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

×
avatar
Nnexxus: That's not entirely true : I really loved the Stalker series. While it's only a FPS hybrid, with elements from adventure/RPG genre, it really induced the "just one more level" effect on me. And it clearly has something with its atmosphere and overall feeling that make it special.
For most other modern FPS, though, I think you made a point.

STALKER was indeed quite unique for me. I loved the open world, and I loved the non-linear combat, unlike COD's shooting gallery style. It was a fine breath of fresh air after so many FPSes that forced you to play in a scripted way.
Yes, I would say that they lost the magic.
Since I bought Blood here, I began wondering what was wrong with the modern FPS scene.
A part of it is, as stated before, from making ports from consoles because we get a dumbed down and much slower game (transition from controller to mouse+keyboard).
Another part, as I see it, would be forcing realism that a lot of WWII shooters did. It's a game where you wage war versus an army of germans almost alone and that in itself is very unrealistic, so why force out the unrealistic elements like health, medipacks or powerups.
Also the weapons in older games were really fun and creative, while now it's the same machine gun 10x over again.
Not to mention the multiplayer aspect of old games. Remeber UT or Quake? Those things were fast as hell and very hard to master unlike todays CoD.
And don't even start me on the "new super shiny" graphics mentality...
If anyone wants to know why older FPS games seem more fun than the newer ones you simply have to understand the culture in which the two were created.
Older FPS games were created by people who were really into what they were doing. It wasn't just a day job, it was their life. They loved what they were doing and were having an utter blast putting their games together. Like others have already said, there was so much love put into level design, and just as much brain power put into ideas on how to stretch the source code to its fullest potential. The groups that made these games were small in comparison to modern development teams. They made the game and released it because they were proud of it and loved to play it. You feel that love when you play these games.
Now most games, just not fps games, are built on the corporate model. Everything is focus grouped and play-tested so that it appeals to most people. On game mechanics this isn't a bad idea. But when content is compromised in order to sell to a few more folks it makes everything more and more bland. Id, 3D Realms, Interplay, Monolith, these companies were making games that the small group of devs really enjoyed. I'm not sure the same can be said for the consumer products of the 21st century.
avatar
Cook: Maybe developers should take on a simple "you're a badass with big guns and need to kill bad guys" scenario and focus on creating fun gameplay? But then we'd probably complain that modern FPSs are boring and doesn't have a descent story ;)

One thing about that. Older FPS games relied on the settings to tell the stories. The levels were a progression toward a goal. At the end of each episode there might be some little movie or something. But the idea was to use your own imagination in tandem with what the game is presenting. If you play Blood you will see that there is indeed a story. But the feel of the game was really more important that the actual story. The player makes up the odds and ends in their mind as they go and thus makes the game their own. In other words, the lack of specifics can let the player fall deeper into the game. The more an FPS tries to tell you the story, like with massive cutscenes, the more you realize you are playing something contrived. You fail to fully fall into the world the developers are trying to create.
Sorry this is my thesis, lol.
Post edited May 10, 2010 by morhlis
FPS have branched out and, for the most part, have become far, far less generic than they used to be. There used to be an indistinguishable sea of Doom and Quake clones. From which only the occasional game really stood out. And to be honest, aside from Half Life, most of those really did anything different from the rest.
Comparing games like Cryostasis (for the atmosphere and narrative), Necrovision (for the non-stop action), STALKER (for the huge open world, RPG and survival horror elements), SWAT 4 (for tactical action), Left 4 Dead 2 or Borderlands (for the co-op) unfavourably to old school FPS just seems either massively biased or your computer's too crap to give you a playable frame rate on anything newer than HL2.
avatar
Navagon: FPS have branched out and, for the most part, have become far, far less generic than they used to be. There used to be an indistinguishable sea of Doom and Quake clones. From which only the occasional game really stood out. And to be honest, aside from Half Life, most of those really did anything different from the rest.
Comparing games like Cryostasis (for the atmosphere and narrative), Necrovision (for the non-stop action), STALKER (for the huge open world, RPG and survival horror elements), SWAT 4 (for tactical action), Left 4 Dead 2 or Borderlands (for the co-op) unfavourably to old school FPS just seems either massively biased or your computer's too crap to give you a playable frame rate on anything newer than HL2.

QFT. Well said.
Hmmm, I would love to agree with the whole 'new fpses pwn old ones,' but I have never really played Duke 3D or Blood too much before they were released on GoG, and I know there are plenty of people like me. Actually, I was never even a fan of old Doom-ish games until recently. Can't really be a coincidence.
I kinda lost interest in FPS's after Half-Life. replaying Postal 2 and Blood for the first time has reminded me that they used to be fun.
avatar
Navagon: FPS have branched out and, for the most part, have become far, far less generic than they used to be. There used to be an indistinguishable sea of Doom and Quake clones. From which only the occasional game really stood out. And to be honest, aside from Half Life, most of those really did anything different from the rest.
Comparing games like Cryostasis (for the atmosphere and narrative), Necrovision (for the non-stop action), STALKER (for the huge open world, RPG and survival horror elements), SWAT 4 (for tactical action), Left 4 Dead 2 or Borderlands (for the co-op) unfavourably to old school FPS just seems either massively biased or your computer's too crap to give you a playable frame rate on anything newer than HL2.
avatar
trusteft: QFT. Well said.

I really do not agree and i do have a pc that can run all those games on max. Mentioning the exceptions does not prove your point. Every shooter these days plays and looks the same except the ones you just mentioned and a handful others. If you compare quake, quake II, Unreal, duke, blood, shogo, sin, half-life you actually get shooter that look and play totally different. BUT again the shooters you mention are actually very good and I enjoyed them immensly (edit: well maybe not necrovision ;) ).
Post edited May 10, 2010 by xxxIndyxxx
avatar
xxxIndyxxx: If you compare quake, quake II, Unreal, duke, blood, shogo, sin, half-life you actually get shooter that look and play totally different. BUT again the shooters you mention are actually very good and I enjoyed them immensly (edit: well maybe not necrovision ;) ).

Quake 2 was basically Quake with a sense of coherency. It's as if id sobered up a bit and gave it an actual back story, enemies that did actually seem like the kinds of things that would work together against you and some actual purpose to all the killing you were doing. Significant changes, true enough, but that didn't change the fact that the gameplay was basically the same.
As much as I love Blood, there's no denying the fact that it's not all that different from Duke Nukem when it really comes down to it. Again, mostly the differences are cosmetic. I love the game for what it is, but that doesn't stop it from being a corridor shooter with a wickedly dark sense of humour.
Aside from environment interaction and less generic weapons there's not a lot separating the build engine games from the Quake games either for that matter. It's a bit like installing a new Windows theme and pretending it's a radically different OS, really.
Unreal was good. It did some new things. But it was lacking in execution. It was never the most fun and compelling game ever. I've played a lot better FPS since. Sin was an absolute mess with a few good ideas, and I've already noted that Half-Life is most definitely an exception.
Oh and Necrovision: you need to give it time. It takes until about Chapter Six until it really starts to shine. You probably noticed that it doesn't really live up to its name in the first few levels.
avatar
Navagon: As much as I love Blood, there's no denying the fact that it's not all that different from Duke Nukem when it really comes down to it. Again, mostly the differences are cosmetic. I love the game for what it is, but that doesn't stop it from being a corridor shooter with a wickedly dark sense of humour.

Maybe its because I grew up with Wolfenstein, and I know we aren't going to agree on this, but I find it hard to call Blood a corridor shooter. Huge levels that require some interesting puzzle solving, interesting and innovative weapons, and an aesthetic that is completely different from Duke. In fact I find it hard to call Duke a corridor shooter. The evolution of the FPS left a lot of corridors behind with the advent of floor-on-floor mapping and powerups that allowed the player to fly.
Yes, Half Life was an exceptional game and it deserves every accolade it gets. Valve is one of the most innovative development companies working today. But Half Life wouldn't have come about, either in substance or style, without the work of the shooters that came before it. It wasn't just about technology. It was about the way in which the dev teams for the sprite shooters really put their all into making their games special. Companies still do that (again Valve). But I think some of the magic has been lost in the corporate gears of business.
avatar
morhlis: Maybe its because I grew up with Wolfenstein, and I know we aren't going to agree on this, but I find it hard to call Blood a corridor shooter. Huge levels that require some interesting puzzle solving, interesting and innovative weapons, and an aesthetic that is completely different from Duke. In fact I find it hard to call Duke a corridor shooter. The evolution of the FPS left a lot of corridors behind with the advent of floor-on-floor mapping and powerups that allowed the player to fly.

Personally I'd be inclined to call Necrovision a corridor shooter and it sometimes took almost an hour to complete some of those levels. It's not about the size of the levels, but rather the nature of the gameplay. If it's a fairly conventional FPS that leaves you following a set path (even if it criss crosses) then that's what I'm inclined to call a corridor shooter.
avatar
morhlis: But I think some of the magic has been lost in the corporate gears of business.

True. Which is why it's not surprising that most of the ones I cited are from eastern European developers or from devs that have otherwise somehow remained immune to the negative influences of big publishers. There's a lot of over-commercialised crap out there. Right now Modern Warfare 2 is sat atop that mound, but no doubt it will be superseded soon enough.
My favourite genre is FPS games, and I've been playing them since Wolfenstein 3D came out ( I know there were other first person-like games prior to that, but I still view that as the first true FPS). I used to spend hours on all those run-and-gun shooters, and still like a good retro blast today, which is why I've recently bought Blood and Blood 2 again from GoG.
But on the whole, I think I've evolved along with the games, and personally I'm glad that they've branched out into sub-genres over the years. I do tend to prefer a game to have a solid and/or interesting plot, variety in the gameplay, being able to aim down sights, go prone, and get in some melee moves. Far Cry was great because it gave you choices in how to approach a situation, tactical shooters like Raven Shield and SWAT 4 give you that greater sense of realism. If all FPS games still adhered to simple run-and-gun mechanics, I would probably have stopped playing them a while ago.
It is the diversity of gameplay, stories, settings and sometimes characters that keeps me coming back for more in this genre - and partly fuels my nostalgic desire to replay some old classics when I need a break from that.
Linearity has always been an issue with FPS games right from the beginning, and it is as prevalent today as it used to be - but there are also some games that allow you greater freedom to roam, and approach situations in a different way, such as Far Cry, STALKER and Crysis. Personally, I welcome games that offer greater choice in gameplay, and can have as much fun trying out different tactics and trying to use the terrain to my advantage, as I used to have blowing away hundreds of bad guys in Doom.
Of course there are going to be lower quality games, and a lot of dross churned out, but that has always been the case, and you have to seek out the gems in the mire. The only thing preventing me from playing more FPS games on the PC at the moment is the ridiculous DRM attached to most of them. Otherwise there would be a few more shooters in my collection.
Maybe ... and maybe i am just reaching here but... maybe we shouldn't think of them (the new ones) as FPS's. The term FPS's reminds me of doom and als those games of let's say the 90's. Modern shooters have evolved into something bigger (for some better, for some not). Just like nintendo refuses to call the metroid prime series a FPS. Maybe we shouldn't see them as true FPS's. I you can understand what i'm trying to say (and i'm not saying they are not fps's, damd this is confusing to put into words...)
avatar
morhlis: If anyone wants to know why older FPS games seem more fun than the newer ones you simply have to understand the culture in which the two were created.
Older FPS games were created by people who were really into what they were doing. It wasn't just a day job, it was their life. They loved what they were doing and were having an utter blast putting their games together. Like others have already said, there was so much love put into level design, and just as much brain power put into ideas on how to stretch the source code to its fullest potential. The groups that made these games were small in comparison to modern development teams. They made the game and released it because they were proud of it and loved to play it. You feel that love when you play these games.
Now most games, just not fps games, are built on the corporate model. Everything is focus grouped and play-tested so that it appeals to most people. On game mechanics this isn't a bad idea. But when content is compromised in order to sell to a few more folks it makes everything more and more bland. Id, 3D Realms, Interplay, Monolith, these companies were making games that the small group of devs really enjoyed. I'm not sure the same can be said for the consumer products of the 21st century.
avatar
Cook: Maybe developers should take on a simple "you're a badass with big guns and need to kill bad guys" scenario and focus on creating fun gameplay? But then we'd probably complain that modern FPSs are boring and doesn't have a descent story ;)

One thing about that. Older FPS games relied on the settings to tell the stories. The levels were a progression toward a goal. At the end of each episode there might be some little movie or something. But the idea was to use your own imagination in tandem with what the game is presenting. If you play Blood you will see that there is indeed a story. But the feel of the game was really more important that the actual story. The player makes up the odds and ends in their mind as they go and thus makes the game their own. In other words, the lack of specifics can let the player fall deeper into the game. The more an FPS tries to tell you the story, like with massive cutscenes, the more you realize you are playing something contrived. You fail to fully fall into the world the developers are trying to create.
Sorry this is my thesis, lol.

This is pretty close to my thoughts on what happened to the genre. When the FPS genre came about, the game development scene was nothing more than a group of people whom weren't so much concerned with making a crap ton of money, but instead just wanted to make an insanely fun game that they themselves would love to play. Like many indie developers today, game development was considered a labor of love, and thus alot more care and personality was put into the creation of the first generation of FPS's. However, now that publishers have become a much larger and more influential part of the game industry by buying up and having more control over what many game developers make (along with developers themselves growing larger as a means to make larger scaled titles), the focus has shifted away from making more enjoyable games as a whole and more towards making a sustainable profit in the most efficient way possible. It's an unavoidable truth as it's simply the nature of the industry and how it's developed into what it is today.
But sadly, it ultimately leaves us with mostly FPS games now that really lack that sense of personality to them which I always enjoyed about DOOM 1/2, Duke Nukem 3D, Shadow Warrior, Blood, and Wolfenstien 3D. The creative level design and humor (both subtle and not-so-subtle) stood out just as much as the frantic action-fueled gameplay, and it just showed that the creators really enjoyed making these types of experiences as much as we enjoyed playing through them. Now, granted, this kind of care is not completely void in this generation of FPS games as all of Valve's games for instance show alot of the same personality in them too. But when compared to the overall total number of FPS's out now and currently being developed, that amount of attention is only shown in a fraction of what it used to be. This is why I still keep coming back to play the classics to this day.
Post edited May 11, 2010 by WeekendWarrior
avatar
xxxIndyxxx: Maybe ... and maybe i am just reaching here but... maybe we shouldn't think of them (the new ones) as FPS's. The term FPS's reminds me of doom and als those games of let's say the 90's. Modern shooters have evolved into something bigger (for some better, for some not). Just like nintendo refuses to call the metroid prime series a FPS. Maybe we shouldn't see them as true FPS's. I you can understand what i'm trying to say (and i'm not saying they are not fps's, damd this is confusing to put into words...)

I get your point. Basically what you say is that the "real" term FPS should be one used for games that are shoot'em-ups only in first person. In that case you would count as FPS games like Serious Sam and Painkiller, but not games like Ghost Recon.
It's an interesting point. First person games existed before the genre of FPS games of the 90's appeared, and some of them had shooting elements in them. Are they FPS? Not really. The problem is defining what exactly makes a game a FPS and what doesn't.