Dear FPS makers...

[Woodsey]

4) DOOM is pure:
There's a story to DOOM. Here it is: You're a Space Marine. Your team is dead, killed by the legions of Hell that came pouring out of a portal on Mars, and now the only thing between them and ruling the Red Planet (or Earth, if you're playing the sequel) is you. Good luck with that.

Snore.

There are plenty more interesting things that could be done with FPS's if they weren't all trying to copy CoD and doing their best to make a set-piece out of your every fucking step. Why Crysis 2 moved on from what made Crysis so good (other then fitting it on consoles) is beyond me.

And if they actually bothered with a story they'd instantly become a whole lot more interesting. And no, CoD doesn't count, they just get chimps to throw shit at a wall covered in clichés and then put them all together, with some bad dialogue (and admittedly some decent voice acting, bizarrely).

So Doom 3? Not everyone is dead and there's some story development.

Never played it. Don't remember it being lauded for its story though.

 

[Vibhor]

Never played it. Don't remember it being lauded for its story though.

Actually no FPS has been lauded for its story. Narrative yes but not story. Also, Doom and Half life 1 share the same plot. Doom is lauded for its frantic gameplay while Half life for its narrative. Go figure.

 

[V8 Ninja]

*cough-cough* [http://serioussam.com/]

Also, to avoid a low-content post suspension, here's the reveal trailer for Serious Sam 3:

[youtube:vdKzLOnVMZ4]

 

[MelasZepheos_v1legacy]

Halo Reach has no cover based shooting, Halo Reach has no health regen, Halo Reach sticks you in equal parts tiny cramped corridors and large open spaces. Halo Reach has a story which can be largely ignored if you want to, making it a case of 'aliens r bad, kill they asses.'

But is that all you really want? I admit that modern shooters are not perfect, but I haven't returned to Doom since I was young, because frankly I didn't find it any fun. Same with Wolfenstein and Duke Nukem 3D. They aren't nearly as good as most people's nostalgia goggles lead them to believe.

Now I know you may enjoy it, but you're probably part of a small minority of gamers, and publishers need to work to the crowd that might actually earn them something.

That's why games aren't as expansive nowadays, because there's not enough time and too much graphics nonsense to deal with.

Halo does have health regenaration, but with the Elites.

So games like Duke Nukem and DOOM aren't as good as people think because you didn't enjoy them? Way to speak for everybody.

Never played as an elite, so wouldn't know. You can't play as them in campaign anyway though? Don't know.

As for the second point, yeah it was kinda generalisation, but then again, so is

'Doom is pure, in this day and age we need some of that purity.'

No 'we' don't. 'We' need many different things, some of us like story, some of us don't. I happen to believe that Doom and Wolfenstein and Duke Nukem (Especially Duke Nukem) don't hold up at all to today's standards. Of course many may not agree, but this is a friendly discussion about FPSs, not a heavily political debate where I need to very carefully construct my argument.

 

[Woodsey]

Never played it. Don't remember it being lauded for its story though.

Actually no FPS has been lauded for its story. Narrative yes but not story. Also, Doom and Half life 1 share the same plot. Doom is lauded for its frantic gameplay while Half life for its narrative. Go figure.

They have the same "evil gateway" idea to jump from, similarities outside of that end at the basic concept of what most first-person shooters are (one man army).

Never played it. Don't remember it being lauded for its story though.

I actually really like it when it really gets going, the first few levels are kind of quiet while they try their horror gloves on but after that they kind of go 'screw it' and you get a straight up shooter.

So what does that have to do with the story?

 

[Timeenforceranubis]

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.

 

[Vibhor]

Never played it. Don't remember it being lauded for its story though.

Actually no FPS has been lauded for its story. Narrative yes but not story. Also, Doom and Half life 1 share the same plot. Doom is lauded for its frantic gameplay while Half life for its narrative. Go figure.

They have the same "evil gateway" idea to jump from, similarities outside of that end at the basic concept of what most first-person shooters are (one man army).

I even have to explain that to you!?
Well listen carefully and try not to get distracted by something shiny across the room.
Here goes, In Half life you open a portal to another world and monsters start pouring in and murder everyone in the facility except you. After this it gets a little more complicated but thats like saying GTA 4 is not about a man taking revenge and then explaining the whole plot.
In doom a portal to hell is opened and then monsters pour out and kill everyone in the facility except you.
OMG THAT IS TOTALLY AND COMPLETELY DIFFERENT!!!

 

[Woodsey]

Never played it. Don't remember it being lauded for its story though.

I actually really like it when it really gets going, the first few levels are kind of quiet while they try their horror gloves on but after that they kind of go 'screw it' and you get a straight up shooter.

So what does that have to do with the story?

The pacing changes obviously. It goes from set pieces and and creeping along whilst voices whisper at you to "YOU! We need this doodad! RUN ************ RUN!!!" They kind of get that the long cutscenes aren't working for you so they drop it in favour of a more open experience whilst just using the story to drive you along rather than kidding themselves that a gamer grew up not knowing this story.

I mean, when push comes to shove how much do they need tot ell you? It's Doom, it's practically etched into the psyche of every gamer. We are never going to find it surprising that demons invaded Mars, no matter how slow the buildup.

Gameplay pacing can be separate from story pacing though. And I did mean FPS's should have good stories, not just stories for the sake of it.

Never played it. Don't remember it being lauded for its story though.

Actually no FPS has been lauded for its story. Narrative yes but not story. Also, Doom and Half life 1 share the same plot. Doom is lauded for its frantic gameplay while Half life for its narrative. Go figure.

They have the same "evil gateway" idea to jump from, similarities outside of that end at the basic concept of what most first-person shooters are (one man army).

I even have to explain that to you!?
Well listen carefully and try not to get distracted by something shiny across the room.
Here goes, In Half life you open a portal to another world and monsters start pouring in and murder everyone in the facility except you. After this it gets a little more complicated but thats like saying GTA 4 is not about a man taking revenge and then explaining the whole plot.
In doom a portal to hell is opened and then monsters pour out and kill everyone in the facility except you.
OMG THAT IS TOTALLY AND COMPLETELY DIFFERENT!!!

OK, so you've just validated my point that the thing that kicks off the story and the basic concept of first-person shooters are the same. That's not the exact same story.

Anyone can link touchstones, that doesn't mean anything. If not we're going to end up saying Crysis, Half-Life and Halo are all the exact same story because they feature aliens and power-suits. And there's a slight logical fallacy in saying "the stories are exactly the same, just as long as you don't pay attention to what happens after the beginning of each story."

 

[pspman45]

no
bad idea
It will turn into a generic brown FPS with cover mechanics and only being able to carry 2 weapons

It will happen
don't make them ruin Doom...

 

[smartengine]

TL;DR

Try out quake live.

 

[WanderingFool]

I would say go and play DOOM if you're bored with todays FPSs.

DOOM was an interesting game, but that doesnt mean it would rock peoples asses off today.

 

[Signa]

OH hell yeah! I've been boasting about how great Doom was after I played it through fully for the first time in 2008. No one here believes me though. Just look at half of the nay-sayers in this thread.

 

[The Virgo]

...Re-release DOOM.

Having clocked more hours than is strictly healthy on FPS action, I have come to the conclusion that I am getting bored with them. I'm not saying it's not fun, but the prospect of trudging through yet another brown and grey generic landscape armed with two guns and bones that re-knit themselves if I can avoid being shot for .3 of a second is getting really, really tiresome. In fact, I got so tired of it I went and played DOOM for most of the weekend, and had a bloody great time doing so!

[...]

2) No Health Regen: [...]

3) DOOM breaks its own rules: [...]

4) DOOM is pure: [...]

Hmmm ... do you have a PS2 or Xbox 1?

If you do, I would recommend a game called TimeSplitters 2. It was made released back in 2002 (the first game was first FPS released on the PS2) and I think you would enjoy it.

It's not as fast-paced as doom, but the levels (whether in story mode or arcade) are rather diverse, ranging from (in the story mode) a Siberian Dam in 1990, the old west in the 1860's, an atom smasher in 1972 and a space station in the 2400's.

Where the game the shines is arcade mode, though. Although you start out a meager assortment of characters and a handful of levels, by playing the challenges, arcade league matches and story missions, you unlock more levels and characters. It's really the characters that are the highlight of TS2, as they range from serious to absurd, like the Insect Mutant, Robofish, Beetleman and Gingerbread Man ... that's right, you can play as a six-foot-tall gingerbread man!

I don't know if you would like it, but I think it's worth checking out.

Also: our birthdays are three days apart!

 

[shadow_Fox81]

man its like FPS fans never played things like the first condemned or bioshock did you look at the cover and think wait there are no marines. (sorry had to go there)

but really how great is wargamers (that guy at the start right) description of doom i never thought of the action being the primary emotive device in doom i always thought it was a grindy shooter with no real direction. i think he's shown less is more in a shooter and i like that methodology.

(even though my bioshock affair points to the contrary)

 

[someonehairy-ish]

DOOM simply puts you into an arena against a massive horde of enemies, and lets you discover just how good you are.

And theres your reason why it won't happen. Most people suck. And will get frustrated and bored with it the very first time a save becomes impossible due to using up all the health/ammo/whatever. That's the problem with finite resources and the reason modern games give you a shit-ton of em.
Even modern shooters tend to piss me off pretty quickly on the highest difficulty settings and doom was like that all the freaking tiiime.

If you want to change the fps game, pitch an idea to a game company that changes the game in a new way, not an old one.

 

[Wargamer]

man its like FPS fans never played things like the first condemned or bioshock did you look at the cover and think wait there are no marines. (sorry had to go there)

but really how great is wargamers (that guy at the start right) description of doom i never thought of the action being the primary emotive device in doom i always thought it was a grindy shooter with no real direction. i think he's shown less is more in a shooter and i like that methodology.

(even though my bioshock affair points to the contrary)

Bioshock was a really fun game. However, I found I didn't really have the drive to play it again. I think it's because what made Bioshock wonderful was the unknown; the world yet to be discovered, the plot twists that came out of nowhere; the utterly obsurdity of the place unfolding before me. The second time around I knew it all, and because I was playing the game, not playing along with the story, it fell flat.

I always feel bad about saying stuff like that though, because for the first playthrough Bioshock was one of the most enjoyable FPS experiences I've ever had.

But yes, on the DOOM front, the game is most certainly emotive because of its mechanics, not its plot. The character is a blank-slate character onto which we project ourselves, and the game mechanics in general are very good at creating a feeling of helplessnes. For example, most enemies use slow-moving attacks; fireballs, plasma bolts, etc. These can be spotted and dodged, providing you're far enough away, meaning that, in theory at least, DOOM is an easy game to beat. After all, how hard can it be to complete a game where you get plenty of time to jink out of any incoming attack?

Well that's the thing. DOOM shows you fairly early on how easy it is to avoid getting killed, and then it pulls the carpet out from under you. Suddenly it isn't so easy to avoid dying when there's no room to dodge, or when the Imp is three inches from your face, or when the enemy are coming from all sides.

Also, DOOM does something very few other FPS's seem to do; it rewards tactical play. Enemies can hurt each other with friendly fire, and when they do they can (and will) turn on each other instead of you. This means that in the most frantic of fights players can tilt the odds in their favour by positioning themselves in such a way as to cause friendly fire incidents amongst the enemy. Indeed, I believe the PC version of DOOM had a level dedicated to this concept where a Cyberdemon and Spider Mastermind duelled it out, or could be made to do so fairly easily. Looking back on many of the FPS titles I own or have played - Halo, Killzone, Resistance, Duke Nukem Forever - none of these have enemies who will attack each other, nor can the enemy commit Friendly Fire, aside from perhaps the odd stray grenade. As such, these games don't allow you to use tactics that DOOM has, which is especially ironic for "realistic" FPS games considering that friendly fire is a very realistic danger indeed!

There is a great deal of depth in that supposedly shallow game. That makes it all the more hillarious when you look at "deep" games like Call of Duty, which frankly I got bored of after the first mission and gave up on.

DOOM simply puts you into an arena against a massive horde of enemies, and lets you discover just how good you are.

And theres your reason why it won't happen. Most people suck. And will get frustrated and bored with it the very first time a save becomes impossible due to using up all the health/ammo/whatever. That's the problem with finite resources and the reason modern games give you a shit-ton of em.
Even modern shooters tend to piss me off pretty quickly on the highest difficulty settings and doom was like that all the freaking tiiime.

If you want to change the fps game, pitch an idea to a game company that changes the game in a new way, not an old one.

The truth, my friends, is far simpler; we have LEARNED to suck at games. I have gone back to old school titles from the Megadrive era and found myself wondering how the hell I used to beat these games as a kid. The answer, quite honestly, is that old games need practice. A modern title I can pick up, stick it on Hard Mode and waltz through without trying. An old game on Hard Mode is a nightmare to endure and punishes you constantly. Why? Because back then a good player could clock the game off in an hour at most. The only way to stick with the title was for it to be hard, so you had to keep trying over and over.

Modern games have skipped that, and now we're seeing people ***** and moan about how games are so damn short. In truth, games haven't been getting shorter, we're just completing them faster.

I think the industry should learn from this. I think they need to go back and think about what "Easy", "Normal" and "Hard" really mean. An Easy mode should be something a first time gamer can beat; go ahead and play DOOM on "I am a Wimp" and see for yourself what I mean - it's a breeze.

Normal is for people who are comfortable with games. You put the game on normal when you've played games like it before, or you've just played games for so long it's second nature. Normal is for everyone.

Hard? Ha. Yeah, THAT is so often mislabled. Hard mode should be for REAL fans. Hard Mode should kick the teeth out of your skull and give you NO room to breathe whatsoever. See "Crushing" on Uncharted 1 and 2 - THAT is what a Hard Mode should be. It's beatable, but only for people willing to sink a lot of time and effort into the game; Hard Mode is for people who WANT to have to play Old School - to memorise where to crouch so you can snipe the ambusher, to know which wall to toss grenades over, to work out that you can afford to be shot 9 times dashing from your current position to the secret room across the road because it'll give you the medpack and the rocket launcher. Hard Mode is for people who want to sink a lot of time into a game and to really WORK for their fun.

And so let's get something straight here; if that is ever going to happen, people need to stop being douchebags about difficulty levels. Too many people waltz around with stuck up attitudes like "anyone who can't beat Halo on Legendary is a n00b!" No, anyone who can't beat Halo on Legendary isn't willing to spend hours learning how to do it. Shut up, grow a pair and accept not everyone loves the game as much as you do. Part of why people claim games are getting easier is arguably because gamers are often not welcoming of outsiders who lack their skill levels, yet they so easily forget they were not born with their skills...

...but this is getting off topic.

 

[Squilookle]

I don't see any problem with FPSes going for in depth stories- they just aren't even really trying these days.

Everything else is pretty much spot on though- except you make it sound like DOOM laughs in the face of setpieces and regen health etc, when in reality it was made long before someone had decided to try it out in a game, rather than consciously defying those elements.

It's also worth pointing out that DOOM isn't really that unique in the elements you describe. Most games up until Halo came out had at least a few of those elements as well.

For some reason when you said that modern games just aren't like that anymore, Soldat popped into my mind. it's not an FPS, but I think you'd probably quite like it based on what you've written.

 

[Vibhor]

OK, so you've just validated my point that the thing that kicks off the story and the basic concept of first-person shooters are the same. That's not the exact same story.

Anyone can link touchstones, that doesn't mean anything. If not we're going to end up saying Crysis, Half-Life and Halo are all the exact same story because they feature aliens and power-suits. And there's a slight logical fallacy in saying "the stories are exactly the same, just as long as you don't pay attention to what happens after the beginning of each story."

/facepalm.
You are impossible.
You know what? I am not even gonna try anymore.

 

[Alphakirby]

Yeah,I own Doom on my iPod and I can see what you're talking about. Stupid fucking Cyberdemon filled room...

 

[shadow_Fox81]

man its like FPS fans never played things like the first condemned or bioshock did you look at the cover and think wait there are no marines. (sorry had to go there)

but really how great is wargamers (that guy at the start right) description of doom i never thought of the action being the primary emotive device in doom i always thought it was a grindy shooter with no real direction. i think he's shown less is more in a shooter and i like that methodology.

(even though my bioshock affair points to the contrary)

Bioshock was a really fun game. However, I found I didn't really have the drive to play it again. I think it's because what made Bioshock wonderful was the unknown; the world yet to be discovered, the plot twists that came out of nowhere; the utterly obsurdity of the place unfolding before me. The second time around I knew it all, and because I was playing the game, not playing along with the story, it fell flat.

I always feel bad about saying stuff like that though, because for the first playthrough Bioshock was one of the most enjoyable FPS experiences I've ever had.

But yes, on the DOOM front, the game is most certainly emotive because of its mechanics, not its plot. The character is a blank-slate character onto which we project ourselves, and the game mechanics in general are very good at creating a feeling of helplessnes. For example, most enemies use slow-moving attacks; fireballs, plasma bolts, etc. These can be spotted and dodged, providing you're far enough away, meaning that, in theory at least, DOOM is an easy game to beat. After all, how hard can it be to complete a game where you get plenty of time to jink out of any incoming attack?

Well that's the thing. DOOM shows you fairly early on how easy it is to avoid getting killed, and then it pulls the carpet out from under you. Suddenly it isn't so easy to avoid dying when there's no room to dodge, or when the Imp is three inches from your face, or when the enemy are coming from all sides.

Also, DOOM does something very few other FPS's seem to do; it rewards tactical play. Enemies can hurt each other with friendly fire, and when they do they can (and will) turn on each other instead of you. This means that in the most frantic of fights players can tilt the odds in their favour by positioning themselves in such a way as to cause friendly fire incidents amongst the enemy. Indeed, I believe the PC version of DOOM had a level dedicated to this concept where a Cyberdemon and Spider Mastermind duelled it out, or could be made to do so fairly easily. Looking back on many of the FPS titles I own or have played - Halo, Killzone, Resistance, Duke Nukem Forever - none of these have enemies who will attack each other, nor can the enemy commit Friendly Fire, aside from perhaps the odd stray grenade. As such, these games don't allow you to use tactics that DOOM has, which is especially ironic for "realistic" FPS games considering that friendly fire is a very realistic danger indeed!

There is a great deal of depth in that supposedly shallow game. That makes it all the more hillarious when you look at "deep" games like Call of Duty, which frankly I got bored of after the first mission and gave up on.

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.
although of all those you mentioned i only ever played halo and doom (which i'm definately giving another look now) i love the first person perspective though and as my choice of Condemned above showed i like the wierd ones, i mean you'll end up hugging a 2x4 most of the time in the dark but it is a true unsung gem, and cheap if you havn't played it. if your not too anxious you can use opponents as cover mellee attack and start a brawl between AI bots (although i usually did this accidently) so it has some tactics especially on the hard dificulty (the only way to play horror) but theyre all intense tiny encounters. I don't think any game captures the weight of mellee combat in such a satisfyingway as Condemned.

its not a true shooter though and nothing like doom so i couldn't recomend it to you in good faith but im digging out my old doom Cd to play now so i thought tit for tat was appropriate.