What's One "Old Game" Mechanic That You Don't Miss?

[factotum]

There is a Z axis in doom 1993 and it is in fact more present in doom level design than in most modern fpses

That's true of the level design, but it doesn't change the fact that you always fire as if you're in a 2D game in Doom. If something happens to be on a ledge above you you'll still hit it, but all the animations etc. show you firing the gun level, and there's no way to look up or down to see any of the 3D level design.

[Rodin]

I would argue that modding Doom does not count as "making an FPS". No matter how puissant your modding skills, you still have 90% of the work done for you by those who came before. I'm sure modding a match 3 game to have different graphics is also a lot easier than making your own.

The comparison has to be doing it from scratch, otherwise it has no meaning.

[Lvl 2 Expert]

I'm not going to diss Doom modders here, because I still mod Stunts, which is another three years older. But I do figure the actual point should be clear by now: video games are a broad medium. Liking one type of game does not automatically translate to another type of game, having the skills to make one type of game does not automatically translate to making another type of game. In fact, Noob's reply to me only makes that case stronger. If making one type of FPS (a modern one you could sell) does not even translate to making another kind of FPS (old school style), then what chance do you have to switch from there to a different genre? Making an FPS vs making an idle game really is a lot like writing a textbook vs writing a movie script. Yes, some basics overlap, but the differences can be far more important.

I actually lost track of what that point was supposed to prove and what the point it was supposed to prove was supposed to prove, something about which people play games vs which people are/are seen as/call themselves/get called gamers.

(Also I agree Doom doesn't have a real Z-axis. Every point on the map has a height, but there is no way to stack two layers of playing field on top of each other. Duke Nukem 3D had a good workaround for that, when you fell down a hole you were teleported to a different part of the map made to look like you were inside the building you stood on top of just a moment ago, but it's still a trick. Comparing it to even just Unreal Tournament 2004 let's you see immediately what's missing in those older games. You can walk under bridges and stairs and several layers of arena floors now. I'll happily believe somebody has created a complete engine overhaul that let's you design Doom levels with actual depth, but at this point that's "for love of the game" stuff, not a commercially viable way to create a new money making FPS. But that's a technical discussion.)

[Grif]

(Also I agree Doom doesn't have a real Z-axis. Every point on the map has a height, but there is no way to stack two layers of playing field on top of each other. Duke Nukem 3D had a good workaround for that, when you fell down a hole you were teleported to a different part of the map made to look like you were inside the building you stood on top of just a moment ago, but it's still a trick. Comparing it to even just Unreal Tournament 2004 let's you see immediately what's missing in those older games. You can walk under bridges and stairs and several layers of arena floors now. I'll happily believe somebody has created a complete engine overhaul that let's you design Doom levels with actual depth, but at this point that's "for love of the game" stuff, not a commercially viable way to create a new money making FPS. But that's a technical discussion.)

I do believe the sourceports supported actual 3D as early as 2010, which was when I dabbled with mapping for a good while. I even seen a few maps that were designed to show this off, but obviously there were still limitations. (No more than two "floors", I think?)

And in an even more tangential discussion, there actually was plenty of smoke and mirrors that were done to "simulate" 3D levels even with the original DOOM engines. See: invisible bridges in Plutonia maps.

[noob]

That's true of the level design, but it doesn't change the fact that you always fire as if you're in a 2D game in Doom. If something happens to be on a ledge above you you'll still hit it, but all the animations etc. show you firing the gun level, and there's no way to look up or down to see any of the 3D level design.

You do not shoot the same way: bullet trajectories as well as monster hitboxes(but not path-boxes) are calculated in 3d and it is particularly felt when you are fighting flying creatures with a weapon that have spreading bullets (you want them to cluster on the same Z height for maximum effect of spreading weapons).
Or when you are shooting flying monsters with rockets while closing in and see the shots go over their heads(due to cam pushing) or while you are shooting rockets at ground monsters on an elevator.
The game aim on the Z axis automatically but sometimes you want to shoot at flying monsters lower than the ones that are the closest(because their shots are aimed at you from a different angle that threatens a wider area) and at that point you have to think about how to position yourself or how to move the flying monsters against their will with cam pushing(flying monsters within field of view get lower if they risk getting out of screen by being too high and moving in order to force this is called cam pushing) in order to either get the closest monsters lower(when you are cam pushing) for blocking the shots of the further away monsters or turn around the monsters to attack them from a different angle.
If you ignore the Z axis in shooting and dodging you will underperform while playing doom and have trouble fighting flying monsters in particular(and not even be able to defeat the final boss of doom 2).
And you do not need to lower and raise the head to see the level design is in 3d just like how you can see the level is in 3d in a rts without even changing the angle of the camera: lateral cam movement in a rts is sufficient to make the difference between a 3d rts and a 2d one.
If you really want a fps that does not use Z height then play Wolfenstein 3D not doom.
It does not means that doom is not lacking freelook: if they were not in a time period where making videogames had to be quick they would have probably implemented freelook a bit later.

If you want the fps that use the most all the dimensions play quake because it had its levels designed by people who were used to making constrained levels and suddenly had limitless freedom and wanted to use all the freedom they had.(resulting in complex levels that use massively the freedom that modern fpses have but underuse)
It however have horribly ugly textures and 3d models (lower quality textures than in doom due to some constraints in 3d cards from that era)
Quake live also have very 3d maps but Quake live is not very popular despite being overall a well designed multiplayer fps.(with a playstyle based on movement and resource management) probably because call of duty from raven software is much more known and oriented toward the average player(A slower pace allows more players to be able to play it) and so people play it rather than playing faster paced fpses.(and nobody can do equal fpses in the "realistic" style of call of duty because raven software have a lot of experience in that domain and an huge skilled team)
Then quake champions is a desperate attempt at imitating class based fpses that straps classes in a deathmatch oriented fps (which is an extremely weird idea)

[Beleriphon]

Totally agree on the "designated save points" thing--I like to be able to save whenever and wherever I like. The way to fix the problem of not having saved is to have an auto-save system, not to have fixed and limited save locations. I don't have a problem with the RNG in RPG skill checks, though, because to my mind the entire point of the genre is to have what I can do be determined by my in-game character, not my own gaming skills. (e.g. in Skyrim you pretty much never need to put a point into lockpicking so long as you're reasonably adept at the lockpicking mini-game).

In fairness, you never technically have to since if you're reasonable adept at it just goes up on its own, the points just do other stuff to make lock picking different.

[factotum]

In fairness, you never technically have to since if you're reasonable adept at it just goes up on its own, the points just do other stuff to make lock picking different.

Yeah, but you literally never need to put a point into the lockpicking perks in Skyrim unless you're really bad at the lockpicking mini-game, which makes that entire part of the skill tree somewhat redundant. It's not like Morrowind, where you simply weren't allowed to even attempt to pick a lock unless your skill was high enough.

[Vinyadan]

Yeah, but you literally never need to put a point into the lockpicking perks in Skyrim unless you're really bad at the lockpicking mini-game, which makes that entire part of the skill tree somewhat redundant. It's not like Morrowind, where you simply weren't allowed to even attempt to pick a lock unless your skill was high enough.

Actually, I really think you could, but I'm not sure it was possible to succeed. Fallout NV is like what you are describing.

[Aeson]

Actually, I really think you could, but I'm not sure it was possible to succeed. Fallout NV is like what you are describing.

Morrowind's mechanics do allow for locks to be impossible to pick given your current tool, Security skill, applicable attributes, and fatigue; you can attempt to open it anyways, but doing so would consume a use of the tool and result in a "lock too complex" message.

[Traab]

I will be honest, I liked the limited save location setup of old rpgs. It had a number of uses such as giving you a goal to reach, a challenge to beat, and often worked well as a warning that something important was about to happen. If you played classic rpgs you knew when you saw a save point right outside of a door, that there was going to be a boss battle or something big going down. Yeah some games played with subverting that expectation but in general they worked well as signposts and waypoints not just to save the game, but to mark your progress. "Ok guys, we hit the save spot, that means we made it past the gauntlet of bad guys and such and its time for the big boss, or the big plot twist, or the super tough challenge, get ready!" Of course most of those games also let you save at any time in the over world map so it wasnt quite as terrible as it could be.

Or games like resident evil where you only had so many ink ribbons to work with. There were generally speaking plenty to get by on, it just made sure you couldnt save after clearing every room. You had to take some risks to move forward and still be able to save in the future. Again, it added tension and helped build up the difficult feel of the game because you knew you could lose an hour or half hour of progress because you couldnt backtrack and save every time you finished a puzzle. You had to decide if you had enough ribbons to save now in expectation of finding more later or if you would put it off and hope for the best.

[factotum]

It had a number of uses such as giving you a goal to reach, a challenge to beat, and often worked well as a warning that something important was about to happen. If you played classic rpgs you knew when you saw a save point right outside of a door, that there was going to be a boss battle or something big going down.

That's all very well, but what would actually happen quite often is that the save point is several minutes back and requires you to sit through an unskippable cutscene before you get to do the boss fight, and if the boss fight is genuinely a tough one that will require multiple attempts, that gets old really, really fast. Possibly the worst example I saw of this was a game where you had to go through a lengthy multiple-choice trial before a boss fight, and the save point was before the trial started, so if you died to the boss it could easily take 15-20 minutes before you could try again!

[Traab]

That's all very well, but what would actually happen quite often is that the save point is several minutes back and requires you to sit through an unskippable cutscene before you get to do the boss fight, and if the boss fight is genuinely a tough one that will require multiple attempts, that gets old really, really fast. Possibly the worst example I saw of this was a game where you had to go through a lengthy multiple-choice trial before a boss fight, and the save point was before the trial started, so if you died to the boss it could easily take 15-20 minutes before you could try again!

Dude, im talking classic rpgs even stuff like ff7 rarely went too far with its unskippable scenes, and not really before a save point either. I think technically the end counted as it was three boss fights in a row, but I honestly never really had trouble clearing them so it took me some thinking to come up with it. Most of its cut scenes and lengthy watch this moments were AFTER pivotal moments so it wasnt an issue to save after it was over. I know some games like in kingdom hearts 2 I think, they pulled some obnoxious shenanigans with unskippable cutscenes and the like, but back in the day they didnt have disc space to devote to cinematics. Or at least not many. Or maybe I was just an amazing awesome unbeatable player with skills so awesome I never even noticed because I only ever saw any cut scene once until my next playthrough! Entirely possible.


*EDIT* Even if it IS the case, your problem isnt with save points, its with unskippable cutscenes that waste tons of time and get repetitive because they are done just before tough fights where its easy to die... alot.

[Rodin]

The most irritating case that comes immediately to mind is the early Souls games. The Capra Demon wouldn't have been so bad if it had a nearby bonfire, but as it was you spent 5 minutes clearing the enemies to get to the boss and then died in the opening 5 seconds of the fight. Or the Blighttown equivalent level from Demons Souls where there was a several minute long trek through unavoidable poisonous swamp to get to the boss. Or everybody's least favorite boss, Bed of Chaos. Where if you could reload from a checkpoint right outside the boss would be frustrating but doable, but instead it had a couple minutes of trudging through lava and up and down branches just to get to it, only for you to get punted into a chasm right after entering.

The later games were generally better about this, but there were still some disgustingly long runs like the one before Oceiros.

[danzibr]

Unstoppable cutscenes, absolutely. I recently played through FFX for the third time. Some of those scenes I really didn’t need to see again.

[Draconi Redfir]

don't know if it's in new city builder or not, but been playing some "Zeus, master of olympus" lately, and you just get popups that pause the game all the dang time.

notifications on winning / loosing the olympics
notifications of a god wanting to be worshiped
notifications of someone needing resources
notifications of someone liking you less because you didn't give you resources
notifications of someone giving you resources
notifications of someone attacking you
notifications of someone being defeated by you
notifications of gods helping you out
notifications of heroes showing up

and each notification:
-Takes up half the screen
-Pauses the game
-Prevents you from building until you hit a little checkmark at the bottom of it

Breh. it's gotten to the point that i don't even read the dang things and miss important ones.

[Gwyn chan 'r Gwyll]

The one "old game" mechanic I don't miss is unfinished games being pushed out.

"But Gwyn" you say "that happens more now!" Perhaps. But back when I was a kid, they wouldn't get fixed! What were you gonna do, download a patch over the internet that took up the phone line for an entire day? Even today, many of those games are only playable because of "unofficial patches" that couldn't have existed during the game's heyday. So many "fan favourites" of the old days were buggy messes that, if released in similar state today, people would demand that the entire team be fired. Only if they were released today, 6 months after release it'd be fixed, and with some DLC a year down the line it'd be better than late-90/early-2000s Gwyn could have imagined.

[Anteros]

I like save point mechanics. It's nice to have games that actually punish you for messing up and encourage you to get better. There's not much tension in any situation if I know I can just magically rewind time to any point I wish.

I agree that unskippable cutscenes can die in a fire though. MHW is particularly bad for this, and the devs have responded to complaints about it by saying "we worked hard on the cutscenes, please watch them."

1. No you didn't. The plot is a bare-bones monstrosity full of unlikable characters and nonsensical story that barely exists to justify killing monsters.

2. My time is just as valuable as yours, let me decide how to spend it.

3. I wouldn't mind so much if it wasn't so damn excessive. You regularly make me play through mandatory solo sections without my friends so I can watch your stupid cut-scenes, and these can last for an hour or more. You do this multiple times.

The rest of the game is good enough to keep me playing, but it's very annoying.

[veti]

1. No you didn't. The plot is a bare-bones monstrosity full of unlikable characters and nonsensical story that barely exists to justify killing monsters.

Just because the cutscene is clearly and objectively a complete waste of perfectly good bandwidth, that doesn't mean it wasn't hard work for the devs.

I agree that cutscenes in general should die in a fire. Anyone who proposes adding a cutscene lasting more than 10 seconds to a game, excluding intro and outro, should be required to write out a 200-page business case explaining why it's indispensable. And anyone who suggests making it unskippable should be fired on the spot.

But they're hardly an "old game" mechanic. If anything, they get worse year by year.

[Anteros]

Just because the cutscene is clearly and objectively a complete waste of perfectly good bandwidth, that doesn't mean it wasn't hard work for the devs.

I agree that cutscenes in general should die in a fire. Anyone who proposes adding a cutscene lasting more than 10 seconds to a game, excluding intro and outro, should be required to write out a 200-page business case explaining why it's indispensable. And anyone who suggests making it unskippable should be fired on the spot.

But they're hardly an "old game" mechanic. If anything, they get worse year by year.

True, but people were already talking about them. I was just adding on.

I don't think they worked particularly hard on the cut-scenes by the way. Most of them are rendered in game and consist of the characters standing completely still while text pops up on the screen for 30 minutes. There's a few exceptions when they're introducing monsters, but most of those are short and sweet.

[Grif]

don't know if it's in new city builder or not, but been playing some "Zeus, master of olympus" lately, and you just get popups that pause the game all the dang time.

notifications on winning / loosing the olympics
notifications of a god wanting to be worshiped
notifications of someone needing resources
notifications of someone liking you less because you didn't give you resources
notifications of someone giving you resources
notifications of someone attacking you
notifications of someone being defeated by you
notifications of gods helping you out
notifications of heroes showing up

and each notification:
-Takes up half the screen
-Pauses the game
-Prevents you from building until you hit a little checkmark at the bottom of it

Breh. it's gotten to the point that i don't even read the dang things and miss important ones.

Paradox games customisable notifications has been a godsend in this regard. Now I can minimise all unimportant news and only have the really important ones bug me. Less important ones go on the tab to be clicked at my leisure, etc.

[PraetorDragoon]

Just because the cutscene is clearly and objectively a complete waste of perfectly good bandwidth, that doesn't mean it wasn't hard work for the devs.

I agree that cutscenes in general should die in a fire. Anyone who proposes adding a cutscene lasting more than 10 seconds to a game, excluding intro and outro, should be required to write out a 200-page business case explaining why it's indispensable. And anyone who suggests making it unskippable should be fired on the spot.

But they're hardly an "old game" mechanic. If anything, they get worse year by year.

Oh god, you reminded me of endless outro cutscenes that go on forever while all you want is to save your progress after you have defeated the final boss while your handheld beeps that the battery is low.....

[Toric]

Oh god, you reminded me of endless outro cutscenes that go on forever while all you want is to save your progress after you have defeated the final boss while your handheld beeps that the battery is low.....

My most vivid memory of the Final Fantasy 4 remake on DS: not the final boss fight against Zeromus, but the drive home from an auto shop fifteen minutes later with the sleeping DS's battery light pulsing red.

[veti]

Oh god, you reminded me of endless outro cutscenes that go on forever while all you want is to save your progress after you have defeated the final boss while your handheld beeps that the battery is low.....

Hey, if you choose to go into the final boss fight with a low battery, that's very much on you. Yes, outro scenes can go on way too long, but we know this. You were warned.