It seems that you're using an outdated browser. Some things may not work as they should (or don't work at all).
We suggest you upgrade newer and better browser like: Chrome, Firefox, Internet Explorer or Opera

×
Community
General discussionSome thoughts on modern shooters vs old ones(77 posts)(77 posts)
(77 posts)
Pages:
1
2
3
4
5
6
This is my favourite topic
Posted January 28, 2022
avatar
idbeholdME: RTCW was made by Gray Matter Interactive, not Raven. Originally known as Xatrix and later merged into Treyarch.
avatar
MysterD: Thanks for your correction.

You're right; Raven did Quake 4 and Wolfenstein (2009 Reboot).
I was recently telling some friends how Microsoft's acquisition of Activison brings back the possibility of Heretic 2 and Hexen 2's expansion pack being re-released, but I actually had forgotten that this Wolfenstein game was out of commission for the same reasons as well.

And it's a good game. I hope all three get re-released soon. :)
Posted January 28, 2022
avatar
MysterD: Thanks for your correction.

You're right; Raven did Quake 4 and Wolfenstein (2009 Reboot).
avatar
Falci: I was recently telling some friends how Microsoft's acquisition of Activison brings back the possibility of Heretic 2 and Hexen 2's expansion pack being re-released, but I actually had forgotten that this Wolfenstein game was out of commission for the same reasons as well.

And it's a good game. I hope all three get re-released soon. :)
That would be awesome, for all of that to happen.

And I'd love to see Raven get away from doing COD stuff and go back to more reboots/sequels of say Hexen/Heretic and especially Singularity.
Post edited January 28, 2022 by MysterD
Posted January 28, 2022
avatar
idbeholdME: There is absolutely nothing wrong with durable enemies. Actually, the main weakness of Duke 3D is that 90% of the game dies to 1-2 shotgun shots. I honestly hate this obsession of calling anything that doesn't fall over nearly instantly "bullet sponges".

The best is a good mix of weak and tough enemies. Something Doom 2 has yet to be bested in. Baron of Hell is one of my favorite enemies simply for the fact that it is a persistent, 1000 HP threat that you have to expend some resources to neutralize.
I think you are missing the point: it's not just about weakness or toughness, it is about when you find yourself fighting the HPs (basically a dumb counter) instead of an enemy.
Enemies moving at you without caring being unloaded magazines at, not even trying to dodge or take cover: that's just lazy development and plain stupid.
In Unreal they've put effort in the AI but on the highest difficulty enemies become bullet sponges, they took the easy route.
Even in Quake 2, a really forgettable title in my book, enemies crouch to avoid being shot at.
Posted January 29, 2022
avatar
idbeholdME: There is absolutely nothing wrong with durable enemies. Actually, the main weakness of Duke 3D is that 90% of the game dies to 1-2 shotgun shots. I honestly hate this obsession of calling anything that doesn't fall over nearly instantly "bullet sponges".

The best is a good mix of weak and tough enemies. Something Doom 2 has yet to be bested in. Baron of Hell is one of my favorite enemies simply for the fact that it is a persistent, 1000 HP threat that you have to expend some resources to neutralize.
avatar
Judicat0r: I think you are missing the point: it's not just about weakness or toughness, it is about when you find yourself fighting the HPs (basically a dumb counter) instead of an enemy.
Enemies moving at you without caring being unloaded magazines at, not even trying to dodge or take cover: that's just lazy development and plain stupid.
In Unreal they've put effort in the AI but on the highest difficulty enemies become bullet sponges, they took the easy route.
Even in Quake 2, a really forgettable title in my book, enemies crouch to avoid being shot at.
You are fighting the HP of a tough enemy, meaning you are not attacking other enemies around you which might be attacking you. It's all about prioritization. It is good to have enemies that serve a "tank" role in the enemy roster, like the Baron of Hell is in Doom. You seem to be thinking about combat as a 1v1 situation. In which case, yes, a boss with predictable attacks, zero threat level and a million HP is a bad thing.

As for enemy behavior, AI taking cover is useless 99% of the time because A) They will not be completely covered anyway (a part of their body will still be sticking out) and B) they are usually not attacking you during that time, effectively removing themselves from the fight. There is nothing easier than shooting a completely stationary target that "thinks" is in cover.

And as for Unreal specifically, the enemies there are more about quality than quantity and thus are tougher on average. But I wouldn't call any enemy in the game spongy besides Titans, and I'm saying that as a person that finished the game on the Unreal difficulty multiple times. If you consistently hit your shots, the enemies still go down pretty quick. But good luck getting a direct hit from the Flak Cannon on a Skaarj. The toughest Skaarj on Normal has 320 HP. A Flak secondary shot can deal up to 220 damage. I think Unreal difficulty doubles all the enemy HP, so that is just 3 direct hits. The tankiness of enemies in Unreal stems mostly from the enemy behavior, not sheer HP numbers.
Posted January 29, 2022
avatar
_Line: Visual Novels are about story only right? I'm honestly asking because that's not my kind of game. But I deduce that the joy someone search for in this kind of games is a deep story and good character progression only, so this should be reviewed differently.

I mean, let's take Monster Hunter for example. This series is around for about 20 years and since the beginning they've created awesome movie like "David vs Goliath" encounters with giant dragons and monsters without taking control out of the player.

In a visual novel, the "movie like" situation would be a moment in the story that impacts the player.

Is this correct?
avatar
dtgreene: It's correct that visual novels are mostly about story, as they're basically lots of dialog with the occasional choice for the player to make.

(A kinetic novel is a visual novel minus the choices.)

Edit: Why the low rating?
Oh thanks for explaining! I never heard about this term before "Kinectic Visual Novel". Nice to learn about it.
Yeah I understand now. Choice based visual novels appeal to me a little bit as I like rpgs where my choices matter (The Witcher, Dragon Age: Origins, etc). In fact now I believe, in these kind of games, you're actually giving the player the full control over the game, which is even better. Because, if the story is well written, even if it's scripted, it's on the player hands on how to progress.

This would compare to a single player FPS that gives the player more options on how to approuch encounters and many ways to complete a single objective.

In the end, games should always give the player one thing: Choice, therefore, multiple ways to solve problems. Of course some enjoy to just sit and enjoy a good written story, nothing wrong with this imo.

Talking about Metal Gear Solid series, as a fan of it, I agree there are a lot of cutscenes, and the game experience is drastically reduced if you remove them all, but then again, we're talking about Metal Gear. Gameplay is incredible if you like this genre and even in the old games you had an infinity of ways to progress the game, with multiple passages and even secret areas to explore for more gear and equipment.

Also, I haven't downvoted you.
It's not my style of saying I disagree with someone or dislike their statements.
I rather just chat about it In a mature way if I feel it's necessary.
Posted January 29, 2022
avatar
idbeholdME: You seem to be thinking about combat as a 1v1 situation. In which case, yes, a boss with predictable attacks, zero threat level and a million HP is a bad thing.
I've actually encountered an enemy that almost fits that description, except that:
* The boss was in an incremental game, not a shooter.
* The boss didn't have any attacks at all, so the battle was just about doing enough damage (which takes a while).
* Of course, with it being an incremental game, your character moves forward and attacks automatically. Hence, you could just start the fight and let the game run for a while and you would win the battle after a while. (I think it takes less than an hour if using an optimal setup, but I haven't actually measured it.)

Yes, this boss actually *does* have a million HP, and yes you are meant to AFK kill it (in other words, leave the computer and let the game run).
Posted January 29, 2022
avatar
Judicat0r: I think you are missing the point: it's not just about weakness or toughness, it is about when you find yourself fighting the HPs (basically a dumb counter) instead of an enemy.
Enemies moving at you without caring being unloaded magazines at, not even trying to dodge or take cover: that's just lazy development and plain stupid.
In Unreal they've put effort in the AI but on the highest difficulty enemies become bullet sponges, they took the easy route.
Even in Quake 2, a really forgettable title in my book, enemies crouch to avoid being shot at.
avatar
idbeholdME: You are fighting the HP of a tough enemy, meaning you are not attacking other enemies around you which might be attacking you. It's all about prioritization. It is good to have enemies that serve a "tank" role in the enemy roster, like the Baron of Hell is in Doom. You seem to be thinking about combat as a 1v1 situation. In which case, yes, a boss with predictable attacks, zero threat level and a million HP is a bad thing.

As for enemy behavior, AI taking cover is useless 99% of the time because A) They will not be completely covered anyway (a part of their body will still be sticking out) and B) they are usually not attacking you during that time, effectively removing themselves from the fight. There is nothing easier than shooting a completely stationary target that "thinks" is in cover.

And as for Unreal specifically, the enemies there are more about quality than quantity and thus are tougher on average. But I wouldn't call any enemy in the game spongy besides Titans, and I'm saying that as a person that finished the game on the Unreal difficulty multiple times. If you consistently hit your shots, the enemies still go down pretty quick. But good luck getting a direct hit from the Flak Cannon on a Skaarj. The toughest Skaarj on Normal has 320 HP. A Flak secondary shot can deal up to 220 damage. I think Unreal difficulty doubles all the enemy HP, so that is just 3 direct hits. The tankiness of enemies in Unreal stems mostly from the enemy behavior, not sheer HP numbers.
When the enemy is just a dumb counter which comes at you in a straight line while throwing green orbs at you and is a threat only if it can single or double shot you or if you are movement-constrained, then you are not fighting against the enemy's skills, you are fighting the enemy's HPs:

That is exacly my point: it just takes time, not skill, to take them down and in DooM, you can ignore imps and grunts while you take out the bullet sponges. I don't want to be rude, It looks to me you are confusing development choices/lazy development and clever use of limitations with features: Carmack and Romero admitted frankly that the enemies where so stupid they had to use workarounds and clever monters' placement to make up for the lack of AI which was basically non existent and there's nothing wrong with it per se.

There are many games out there where enemies in cover are completely that and, again, making an enemy not completely hidden while he is in cover is just plain stupid, disrepectful and an attempt at ingratiating the player.
I mean: there are games where while one enemy is in cover, completely in cover, others shoot at you.

Regarding Unreal that's exacttly the point I was initially making: shooters from before that time didn't have complex mechanics and AI because of limitations and/or lazy development which led to the bullet sponges, that trend kept going through the years even after games that did things mostly right came up.
That's what I'm not totally OK with: the highest difficulty level: they went the easy/lazy way, but to be honest they made an exceptionally good work up until then and I can't blame them for adding it too much.

You need to be close to them, very close, in order to score a Flack Cannon or a non-hitscan hit, and when you do it is very satisfying.
Post edited January 29, 2022 by Judicat0r
Posted January 29, 2022
avatar
Judicat0r: When the enemy is just a dumb counter which comes at you in a straight line while throwing green orbs at you and is a threat only if it can single or double shot you or if you are movement-constrained, then you are not fighting against the enemy's skills, you are fighting the enemy's HPs:
Agreed. That is why I said that a single enemy/boss with predictable attacks and just a million HP is a bad thing. Proper combat in FPS games is about combat scenarios, not 1v1 duels. A singular Baron in Doom is just a block of 1000 HP. But a Baron in combination with other enemy types in various positions is a threat. And even then, if everything just falls over nearly instantly like in Duke 3D, it can lead to very boring gameplay. A good mix of enemies, fragile and tough, is always the best.
avatar
Judicat0r: That is exacly my point: it just takes time, not skill, to take them down and in DooM, you can ignore imps and grunts while you take out the bullet sponges. I don't want to be rude, It looks to me you are confusing development choices/lazy development and clever use of limitations with features: Carmack and Romero admitted frankly that the enemies where so stupid they had to use workarounds and clever monters' placement to make up for the lack of AI which was basically non existent and there's nothing wrong with it per se.
What takes skill is not killing a single enemy, but efficiently working your way through a combat scenario. You can ignore imps in some, but they might be the greatest threat in the other.

And I'm not confusing anything. I vastly prefer the way enemies behaved in the older FPS games as in "moving towards you and actually attacking you" instead of doing random "realistic manoeuvres" and what not. I'll take dumb but dangerous over fancy but ultimately less threating any day of the week.

avatar
Judicat0r: There are many games out there where enemies in cover are completely that and, again, making an enemy not completely hidden while he is in cover is just plain stupid, disrepectful and an attempt at ingratiating the player.
I mean: there are games where while one enemy is in cover, completely in cover, others shoot at you.
There are, but it is not the case in the vast majority of them. I've played tons of FPS games over the years (my favorite genre), so it is definitely more of an exception rather than the norm.

avatar
Judicat0r: Regarding Unreal that's exacttly the point I was initially making: shooters from before that time didn't have complex mechanics and AI because of limitations and/or lazy development which led to the bullet sponges, that trend kept going through the years even after games that did things mostly right came up.
That's what I'm not totally OK with: the highest difficulty level: they went the easy/lazy way, but to be honest they made an exceptionally good work up until then and I can't blame them for adding it too much.
Indeed, Unreal had a very good enemy AI for the time. Actively dodging your shots, predicting their shots with your movement etc. Which is why it was not about fighting dozens of enemies at the same time, but tackling small groups of quite smart and reasonably durable enemies. But I really fail to see this what you call "trend". I've played them all. Doom, Blood, Heretic, Hexen, Shadow Warrior, Duke, Unreal etc.. Hell, in most of these games, difficulty does not even affect the enemy HP (Blood and Unreal being the exceptions) and only affects the amount of pickups and enemy numbers. Even then, Doom still remains as one of the games with the toughest roster of enemies when it comes to HP vs player weapon damage. I guess we just have a very different threshold when it comes to calling enemies spongy. On the contrary, I take old shooters as the norm and in most later FPS games, all enemies are as durable as wet tissue paper.

And an additional note, the difficulty in Unreal does not increase only the enemy HP, but also improves the enemy behavior.
avatar
Judicat0r: You need to be close to them, very close, in order to score a Flack Cannon or a non-hitscan hit, and when you do it is very satisfying.
Yes, or make them dodge and then hit them where they end up after the dodge. If you know that, then I rally can't think of a reason why you'd call Unreal enemies spongy. Is 3 direct hits to kill one of the toughest enemies in the game too much? Just for the sake of it, I started playing Unreal again yesterday and no, the enemies are far from what I'd call spongy, even on Unreal difficulty.
Post edited January 29, 2022 by idbeholdME
Posted January 29, 2022
low rated
Speaking of enemy HP, one thing I've noticed about RPGs and enemy HP is that, if enemy HP is too low, then things like status ailments end up not being as useful. For example, why put an enemy to sleep if I could just kill it with a few physical attacks?

Increase enemy HP, and suddenly those status ailments actually make sense to use (assuming that the enemies aren't immune, and that the status ailments aren't too expensive to use).

I don't know if this sort of thing comes up in FPS games, but I could see it happening, particularly if the player is given the option of using non-lethal weapons to, say, knock out an enemy without having to reduce its HP to 0.
Posted January 29, 2022
avatar
Judicat0r: When the enemy is just a dumb counter which comes at you in a straight line while throwing green orbs at you and is a threat only if it can single or double shot you or if you are movement-constrained, then you are not fighting against the enemy's skills, you are fighting the enemy's HPs:
avatar
idbeholdME: Agreed. That is why I said that a single enemy/boss with predictable attacks and just a million HP is a bad thing. Proper combat in FPS games is about combat scenarios, not 1v1 duels. A singular Baron in Doom is just a block of 1000 HP. But a Baron in combination with other enemy types in various positions is a threat. And even then, if everything just falls over nearly instantly like in Duke 3D, it can lead to very boring gameplay. A good mix of enemies, fragile and tough, is always the best.
avatar
Judicat0r: That is exacly my point: it just takes time, not skill, to take them down and in DooM, you can ignore imps and grunts while you take out the bullet sponges. I don't want to be rude, It looks to me you are confusing development choices/lazy development and clever use of limitations with features: Carmack and Romero admitted frankly that the enemies where so stupid they had to use workarounds and clever monters' placement to make up for the lack of AI which was basically non existent and there's nothing wrong with it per se.
avatar
idbeholdME: What takes skill is not killing a single enemy, but efficiently working your way through a combat scenario. You can ignore imps in some, but they might be the greatest threat in the other.

And I'm not confusing anything. I vastly prefer the way enemies behaved in the older FPS games as in "moving towards you and actually attacking you" instead of doing random "realistic manoeuvres" and what not. I'll take dumb but dangerous over fancy but ultimately less threating any day of the week.

avatar
Judicat0r: There are many games out there where enemies in cover are completely that and, again, making an enemy not completely hidden while he is in cover is just plain stupid, disrepectful and an attempt at ingratiating the player.
I mean: there are games where while one enemy is in cover, completely in cover, others shoot at you.
avatar
idbeholdME: There are, but it is not the case in the vast majority of them. I've played tons of FPS games over the years (my favorite genre), so it is definitely more of an exception rather than the norm.

avatar
Judicat0r: Regarding Unreal that's exacttly the point I was initially making: shooters from before that time didn't have complex mechanics and AI because of limitations and/or lazy development which led to the bullet sponges, that trend kept going through the years even after games that did things mostly right came up.
That's what I'm not totally OK with: the highest difficulty level: they went the easy/lazy way, but to be honest they made an exceptionally good work up until then and I can't blame them for adding it too much.
avatar
idbeholdME: Indeed, Unreal had a very good enemy AI for the time. Actively dodging your shots, predicting their shots with your movement etc. Which is why it was not about fighting dozens of enemies at the same time, but tackling small groups of quite smart and reasonably durable enemies. But I really fail to see this what you call "trend". I've played them all. Doom, Blood, Heretic, Hexen, Shadow Warrior, Duke, Unreal etc.. Hell, in most of these games, difficulty does not even affect the enemy HP (Blood and Unreal being the exceptions) and only affects the amount of pickups and enemy numbers. Even then, Doom still remains as one of the games with the toughest roster of enemies when it comes to HP vs player weapon damage. I guess we just have a very different threshold when it comes to calling enemies spongy. On the contrary, I take old shooters as the norm and in most later FPS games, all enemies are as durable as wet tissue paper.

And an additional note, the difficulty in Unreal does not increase only the enemy HP, but also improves the enemy behavior.
avatar
Judicat0r: You need to be close to them, very close, in order to score a Flack Cannon or a non-hitscan hit, and when you do it is very satisfying.
avatar
idbeholdME: Yes, or make them dodge and then hit them where they end up after the dodge. If you know that, then I rally can't think of a reason why you'd call Unreal enemies spongy. Is 3 direct hits to kill one of the toughest enemies in the game too much? Just for the sake of it, I started playing Unreal again yesterday and no, the enemies are far from what I'd call spongy, even on Unreal difficulty.
You can pair the boss with grunts but that's just a workaround because instead of one you have more dumb entities that move until there's line of sight then shoot and which you just have to take down in a sequence which boils everything down to some sort repeatable routine.
It's not like there's this DooM enemies and the rest is 1vs1, and AI that does "random "realistic manoeuvres" ": there's much, much more to it like the collective AI, dynamic AI, just to cite something that's been already used in games and I was referring to but you dismissed with "random "realistic manoeuvres", no, there's very little of randomness in modern games' AI unless you want it to act randomly.

But only now reading again your posts I do realize that you were and are expressing a personal opinion and a matter of tastes, and there's nothing wrong with it, but I'm not: I'm talking about AI complexity, believable/credible behavior that goes beyond move and shoot, that is already there.
We are debating on completely different planes and I don't find it polite/respectful to debate other's people tastes or personal beliefs especially when those are the only thing they like or understand ("I'll take dumb but dangerous over fancy but ultimately less threating any day of the week. ").
Post edited January 29, 2022 by Judicat0r
Posted January 30, 2022
...
Post edited January 30, 2022 by Plumb
Posted January 30, 2022
So, I'd like to posit a thought. When did the FPS transition away from "Maze game with incidental gun" towards "Gun with incidental maze"?

Because I'm not entirely sure I'd call something like System Shock 1 a proper FPS.
Posted January 30, 2022
avatar
Judicat0r: You can pair the boss with grunts but that's just a workaround because instead of one you have more dumb entities that move until there's line of sight then shoot and which you just have to take down in a sequence which boils everything down to some sort repeatable routine.
It's not like there's this DooM enemies and the rest is 1vs1, and AI that does "random "realistic manoeuvres" ": there's much, much more to it like the collective AI, dynamic AI, just to cite something that's been already used in games and I was referring to but you dismissed with "random "realistic manoeuvres", no, there's very little of randomness in modern games' AI unless you want it to act randomly.

But only now reading again your posts I do realize that you were and are expressing a personal opinion and a matter of tastes, and there's nothing wrong with it, but I'm not: I'm talking about AI complexity, believable/credible behavior that goes beyond move and shoot, that is already there.
We are debating on completely different planes and I don't find it polite/respectful to debate other's people tastes or personal beliefs especially when those are the only thing they like or understand ("I'll take dumb but dangerous over fancy but ultimately less threating any day of the week. ").
The AI debate was mostly besides the point anyway. What I was mainly disputing was calling enemies in Unreal (and other old shooters) spongy and calling that a "trend" in a negative manner. That is partly a matter of taste too, but you can also partly objectively measure that by simply comparing weapon damage with the enemy HP. But yes, the threshold of where "sponginess" starts is going to be subjective.

The only enemy in Unreal that can be chore to kill is a Titan.
Post edited January 30, 2022 by idbeholdME
Posted January 30, 2022
Seems to me when anyone is unable to stomach the games they have fond memories of, it may be because the standard of the time in which that title was made, had many highlights and aspects that made it good. But as we all age. The progress of any new game can make the overall mechanics feel better. The result of years of trial and error can make what we played in the past seem less glamorous and antiquated. Even terrible. So when we take another look at what we enjoyed, it can seem lack luster by comparison.

But look on the bright side. If you enjoyed it enough to look back upon with fond memories. Let it settle and enjoy all that trial and error that now makes something new you DO enjoy all the more nice.

....well....hopefully =D
Posted January 30, 2022
avatar
Judicat0r: You can pair the boss with grunts but that's just a workaround because instead of one you have more dumb entities that move until there's line of sight then shoot and which you just have to take down in a sequence which boils everything down to some sort repeatable routine.
It's not like there's this DooM enemies and the rest is 1vs1, and AI that does "random "realistic manoeuvres" ": there's much, much more to it like the collective AI, dynamic AI, just to cite something that's been already used in games and I was referring to but you dismissed with "random "realistic manoeuvres", no, there's very little of randomness in modern games' AI unless you want it to act randomly.

But only now reading again your posts I do realize that you were and are expressing a personal opinion and a matter of tastes, and there's nothing wrong with it, but I'm not: I'm talking about AI complexity, believable/credible behavior that goes beyond move and shoot, that is already there.
We are debating on completely different planes and I don't find it polite/respectful to debate other's people tastes or personal beliefs especially when those are the only thing they like or understand ("I'll take dumb but dangerous over fancy but ultimately less threating any day of the week. ").
avatar
idbeholdME: The AI debate was mostly besides the point anyway. What I was mainly disputing was calling enemies in Unreal (and other old shooters) spongy and calling that a "trend" in a negative manner. That is partly a matter of taste too, but you can also partly objectively measure that by simply comparing weapon damage with the enemy HP. But yes, the threshold of where "sponginess" starts is going to be subjective.

The only enemy in Unreal that can be chore to kill is a Titan.
No, it's not.
It's you that were opinionating based on your likings and tastes.
I don't, I'm referring to facts and technology.
A bullet sponge is just an an HPs container which poses no threat to the player but its own HPs as opposed to enemies capable of more complex behavior than just coming at you and shoot like: take cover and make pot shots, cooperate with other AI entities, act collectively as one entity, adapt to changing conditions and so on.
And that's not debatable, it is just a fact, especially in DooM.
Sooner or later every AI becomes unrefined compared to newer iterations and, as a matter of fact, due to their lack of behavioral branches compared to newer ones, could easily and lazily only be improved by raising their HPs.
And that was my point to begin with: the enemies from that time, the 90s, the early 90s specifically, are just bullet sponges in most cases, because they lack the skills required to look like they are acting credibily, which happened later on, and something you may not like but that is a fact and objectively true.
Pages:
1
2
3
4
5
6
This is my favourite topic
Community
General discussionSome thoughts on modern shooters vs old ones(77 posts)(77 posts)
(77 posts)