• The good ol' style of FPS
    285 replies, posted
I don't think there has ever been a more linear shooter than HL2.
[QUOTE=BmB;27616486]I don't think there has ever been a more linear shooter than HL2.[/QUOTE] Are you saying that honestly, or are you simply saying that because you feel like hating on Half-Life? [editline]23rd January 2011[/editline] I can think of many other shooters which are more linear than Half-Life 2.
[QUOTE=BmB;27616486]I don't think there has ever been a more linear shooter than HL2.[/QUOTE] You must have a very closed selection of games to play then. Almost every shooter on the market as of now is more, or as linear than HL2, most do not even give you the illusion of choice.
It's not a bad thing, they're obviously not trying to be non-linear. But it's to the point where most of the game you could almost close your eyes and hold w to get where you need to go, without even knowing where that is. And half the time there's no way for you to know that anyway.
[QUOTE=BmB;27616808]It's not a bad thing, they're obviously not trying to be non-linear. But it's to the point where most of the game you could almost close your eyes and hold w to get where you need to go, without even knowing where that is. And half the time there's no way for you to know that anyway.[/QUOTE] I have no idea what game you were playing. Sure, Half-Life 2 is linear, but it is not nearly as linear as you make it sound. It's not like you have a flashing waypoint on your screen at all times. As I said before: [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]
[QUOTE=BmB;27616808]It's not a bad thing, they're obviously not trying to be non-linear. But it's to the point where most of the game you could almost close your eyes and hold w to get where you need to go, without even knowing where that is. And half the time there's no way for you to know that anyway.[/QUOTE] In what way could not giving the player any choice be good? I'm not the archetypal HL2 super-fan but I do approve of the illusion of multiple paths Valve create, but games which literally follow one path through entire levels with no variation or alternate route bore me to tears.
A flashing waypoint is for nonlinear games that are so open you need it to find your way. Of course HL2 doesn't have that. You could close your eyes and press w etc.
[QUOTE=BmB;27616939]A flashing waypoint is for nonlinear games that are so open you need it to find your way. Of course HL2 doesn't have that. You could close your eyes and press w etc.[/QUOTE] Painkiller has that and that's so closed it's untrue. I'm inclined to disagree though, there were parts where I got hideously disoriented in HL2, Ravenholm generally...
[QUOTE=BmB;27616939]A flashing waypoint is for nonlinear games that are so open you need it to find your way. Of course HL2 doesn't have that. You could close your eyes and press w etc.[/QUOTE] Really? Why don't you try holding down 'w' next time you play Half-Life 2, and see how far you get? I know that was an exaggeration you were making, but honestly, it sounds like you are hating HL2 for the sake of hating. The fact that Half-Life 2 doesn't have an objective system shows that it is not completely linear; you do have to find the path for yourself, despite there being only one path when you look closer. I guess you just ignored my comment about the illusion of multiple routes.
Sort of a long-winded post, not really in relation to these last few pages, most mostly as my long opinion based on the Op's post... so going back in time here For me, realism is only important when it comes to multiplayer. It's hard to have realism in a singleplayer game because the only fun singleplayer games are the ones where you've killed 300+ people by the end of the game, and in most circumstances that's simply not realistic at all. With single-player your main focus should be story, atmosphere, and general flow of gameplay. A game like HL1 & 2 are good examples of well balanced, linear singleplayer shooters. They aren't too realism oriented, yet they aren't pure arcade action, either. That said, for example I think Red Orchestra: Ostfront, is [U]the[/U] best WW2 game ever made and one of the finest [B]mutiplayer[/B] experiences available even by todays standards, and that's about as realistic as a round-based game can get. It's been one of my favorite games for a long time. I still dig arcade-style games (especially TF2) I like most gamers grew up playing Doom 1&2, and Quake 1,2, & 3. but for me today, most of those game just don't have the Oomph that a realism game does. The weapons are really mundane, the weapon sounds don't have the sharp crack and thud that I come to expect, and all the weapons feel (and handle) like peashooters. I can certainly understand why people find arcade orientated games fun, but that's not to say realism-based games aren't equally good (assuming you don't suck ass at them) I play a fair bit of TF2 when Im over at friends houses, but most of my multiplayer game at home time is spent in red orchestra or it's mods. Lets compare the opposites here, TF2 is the embodiment of"classic" arcade FPS games, whereas RO (my personal favorite game <3) is a darker, more serious and realism-oriented game. Average TF2 gameplay [media]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZN6BwUKQ0sA[/media] Fast paced, totally non-serious and fairly casual environment. The visuals are pleasing, funny, yet non-offensive. You get a good rush when you're jumping through the air trying to lead a target to gib him with a rocket launcher. It's all good fun. At least that's why I like it. I don't play TF2 anywhere near as much as I used to, but the game has major respec from me for the gameplay and style it portrays *brofist* And this is my average RO gameplay experience. [media]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mSXdfMdU6uw[/media] Games like team Fortress just cant give me that same rush. Red Orchestra for me is one of the only games that can give such a feeling of suspense and absolute terror when playing in a gaming environment. Gunplay is very realistic and gunfire is terribly dangerous. Nothing makes you crap yourself like the sight of a Soviet IS2 or German Tiger I rolling over a pile of rubble, and sending out a a High Explosive round careening into a your buddy's MG nest with a thunderous boom, with nothing but body parts, blood, and entrails remaining in their previous position. It's a scary and intense game experience. TF2 and a game like RO or Arma are on [I]opposite ends of the gaming spectrum, [/I]for that reason I love them both. The gameplay for both is distinctive, original, and exhilarating. This is a "realistic" game, and it's very exciting and exhilarating. There are many games that try to combine realism and Arcade aspects, and really with a lot of those, it just isn't fun. They put you in a realistic backdrop with realistic visuals ye the gameplay totally fails to deliver the intensity such an environment deserves. I can agree with the OP on that part. (though GTA IV is an exception, they did a good job on that IMO) I can understand the gripe with "pseudo-realism" games, definitely. But it's not fair to classify all remotely realistic games as bad or un-original, as there are tonnes of exceptions. Realism can be such a deep and satisfying experience if it is used properly. [editline]23rd January 2011[/editline] wow thats a lot of text
[QUOTE=lavacano;27615732]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] I thought the real-time combat in Fallout 3/New Vegas was fucking terrible. I used VATS as often as possible just t avoid it.
[QUOTE=ChosenOne54;27617001]Really? Why don't you try holding down 'w' next time you play Half-Life 2, and see how far you get? I know that was an exaggeration you were making, but honestly, it sounds like you are hating HL2 for the sake of hating. The fact that Half-Life 2 doesn't have an objective system shows that it is not completely linear; you do have to find the path for yourself, despite there being only one path when you look closer. I guess you just ignored my comment about the illusion of multiple routes.[/QUOTE] You got it backwards again, objectives are for when there's more than one thing to do and you need clarification.
I actually playes the original Serious Sam at a friends house about a year ago and it was fun as shit, I might get the HD remake.
[QUOTE=hypno-toad;27617138]Average TF2 gameplay [media]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZN6BwUKQ0sA[/media] Fast paced, totally non-serious and fairly casual environment. The visuals are pleasing, funny, yet non-offensive. You get a good rush when you're jumping through the air trying to lead a target to gib him with a rocket launcher. It's all good fun. At least that's why I like it. I don't play TF2 anywhere near as much as I used to, but the game has major respec from me for the gameplay and style it portrays *brofist*[/QUOTE] To show how TF2 is a casual and fun game, you pick a video from someone who considers themselves to be a competitive player :raise: Competitive TF2 is a joke in terms of the fun and stupidity the game revolves around. At least you didn't pick a competitive commentary or *shudder* a frag video.
[QUOTE=BmB;27617362]You got it backwards again, objectives are for when there's more than one thing to do and you need clarification.[/QUOTE] No, objectives make a game more linear. When you have a flashing waypoint on screen, and fellow soldiers telling you where to go at all times, there is very little room for exploration. You are essentially being shoved down a narrow path. The map may be larger, but that is, at that point, irrelevant; you have a waypoint. You follow that waypoint. You complete the objective. Then you repeat the same process. That is true linearity. With something like Half-Life 2, while the path may be linear, you do not have a waypoint onscreen, and are therefore forced to explore a little bit, and find the path. As I said before, the maps and the world feel much bigger than they are, and as a result feel much more alive and fleshed out than the like of Call of Duty or Halo.
[QUOTE=hexpunK;27617409]To show how TF2 is a casual and fun game, you pick a video from someone who considers themselves to be a competitive player :raise: Competitive TF2 is a joke in terms of the fun and stupidity the game revolves around. At least you didn't pick a competitive commentary or *shudder* a frag video.[/QUOTE] I'm not going to spend four hours searching through million of TF2 videos trying to find one that's perfect.
[QUOTE=BmB;27617362]You got it backwards again, objectives are for when there's more than one thing to do and you need clarification.[/QUOTE] Call of Duty uses objectives, but there is only one thing to do at a time in almost all circumstances (the others are usually take out x enemy y, one objective split into multiple simultaneous ones). Objects can be used anywhere really. [editline]23rd January 2011[/editline] [QUOTE=hypno-toad;27617543]I'm not going to spend four hours searching through million of TF2 videos trying to find one that's perfect.[/QUOTE] True, I wasn't complaining, just thinking out loud mostly.
I am glad the market isn't filled with realistic games, and worse, games that try to be realistic and fail with it.
Serious Sam was linear. I played the HD version and you would just take one path on most levels. The only time you get a choice in Serious Sam is if you have to activate two things that are opposite each other on the map to open a door or something like that.
[QUOTE=ChosenOne54;27617496]No, objectives make a game more linear. When you have a flashing waypoint on screen, and fellow soldiers telling you where to go at all times, there is very little room for exploration. You are essentially being shoved down a narrow path. The map may be larger, but that is, at that point, irrelevant; you have a waypoint. You follow that waypoint. You complete the objective. Then you repeat the same process. That is true linearity. With something like Half-Life 2, while the path may be linear, you do not have a waypoint onscreen, and are therefore forced to explore a little bit, and find the path. As I said before, the maps and the world feel much bigger than they are, and as a result feel much more alive and fleshed out than the like of Call of Duty or Halo.[/QUOTE] That's my whole complaint, there's nothing to explore because there's nothing but the main path, it's made so singular, so obvious, you don't even need to think about it. Just close your eyes, press w. In Halo you might get a waypoint or an objective in a more or less open map, and make your own way through that. Forcing exploration. A much better example would be Mirrors Edge with only a vague objective given. You [b]must[/b] explore and think about the world to get where you need to. And you must think about where that is and why you are going there. That lends it an immense solidity and reality. And really draws you in.
[QUOTE=Lord_Ragnarok;27599983]The thing that I miss is blowing the fuck out of large, threatening super monsters.[/QUOTE] Go play Painkiller.
[QUOTE=hypno-toad;27615348]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] 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.[/QUOTE] Black Ops was one of the only good Call of Duty games made in a while. It had a more complicated, creative story, it had a time period that isn't used in games very often, it had the zombies game mode with three maps included, and the characters weren't as generic as the characters in the Modern Warfare series. No, turning the difficulty up means the enemies will become harder to beat. The larger use of grenades is to flush you out of areas, thus making it more [U][B][I]CHALLENGING. [/I][/B][/U][QUOTE=BmB;27617766]That's my whole complaint, there's nothing to explore because there's nothing but the main path, it's made so singular, so obvious, you don't even need to think about it. Just close your eyes, press w. In Halo you might get a waypoint or an objective in a more or less open map, and make your own way through that. Forcing exploration. A much better example would be Mirrors Edge with only a vague objective given. You [B]must[/B] explore and think about the world to get where you need to. And you must think about where that is and why you are going there. That lends it an immense solidity and reality. And really draws you in.[/QUOTE] My experience in Half-Life was practically the same as my experience in Half-Life 2. The only times I got a chance to explore is when I would have to activate multiple things on the map to get to the next part of the map. The main difference between the two games is the settings. [QUOTE=hypno-toad;27618068]Everything after Call of Duty 1 (and UO) and Call of Duty 2 sucked. Even Call of Duty 2 was pushing it. Modern Warfare 2 was okay since it was a new setting and all, but it should have ended there.[/QUOTE] How many Call of Duty games have you even played? [QUOTE=BmB;27618249]The plaza is just shit its where you get lost because you have no way to think about where to go. It's a problem you pretty much have to brute force, just close your eyes, press w until you can progress along the arbitrary linear path, with nothing added to the atmosphere from that. Pretty, though.[/QUOTE] "Close your eyes, press w." Yes, that will be very helpful on the Jeep and Airboat levels. Stop using that argument because it's extremely invalid. In the plaza, you get to explore and get used to the controls. You also got to explore the small area of Black Mesa you start off at in Half-Life. After that, in both games, you go from point A to point B with exception of puzzles or maze-like areas every few levels.
[QUOTE=BmB;27617766]That's my whole complaint, there's nothing to explore because there's nothing but the main path, it's made so singular, so obvious, you don't even need to think about it. Just close your eyes, press w. In Halo you might get a waypoint or an objective in a more or less open map, and make your own way through that. Forcing exploration. A much better example would be Mirrors Edge with only a vague objective given. You [b]must[/b] explore and think about the world to get where you need to. And you must think about where that is and why you are going there. That lends it an immense solidity and reality. And really draws you in.[/QUOTE] The first time playing through Half-Life 2, it is quite easy to not know where to go at first. Take Point Insertion for example; the plaza is open in front of you, and you need to find your way by yourself. Also look at Ravenholm; the city is designed in the model of a sort of circle, and you need to find your way through the zombie infested streets with almost no help. Just because Halo has open maps, that doesn't make it any less linear. Look here: [url]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nB8jtdjQtEs[/url] You are simply walking through identical technical corridors, and you also have waypoints. Not only that, but most of the time in Halo, you have allies constantly telling you where to go. There isn't a lot of exploration in Halo; thinking that Halo is non-linear would be purposely misguiding yourself. The case with Half-Life is also true with Halo; the worlds may look open, yet they are still very linear. The difference is that the linearity isn't that well disguised in Halo. [url]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TDWhbJrgTvg&feature=related[/url] There is only one path; there are no branching routes, or even any illusion of the map being larger than it is. You are on a cliff face, or in a forest, and your allies are all going one way, as do you.
Everything after Call of Duty 1 (and UO) and Call of Duty 2 sucked. Even Call of Duty 2 was pushing it. Modern Warfare* (not 2) was okay since it was a new setting and all, but it should have ended there.
[QUOTE=ChosenOne54;27618021]The first time playing through Half-Life 2, it is quite easy to not know where to go at first. Take Point Insertion for example; the plaza is open in front of you, and you need to find your way by yourself. Also look at Ravenholm; the city is designed in the model of a sort of circle, and you need to find your way through the zombie infested streets with almost no help. Just because Halo has open maps, that doesn't make it any less linear. Look here: [url]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nB8jtdjQtEs[/url] You are simply walking through identical technical corridors, and you also have waypoints. Not only that, but most of the time in Halo, you have allies constantly telling you where to go. There isn't a lot of exploration in Halo; thinking that Halo is non-linear would be purposely misguiding yourself. The case with Half-Life is also true with Halo; the worlds may look open, yet they are still very linear. The difference is that the linearity isn't that well disguised in Halo. [url]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TDWhbJrgTvg&feature=related[/url] There is only one path; there are no branching routes, or even any illusion of the map being larger than it is. You are on a cliff face, or in a forest, and your allies are all going one way, as do you.[/QUOTE] The plaza is just shit its where you get lost because you have no way to think about where to go. It's a problem you pretty much have to brute force, just close your eyes, press w until you can progress along the arbitrary linear path, with nothing added to the atmosphere from that. Pretty, though.
[QUOTE=BmB;27618249]The plaza is just shit its where you get lost because you have no way to think about where to go. [/QUOTE] I don't understand what you are trying to say here. When you are exploring, the general idea is that you don't know where to go, and you look around to find the best route. That's the case with the plaza; the Combine have set up barricades and force fields preventing you from getting anywhere, so you look around, and spot a little ladder leading over a fence. You then use this to your advantage, and progress further. That is the general idea of exploration. [QUOTE] press w until you can progress along the arbitrary linear path, [/QUOTE] Please, can we stop with the pointless hyperbole? There is much more to Half-Life 2 than simply holding down 'w.'
[QUOTE=ChosenOne54;27618375]Please, can we stop with the pointless hyperbole? There is much more to Half-Life 2 than simply holding down 'w.'[/QUOTE] He's been holding down W for his entire argument. He hit a wall after his first use of this statement and that's why he's not moving forward at all.
[QUOTE=lavacano;27620759]He's been holding down W for his entire argument. He hit a wall after his first use of this statement and that's why he's not moving forward at all.[/QUOTE] I lol'd :D
[QUOTE=lavacano;27615732]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] lol Wait, you're serious? Jesus christ. The gamebryo Fallouts have some of the [i]worst[/i] FPS combat i've ever seen. The controls and firing are so awkward and clunky, and there's absolutely no way to dodge enemy fire. Gun battles are basically stand there and shoot at eachother, hoping the enemies die before you do. Atleast in new vegas you can sneak around more effectively and weapons aren't as much of peashooters.
[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? And if we can compare a game like Unreal Tournament to Call of Duty, this is obviously true. I mean its called Unreal Tournament, and thats what it is..[/QUOTE] I agree, to a point. I dont like the COD games. i only like the zombies from it, and possibly certain campagns. But yea, i loved Unreal Tourn. 4. it was great! I like FPS games that are like Fallout 3 more though. 1psn or 3prsn view.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.