Days of old.

[zen5887]

I remember (just) back in the day games were a lot simpler.

If you were playing a shooting gmae you ran into a room, killed everything, took their ammo and moved on. You could carry as many guns as the game had and you could take countless shots and a quick medkit would fix you right up. Simple and fun.

Now days the whole 'realistic' thing has come in.

Shooters now days (GRAW, Full spectrem warrior, rainbow six) require you to think ahead and you can only take a few shots. It makes you think about what your doing, plan ahead and take your time. Im not saying this is a bad thing.. Just diffrent.

There are a few games that keep to the old stlye (HL, UT3) but they are thinning out.

Does anyone else feel miss the old days, not just with shooters but with games in general.

 

[ImperialPyromancer]

With shooters...no and with games in general,ye...No. I think games (some) are 'evolving'. Not necessarily towards realism, but certainly to a more complex level which requires more input from the player. This is, in my opinion, bloody brilliant! The more immersive a game, the better the experiance. It's good to have legs in FPS's. I remember first seeing my legs on F.E.A.R. and thinking it was bloody brilliant to finally have a visible means of perambulation.

 

[shadow skill]

The thing with having a boatload of weapons in an FPS is that more likely than not more than half of those weapons will be useless, and the other half are present in every other shooter. Not to mention that the menus for even selecting weapons is just so cumbersome as to be entirely useless. Personally I wish more games especially shooters had more balls.

 

[Kogarian]

Why can't we have both in different games? That way you can have your pie and eat it too.

 

[Lvl 64 Klutz]

FPS's aren't changing at all, just branching out. As you said, you still have your shooters done with the classic mechanics. But now you have tactical shooters and squad shooters and online shooters, and stealth "shooters" (yes, I'm aware of the oxymoron there)

As for the question... I don't miss the old days in the least. If I start to get nostalgic I can always go back and play those games, but games these days can do so much more than they ever could.

 

[Anarchemitis]

I miss the days when Battlefront was revolutionary game play.

 

[The name's Scruffy]

We could always go back to the days of Infocom and read all of our games. Its like a book that you can tell what to do. What fun.

 

[Hey Joe]

Developers: Forget REALISM, focus on GAMEPLAY

 

[stompy]

Developers: Forget REALISM, focus on GAMEPLAY

But sometimes (well, in the beginning), the gameplay was centred around realism, and the way the devs pulled it off, it was fun. Not saying that all games have to be realistic, just sometimes, realism can make a good game. Though, most of the time, it breaks 'em.

- A procrastinator

 

[Lightbulb]

I think it can be best if you build in both. Take the original Call of Duty

Play on the lower settings and you have (reasonably) big health bar, health kits, theres always ammo around the place.

Play on the hardest setting and its a totally different beast - one or two hits and you're a goner, no health kits at all, still plenty of ammo but you NEED it.

I tend to lean towards the 'realistic' side. I like 1 hit kills, whoever has the fastest accurate shot wins an encounter. I like my combat fast and brutal. I can't stand having to spray 40 bullets at something to kill it.

Gameplay >>>>>>> Everything but different people like different aspect of gameplay.


For example some people love Counter Strike, some people can't stand it. But they love and hate it for the same reasons.

 

[MindBullets]

I sometimes wish that people would stop being so obsessed with realism. But I can tolerate varying levels of realism, as long as the gameplay is fast paced. I have alot of fun playing Counter Strike Source, CoD4, Quake, ETQW and Urban Terror even though they each lie at completely different points along the spectrum of realism.

What I can't stand about realism is when it impact the gameplay and makes it slower. I want to spend my time playing the game, not trudging along taking forever to get anywhere because the developers though running fast enough to stop me being bored for too long would be too unrealistic, or sitting for ages staring at a countdown timer when I die.

CSS does have a spawn timer, but the game plays fast, so the round is almost always over quickly. America's Army, on the other hand, has you waiting long enough that, when he plays it, my brother actually gets out a book to read while he's waiting to respawn. How the hell are you supposed to get better at the game when you are restricted from playing for that long every time you make a mistake?

They might be fun when you actually get to shoot at someone, but if that isn't happening most of the time, why bother playing?

 

[Damn Dirty Ape]

There are exceptions though. If anybody remembers painkiller, imo that game had few weapons but each had it's own strength against certain enemies. Not to mention cool secondary fire modes or even combined third firemodes. The problem these days isn't that shooters that are using the old formula are flawed because of the old formula itself, it's because they lack imagination and stick to the cookie cutter shotgun/mg/pistol combo.

I think that's one of the main things that annoyed me with hl2. In hl1 and it's expansions we are able to use alien and experimental weaponry. Ammo is hard to find but boy are they powerfull. In hl2, none of that. The flaregun was removed for an alternate crappy machine gun and we don't even get to touch the combine sniperrifle. I miss feeding green balls to my squidgun ( hl1p4 if you don't remember )

 

[The_root_of_all_evil]

I remember (just) back in the day games were a lot simpler.

TBF, you can't get a lot simpler than Peggle. And I'd take a hundred GRAW missions instead of one Banyan Tree.