though....:smallconfused:

[warty goblin]

The eastern front wasn't bogged down by trench warfare though....:smallconfused:

Yes, but FPS stories generally feature you, the protagonist, if not personally winning the war, at least playing a major role in its victorious climax by shooting a lot of dudes in their stupid enemy faces.

Now the eastern front has dude shooting down pat, but the problem is that you can't win the war. Either you play as a Russian in which case your army gets smashed, you lose a bunch of territory and then fight a long bloody civil war, or you play as a German in which case you seize a bunch of territory but have to surrender and give it all back because of something happening on the other side of the European subcontinent.

In either case you lose. If you play a Russian you could lose twice - or be a Communist, and it's only OK to play a Communist if you're shooting Nazis. That's because it's OK to play anybody so long as you shoot Nazis. You could shoot Nazis with bullets made out of the teeth of the baby kittens you like to deepfry and eat as snacks, and it'd still be OK.

Really, the problem with WWI is that pretty much everybody lost.

[toasty]

Really, the problem with WWI is that pretty much everybody lost.

Arguably, the Americans won. But we won by benefit of not doing much. :smalltongue:

edit: People also forget about the idea of playing the Japanese during WWI. Though you'd still be playing the bad guys...

[Trazoi]

On the other hand, WWI is still the best setting for combat flight sims save maybe the fairly unrealistic space sims. Close action dogfights with pretty coloured planes. :smallsmile: