• The good ol' style of FPS
    285 replies, posted
[QUOTE=Sabrina;27596164] This is just my idea why people hate it. They've accustomed to those hard as fuck games with no remorse. When people complain that it's too hard or they can't complete the game, the devs now listen to that and make it easier. Without knowing it, we enjoyed dieing 20 times in the same stage? Why? Because it needed fucking hardcore skill. When you beat the game finally, you felt accomplished as the game wasn't a walk in the park. It was a difficult endurance test in a man vs machine battle. And the man won, and [B]THAT[/B] is what was so great about the old-school fps's. The modern shooters just are too easy and don't give you that same feel of accomplishment.[/QUOTE] Hey, just because you enjoy dying 20 times and repeating the level doesn't mean I do. I don't want to spend all day replaying one level, I want to have some FUN not frustration.
[QUOTE=redBadger;27552805]A prime example of why Saints Row 2 was, in many ways, better than GTA IV. It was mindless fun, and GTA IV was simply too realistic that it got to be no fun at times.[/QUOTE] Along with the unrealistically bad optimization for PC.
[QUOTE=johan_sm;27596245]Hey, just because you enjoy dying 20 times and repeating the level doesn't mean I do. I don't want to spend all day replaying one level, I want to have some FUN not frustration.[/QUOTE] I didn't say it necessarily WAS like that, i just said it was an idea why people might hate the current games. Maybe you like easy games. Your choice.
[QUOTE=Someoneuduno;27591044]True basic fun was UT99, I hate to sound as if forcing my opinion but it takes a liquid shit on the face of UT2K4, next to no story, fewer weapons, mods that can change gameplay in drastic ways, if you haven't played it I'd recommend the shit out of it.[/QUOTE] I can't really say anything about UT99, as I have never played it. I don't like to say my opinion on games I haven't played :v:
Sabrina you do know ur avatar is a Hentai chick right ? I know its out of context but I just cant avoid it
[QUOTE=Rex McCoolguy;27581055]Duke Nukem Forever looks pretty old style. No stupidly complicated plot and loads of fun weapons.[/QUOTE] ahahahahaha if you find the plots of videogames complex then Memento will give you an aneurysm [editline]22nd January 2011[/editline] [QUOTE=Sabrina;27596304]I didn't say it necessarily WAS like that, i just said it was an idea why people might hate the current games. Maybe you like easy games. Your choice.[/QUOTE] or maybe there's a middle ground between hard as fuck and easy
[QUOTE=Numidium;27552317]I reinstalled a lot of my old games this week, and among them are what I consider the good old FPS, games like Quake 3 and Unreal Tournament. Why are there no games like that anymore? Nowadays shooters consist of some pseudo-realistic setting, "fluid" movement and a lot of customization. I blame it on the shift of gaming into the mainstream. Gaming is casual, and for casual players, games in a competitive fashion don't hold much reward. I think that, in general, the less options a player has, the fairer the game is. And if we can compare a game like Unreal Tournament to Call of Duty, this is obviously true. But Unreal Tournament didn't need realistic graphics. Unreal Tournament didn't need magazine sizes and reloading on weapons. Hell, it didn't even need realistic weapons. Imagine Quake with an M40 instead of the railgun. Why is it that modern games need to try and emulate reality, they're games, they're not meant to be realistic. And even if someone doesn't like the competitive aspect, they can still have fun. I mean its called Unreal Tournament, and thats what it is. I wish there were more new games that just straight up fuck realism and give me weapon pickups and strafejumping back.[/QUOTE] I think i just found my spiritual brother, OP you need to get this motherfuckin' game RIGHT NOW: [IMG]http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/1/11/Painkiller_Coverart.png[/IMG] [IMG]http://uppergames.e-telier.be/screenshots/67_painkiller.jpg[/IMG] [IMG]http://www.pcgen.fr/upluad-tof/big/painkiller02dg9.jpg[/IMG] [IMG]http://yesgame.ru/uploads/posts/2009-02/1235218567_painkiller.jpg[/IMG] it has all the good old school fps stuff including quake-like movement, bunny hopping, fancy weapons, crazy enemies that come by waves of hundreds etc etc... plus some ragdoll physics. It almost has no scenario, no cutscenes, no bullshit overall it's really really awesome, I miss this playing style a lot Edit: also, stick to the original painkiller and avoid the other ones at all costs, they're really as shitty as it gets
[QUOTE=genyus;27596433]Sabrina you do know ur avatar is a Hentai chick right ? I know its out of context but I just cant avoid it[/QUOTE] I'm pretty sure i know the origins of my avatar, thank you very much. Also, just a slight correction. It's a mascot.
Oh man zone.
[QUOTE=Numidium;27590762]I'm not implying that customization is bad, just not for every single game in the fps genre. If I see a good shooter with weapon pickups in 2011 I'm gonna be happy, but it doesn't look like its going to happen. And I like games with customization too.[/QUOTE] Fair enough It would be nice if something else came into fashion rather than gritty modern-day shooters. Or even better, nothing being particularly dominant.
[QUOTE=hexpunK;27584402]That is true, I got lost a bit in HL1 as some of the more complex levels are mazes basically. HL2 is very easy to understand where you need to be.[/QUOTE] Half-Life 2 was linear, but never FELT linear. It never really felt constrictive, like you were being shoved down a predetermined path. This is due to the excellent design of the environments. Almost all of the maps give the impression that they are larger than they really are; of course, upon close investigation you will discover that there was only one path, and it was merely an illusion. It's an example of the incredible level design. It is infintely more engaging than games that put a glowing arrow pointing to the objective at all times.
[QUOTE=ChosenOne54;27597319]Half-Life 2 was linear, but never FELT linear. It never really felt constrictive, like you were being shoved down a predetermined path. This is due to the excellent design of the environments. Almost all of the maps give the impression that they are larger than they really are; of course, upon close investigation you will discover that there was only one path, and it was merely an illusion. It's an example of the incredible level design. It is infintely more engaging than games that put a glowing arrow pointing to the objective at all times.[/QUOTE]Or putting glowing walls where you shouldn't be.
Which game would you be referring to?
[QUOTE=Sabrina;27596304]I didn't say it necessarily WAS like that, i just said it was an idea why people might hate the current games. Maybe you like easy games. Your choice.[/QUOTE] I'd say there's a difference between "easy" and "not having a difficulty curve drawn by a toddler with Parkinson's and ADD". I'm not denying that there is an obvious trending towards simple games that take no effort for the casual crowd. But video games not only opened up a lot of new flexibility, but they also allowed us to iterate through more games than ever before in just the past 30 years. So our skill at making them is also developing extremely fast. That means a lot of new ideas can be developed very quickly too. And one of these ideas is that a game doesn't have to be hard to require skill. This can be hard to understand if you're backwards thinking. But essentially, we're finally learning to distinguish between interface friction, or usability, and game complexity, when designing difficulty. And this means that if you're part of a cult following of a niche genre that focuses on torture difficulty, a phase we of course went through when iterating all these new ideas, you may not even consider this new kind of difficulty as difficulty at all.
The thing that I miss is blowing the fuck out of large, threatening super monsters.
[QUOTE=ChosenOne54;27597575]Which game would you be referring to?[/QUOTE] He's probably talking about Assassin's Creed. [editline]23rd January 2011[/editline] [QUOTE=Benstokes;27591424]Honestly, I liked those games, but I like modern ones more. For somebody who appreciates focus on strategy over focus on reflexes, there's nothing wrong with the shift in trends.[/QUOTE] Except in most modern games the focus is actually incredibly reflex-based with no skill or strategy involved.
Because "skill" has nothing to do with reflexes. I say "skill" because skill is a stupid as fuck word, at least in the way you're using it. And the way I see it there's more strategy involved in Call of Duty: Black Ops, where when you die (at least in single player) it's almost always obvious that you just didn't plan correctly, ran up too early or something. It's more about planning where and when to go, where and when to shoot, than how many times you quick-loaded to not lose too much health when facing annoying as hell enemies.
[QUOTE=certified;27586700]I hate the way Halo is associated with Health regeneration because of shitty Halo 2, which supposedly inspired IW to add health regen to COD2. To the people who still think Halo is a duck and cover health regen megalinear FPS, Please play Halo 1. Halo 2 =/= entire Halo series. Also: "Hurr durr, I pway caww o dooty!" -Anonymous "special" 12 year old "This game is so realistic, IT MUST BE A MILITARY SIMULATOR!!!11" -COD fanboy who is post puberty, but still and idiot. Bunnyhopping with a smoke grenade or 2 knives at 9001 KM/H is not realistic.[/QUOTE] Halo 2 was probably the most fun I've ever had on a console multiplayer get fucked.
[QUOTE=cqbcat;27587035]Is that for reals? Anyways, I prefer 90s era map design. Like the Team Fortress Classic and Halo: CE maps.[/QUOTE] No its not, in fact the 2010 is an oversimplified version of that. If any of you have actually played an recent games you'd realize how retarded that map comparison is. You'd also realize that back in 1993, the AI wasn't the most intelligent so you were allowed to make a large map like that. Now, you can't do that because people expect good AI and lets face it, that adds on a year of development alone. I'm not going to sit here and say that it isn't simplified, what I am going to say is that image is a crying ol' schooler who can't seem to get passed the fact that anyway you do either map, the ending is the same. Developers realized this and instead focused on a narrow storyline because its easier and gives them a better chance to make the game look better, polish the gameplay and work on the story. While not ever game does all three, Half Life and Half life 2 would be drastically different if they were like the 1993 map. We'd probably have to wait EVEN fucking longer or lose a bunch of what made HL2 great. [editline]23rd January 2011[/editline] It makes me beat my head against a wall when I hear people complaining that games are getting to easy. No shit! You've been playing them long enough to figure out the AI faults and procedures, you've figured out the developer's thinking of how a puzzle should be.
Can someone fix page 6? [editline]23rd January 2011[/editline] Never mind
[QUOTE=rosthouse;27584585]It's called a challenge. A game needs to give you some challenge. Besides, Quake 3 and UT2k4 are as basic as you can get. No stupid perks, or pre-play weapon selection, just drop in, pick up a weapon and go.[/QUOTE] Trust me, games like Black Ops provide a challenging campaign. Veteran is really challenging if you ask me.
Because of this thread, I reinstalled Serious Sam HD, had a massive craving. And Painkiller.
[QUOTE=SoaringScout;27609879]Trust me, games like Black Ops provide a challenging campaign. Veteran is really challenging if you ask me.[/QUOTE] You shouldn't have to turn up the difficulty all the way to get a challenge. A game should be challenging from the outset, even on the normal difficulty.
No. That's why you have the fucking difficulty levels. I don't want to die all the fucking time because you prefer having Hard and Impossible levels as opposed to Normal and Hard. There are like five difficulty levels for Call of Duty: Black Ops so you have no reason to complain about that. Normal is "challenging" enough, as in if you do stupid shit you'll still die, and there are some missions that are quite unforgiving, the one where you have to get through the Nova gas was a bit annoying, as well as the one with shittonnes of enemies where you had to run down to trenches.
[QUOTE=Tabarnaco;27611833]No. That's why you have the fucking difficulty levels.[/QUOTE] For once I actually agree with you. When you have it on easy you expect it to be easy, and on normal you expect it to be normal, etc.
I have a gift card with $21 left on it. Should I get Painkiller Black Edition for $9.99? [editline]23rd January 2011[/editline] [QUOTE=Tabarnaco;27611833]No. That's why you have the fucking difficulty levels. I don't want to die all the fucking time because you prefer having Hard and Impossible levels as opposed to Normal and Hard. There are like five difficulty levels for Call of Duty: Black Ops so you have no reason to complain about that. Normal is "challenging" enough, as in if you do stupid shit you'll still die, and there are some missions that are quite unforgiving, the one where you have to get through the Nova gas was a bit annoying, as well as the one with shittonnes of enemies where you had to run down to trenches.[/QUOTE] Oh god I remember that last one you mentioned. I hated it so much. I must have killed 100 enemies before realizing I have to run into the open and spill barrels of gasoline or napalm(whatever it was) down to the trench where enemies were spawning.
I don't know what it is, but ironsights for some reason make a lot of games feel very similar. That and sprinting (the animations mainly). [QUOTE=SoaringScout;27613570] Oh god I remember that last one you mentioned. I hated it so much. I must have killed 100 enemies before realizing I have to run into the open and spill barrels of gasoline or napalm(whatever it was) down to the trench where enemies were spawning.[/QUOTE] Same thing happened to me as well, I was so pissed off when I found out what you actually had to do.
[quote]Why is it that modern games need to try and emulate reality, they're games, they're not meant to be realistic.[/quote]Oh shit, I didn't realize you are the king of game design that defines what games are "meant" to be. [editline]23rd January 2011[/editline] [QUOTE=SoaringScout;27609879]Trust me, games like Black Ops provide a challenging campaign. Veteran is really challenging if you ask me.[/QUOTE] Black Ops is a joke, the entire franchise has gone way past it's expiration date. In CoD, turning difficulty up means more nade spam and bullet spray. On the hardest difficulty more nades will be thrown at you than bullets shot at you.
Ideal priority list: - Gameplay - Storyline - Graphics - Everything else - Realism If you want a good example of how an FPS should play, look at the real-time combat (as in not VATS) in the recent Fallout games. While it's true that in general Fallout plays more like an RPG than an FPS (which is good, since it's an RPG after all), the real-time combat system plays like a well-made FPS game (ignoring the weapon condition system - that could get annoying in an FPS game).
[QUOTE=rosthouse;27596357]I can't really say anything about UT99, as I have never played it. I don't like to say my opinion on games I haven't played :v:[/QUOTE] Think of it as an extreme suggestion then, IMO there is yet to be an FPS that is as fun as it. [QUOTE=ChosenOne54;27597319]Half-Life 2 was linear, but never FELT linear. It never really felt constrictive, like you were being shoved down a predetermined path. This is due to the excellent design of the environments. Almost all of the maps give the impression that they are larger than they really are; of course, upon close investigation you will discover that there was only one path, and it was merely an illusion. It's an example of the incredible level design. It is infintely more engaging than games that put a glowing arrow pointing to the objective at all times.[/QUOTE] The number of actual 'secret' areas astounds me every time I start a new playthrough, each game it seems like I find more and more places I missed in the last.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.