The "fun-shooters" return. But why would anyone want that?

[EBHughsThe1st]

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.

 

[sb666]

because i want to play a colorful game while killing monsters with a gun the size of a motorbike

 

[Mcface]

BRINK is the only non-"modern" shooter im looking forward to.

I find very little enjoyment out of games like series sam or duke nukem.

I will not pay full price for a single player game that went out of style 15 years ago.

People are all stuck with the nostalgia factor, those games aren't very good compared to more recent tiles at all. and neither will these new ones.

people in the 70s thought giant afros and bell-bottoms were cool.
if you wear them now, you just look stupid.

It has nothing to do with nostalgia. Duke Nukem 3D is better than CoD: MW2, CoD: Black Ops, and every damn game trying to be like those. Even with its outdated graphics. That's why I'm looking forward to Duke Nukem Forever. I think I'm looking forward to the fan update for Duke 3D even more, though.

I massively disagree.
Duke Nukem is a shallow first person one man v the world shooter.
It's shallow. VERY SHALLOW. even compared to the COD series.
You are definitely blinded by nostalgia goggles.

oh yes because its true when you back it up with an opinion. Want to know how COD is more shallow? They release the same fucking game every year with only minor graphical enhancements.

AMERICANS WIN AND ARE DOMINATE!

see what i did there? I just spoiled the ENTIRE COD franchise for everyone in the past, present, and future.

as opposed to what?
10 year long development cycles and they still are using the same exact gameplay on a slightly better graphics engine?
yeah awesome, i so wish every game was like that.


have fun with your 8 hours of campaign with no replay value, bud.

i am sorry, did you recieve an early copy of the game? i swear i heard people who ACTUALLY played that duke nukem is a fusion of old and new designs. I guess the people who actually played it are wrong. /sarcasm.

Just go watch gameplay videos.

Guy driving vehicle in generic vehicle section.
Guy shooting people.

HOLY BIRTHDAY CAKE BATMAN, SHOCKING ORIGINAL GAMEPLAY.

I sure wish i could shoot weapons and drive vehicles in COD!

Right because FPS games are MORE than shooting and driving. /sarcasm.

You realize you just proved my original point right, right?

 

[Chibz]

Good point here, actually - but Hot fuzz had, aside from the comedy, a plot, competent people in both crew and cast, character development, all that. And that's all fine.

But saying the Old Sam/duke games are better then say Modern Warfare, strikes me as saying some 80ths Van Damme flick is totally better then inception "because dude, that takes it self soo serious".

I'm going to say it. Serious Sam, Duke Nukem, Wolfenstein 3D and Doom are better than Modern Warfare. But you know what we need? Timesplitters 4.

Ultra-realism is a very serious handicap to fun game design. Then again so are yearly sequels that milk a franchaise to death.

Which is why I propose the following system. Whenever a company wants to make a sequel they have to propose the idea to a sociopathic douchebag who is immune to bribery (I propose myself) and cares deeply about gaming to review the proposed sequel and either approve or disprove of it. If denied, they lose the ability to propose another sequel/remake/whatever for that particular intellectual property. Perhaps the same should be done for films...

 

[Thaius]

I think there's a problem with thinking that over-the-top fun and a good, serious story cannot go hand-in-hand. It is fully possible to tell a serious story while still including the over-the-top, physically impossible, ridiculously fun action. Unfortunately, that is something that Japan often does well, and something that the West still largely cannot wrap their heads around.

 

[Zannah]

snip

Now I would argue with that, but your avatar is way too creepily adorable for that :<

It was the Russians who won WWII because they were the ones to storm Berlin. Unless America makes a habit of putting on uniforms of another military and helping, America won nothing outside of the pacific. Taking credit for the entire war is kind of low. What grounds? I have played COD (and MOH but not the newer ones), and it was the very reason i don't buy FPS games any more. Its the same "America fuck yeah" (American bravado as you said) every single time for 50-60$. If i wanted to hear undue patriotism, i would watch fox news.

Now what CoD game DID you play, to base your assumptions on? Because judging by the one's I played -

Spoiler: real cod spoilers now

In CoD2 the russian and the british win.
In Cod4:Mw the british win, after the us got nuked out of town
In Cod5 the Americans win the pacific and russians win berlin (you know, like real life)
In Cod6:Mw2 the british win, after the us got nuked and invaded, and every single enemy in the last two missions is american
In Blops, the protagonists are all portrayed as either crazy or royal douchebags, and the game it self makes fun of the "america is dominate".

 

[Zannah]

It was a WWII shooter. I can't remember because back then every game was a WWII shooter with "AMERICANS WIN!" at the end of the game.

So essentially, you're saying that a 2007/2009 game, set in modern days has to suck, because in a 2000/2003 game about WW2, the americans won the pacific/normandy?

Sound argument really.

 

[Zannah]

No, i am saying it ends exactly the same just like every other war shooter behind it.

1. intro.
2. military chest pounding.
3. frat boys in US uniforms ran up to you and scream "WAR!!!" in your face.
4. ending. America wins.
5. Everyone starts waving American flags.
6. The player dies a little inside as he wasted hours of his life that he can never get back.

If the British help or win, then it reverts to an "American" victory like the war shooters about the gulf war. Really, its the same thing over and over again. If a game wants to be dramatic it uses Russians; if it wants to be REALLY dramatic its Russian terrorists (oh mah god /sarcasm). COD couldn't re-use more tropes if it was George fucking Lucas.

I ask you again, on what basis, other then you hating and frankly, making stuff up (after you've been told you're wrong three times, it's not quite 'assuming' anymore) do you make those claims. You haven't played the games I'm talking about, you obviously haven't done any research on their respective contents and plots (or you didn't get what you were reading).

So tell me again, why do all fps that don't involve aliens suck again? Because what you're claiming to be the reason doesn't apply to any shooter I have played in my entire life.

 

[GiantRaven]

Ultra-realism is a very serious handicap to fun game design.

Why? You can't state something like that without stating why. I have plenty of fun playing STALKER. I have fun playing certain parts of Modern Warfare II. Operation Flashpoint, despite not having played it, looks like a jolly good time. Why are games that are somewhat realistic suddenly not fun?

 

[boholikeu]

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?

It's fun in the same way a teenage slasher flick/B grade monster movie is fun. In other words: it's brainless fun.

 

[wammnebu]

because the novelty of realistic shooters have worn off from over saturation, so the assumption is that a reversion to form would somehow infuse creative energy into the genre.

 

[Frotality]

old shooters tried to be fun; undoubtedly they would not hold up with modern ones, but a modern shooter 'trying' to be fun sounds like heaven.

contrary, most modern shooters try to be gritty and realistic copying CoD, and just churn out the miasma of generic crap that is the modern FPS market. quite frankly, the only marked difference between the gameplay of then and now is that corridors are now outdoors with trees and insurmountable waist-high fences instead of walls and hordes of aliens and demons has been replaced with hordes of nazis and non-descript terrorists. and bosses are replaced with cutscenes.

half-life was a fun shooter as well; however much its been said, i still think half-life's design is the best FPS's have ever been and what they SHOULD be copying. imagine that... a world where publishers tried to copy half-life instead of the 20-billionth CoD game...

modern FPSs all try to take themselves seriously which has already become a cliche by how constantly and badly its done. we are more than overdue for an FPS that says "historically and functionally accurate firearms being used against normal soldiers? join the fucking army then; heres a nuclear powered nail gun and some aliens who bleed health packs. go nuts."

 

[Chibz]

Why? You can't state something like that without stating why. I have plenty of fun playing STALKER. I have fun playing certain parts of Modern Warfare II. Operation Flashpoint, despite not having played it, looks like a jolly good time. Why are games that are somewhat realistic suddenly not fun?

Ultra-realism actually severely limits what you can or cannot have happen in your game. It has little place in FPS games, absolutely no place elsewhere.

To see what a truly ultra-realistic game looks like, play Desert Bus.

I'm just putting it out there but I also own a copy of CoD:MW2. This is my only CoD game. That's how similar they all seem to me.

half-life was a fun shooter as well; however much its been said, i still think half-life's design is the best FPS's have ever been and what they SHOULD be copying. imagine that... a world where publishers tried to copy half-life instead of the 20-billionth CoD game...

You know what would be even better than copying a game with bland story & gameplay? Copying Timesplitters' idea. Yeah, do that instead industry.