I tried to play Serious Sam, on PS2. Oops!

Thank you, the vehicle sections ruined the game for me.
I loved the first Half life. :)

When I think of Half-Life, I don't think about "telling a story" in any way, I think about the stark mood of "being alone" in strange environments, in fact HL is probably a good example of a formula that works best with no plot arc at all, maybe a bit of a story at the start to set it up, but then just environmental exploration and shooting. HL2, especially the episodes, tried to put too much story into the game and suffered for it

Players complain too much about games when they should spend more time playing them. I also think players who look for "imagination" or "story" in military shooters are playing them on SP, and not with friends (how they're meant to be played), and that's why they get bored.

Also, I don't understand why players feel compelled to complain about games which don't appeal to them. If you don't like broccoli, do you go around complaining about why everyone else likes broccoli, or that they eat it.

And seriously, these internet celebrities are the worst offenders of this kind of stuff because they don't have anything else going on; making shit storms out of shit nuggets, just the worst kind of people. Thanks, now I don't have to say it.

Secondly, this guy conveniently forgets to mention a butt load of FPS games which came in "modern times" and are not milsims or military shooters; I would know since I've played them. It seems what he's complaining about is why his favourite type of product is not more popular; how juvenile.

Moreover, players who complain about the "lack of imagination" of certain military games are out of touch with actual modern warfare- these games have accurately portrayed it thus far, and the reason these games look similar is because their subject matter has remained unchanged.

Also, why shouldn't some games be free from fantasy elements? We don't need mutants, aliens or robots in every FPS- the ones which have them are enough.

Regardless, games are not perfect (not that I'd want them to be), but I like it when developers work hard on their game to provide a great playing experience. The only things I would like in some military shooters are advanced and challenging AI and better maps.

Of course not. The man is blinded by nostalgia. Once upon a time his tastes were catered to, that time was the 90's, now companies are targeting another demographic with different tastes. He just needs to accept that those games are not made for him.

I tried to play Doom once. I hated the controls and wasn't super fond of anything else, so I stopped. Doom 3 was better.

Oh, and regenerating health is a better game mechanic then health packs.

He's right for most FPS games. I mean for those cases if they can be considered games, I mean just stand there and let the AI handle all the shooting for you.

I don't think the regen health mechanic is bad per se, as long as harder modes of the game provide sufficient challenge or enjoyable gameplay, it doesn't matter to me if someone else likes to play an easy game with regen health.

What's moronic is expecting people to play games in exactly your style.

Well, it would be better if we could just have a solid separation and re-definition of the genres.

MMS (Modern Military Shooter) - Call of Duty, Battlefield, Modern Warfare, Medal of Honor, Far Cry, etc.

FPS (First Person Shooter), or Traditional FPS - Doom, Quake, Hexen, Heretic, Duke Nukem 3D, Shadow Warrior, Blood, etc.

And never shall the streams be crossed.

Though the new Rise of the Triad reboot gives me hope the "True FPS" might be making a comeback.

What would Darkness II go under? That is hardly an MMS, and it's too slow and linear paced to be a Traditional FPS.

So you apparently separated games without fantasy elements and those which have them, and you included FC in the former category. Have you even played FC?

Moreover, you realize that such a distinction already exists, in a way, and there are enough games for people who like different styles. That's why this complaining comes off as a juvenile attempt to force everyone to like what one personally likes, which is just unnecessary.

Not to mention, I think drawing severe boundaries between games is also unnecessary, and personally I wouldn't want it because I like it when games mix genres or have unexpected elements in them.

But finding secrets and exploring is NOT better gameplay - it's just different. You like that kind of FPS and that's great, then go play Stalker, Serious Sam or Painkiller They all cater to your wants when it comes to games. Vote with your wallet and buy the games you like but don't attack people that have a different taste than you when you can't even support your opinion with anything else than insults. There are bad games today just like there was bad games 20 years ago. If you are old enough you should know this because those of us who played games back then mostly remember all the shit we got back then just like we remember the shit we get now. Times change and trends change and so does the games that are being made. But that's how it's always been.

One would hope it'd be that simple, but it isn't. We're seeing variety being neglected in shooters, so y'can't just play the ones with elements that appeal to you because they're not being made. After that you can only imagine how those elements could have been implemented with the kind of resources that the popular ones get.

I am starting to wonder now - are you actually incapable of engaging with somone who have other opinions than yourself without insulting them?