Dear FPS makers...

[Worgen]

I just can't really agree. I don't think re-releasing DOOM would do very much for the FPS genre at this point. Re-releasing something like the first Unreal Tournament or Tribes 2 would make more sense as, while not particularly contemporary as far as modern shooters go, they both encompass features and gameplay mechanics that are still relevant today. I can't see a reason to re-release DOOM over something younger and more relevant.

it doesnt need a rerelease, if you play doom with zdoom then it looks pretty and its very compatable with modern OS

ot: seriously, you need serious sam hd or the new one bfe, serious sam bfe isnt out but of all the serous sam games I would say the 2nd encounter is my fave so far, its just fantastic

oh, also, painkiller, its very similar game play

 

[Assassin Xaero]

2) No Health Regen:
A fully kitted out player can take a lot of hits. Fully healed and armoured, a player can afford a few mistakes as they storm through the carnage and seek to obliterate everything else that moves. However, you can't take too many hits, and you don't heal just by cowering in the corner. The game, therefore, has a completely different set of tactics. As before, movement is key, only this time it's not about rushing the enemy; it's about rushing THROUGH the enemy, or perhaps away from them. When the chips are down the player has to quickly work out an escape route, flee to the nearest health and/or ammo, then get back into the fight.

This kind of on-the-fly resource management is all but gone from modern games. Hell, Duke Nukem is the last game I played where, in single player at least, I ever had any worries about AMMO, let alone health; modern games also seem to believe players should always have far more bullets than they'll ever need.

Yeah, and then when you are down to 3 health and have to go through a hallway with two of the hardest enemies so far in the game, plus another little strogg, you are fucked and have to spend an hour trying to do it... Not fun. Regenerating health, although annoying, keeps balance so this doesn't happen. They could at least have it regenerate to a certain point (25-30), so you still have a fighting chance...

 

[GigaHz]

DOOM was and still is perfect. That's exactly why they should leave it as it is.

Even though there is no modern fps comparison to both the atmosphere and frantic pace of DOOM and DOOM 2, that doesn't mean that re-releasing the game is going to win over any hearts. As much as I hate to say it, the fast "twitch-shooter" days of yesteryear are for the most part over. It is no longer about mowing down armies against impossible odds by actually confronting them, it is more about wall-hugging, cover-shooting and occasionally waiting until you remove the jelly that seems to render you unable to see, then rinse and repeat.

For me, no game will ever match the adrenaline rush of experiencing NIghtmare mode and its near-impossible difficulty. The one mode where speed running is the only option and even that will not guarantee success. I have never felt more thrill and anxiety with any other FPS in my life. This is also my theory why many newer gamers don't really see the charm of Doom. Everyone who is used to modern shooters should play on Ultra-Violence at least for a proper experience. It's not nearly as stressful and unfair as Nightmare mode but it still offers plenty of monsters to mow down and a fair amount of difficulty.

As you can tell, I'm kissing this game's ass. You could argue that I am biased but I am biased for good reason. Doom was the first FPS game to get everything right. It is the reason why FPS became a viable genre. It was the inspiration for Duke 3d, Quake, UT, Serious Sam and many more. It was so influential that for a good few years, FPS games were called DOOM-clones. It is the Super Mario of FPS games and should be respected and experienced if you value the genre. Re-releasing it however, is not the proper way to honour it. It is the equivalent of thinking that because Godfather and Godfather part II were so influential for modern filmmaking, they should be re-released. I can tell you, more than just film buffs would be upset about that.

But if you are looking for a more modern based twitch-shooter to quench your recently awoken palette, Painkiller is pretty damn awesome. I would check it out if you haven't already.

 

[Wargamer]

in really do love the integrity with which your treating a genre which gets so soundly bashed about these day by the comuntiy in quite un thoughtful ways.

I think the FPS gets a lot of unfair flak. It also gets a lot of well deserved flak, but an FPS game is never bad because its an FPS - it's bad because it's a bad game. Hell, looking back many of the games that really stand out for me are First Person Shooters; from DOOM, Goldeneye and Perfect Dark to Mechwarrior 2: Mercenaries (just because you're playing as a 3-story, 80 tonne Mech doesn't mean it's not an FPS...), there are some absolute classics in there.

All of them were brilliant in their own way, and it's almost sad to see how many have been seemingly forgotten. Whatever happened to Bots? Does anyone remember when an FPS title had four players and sixty guns, rather than the other way around? Hell, it seems even the much-boasted ideals of "Massive" Online FPS gaming is gone. Resistance has slashed its multiplayer numbers, and Killzone hacked their games down from 32 to 24 (less for GW and Operations). Kind of sad really.

Realistically, I think all we need to see from FPS developers is evidence that they are learning from what came before, not just copying it. My biggest complaint about "Modern" FPS shooters like Call of Duty and... well... the Call of Duty clones is that they are, as stated, clones. I can't honestly say that I can see the difference between playing Call of Duty, or Battlefield or Medal of Honour or whatever. Maybe I would if I actually played these games, but as an outsider they all look exactly the same, but we all know Halo when we see it, even if we don't actually like it.

That, once again, is where DOOM shines; you know when you're playing it. You know when you're watching someone else play it. Hell, you can tell DOOM is being played just by standing outside the door and listening to the sound effects! That is good game design, and all the truly classic games, be they Mario, Zelda or whatever, do the exact same thing. The genre needs a few more attempts to push boundaries, do something new and, above all, do something distinctive and a lot less copy-pasting of others. In short, more Borderlands, less Black Ops.

Yeah, and then when you are down to 3 health and have to go through a hallway with two of the hardest enemies so far in the game, plus another little strogg, you are fucked and have to spend an hour trying to do it... Not fun. Regenerating health, although annoying, keeps balance so this doesn't happen. They could at least have it regenerate to a certain point (25-30), so you still have a fighting chance...

I think that's why I enjoyed Resistance 1 so much - it had the "Hybrid" health system, which sadly they abandoned for Resistance 2. We can but hope they have a return to sanity for Resistance 3.

For those unfamiliar with it, the "Hybrid" system works as follows; your health is split into four bars, and they are drained successively. Each bar can regenerate over time, but only as long as there is some health still inside.

Or, to put it another way:
If you are reduced to 99-76% health and duck into cover, you'll regenerate to 100% health.
If you are reduced to 75%, you don't regen at all.
If you are reduced to 51-74% health, you'll only regen to 75%.

This continues all the way down, meaning that you always, in theory, can rely on having 25% health if you're careful. This system also encourages players to go looking for health packs, because it's always nice to have full health in case someone has a rocket launcher up ahead.


The other problem that DOOM has, which may divide the gamers out there, is item loss on death. If you die in DOOM, you respawn with a pistol and nothing else. That can make previously easy segments very hard going. I think, where a modern game to return to old school high-speed mayhem, you would have to give players back all their gear on death. That way, you don't force players to rely on quick-load to progress forwards.

 

[Netrigan]

Ah, Doom2. Had some great level design there...some silly ones like barrels of fun which didn't fit the theme, though.

They knew how to do proper jump scares back then.

I think they succeeded by not scripting any of them. They just provided a creepy environment with some good sound effects. Then the scares happened when they happened. Low health and ammo were big contributors, but the straight-ahead AI combined with twisty passages meant that enemies were like marbles in a tilt-maze... you'd hear them roaming around, but never knew when you'd turn a corner and be face-to-face with a Demon.

But mostly, it was just a high-octane action game... and I think that was the key. Games like F.E.A.R. or Dead Rising go out of their way to scare you, but the heavy scripting means you see most of the scares coming.

 

[Jakub324]

Fuck Doom. Cover based combat exists because it's popular, and why is it popular? Because it just WORKS BETTER than running and gunning because developers know how much health you are going to have (assuming health regenerates, which it always does these days) so they can balance levels properly. Run and gun has a place, but cover-based combat should remain dominant.

 

[Assassin Xaero]

Yeah, and then when you are down to 3 health and have to go through a hallway with two of the hardest enemies so far in the game, plus another little strogg, you are fucked and have to spend an hour trying to do it... Not fun. Regenerating health, although annoying, keeps balance so this doesn't happen. They could at least have it regenerate to a certain point (25-30), so you still have a fighting chance...

I think that's why I enjoyed Resistance 1 so much - it had the "Hybrid" health system, which sadly they abandoned for Resistance 2. We can but hope they have a return to sanity for Resistance 3.

For those unfamiliar with it, the "Hybrid" system works as follows; your health is split into four bars, and they are drained successively. Each bar can regenerate over time, but only as long as there is some health still inside.

Or, to put it another way:
If you are reduced to 99-76% health and duck into cover, you'll regenerate to 100% health.
If you are reduced to 75%, you don't regen at all.
If you are reduced to 51-74% health, you'll only regen to 75%.

This continues all the way down, meaning that you always, in theory, can rely on having 25% health if you're careful. This system also encourages players to go looking for health packs, because it's always nice to have full health in case someone has a rocket launcher up ahead.


The other problem that DOOM has, which may divide the gamers out there, is item loss on death. If you die in DOOM, you respawn with a pistol and nothing else. That can make previously easy segments very hard going. I think, where a modern game to return to old school high-speed mayhem, you would have to give players back all their gear on death. That way, you don't force players to rely on quick-load to progress forwards.

So, in other words, a modified version of the Chronicles or Riddick health system, only difference being health kits instead of med stations?

 

[Wargamer]

Fuck Doom. Cover based combat exists because it's popular, and why is it popular? Because it just WORKS BETTER than running and gunning because developers know how much health you are going to have (assuming health regenerates, which it always does these days) so they can balance levels properly. Run and gun has a place, but cover-based combat should remain dominant.

No, it shouldn't. Cover based shooting does NOT "work better". If cover based shooting is better, why do the most successful online FPS games not use it?

What traits dominate the online scene? In my experience, the following traits dominate online play, which I will call the "Triple-A" rule of online play:

1) Ambush: If you open up on a player who doesn't know you are there, you win.
2) Accuracy: If you can land more bullets into the enemy than they can land into you, you win. Alternatively, if you can get the headshot and they can't, you win. Either way, the better shot wins.
3) Aggression: Players who keep moving and keep attacking tend to do better than those who are timid. If you slow down, you give the enemy a chance to take stock of what's going on and, thus, retaliate.

So, why do these traits not show through on single player? Because, as other have said, single player is so linear these days that you can't use the tricks that Multiplayer requires. The enemy will always be ahead of you, will probably be dug in, and there's bugger all means to flank around or bypass the attack altogether. As such, the only option left is to cower in cover and snipe the enemy one by one.

If you designed single player levels the way Multiplayer maps are, you'd see cover-hugging tactics go out of the window.