FPS quality last generation vs this generation

B-Cell_v1legacy

New member
Feb 9, 2016
2,102
0
0
Hello,

so my dear friends. i have been thinking about it. i mean look at the quality of last gen FPS games.



3 different games, by 3 different developers feel exact same almost 10 years ago. aim down the sight, regen health, linear campaign, same multiplayer. etc

and now look at this gen FPS







3 Different FPS by 3 Different developers feel exact opposite of each other. the former above are even by a one publisher.

it makes me realize that the quality difference between last gen FPS and this gen FPS is just drastically improving.

obviously early 00s and late 90s FPS are still best. but holy crap. i cant believe we just jump into quality gaming once again after almost butchered 10 years ago.

what do you think my friends? do you think this gen FPS quality is drastically improved? discuss
 

Adam Jensen_v1legacy

I never asked for this
Sep 8, 2011
6,651
0
0
I think you're bugging out again. We had pretty bad and pretty great FPS games last gen and we have great and terrible FPS games now. And you think that you can draw a conclusion about the most popular gaming genre in history of gaming by boiling it down to a couple of screenshots?
 

sXeth

Elite Member
Legacy
Apr 3, 2020
2,636
117
68
Cherry pickings fun, eh.

I can just flip that around by taking lesse.. Bulletstorm, Painkiller and Borderlands from last gen.

Then just grab Killzone SF, Infinite Warfare and Titanfall 2 from this one (I even used the futurey type ones rather then the military ones for some variety).

(I'm even being subversive, because I dislike Borderlands and enjoyed Titanfall 2 (before the surge of "balance patches" nerfed everything to garbage).
 

Hawki

Elite Member
Legacy
Apr 5, 2020
7,626
988
118
Country
Australia
Gender
Male
Y'know, people have said pretty much everything that needs to be said about this, so I'll go one step further - looking at my top 10 FPS list, 2 are from the 1990s, 6 are from the 2000s, and 2 are from the 2010s. So while that's extremely subjective, I don't buy the idea that the entire genre just became arbitrarily good/bad depending on decade.

Oh, and as for those specific examples, I like Killzone, and dislike Doom 2016, so, um, there.
 

Souplex

Souplex Killsplosion Awesomegasm
Jul 29, 2008
10,312
0
0
Honestly, there have been few if any FPSes that have interested me this generation.
I feel like we need a B-Cell version of the Eternal Nothingness gif.
 

B-Cell_v1legacy

New member
Feb 9, 2016
2,102
0
0
Ezekiel said:
Doom was cool. Didn't even finish Prey and have no intention of playing another Metro. I still think first person shooters are played out. Where are all the good third person shooters at?
Next Metro is nothing like previous games. its more open, akin to STALKER. thats the reason why we bunch of STALKER fans are hyping it because we are not getting STALKER 2. beside Metro is one of the best FPS series. it offer what any other series have not. its unique and innovative.

Third person shooters? there have never been since 15 years except max payne 3. because most of em are just cover based shooters. including fan favourite vanquish and spec ops the line. boring cover shooters.
 

Poetic Nova

Pulvis Et Umbra Sumus
Jan 24, 2012
1,974
0
0
If the last image in the OP is from the new Metro. I'm worried, very much so.
 

munx13

Some guy on the internet
Dec 17, 2008
431
0
0
The problem with the first image is that whoever made it only looked at what was advertised the most.

During that time we had stuff like STALKER, Killing Floor, Bioshock, Crysis, etc.
 

laggyteabag

Scrolling through forums, instead of playing games
Legacy
Apr 4, 2020
2,938
480
88
UK
Gender
He/Him
Poetic Nova said:
If the last image in the OP is from the new Metro. I'm worried, very much so.
Whys that? In that one image, it doesn't seem to be doing anything drastically different from the other two games.
Adam Jensen said:
I think you're bugging out again. We had pretty bad and pretty great FPS games last gen and we have great and terrible FPS games now. And you think that you can draw a conclusion about the most popular gaming genre in history of gaming by boiling it down to a couple of screenshots?
B-Cell generalising shooters? Who could have seen that coming?

OP: Okay, you know what B-Cell, please, enlighten us.

I have read through a lot of your threads, and in a whole bunch of them, you always throw out the same buzz words of "Regenerating health", "aiming down sights", "linear campaigns" like they are bad things.

So please, tell me, right here, right now: what exactly is wrong with all of these things?

I guess what I am asking you to do is to actually articulate a point.
 

B-Cell_v1legacy

New member
Feb 9, 2016
2,102
0
0
Laggyteabag said:
Poetic Nova said:
If the last image in the OP is from the new Metro. I'm worried, very much so.
Whys that? In that one image, it doesn't seem to be doing anything drastically different from the other two games.
Adam Jensen said:
I think you're bugging out again. We had pretty bad and pretty great FPS games last gen and we have great and terrible FPS games now. And you think that you can draw a conclusion about the most popular gaming genre in history of gaming by boiling it down to a couple of screenshots?
B-Cell generalising shooters? Who could have seen that coming?

OP: Okay, you know what B-Cell, please, enlighten us.

I have read through a lot of your threads, and in a whole bunch of them, you always throw out the same buzz words of "Regenerating health", "aiming down sights", "linear campaigns" like they are bad things.

So please, tell me, right here, right now: what exactly is wrong with all of these things?

I guess what I am asking you to do is to actually articulate a point.
the better question is what is good about them?

we grew up playing old school FPS that were deep and complex. games like system shock, deus ex, half life, and then later FEAR and STALKER. until COD4 came out we just move backward.

in COD4 type FPS. its SP is short, very short and scripted to the point it took control out of player.

i mean take a look at this


the video now sum up perfectly nice what was wrong with those type of games.
 

Rip Van Rabbit

~ UNLIMITED RULEBOOK ~
Apr 17, 2012
712
0
0
How many times can you make the same thread, reiterating the same generalizations? Add a heaping spoonful of buzzwords and you got yourself another B-Cell thread about the FPS genre. About as stale as the FPS genre itself.

There is merit to different takes on the genre, a strict adherence to your preferred formula is just another form of regression.
 

Hawki

Elite Member
Legacy
Apr 5, 2020
7,626
988
118
Country
Australia
Gender
Male
B-Cell said:
the better question is what is good about them?
Regenerating Health: Allows the gameplay to be more forgiving if necessary, also allows it to be more intense if the ability to regenerate health is offset by low HP as a whole. Forces the player to be more slow and methodical, using cover. Negates the need for healthpacks, which allows encounters to be more tightly controlled. Gives a good sense of vulnerability, which is useful if one is steering towards the realistic end of the spectrum.

Aiming Down Sights: Gives the player a better sense of immersion, especially if one is trying to harken to how guns are used in real life. Adds some tactics in that one has to choose between accuracy and mobility.

Linear Campaigns: Allows for a tighter, more focused story to be told. Also allows greater control of pacing.

There. Done.

Now, you can list bad things about this, but the good/bad of it is entirely subjective.

we grew up
Replace "we" with "I." You don't speak for all of us. You certainly don't speak for me.

COD4 came out we just move backward.
I've never played CoD 4, but I can think of two key areas it moved forward. One was its take on multiplayer. The other was its cultural context, in that we had a game that tapped into the post-9/11 zeitgeist, along with the invasion of Iraq. Not only was CoD 4 a massive contextual shift from the WWII period, but it did so in a way that tapped into people's unease about the War on Terror, ranging from the use of drone warfare (symbolizing the ever-increasing detachment between people and war as a result of advances in technology), and its "nuke scene," which shows that even technology has its limits in the face of nuclear firepower.

This is what other people have said rather than me, mind you, but it's easy to appreciate CoD in both its mechanical influence, as well as its cultural context.


the video now sum up perfectly nice what was wrong with those type of games.
No, I does a good job of showing why TB doesn't like them.

Also, if we're playing the video game:


If you want to understand why CoD 4 was so influential, skip to the CoD 4 section.
 

sXeth

Elite Member
Legacy
Apr 3, 2020
2,636
117
68
Rip Van Rabbit said:
How many times can you make the same thread, reiterating the same generalizations? Add a heaping spoonful of buzzwords and you got yourself another B-Cell thread about the FPS genre. About as stale as the FPS genre itself.

There is merit to different takes on the genre, a strict adherence to your preferred formula is just another form of regression.
I'm not sure how much of a different take you could really put on an FPS. The "genre" as generally used is literally a camera view and projectile weapons (and most would insist *guns* though there's been a handful of magic-casting FPS games that otherwise didn't embrace any RPG stuff).

Popular certainly, but as a genre its buried itself completely into a microscopic niche and rejected most success outside of that formula completely (whether it be Thief/Dark Messiah/Dishonored, Portal, GTA5 when they added it in hell Skyrim, to throw out a few popular titles that use FPS mechanics but get excluded from the genre).
 

laggyteabag

Scrolling through forums, instead of playing games
Legacy
Apr 4, 2020
2,938
480
88
UK
Gender
He/Him
B-Cell said:
the better question is what is good about them?

we grew up playing old school FPS that were deep and complex. games like system shock, deus ex, half life, and then later FEAR and STALKER. until COD4 came out we just move backward.

in COD4 type FPS. its SP is short, very short and scripted to the point it took control out of player.

i mean take a look at this

[VIDEO SNIP]

the video now sum up perfectly nice what was wrong with those type of games.
Great tactical question dodging, there.


You can't answer a question with a question, and then go on about how great games like System Shock and Deus Ex are, whilst ragging on CoD 4, without any explanation or context, other than that CoD 4 is short.

Sure, that section of Medal of Honor Warfighter is trash, and that is an extreme example of linearity being handled poorly by the developers, but just because a feature can be abused, doesn't mean that the feature is trash overall.

There are plenty of great linear games that you yourself have admitted to being a big fan of - like Doom 2016, and the Metro games.

The clip doesn't, however, explain why you think that regenerating health, or ADSing is bad for games.

I don't want you to try and deflect the question, or link me to a video. I want you to - in your own words - tell me why:
Linear games are bad
Regenerating health is bad
Aiming down Sights is bad
 

sXeth

Elite Member
Legacy
Apr 3, 2020
2,636
117
68
undeadsuitor said:
whats the alternative to aiming down sights? Like....your vision just slightly zooming in and your weapon magically aiming better?
The more run'n'gun/actiony FPS generally just had regular aim outside of occasional snipers.

The general thing with ADS that folks dislike is it slows down the pace as its traditionally also packed on to a slowdown effect. And more often then not, the implementation involves making not-sighting worse and having the ADS remove the debuff (usually bloom) rather then actually making the sighting practical.
 

Phoenixmgs_v1legacy

Muse of Fate
Sep 1, 2010
4,691
0
0
B-Cell said:
Laggyteabag said:
Adam Jensen said:
I think you're bugging out again. We had pretty bad and pretty great FPS games last gen and we have great and terrible FPS games now. And you think that you can draw a conclusion about the most popular gaming genre in history of gaming by boiling it down to a couple of screenshots?
B-Cell generalising shooters? Who could have seen that coming?

OP: Okay, you know what B-Cell, please, enlighten us.

I have read through a lot of your threads, and in a whole bunch of them, you always throw out the same buzz words of "Regenerating health", "aiming down sights", "linear campaigns" like they are bad things.

So please, tell me, right here, right now: what exactly is wrong with all of these things?

I guess what I am asking you to do is to actually articulate a point.
the better question is what is good about them?

we grew up playing old school FPS that were deep and complex. games like system shock, deus ex, half life, and then later FEAR and STALKER. until COD4 came out we just move backward.

in COD4 type FPS. its SP is short, very short and scripted to the point it took control out of player.

i mean take a look at this


the video now sum up perfectly nice what was wrong with those type of games.
And the FPS era before last-gen's MMS trend was a WWII trend that everyone got tired of as well. Really the WWII setting just got traded for the Modern setting. Funny that video of MoH Warfighter was not only probably the very worst of MMS shooters while also being the best because the campaign was complete shit but the multiplayer was the best of last-gen among MMS shooters, truly a skill-based shooter because of higher health requiring better aim (as you couldn't spray and pray) with emphasis on movement as well (with the lean and slide mechanics).

Lastly, STALKER, System Shock and Deus Ex aren't even FPSs, they are in the immersive sim genre with Deus Ex being arguably an RPG or immersive sim (flip a coin really).