The "fun-shooters" return. But why would anyone want that?
- Thread starter Zannah
- Start date
Recommended Videos
Because some people remember the glory days when FPS's were fun over "trying to be a serious movie, story-arc with dramatic classical music in the background". Yeah, the storyline works for games like Thief, Metal Gear, etc...but a FPS just means you go around and shoot things and enjoy it.
Also, I couldn't stand the Halo series. The story was horrible, the characters extremely stereotyped, and the setting was just so boring. Ever played Hexen and Heretic? THOSE are brilliant games because of the atmosphere alone. Duke Nukem had humorous moments but it had serious gameplay elements as well.
Overall, not all games should be in-depth in terms of storytelling when the sole premiss it to run around and shoot everything. It gets to a point where it just becomes downright annoying. Even then, the "realism" factor in some games made me not want to play or overall care about the genre. It wasn't meant to be in other words.
Also, I couldn't stand the Halo series. The story was horrible, the characters extremely stereotyped, and the setting was just so boring. Ever played Hexen and Heretic? THOSE are brilliant games because of the atmosphere alone. Duke Nukem had humorous moments but it had serious gameplay elements as well.
Overall, not all games should be in-depth in terms of storytelling when the sole premiss it to run around and shoot everything. It gets to a point where it just becomes downright annoying. Even then, the "realism" factor in some games made me not want to play or overall care about the genre. It wasn't meant to be in other words.
Disregarding the boss fights (which can utilise differing elements of gameplay, so you have a valid point there), in terms of pure gameplay, it's the same thing; moving your character around to shoot what essentially amounts to glorified moving targets.Alexander Sverchkov said:
Coming from a gameplay perspective (as arguably one of the most important aspects of gaming. I say 'arguably' because even I don't agree with it, but it seems to be a common viewpoint) the 'fun' and 'not fun' concepts completely fall apart.
What makes a story fun? Why is 'alien invasion' an inherently more 'fun' concept than 'stopping a terrorist attack'?
Is that really 'fun'? It comes across as quite silly and immature to me, not a feature of a game that suddenly makes it more fun for being included.
I can't argue with that, it's nice when something doesn't take itself too seriously.
Because the ideas behind Duke Nukem are such a fresh, new concept?
The choice between generic grizzled military man or generic testosterone fuelled pig? Is there a third option I can take, maybe a protagonist that is actually interesting?
Yes, I would. Because a burst of bizarre, overpowered immaturity is MORE FUN then having someone screaming in my ear because they got eaten by a zombie yet again. Which sums up my entire experience with L4D.tghm1801 said:
Even disregarding the idea of fun (which is subjective), looking purely at ideas like technical innovation it's difficult to say which one is 'better'. They both brought great ideas to the table for their respective time. I find that quite funny, for such vividly different games.lacktheknack said:
Oh, I agree there. 'Variety is the spice of life' and all that. I just don't think that Call of Duty etc. are games that are specifically not fun to play. If they weren't fun to play, then why would millions of people be playing them? I don't see how Duke Nukem and Bulletstorm are a sudden injection of fun, when instead it is more an injection of variety and change.Alexander Sverchkov said:
I think another thing that people are really looking for, at least in Duke Nukem Forever, is true variety in gameplay. Sure CoD has the odd...cutscene to change up the "A to B shoot with REALISTIC MILITARY HARDWARE" rigmaroll, but Duke goes one step beyond. Of what has been said, the game will have 3 kinds of gameplay, bosses not counted for this. The first is the core comabt, where you fight a variety of aliens with weapons such as the Shrink Ray and your Pipe-Bombs/Trip-mines. But there will also be times where things actually slow down and you have to think with your thought making organ. As in Duke Nukem Forever will have actual cognitive puzzles other than "Use gun on Alien Bastard".
The third side of gameplay, which is more weaved into the previous two than its own thing, is EGO booster searching. It's basically you taking time out to find little interactive novelties in the levels. These in any other game would be there just for the humor, but they serve actual gameplay benefits in DNF. The benefit comes in the way of increasing your maximum EGO (Health) bar, thus making you better able to handle the combat and (Possibly) certain puzzles. So DNF will make you shoot diverse aliens with a variety of guns, release your inner Easter Bunny, and actually make you think logically in its 15-17 hour campaign.
Alot more depth than waving a flare around in the White House after shooting 50 dudes with REALISTIC MILITARY HARDWARE, don't you think?
The third side of gameplay, which is more weaved into the previous two than its own thing, is EGO booster searching. It's basically you taking time out to find little interactive novelties in the levels. These in any other game would be there just for the humor, but they serve actual gameplay benefits in DNF. The benefit comes in the way of increasing your maximum EGO (Health) bar, thus making you better able to handle the combat and (Possibly) certain puzzles. So DNF will make you shoot diverse aliens with a variety of guns, release your inner Easter Bunny, and actually make you think logically in its 15-17 hour campaign.
Alot more depth than waving a flare around in the White House after shooting 50 dudes with REALISTIC MILITARY HARDWARE, don't you think?
Look at my previous post to see sort of what you can expect from the game. Anything you expected?Alexander Sverchkov said:
Here's where it all just comes down to taste, you seem to be more about the game flow whereas I like experiencing a more fully fleshed-out nonlinear level design. That's not to say that I didn't enjoy the Modern Warfare games, but I'm glad that the more old-school style is coming back.Zannah said:
I may just have to try out Unreal II, as you suggested, it sounds kinda interesting.
Netrigan said:
A million times this.Nighthief said:
Most of the srs shooters have(from what I've experienced) a hardcore fanbase that shares an "elitist jerk" attitude. To me, it's annoying as hell. I play games to have fun rather than compare epeens.
I love fun shooters, but by no means do i want them to replace serious shooters, just have them as a separate entity to all of our call of duties and halos and killzones. I wouldn't be so fucking tired of "realistic" modern fps's if they were mixed in with the occasional Painkiller sequel (suggestion for People Can Fly's next project after Bulletstorm)
I'm sorry, I can't hear you over how enjoyable Doom still is.
Do you seriously need to ask this question? We WANT silly and immature. Just because a lot of gamers are of adult age, or are approaching it, doesn't mean that all games (shooters specifically) must have serious and (apparently) engaging plots. Maybe we just want a cheap laugh and some mindless tactic-less fun.
Running through linear corridors shooting enemy after enemy with AK47s/M16s/etc. is fun up to a certain point. What helps us enjoy them more is a break from them, where we run through massive outdoor environments shooting weird-and-wonderful CGI monstrosities with a gun the size of Madagascar. I've noticed on here as well comments like this:-
Also, this 'guy' isn't a silent-protaganist or a grizzled serious-talking army dude, it's a character that is as over-the-top as the action is, and has more charisma than a stone who works in an office and plays chess.
We are not imagining a rose-tinted view of gaming's past. We're imagining a past that is green-tinted...from all the alien and demon innards...
Do you seriously need to ask this question? We WANT silly and immature. Just because a lot of gamers are of adult age, or are approaching it, doesn't mean that all games (shooters specifically) must have serious and (apparently) engaging plots. Maybe we just want a cheap laugh and some mindless tactic-less fun.
Running through linear corridors shooting enemy after enemy with AK47s/M16s/etc. is fun up to a certain point. What helps us enjoy them more is a break from them, where we run through massive outdoor environments shooting weird-and-wonderful CGI monstrosities with a gun the size of Madagascar. I've noticed on here as well comments like this:-
I'm sorry, but how on earth is a monster-truck classed as 'generic', unless I've totally missed the side-running franchise to CoD, Call of Monster-Trucks. EDIT: And also, how did you now notice the giant FUCKING guns he's holding?Mcface said:
Also, this 'guy' isn't a silent-protaganist or a grizzled serious-talking army dude, it's a character that is as over-the-top as the action is, and has more charisma than a stone who works in an office and plays chess.
We are not imagining a rose-tinted view of gaming's past. We're imagining a past that is green-tinted...from all the alien and demon innards...
Because what would you prefer? Killing enemies whilst running, jumping, hiding, being sneaky, hoping not to die, etc., or, killing hundreds of enemies in crazy unique ways while standing in one spot and not breaking a sweat? "Old" games like that were fun cuz you could kill waves of enemies and not have to worry about surprises. I like shooters these days, but way back when, they didnt need storylines, hard asses with no emotion at all, or photorealistic scenery. All they needed was to give you a gun and say "you can't go past these points, but there are a million people between you and your objective, have fun! (pssst, aim for the nuts!) I'm excioted for these new "old" games
^thisNighthief said:
I miss playing shooters that were more about fun then getting people caught up in a story which is usually either;
1 - You discover a huge conspiracy
2 - Eastern country attacks America for no reason
we need more games like Timesplitters, Duke Nukem and Doom to break the routine that Modern shooters have gotten themselves into.
Sometimes I dont want a serious game. I love Halo, Mass Effect, Battle Field, and CoD ( dont hurt me) But sometimes I just wan to shoot a guy in the nuts and kick his face off. While yelling some cheesey one liner
Okay, guys, maybe we can get that clear once and for all - I'm not opposed to variety. But technically, bringing back ten year old stuff, that wasn't very good (imho) to begin with, isn't exactly bringing in a fresh wind is it? That's just rehashing stuff that already went stale.
Why not some *real* variety instead? Like a 'hardcore' star wars fps (it's been ages since we had those), or an fps in a max paynesque setting, that's actually good (I.e NOT Kane and Lynch). Of course there's more then 'kill those russians/terrorists', but why are we celebrating the comeback of the equally stale "kill those aliens/demons/mercs" instead of demanding actual innovation?
Why not some *real* variety instead? Like a 'hardcore' star wars fps (it's been ages since we had those), or an fps in a max paynesque setting, that's actually good (I.e NOT Kane and Lynch). Of course there's more then 'kill those russians/terrorists', but why are we celebrating the comeback of the equally stale "kill those aliens/demons/mercs" instead of demanding actual innovation?
Because those games were a lot of fun, and they disappeared before their time. The setting has less to do with it than the gameplay -- high movement speed and vertical movement have both disappeared since Halo came out, and a lot of us are hoping these new takes on the classics will bring that back. It's why we've been saying all along that we don't care about some serious story and we don't want a realistic setting; both design choices limit the ability to have the sort of fast paced, high mobility gameplay we grew up on.Zannah said:
Edit: Also, if by "Hardcore Star Wars FPS," you mean a new Jedi Knight game, that would be great, but the Jedi Knight games were nothing but T-rated versions of the games you keep claiming to hate. If you're talking about Republic Commando, what's the real difference between that and Ghost Recon, aside from the setting? And beyond that, what's the real difference between Ghost Recon and the modern shooters we're all tired of, aside from the increased emphasis on team play?
I don't think Bad-Company 2 is a very good example. It's actually one that took itself way to seriously. You have plenty of characters that you could put in interesting scenarios, but instead they are spouting profanity and trying to stop a super weapon.
Bad Company 1, now that was something good. B-Company going out on their own and going after a goal born from their own greed. It was an original plot that was quite refreshing, and pulled off by characters way more compelling than Soap MacTavish
On-Topic: I don't think we can judge quite yet. Too early to see. Unless some actual continuous gameplay has been released, which would be great to find out about.
Seriously, though. Soap is pretty bland.
Bad Company 1, now that was something good. B-Company going out on their own and going after a goal born from their own greed. It was an original plot that was quite refreshing, and pulled off by characters way more compelling than Soap MacTavish
On-Topic: I don't think we can judge quite yet. Too early to see. Unless some actual continuous gameplay has been released, which would be great to find out about.
Seriously, though. Soap is pretty bland.