Will Doom 4 going to save FPS genre?

[PsychicTaco115]

I am interested in seeing if they try to go old-school a la DOOM I and II or if it'll be more similar to the horror-focused DOOM 3

I honestly wouldn't mind seeing the latter as I enjoyed playing the BFG edition

 

[Rozalia1]

Excuse me, what? WHAT? That is so painfully, blatantly untrue on such a level that it's like trying to explain that the breathing noises and motions I am making indicate that I am indeed breathing.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0Q6UQ2QlRH0

My statement was FPSs have always been lowbrow entertainment. They are today lowbrow entertainment that reaches more people than ever...so how have they not evolved to be more effective at providing lowbrow entertainment to the masses?

Secondly your video I watched in its entirety and it is supposed to prove what? The message within it is that FPSs of yesteryear were big dumb games, but FPSs today are even dumber.
Also if I am perfectly honest I disagree with that, modern shooters may have bad stories but at least its there. Older ones by having practically nothing except what is claimed in the manual are to me lesser games as a result.

Do not underestimate an entire genre mate. FPS is quite a bit more then that... or can be more then that... but sometimes its best as ONLY that...
Its complicated

Some FPSs try to nail certain elements of other genres into themselves to look smarter than they are yes.
Also yes absolutely there is nothing wrong with a classic FPS, they do what they set out to do excellently in most cases...however lets not pretend they are more than what they are.

 

[Atmos Duality]

I've been playing FPS games since old school, yet I really don't understand why people think health packs are better than health regen.

If playing the latest Wolfenstein taught me anything. It's that looking around for health packs all the time is just fucking annoying.

Because health packs, bonus pickups, and other finite-quantity elements require better level design to be effective.
When it works, it works great. I just finished playing through Doom 1 and 2 fully via Brutal Doom, and both the flow and tension of those games is an IMMENSE improvement over most regenerating health games I've played.

When it fails, well, you end up with the silliness of a lot of dead air spent hunting around for health.

It takes a different sort of skill to design around attrition just as it takes a different skill to play around attrition.

 

[ILikeEggs]

Yeah, uhh... I actually like iron sights. They fit very well into twitch shooters. I'm very glad they were implemented into Brutal Doom and Serious Sam 3: BFE. They're simple skills that make up a handy tool to use that keeps the flow going for those distant targets. In fact, since there don't seem to be a lot of people who know this... Doom was originally supposed to have iron sights in it a full decade before Call of Duty! Yes. ID Software's original Doom from 1993 was going to have the mechanic we know today as "iron sights". But because they redesigned the weapons late in development, they didn't have time to recode it all, so it was left out of the final game. You can look up some early gameplay videos and you'll see it. Or even look up a beta sprite sheet and you'll find those iron sight animations.

Except iron sights the way you talk of them, and the way they're actually implemented are massively different.
If you look at Quake Live, for example, you're allowed to "zoom"(iron sights) with every weapon, and that's a useful feature to have, even though the best players will probably just hit all their "click-on-a-pixel-sized-target" railgun shots anyway. On the other hand, look at iron-sight implementation in a game like Call of Duty. If you're not using iron sights, your accuracy is literally as good as a garden sprinkler. And to me, that's absolutely fucking disgusting.

So when you hear people complain about iron sights, they're complaining about the fact that realism for the sake of realism in games is not inherently fun(despite what big game companies want you to believe). Why is it that FPS games have progressively gotten slower and more tedious since the 90's? Why is hyper-realism marketed as the holy grail of FPS games? Why aren't more people making fast-paced games like Loadout, TF2 and Quake? Why are developers so afraid to market something that has a high skill-ceiling as something that can also be incredibly fun?

 

[Madame_Lawliet]

Okay as a fan of oldschool shooters I'm pretty damn hopeful for DOOM 2015 myself, however I find it very difficult to get excited for a game I've seen zero gameplay of yet. I know the Quake Con presentation was really well received and everything I've heard has made me very very hopeful, but I need to see it for myself before I'm willing to throw my weight behind it to the extent of OP.

I do love me some DOOM, and I really hope this thing comes through, but I remain cautiously optimistic.

 

[Chaos Isaac]

Ahahahaha. Ahahahahahaha. Am I the only one who played Rage and raged about how underwhelming and boring it was? Or... Doom 3.

Anyways, on topic i'm am utterly in disbelief someone asked this question with a straight face. Of course not.

A: FPS' don't need saving. They're some of the biggest hitters out there, and there's so many different flavors of it I can't think of a single type that's in danger. Between Halo, Destiny, Call of Duty, Bioshock, Killzone, Battlefield, Rainbow Six, Tribes, Painkiller and whatever the hell else, it's just fine.

B: Maybe you don't like aspects of cover mechanics, regenerative health, some limited weapon holding, iron sighting, etc. But that doesn't mean they're bad additions to the genre. I know I have never missed the feeling of running around looking for the last damn medkit because I have low health. But I also know Doom never game me the feeling of awesome as running off a cliff and falling 10 meters onto the neck of a alien to get a instakill. 'Cause Halo is awesome.

C: Doom 4 is probably gonna be like Duke Nukem. A painful old relic that people still cling to due to nostalgia.

 

[Happiness Assassin]

Okay how is having regenerating health, cover, or iron sights "dumbing down" the FPS genre? Having played most of the old school FPS games (Duke Nukem 3D, Doom, Quake) there was never anything cerebral about what was going on. Hell, back then they barely even had a story and were almost exclusively about the twitchiest of twitch gameplay.

Also FPS's aren't going anywhere, after mobile and MOBA games, they are considered the industry money makers.

 

[ForumSafari]

Okay how is having regenerating health, cover, or iron sights "dumbing down" the FPS genre? Having played most of the old school FPS games (Duke Nukem 3D, Doom, Quake) there was never anything cerebral about what was going on. Hell, back then they barely even had a story and were almost exclusively about the twitchiest of twitch gameplay.

Also FPS's aren't going anywhere, after mobile and MOBA games, they are considered the industry money makers.

very much this. As someone whose been playing FPS games since Wolf3d released I never thought there was anything mentally challenging about killing enemies, looking for keys and looping back for powerups when I hit a big bad. I mean, I can play almost all of the original Quake on pure muscle memory and that doesn't suggest a very cerebral game.

OP, if you want more of old games I would seriously suggest Brutal DooM.

 

[ILikeEggs]

Okay how is having regenerating health, cover, or iron sights "dumbing down" the FPS genre? Having played most of the old school FPS games (Duke Nukem 3D, Doom, Quake) there was never anything cerebral about what was going on. Hell, back then they barely even had a story and were almost exclusively about the twitchiest of twitch gameplay.

The "dumbing down" people refer to has nothing to do with plot and writing. They're talking about mechanics and gameplay. Allow me to break this down.

Regenerating health: Without regenerating health, you're forced to pace yourself, and make actual conscious decisions about whether to take an engagement or attempt to run past it. Or various other tactics. Regenerating health means you can get by without even thinking about health management for the most part. On a related note, I also appreciate being able to tell how many hit points I have remaining, so screw games that don't have HP bars/numbers.

Cover: Like Yahtzee(I think it was Yahtzee) has said in one of his videos, what the fuck happened to manually walking behind a significantly robust object and crouching? Why must there be a button that does that automatically for you, and how do you NOT see that as dumbing down of core FPS mechanics/gameplay?

Iron sights: Refer to my post [http://www.escapistmagazine.com/forums/read/9.858372-Will-Doom-4-going-to-save-FPS-genre?page=2#21292885] above.

 

[RealRT]

I think so.

lets face it. lets face it. there are Lot of FPS games bieng dumbed down due to fit on consoles but i think from what i have read and heard from Quackcon. its returning to old school roots. something FPS genre badly need.

No regen health

Cover system

iron sight

etc

it has fast paced gameplay too. I love Doom 3 but from the look of it. it looks like it this is what Doom 3 should have been.

what do you think? discuss

Can someone please remind me why is iron sights a bad thing? I can understand hating on regen and covers - but what's bad about iron sights? They look cool.
-
No, it's not. And there were several good FPSes that were old school and fast-paced last years, like Serious Sam 3, Painkiller HD, Hard Reset, Rise of the Triad, Shadow Warrior.

 

[Netrigan]

Except iron sights the way you talk of them, and the way they're actually implemented are massively different.
If you look at Quake Live, for example, you're allowed to "zoom"(iron sights) with every weapon, and that's a useful feature to have, even though the best players will probably just hit all their "click-on-a-pixel-sized-target" railgun shots anyway. On the other hand, look at iron-sight implementation in a game like Call of Duty. If you're not using iron sights, your accuracy is literally as good as a garden sprinkler. And to me, that's absolutely fucking disgusting.

Depends very much on the game. Some shooters like to use it because it adds a layer of realism to the experience. Doom & Quake are run-and-gun shooters, so the whole point is to shoot while running... and a fun time is had by all. On the opposite end of the spectrum would be realistic shooters (and I'm not pretending Call of Duty is one of them) where the whole point is to encourage a slower, more methodical approach to combat. Call of Duty and Far Cry are sort of in the middle where they're a bit arcadey, but have a veneer of realism.

In a more arcade shooter like Borderlands, iron sights don't seem to have any affect on accuracy, but (at least on a console) it's often useful to use iron-sights in order to slow down the aiming movement. Quite a number of games use it just to make aiming easier, rather than affecting gun accuracy and it works a charm on consoles.

Most of the modern elements have been proven to work well in various games. The "Press Button To Stick To Wall" looks to be going out of favor, but in it's place is a crouch-based iron-sight system where if cover is detected, then aiming will pop you in and out of cover automatically, and it's rapidly becoming my favorite system.

Health Regeneration largely came about to ensure a certain uniformity of experience. If the game knows you're going into experiences with full health, then they can plan accordingly. It does have the problem of removing tension, which is why more and more games are using segmented health systems where you still need health kits, but you'll never be going into action one nose-bleed away from death, making scenarios a bit more fair while retaining low-health tension.

There's nothing wrong with any of the tricks used by Modern Shooters, they just need to figure out what kind of game they're making and use variants that make sense within that framework.

 

[Mirroga]

One question. Why does the FPS genre need saving? Was it in danger to begin with?

If people are bickering about the brown and gray, cover-based, health regen shooters, then why don't they just stop trying to attack it and play the older type games which aren't those. Play Brutal Doom, the old Duke Nukem games, Painkiller, etc.

Do we really need a new game based upon Doom, Painkiller, Serious Sam style of gameplay? If I remember history correctly, "realistic" shooters did the same thing and spawned a thousand sequels which pretty much started this whole idea of the FPS "deteriorating."

EDIT: In my opinion, the FPS genre doesn't need saving. It needs to reinvent a new type of gameplay. A new type of gameplay which sets it apart from cover-based shooting and run-n'-gun style of gameplay.

 

[Artaneius]

I bet a whole bunch of people will snort derisively at this, but Halo saved the FPS genre for me.

And yes, I've played Doom, Heretic, Duke 3D, etc. and none of them interest me. Halo strikes the perfect balance between insane FPSs of yore and the modern shooter. Interesting weapons, great enemy variety, still is decently fast, and requires a good amount of skill.

P.S. - A quick question to the people saying regenerating health killed the FPS (genuine question here, not trying to insult anyone for their choices) - how often was quick load / quick save used in a difficult encounter? How is that different from regenerating health, besides the obvious distinction that you're manually doing it?

And of course, if that isn't the main reason why you dislike regen systems, please elaborate. Because having played both types of FPSs, I genuinely don't miss shooters that had medkits / health packs.

Because arena shooters like Quake and UT which Doom helped birth allow the more skilled player to win over lesser skilled opponents at all times. Having items and weapons on map allowed those with the most skill to win and create a social hierarchy that pretty much defined the whole reason to get good in fps in the first place. Nowadays, it means nothing to be good because anyone can get kills with ease. No items on the map means no map control. Matchmaking systems also destroyed the hierarchy where the most skilled dominated the online scene and gave lesser skilled players a false sense of entitlement.

In online competitive gaming, the whole point of getting good is to pwn. Without being able to pwn because casuals had to be appeased, makes little to no point in dedicating the time and hours to master FPS games now. Maybe Doom 4 will finally change that and bring back the golden days of casuals and noobs being pwned 24/7 as should be. Maybe dedicating hundreds and thousands of hours into games will mean something again when the social hierarchy of the elite gamers is brought back.

And trust me if it does come back, I think casuals will feel the full wrath of the competitive gamers in their rightous fury. Too many years even decades wasted having games appease the masses has made most old school competitive gamers very pissed. They will have their revenge if the new UT, Doom 4, and others come. And I personally will gladly take part of it. There will be bloodshed in online gaming that no real life genocide could ever match. We will finally have our fps back and those that took it away will pay for it. Their entertainment hours will be filled of ragequitting and filled with throwing controllers.

 

[Netrigan]

I bet a whole bunch of people will snort derisively at this, but Halo saved the FPS genre for me.

And yes, I've played Doom, Heretic, Duke 3D, etc. and none of them interest me. Halo strikes the perfect balance between insane FPSs of yore and the modern shooter. Interesting weapons, great enemy variety, still is decently fast, and requires a good amount of skill.

P.S. - A quick question to the people saying regenerating health killed the FPS (genuine question here, not trying to insult anyone for their choices) - how often was quick load / quick save used in a difficult encounter? How is that different from regenerating health, besides the obvious distinction that you're manually doing it?

And of course, if that isn't the main reason why you dislike regen systems, please elaborate. Because having played both types of FPSs, I genuinely don't miss shooters that had medkits / health packs.

Because arena shooters like Quake and UT which Doom helped birth allow the more skilled player to win over lesser skilled opponents at all times. Having items and weapons on map allowed those with the most skill to win and create a social hierarchy that pretty much defined the whole reason to get good in fps in the first place. Nowadays, it means nothing to be good because anyone can get kills with ease. No items on the map means no map control. Matchmaking systems also destroyed the hierarchy where the most skilled dominated the online scene and gave lesser skilled players a false sense of entitlement.

In online competitive gaming, the whole point of getting good is to pwn. Without being able to pwn because casuals had to be appeased, makes little to no point in dedicating the time and hours to master FPS games now. Maybe Doom 4 will finally change that and bring back the golden days of casuals and noobs being pwned 24/7 as should be. Maybe dedicating hundreds and thousands of hours into games will mean something again when the social hierarchy of the elite gamers is brought back.

And trust me if it does come back, I think casuals will feel the full wrath of the competitive gamers in their rightous fury. Too many years even decades wasted having games appease the masses has made most old school competitive gamers very pissed. They will have their revenge if the new UT, Doom 4, and others come. And I personally will gladly take part of it. There will be bloodshed in online gaming that no real life genocide could ever match. We will finally have our fps back and those that took it away will pay for it. Their entertainment hours will be filled of ragequitting and filled with throwing controllers.

The problem with Old School games is a skilled player can dominate a map to such a degree that it simply isn't fun for less skilled players. Getting dominated and shut-out isn't fun.

Modern shooters let novice players get a few points while getting their butts handed to them by better players. They're still going to lose (and lose big), but getting a handful of lucky kills makes the experience much, much more enjoyable.

I'm more of a mid-pack kind of guy when it comes to competitive multiplayer. I used to slip on-line a bit to play Quake and I think the last game I ever played was against someone who was so far above me that I simple could not enjoy myself. Someone so far above me that it wasn't even a learning experience. It was just me dying over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over again. I'm struggling to get something other than the crappy starting weapons, while this guy is just dominating anything of value on the map.

Many years later, I pop into a Gear Of War match and while I'm stinking up the joint and coming in dead last match after match, I was actually enjoying myself because I was getting the odd kill and felt like I was learning the maps instead of constantly getting shot while going for the weapons I needed to be even slightly competitive.

 

[sXeth]

The thing I continue to enjoy about shooters is a well-made one is just as challenging at the end as it is in the beginning, but for completely different reasons. This has been lost somewhat with modern shooters which limit the amount of ammo super-weapons get so even something as remarkable as Far Cry 3 is largely shoot the same enemies with the same weapons for 20 hours. Something like Doom made you wet your pants with your first boss, then gave you the tools to deal with 8 of them later in the game, forcing you to become better and better at fighting them.

Mind you, id hasn't pulled this trick off since Doom 2, so I have no confidence that Doom 4 will remember how to do it.

This is sort of the "old school FPS" stuff I'd like to see make a comeback. The sense of progression in the "realistic" FPS's has fallen a lot by the wayside. You're still often fighting the same regular soldiers (or armored soldiers) with the same Pistol/SMG/AR/sniper/GL combos as the start. There's no sense of progression, or any kind of spectacle like when you finally got the BFG in the older style shooters. The risk/reward and level design in MP kind of went down too, as you stopped having the rare gear to scramble for and everyone just spawns in with their weapon of choice.

Cover and sights aren't really problems, they expand gameplay (until you lock them in as non-options anyways). Health regenning or picking up isn't really a huge issue either. Samey sameness permeating the entire gameplay is where the genre needs a breath of fresh (or in this case) recycled air.

 

[Artaneius]

I bet a whole bunch of people will snort derisively at this, but Halo saved the FPS genre for me.

And yes, I've played Doom, Heretic, Duke 3D, etc. and none of them interest me. Halo strikes the perfect balance between insane FPSs of yore and the modern shooter. Interesting weapons, great enemy variety, still is decently fast, and requires a good amount of skill.

P.S. - A quick question to the people saying regenerating health killed the FPS (genuine question here, not trying to insult anyone for their choices) - how often was quick load / quick save used in a difficult encounter? How is that different from regenerating health, besides the obvious distinction that you're manually doing it?

And of course, if that isn't the main reason why you dislike regen systems, please elaborate. Because having played both types of FPSs, I genuinely don't miss shooters that had medkits / health packs.

Because arena shooters like Quake and UT which Doom helped birth allow the more skilled player to win over lesser skilled opponents at all times. Having items and weapons on map allowed those with the most skill to win and create a social hierarchy that pretty much defined the whole reason to get good in fps in the first place. Nowadays, it means nothing to be good because anyone can get kills with ease. No items on the map means no map control. Matchmaking systems also destroyed the hierarchy where the most skilled dominated the online scene and gave lesser skilled players a false sense of entitlement.

In online competitive gaming, the whole point of getting good is to pwn. Without being able to pwn because casuals had to be appeased, makes little to no point in dedicating the time and hours to master FPS games now. Maybe Doom 4 will finally change that and bring back the golden days of casuals and noobs being pwned 24/7 as should be. Maybe dedicating hundreds and thousands of hours into games will mean something again when the social hierarchy of the elite gamers is brought back.

And trust me if it does come back, I think casuals will feel the full wrath of the competitive gamers in their rightous fury. Too many years even decades wasted having games appease the masses has made most old school competitive gamers very pissed. They will have their revenge if the new UT, Doom 4, and others come. And I personally will gladly take part of it. There will be bloodshed in online gaming that no real life genocide could ever match. We will finally have our fps back and those that took it away will pay for it. Their entertainment hours will be filled of ragequitting and filled with throwing controllers.

The problem with Old School games is a skilled player can dominate a map to such a degree that it simply isn't fun for less skilled players. Getting dominated and shut-out isn't fun.

Modern shooters let novice players get a few points while getting their butts handed to them by better players. They're still going to lose (and lose big), but getting a handful of lucky kills makes the experience much, much more enjoyable.

I'm more of a mid-pack kind of guy when it comes to competitive multiplayer. I used to slip on-line a bit to play Quake and I think the last game I ever played was against someone who was so far above me that I simple could not enjoy myself. Someone so far above me that it wasn't even a learning experience. It was just me dying over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over again. I'm struggling to get something other than the crappy starting weapons, while this guy is just dominating anything of value on the map.

Many years later, I pop into a Gear Of War match and while I'm stinking up the joint and coming in dead last match after match, I was actually enjoying myself because I was getting the odd kill and felt like I was learning the maps instead of constantly getting shot while going for the weapons I needed to be even slightly competitive.

Well, that's how it should be. You are what you put into the game. If your bad you should lose all the time until you become good. That's life and that's the whole point of getting good in games. To stop losing and be the one winning most of the time. Common sense is common sense and shouldn't be messed with because people are lazy. Not fair to the guy who put in the hours and time to get good in the first place. How you think I felt when I was the one losing back when there was no other place to go. No matter what game you played you were going to get destroyed by those who deserve to win. Now I put in the work and time and I expect the same rewards of destroying the majority. Time for others to pay their dues like we had too back then. Even if it means by force and against their will.

 

[Arnoxthe1]

Has everyone just completely forgotten Serious Sam 3 these days? THAT game was what Doom 3 should have been but no one seems to pay it any mind at all.

 

[Netrigan]

I bet a whole bunch of people will snort derisively at this, but Halo saved the FPS genre for me.

And yes, I've played Doom, Heretic, Duke 3D, etc. and none of them interest me. Halo strikes the perfect balance between insane FPSs of yore and the modern shooter. Interesting weapons, great enemy variety, still is decently fast, and requires a good amount of skill.

P.S. - A quick question to the people saying regenerating health killed the FPS (genuine question here, not trying to insult anyone for their choices) - how often was quick load / quick save used in a difficult encounter? How is that different from regenerating health, besides the obvious distinction that you're manually doing it?

And of course, if that isn't the main reason why you dislike regen systems, please elaborate. Because having played both types of FPSs, I genuinely don't miss shooters that had medkits / health packs.

Because arena shooters like Quake and UT which Doom helped birth allow the more skilled player to win over lesser skilled opponents at all times. Having items and weapons on map allowed those with the most skill to win and create a social hierarchy that pretty much defined the whole reason to get good in fps in the first place. Nowadays, it means nothing to be good because anyone can get kills with ease. No items on the map means no map control. Matchmaking systems also destroyed the hierarchy where the most skilled dominated the online scene and gave lesser skilled players a false sense of entitlement.

In online competitive gaming, the whole point of getting good is to pwn. Without being able to pwn because casuals had to be appeased, makes little to no point in dedicating the time and hours to master FPS games now. Maybe Doom 4 will finally change that and bring back the golden days of casuals and noobs being pwned 24/7 as should be. Maybe dedicating hundreds and thousands of hours into games will mean something again when the social hierarchy of the elite gamers is brought back.

And trust me if it does come back, I think casuals will feel the full wrath of the competitive gamers in their rightous fury. Too many years even decades wasted having games appease the masses has made most old school competitive gamers very pissed. They will have their revenge if the new UT, Doom 4, and others come. And I personally will gladly take part of it. There will be bloodshed in online gaming that no real life genocide could ever match. We will finally have our fps back and those that took it away will pay for it. Their entertainment hours will be filled of ragequitting and filled with throwing controllers.

The problem with Old School games is a skilled player can dominate a map to such a degree that it simply isn't fun for less skilled players. Getting dominated and shut-out isn't fun.

Modern shooters let novice players get a few points while getting their butts handed to them by better players. They're still going to lose (and lose big), but getting a handful of lucky kills makes the experience much, much more enjoyable.

I'm more of a mid-pack kind of guy when it comes to competitive multiplayer. I used to slip on-line a bit to play Quake and I think the last game I ever played was against someone who was so far above me that I simple could not enjoy myself. Someone so far above me that it wasn't even a learning experience. It was just me dying over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over again. I'm struggling to get something other than the crappy starting weapons, while this guy is just dominating anything of value on the map.

Many years later, I pop into a Gear Of War match and while I'm stinking up the joint and coming in dead last match after match, I was actually enjoying myself because I was getting the odd kill and felt like I was learning the maps instead of constantly getting shot while going for the weapons I needed to be even slightly competitive.

Well, that's how it should be. You are what you put into the game. If your bad you should lose all the time until you become good. That's life and that's the whole point of getting good in games. To stop losing and be the one winning most of the time. Common sense is common sense and shouldn't be messed with because people are lazy. Not fair to the guy who put in the hours and time to get good in the first place. How you think I felt when I was the one losing back when there was no other place to go. No matter what game you played you were going to get destroyed by those who deserve to win. Now I put in the work and time and I expect the same rewards of destroying the majority. Time for others to pay their dues like we had too back then. Even if it means by force and against their will.

Common sense is that players will stop playing games they don't think are fun and move toward games which they do. Most of the people playing aren't trying to be The Best, they're just looking to have a bit of fun in their downtime.

And me sucking at a game and managing to put a few points on the board is still losing. You seem to make out like those few points are the end of the world. To me, those few points are the reason to keep playing, to try to get better. I'm still awful, I'm still in dead last, but I'm still showing up to matches and keeping the servers populated and keeping the game alive.

 

[Vigormortis]

Sigh...

Really?

Look. The First-Person Shooter genre does not, repeat: NOT, need saving. All it needs is a little variety.[footnote]But then, what genre doesn't need a little variety nowadays?[/footnote] And frankly, we're already starting to get that. Both within and (especially) without the Triple-A industry.

So...there's really no need for the doom-and-gloom, hyperbolic proclamation of, "This game we know nothing about is going to save a genre that is dying!"

No. The genre isn't "dying" and Doom 4, as intrigued as I am as to how it'll turn out, most likely won't be responsible for much of anything beyond maybe; and I put strong emphasis on maybe; bringing us some modernized nostalgic fun.

 

[Artaneius]

Sigh...

Really?

Look. The First-Person Shooter genre does not, repeat: NOT, need saving. All it needs is a little variety.[footnote]But then, what genre doesn't need a little variety nowadays?[/footnote] And frankly, we're already starting to get that. Both within and (especially) without the Triple-A industry.

So...there's really no need for the doom-and-gloom, hyperbolic proclamation of, "This game we know nothing about is going to save a genre that is dying!"

No. The genre isn't "dying" and Doom 4, as intrigued as I am as to how it'll turn out, mostly likely won't be responsible for much of anything beyond maybe; and I put strong emphasis on maybe; bringing us some modernized nostalgic fun.

I bet a whole bunch of people will snort derisively at this, but Halo saved the FPS genre for me.

And yes, I've played Doom, Heretic, Duke 3D, etc. and none of them interest me. Halo strikes the perfect balance between insane FPSs of yore and the modern shooter. Interesting weapons, great enemy variety, still is decently fast, and requires a good amount of skill.

P.S. - A quick question to the people saying regenerating health killed the FPS (genuine question here, not trying to insult anyone for their choices) - how often was quick load / quick save used in a difficult encounter? How is that different from regenerating health, besides the obvious distinction that you're manually doing it?

And of course, if that isn't the main reason why you dislike regen systems, please elaborate. Because having played both types of FPSs, I genuinely don't miss shooters that had medkits / health packs.

Because arena shooters like Quake and UT which Doom helped birth allow the more skilled player to win over lesser skilled opponents at all times. Having items and weapons on map allowed those with the most skill to win and create a social hierarchy that pretty much defined the whole reason to get good in fps in the first place. Nowadays, it means nothing to be good because anyone can get kills with ease. No items on the map means no map control. Matchmaking systems also destroyed the hierarchy where the most skilled dominated the online scene and gave lesser skilled players a false sense of entitlement.

In online competitive gaming, the whole point of getting good is to pwn. Without being able to pwn because casuals had to be appeased, makes little to no point in dedicating the time and hours to master FPS games now. Maybe Doom 4 will finally change that and bring back the golden days of casuals and noobs being pwned 24/7 as should be. Maybe dedicating hundreds and thousands of hours into games will mean something again when the social hierarchy of the elite gamers is brought back.

And trust me if it does come back, I think casuals will feel the full wrath of the competitive gamers in their rightous fury. Too many years even decades wasted having games appease the masses has made most old school competitive gamers very pissed. They will have their revenge if the new UT, Doom 4, and others come. And I personally will gladly take part of it. There will be bloodshed in online gaming that no real life genocide could ever match. We will finally have our fps back and those that took it away will pay for it. Their entertainment hours will be filled of ragequitting and filled with throwing controllers.

The problem with Old School games is a skilled player can dominate a map to such a degree that it simply isn't fun for less skilled players. Getting dominated and shut-out isn't fun.

Modern shooters let novice players get a few points while getting their butts handed to them by better players. They're still going to lose (and lose big), but getting a handful of lucky kills makes the experience much, much more enjoyable.

I'm more of a mid-pack kind of guy when it comes to competitive multiplayer. I used to slip on-line a bit to play Quake and I think the last game I ever played was against someone who was so far above me that I simple could not enjoy myself. Someone so far above me that it wasn't even a learning experience. It was just me dying over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over again. I'm struggling to get something other than the crappy starting weapons, while this guy is just dominating anything of value on the map.

Many years later, I pop into a Gear Of War match and while I'm stinking up the joint and coming in dead last match after match, I was actually enjoying myself because I was getting the odd kill and felt like I was learning the maps instead of constantly getting shot while going for the weapons I needed to be even slightly competitive.

Well, that's how it should be. You are what you put into the game. If your bad you should lose all the time until you become good. That's life and that's the whole point of getting good in games. To stop losing and be the one winning most of the time. Common sense is common sense and shouldn't be messed with because people are lazy. Not fair to the guy who put in the hours and time to get good in the first place. How you think I felt when I was the one losing back when there was no other place to go. No matter what game you played you were going to get destroyed by those who deserve to win. Now I put in the work and time and I expect the same rewards of destroying the majority. Time for others to pay their dues like we had too back then. Even if it means by force and against their will.

Common sense is that players will stop playing games they don't think are fun and move toward games which they do. Most of the people playing aren't trying to be The Best, they're just looking to have a bit of fun in their downtime.

And me sucking at a game and managing to put a few points on the board is still losing. You seem to make out like those few points are the end of the world. To me, those few points are the reason to keep playing, to try to get better. I'm still awful, I'm still in dead last, but I'm still showing up to matches and keeping the servers populated and keeping the game alive.

This is how every match should be in every online shooter for a skilled player. No exceptions to validate what it means to be a skilled gamer. No competitive gamer should be shafted and their rights and privileges taken away to make those who barely put in the time and effort to feel entitled. Put in the work, don't be lazy. Pay your dues like everyone else in any other hobby known to mankind.

[http://s1374.photobucket.com/user/justin_bennett2/media/2014-08-21_00002_zps45d2e64d.jpg.html]