Do you agree i certainly do

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0Q6UQ2QlRH0

Please discuss.

yeah I agree. But i feel a lot of what he says can be said about 90% of new games out there and not just FPS. We use to play a game for months, searching every inch of a map, replaying on harder difficulties and loving every minute of it. Nowadays we finish a game in 5 hours in a first run and in most cases never look back. I call games disposable commodities these days and i can't say that really makes me happy.... Yeah i thought that too for a while but then i started playing older games that i missed when i was a child and these "new games" (for me) gave me more fun and gametime and replayability then new ones. Sure some graphics really haven't aged well, but i never really cared all that much about it (but i admit nice graphics are a bonus) and some game controls and interfaces are horrible but i have Always been able to adabt really quickly without much problem. So for me: not really a huge nostalgia factor (there are exeptions: games that were terrilbe back then but for some reason i loved, i still love) but it is Always something that plays it part.

Yeah it took me two weeks to beat Thief Gold while i beat Crysis 3 in 6 hours. This is why im excited for the new Rise of the Triad.

In my early 20s I really got into music from the 1960s. What became apparent very quickly was that the great stuff was truly epic and amazing, but there was a reason most of the music of that era was forgotten; it's shite! :P

I fear this might be the same case with gaming. To make the case that FPS has gone backwards I feel there needs to be a bigger legacy to draw upon. What I hear is, "Over a ten year period 3 games/IPs were released that were awesome (Doom, Duke 3D, Shadow Warrior)". Why aren't modern FPSs following this tradition?". Well, I ask, what tradition? I think these are wonderfully made games in their own right, not forumlaic adherences to a genre.

Edit: Whoops, included too many quotes.

9:53—"Seems like modern first-person shooters hate the very idea of going backwards." Was amused by the phrasing combined with the title.

Anyway, I never got into the older shooters, but the comparison between them and the newer ones is reminiscent of when people try to compare jRPGs and western RPGs. The similarities—a first-person view and guns—are superficial and they're often trying to achieve completely different things, so obviously there will be significant differences between the two. That's not really going backwards so much as stepping to the side, though, more an "apples and oranges" situation than an actual regression. Maybe we should start calling modern shooters "first-person stories" to avoid the comparison.

FPS games are just embarassing these days. This video sums it up nicely.

I love build-engine games. I could spend forever just playing Doom WAD's on ZDoom/Brutal Doom. There's no modern FPS that can compare.

Well, it's still pretty much about modern military shooters. Complaning about them has little sense, because they are just not their target audience.

I really dislike them too, and I hate what happened with Battlefield series (they were always arcade-ish, but not Modern Warfare arcade-ish until BF3 came), but that's not the point.

There are games like Medal of Honor, which are scripted corridors with braindead enemies, and there are games like FEAR, Far Cry, Bioshock series, that offer much more.

And I don't really see a problem there. There are still more than enough old shooter games for me to not even care about modern FPS games. But if you're a sucker for graphics, then you have a problem. I don't.

By the way, I'm playing again first MOH game, the protoplast of modern military shooters and well... I'm having great fun :D

I'd love to how a player of "modern military shooters" try and play something like Quake 3 Arena though, they probably can't even grasp the concept of moving, aiming and shooting at the same time

Haven't watched the video yet but yes, most modern shooters are shit. Mainly because they're too linear, but also because they lack imagination and good AI.

That said there are excellent exceptions. Far Cry 3 and Crysis 3 are very enjoyable.

Doesn't FC3 have that "sneak up on enemy and push button to do auto-kill" thing? That's almost as bad as indestructible sticky cover

I'm guessing that multiplatform gaming is to blame for the simplification of shooters. The limitations of current-gen consoles and of a gamepad control scheme dictate the gameplay features and level design. Once, you'd often see significant differences in a game on different platforms, because the different versions were actually adapted to the platforms they were made for. Nowadays, all multiplatform games are developed for consoles and then ported straight to PC with the absolute minimum amount of adaptation necessary.

haha, I tried to play Quake 2 split screen with my friend on PSX. This was a disaster :D

I think the gamepad control of consoles is mostly to blame for cover-based shooters. You know what I mean, the type of games where you hit a button to take cover behind a wall, one of the ways to cover up the inability to dodge and do precise shots fast with a gamepad.