Dear FPS makers...

[Signa]

OH hell yeah! I've been boasting about how great Doom was after I played it through fully for the first time in 2008. No one here believes me though. Just look at half of the nay-sayers in this thread.

 

[The Virgo]

...Re-release DOOM.

Having clocked more hours than is strictly healthy on FPS action, I have come to the conclusion that I am getting bored with them. I'm not saying it's not fun, but the prospect of trudging through yet another brown and grey generic landscape armed with two guns and bones that re-knit themselves if I can avoid being shot for .3 of a second is getting really, really tiresome. In fact, I got so tired of it I went and played DOOM for most of the weekend, and had a bloody great time doing so!

[...]

2) No Health Regen: [...]

3) DOOM breaks its own rules: [...]

4) DOOM is pure: [...]

Hmmm ... do you have a PS2 or Xbox 1?

If you do, I would recommend a game called TimeSplitters 2. It was made released back in 2002 (the first game was first FPS released on the PS2) and I think you would enjoy it.

It's not as fast-paced as doom, but the levels (whether in story mode or arcade) are rather diverse, ranging from (in the story mode) a Siberian Dam in 1990, the old west in the 1860's, an atom smasher in 1972 and a space station in the 2400's.

Where the game the shines is arcade mode, though. Although you start out a meager assortment of characters and a handful of levels, by playing the challenges, arcade league matches and story missions, you unlock more levels and characters. It's really the characters that are the highlight of TS2, as they range from serious to absurd, like the Insect Mutant, Robofish, Beetleman and Gingerbread Man ... that's right, you can play as a six-foot-tall gingerbread man!

I don't know if you would like it, but I think it's worth checking out.

Also: our birthdays are three days apart!

 

[shadow_Fox81]

man its like FPS fans never played things like the first condemned or bioshock did you look at the cover and think wait there are no marines. (sorry had to go there)

but really how great is wargamers (that guy at the start right) description of doom i never thought of the action being the primary emotive device in doom i always thought it was a grindy shooter with no real direction. i think he's shown less is more in a shooter and i like that methodology.

(even though my bioshock affair points to the contrary)

 

[someonehairy-ish]

DOOM simply puts you into an arena against a massive horde of enemies, and lets you discover just how good you are.

And theres your reason why it won't happen. Most people suck. And will get frustrated and bored with it the very first time a save becomes impossible due to using up all the health/ammo/whatever. That's the problem with finite resources and the reason modern games give you a shit-ton of em.
Even modern shooters tend to piss me off pretty quickly on the highest difficulty settings and doom was like that all the freaking tiiime.

If you want to change the fps game, pitch an idea to a game company that changes the game in a new way, not an old one.

 

[Wargamer]

man its like FPS fans never played things like the first condemned or bioshock did you look at the cover and think wait there are no marines. (sorry had to go there)

but really how great is wargamers (that guy at the start right) description of doom i never thought of the action being the primary emotive device in doom i always thought it was a grindy shooter with no real direction. i think he's shown less is more in a shooter and i like that methodology.

(even though my bioshock affair points to the contrary)

Bioshock was a really fun game. However, I found I didn't really have the drive to play it again. I think it's because what made Bioshock wonderful was the unknown; the world yet to be discovered, the plot twists that came out of nowhere; the utterly obsurdity of the place unfolding before me. The second time around I knew it all, and because I was playing the game, not playing along with the story, it fell flat.

I always feel bad about saying stuff like that though, because for the first playthrough Bioshock was one of the most enjoyable FPS experiences I've ever had.

But yes, on the DOOM front, the game is most certainly emotive because of its mechanics, not its plot. The character is a blank-slate character onto which we project ourselves, and the game mechanics in general are very good at creating a feeling of helplessnes. For example, most enemies use slow-moving attacks; fireballs, plasma bolts, etc. These can be spotted and dodged, providing you're far enough away, meaning that, in theory at least, DOOM is an easy game to beat. After all, how hard can it be to complete a game where you get plenty of time to jink out of any incoming attack?

Well that's the thing. DOOM shows you fairly early on how easy it is to avoid getting killed, and then it pulls the carpet out from under you. Suddenly it isn't so easy to avoid dying when there's no room to dodge, or when the Imp is three inches from your face, or when the enemy are coming from all sides.

Also, DOOM does something very few other FPS's seem to do; it rewards tactical play. Enemies can hurt each other with friendly fire, and when they do they can (and will) turn on each other instead of you. This means that in the most frantic of fights players can tilt the odds in their favour by positioning themselves in such a way as to cause friendly fire incidents amongst the enemy. Indeed, I believe the PC version of DOOM had a level dedicated to this concept where a Cyberdemon and Spider Mastermind duelled it out, or could be made to do so fairly easily. Looking back on many of the FPS titles I own or have played - Halo, Killzone, Resistance, Duke Nukem Forever - none of these have enemies who will attack each other, nor can the enemy commit Friendly Fire, aside from perhaps the odd stray grenade. As such, these games don't allow you to use tactics that DOOM has, which is especially ironic for "realistic" FPS games considering that friendly fire is a very realistic danger indeed!

There is a great deal of depth in that supposedly shallow game. That makes it all the more hillarious when you look at "deep" games like Call of Duty, which frankly I got bored of after the first mission and gave up on.

DOOM simply puts you into an arena against a massive horde of enemies, and lets you discover just how good you are.

And theres your reason why it won't happen. Most people suck. And will get frustrated and bored with it the very first time a save becomes impossible due to using up all the health/ammo/whatever. That's the problem with finite resources and the reason modern games give you a shit-ton of em.
Even modern shooters tend to piss me off pretty quickly on the highest difficulty settings and doom was like that all the freaking tiiime.

If you want to change the fps game, pitch an idea to a game company that changes the game in a new way, not an old one.

The truth, my friends, is far simpler; we have LEARNED to suck at games. I have gone back to old school titles from the Megadrive era and found myself wondering how the hell I used to beat these games as a kid. The answer, quite honestly, is that old games need practice. A modern title I can pick up, stick it on Hard Mode and waltz through without trying. An old game on Hard Mode is a nightmare to endure and punishes you constantly. Why? Because back then a good player could clock the game off in an hour at most. The only way to stick with the title was for it to be hard, so you had to keep trying over and over.

Modern games have skipped that, and now we're seeing people ***** and moan about how games are so damn short. In truth, games haven't been getting shorter, we're just completing them faster.

I think the industry should learn from this. I think they need to go back and think about what "Easy", "Normal" and "Hard" really mean. An Easy mode should be something a first time gamer can beat; go ahead and play DOOM on "I am a Wimp" and see for yourself what I mean - it's a breeze.

Normal is for people who are comfortable with games. You put the game on normal when you've played games like it before, or you've just played games for so long it's second nature. Normal is for everyone.

Hard? Ha. Yeah, THAT is so often mislabled. Hard mode should be for REAL fans. Hard Mode should kick the teeth out of your skull and give you NO room to breathe whatsoever. See "Crushing" on Uncharted 1 and 2 - THAT is what a Hard Mode should be. It's beatable, but only for people willing to sink a lot of time and effort into the game; Hard Mode is for people who WANT to have to play Old School - to memorise where to crouch so you can snipe the ambusher, to know which wall to toss grenades over, to work out that you can afford to be shot 9 times dashing from your current position to the secret room across the road because it'll give you the medpack and the rocket launcher. Hard Mode is for people who want to sink a lot of time into a game and to really WORK for their fun.

And so let's get something straight here; if that is ever going to happen, people need to stop being douchebags about difficulty levels. Too many people waltz around with stuck up attitudes like "anyone who can't beat Halo on Legendary is a n00b!" No, anyone who can't beat Halo on Legendary isn't willing to spend hours learning how to do it. Shut up, grow a pair and accept not everyone loves the game as much as you do. Part of why people claim games are getting easier is arguably because gamers are often not welcoming of outsiders who lack their skill levels, yet they so easily forget they were not born with their skills...

...but this is getting off topic.

 

[Squilookle]

I don't see any problem with FPSes going for in depth stories- they just aren't even really trying these days.

Everything else is pretty much spot on though- except you make it sound like DOOM laughs in the face of setpieces and regen health etc, when in reality it was made long before someone had decided to try it out in a game, rather than consciously defying those elements.

It's also worth pointing out that DOOM isn't really that unique in the elements you describe. Most games up until Halo came out had at least a few of those elements as well.

For some reason when you said that modern games just aren't like that anymore, Soldat popped into my mind. it's not an FPS, but I think you'd probably quite like it based on what you've written.

 

[Vibhor]

OK, so you've just validated my point that the thing that kicks off the story and the basic concept of first-person shooters are the same. That's not the exact same story.

Anyone can link touchstones, that doesn't mean anything. If not we're going to end up saying Crysis, Half-Life and Halo are all the exact same story because they feature aliens and power-suits. And there's a slight logical fallacy in saying "the stories are exactly the same, just as long as you don't pay attention to what happens after the beginning of each story."

/facepalm.
You are impossible.
You know what? I am not even gonna try anymore.

 

[Alphakirby]

Yeah,I own Doom on my iPod and I can see what you're talking about. Stupid fucking Cyberdemon filled room...

 

[shadow_Fox81]

man its like FPS fans never played things like the first condemned or bioshock did you look at the cover and think wait there are no marines. (sorry had to go there)

but really how great is wargamers (that guy at the start right) description of doom i never thought of the action being the primary emotive device in doom i always thought it was a grindy shooter with no real direction. i think he's shown less is more in a shooter and i like that methodology.

(even though my bioshock affair points to the contrary)

Bioshock was a really fun game. However, I found I didn't really have the drive to play it again. I think it's because what made Bioshock wonderful was the unknown; the world yet to be discovered, the plot twists that came out of nowhere; the utterly obsurdity of the place unfolding before me. The second time around I knew it all, and because I was playing the game, not playing along with the story, it fell flat.

I always feel bad about saying stuff like that though, because for the first playthrough Bioshock was one of the most enjoyable FPS experiences I've ever had.

But yes, on the DOOM front, the game is most certainly emotive because of its mechanics, not its plot. The character is a blank-slate character onto which we project ourselves, and the game mechanics in general are very good at creating a feeling of helplessnes. For example, most enemies use slow-moving attacks; fireballs, plasma bolts, etc. These can be spotted and dodged, providing you're far enough away, meaning that, in theory at least, DOOM is an easy game to beat. After all, how hard can it be to complete a game where you get plenty of time to jink out of any incoming attack?

Well that's the thing. DOOM shows you fairly early on how easy it is to avoid getting killed, and then it pulls the carpet out from under you. Suddenly it isn't so easy to avoid dying when there's no room to dodge, or when the Imp is three inches from your face, or when the enemy are coming from all sides.

Also, DOOM does something very few other FPS's seem to do; it rewards tactical play. Enemies can hurt each other with friendly fire, and when they do they can (and will) turn on each other instead of you. This means that in the most frantic of fights players can tilt the odds in their favour by positioning themselves in such a way as to cause friendly fire incidents amongst the enemy. Indeed, I believe the PC version of DOOM had a level dedicated to this concept where a Cyberdemon and Spider Mastermind duelled it out, or could be made to do so fairly easily. Looking back on many of the FPS titles I own or have played - Halo, Killzone, Resistance, Duke Nukem Forever - none of these have enemies who will attack each other, nor can the enemy commit Friendly Fire, aside from perhaps the odd stray grenade. As such, these games don't allow you to use tactics that DOOM has, which is especially ironic for "realistic" FPS games considering that friendly fire is a very realistic danger indeed!

There is a great deal of depth in that supposedly shallow game. That makes it all the more hillarious when you look at "deep" games like Call of Duty, which frankly I got bored of after the first mission and gave up on.

in really do love the integrity with which your treating a genre which gets so soundly bashed about these day by the comuntiy in quite un thoughtful ways.
although of all those you mentioned i only ever played halo and doom (which i'm definately giving another look now) i love the first person perspective though and as my choice of Condemned above showed i like the wierd ones, i mean you'll end up hugging a 2x4 most of the time in the dark but it is a true unsung gem, and cheap if you havn't played it. if your not too anxious you can use opponents as cover mellee attack and start a brawl between AI bots (although i usually did this accidently) so it has some tactics especially on the hard dificulty (the only way to play horror) but theyre all intense tiny encounters. I don't think any game captures the weight of mellee combat in such a satisfyingway as Condemned.

its not a true shooter though and nothing like doom so i couldn't recomend it to you in good faith but im digging out my old doom Cd to play now so i thought tit for tat was appropriate.

 

[Worgen]

I just can't really agree. I don't think re-releasing DOOM would do very much for the FPS genre at this point. Re-releasing something like the first Unreal Tournament or Tribes 2 would make more sense as, while not particularly contemporary as far as modern shooters go, they both encompass features and gameplay mechanics that are still relevant today. I can't see a reason to re-release DOOM over something younger and more relevant.

it doesnt need a rerelease, if you play doom with zdoom then it looks pretty and its very compatable with modern OS

ot: seriously, you need serious sam hd or the new one bfe, serious sam bfe isnt out but of all the serous sam games I would say the 2nd encounter is my fave so far, its just fantastic

oh, also, painkiller, its very similar game play

 

[Assassin Xaero]

2) No Health Regen:
A fully kitted out player can take a lot of hits. Fully healed and armoured, a player can afford a few mistakes as they storm through the carnage and seek to obliterate everything else that moves. However, you can't take too many hits, and you don't heal just by cowering in the corner. The game, therefore, has a completely different set of tactics. As before, movement is key, only this time it's not about rushing the enemy; it's about rushing THROUGH the enemy, or perhaps away from them. When the chips are down the player has to quickly work out an escape route, flee to the nearest health and/or ammo, then get back into the fight.

This kind of on-the-fly resource management is all but gone from modern games. Hell, Duke Nukem is the last game I played where, in single player at least, I ever had any worries about AMMO, let alone health; modern games also seem to believe players should always have far more bullets than they'll ever need.

Yeah, and then when you are down to 3 health and have to go through a hallway with two of the hardest enemies so far in the game, plus another little strogg, you are fucked and have to spend an hour trying to do it... Not fun. Regenerating health, although annoying, keeps balance so this doesn't happen. They could at least have it regenerate to a certain point (25-30), so you still have a fighting chance...

 

[GigaHz]

DOOM was and still is perfect. That's exactly why they should leave it as it is.

Even though there is no modern fps comparison to both the atmosphere and frantic pace of DOOM and DOOM 2, that doesn't mean that re-releasing the game is going to win over any hearts. As much as I hate to say it, the fast "twitch-shooter" days of yesteryear are for the most part over. It is no longer about mowing down armies against impossible odds by actually confronting them, it is more about wall-hugging, cover-shooting and occasionally waiting until you remove the jelly that seems to render you unable to see, then rinse and repeat.

For me, no game will ever match the adrenaline rush of experiencing NIghtmare mode and its near-impossible difficulty. The one mode where speed running is the only option and even that will not guarantee success. I have never felt more thrill and anxiety with any other FPS in my life. This is also my theory why many newer gamers don't really see the charm of Doom. Everyone who is used to modern shooters should play on Ultra-Violence at least for a proper experience. It's not nearly as stressful and unfair as Nightmare mode but it still offers plenty of monsters to mow down and a fair amount of difficulty.

As you can tell, I'm kissing this game's ass. You could argue that I am biased but I am biased for good reason. Doom was the first FPS game to get everything right. It is the reason why FPS became a viable genre. It was the inspiration for Duke 3d, Quake, UT, Serious Sam and many more. It was so influential that for a good few years, FPS games were called DOOM-clones. It is the Super Mario of FPS games and should be respected and experienced if you value the genre. Re-releasing it however, is not the proper way to honour it. It is the equivalent of thinking that because Godfather and Godfather part II were so influential for modern filmmaking, they should be re-released. I can tell you, more than just film buffs would be upset about that.

But if you are looking for a more modern based twitch-shooter to quench your recently awoken palette, Painkiller is pretty damn awesome. I would check it out if you haven't already.

 

[Wargamer]

in really do love the integrity with which your treating a genre which gets so soundly bashed about these day by the comuntiy in quite un thoughtful ways.

I think the FPS gets a lot of unfair flak. It also gets a lot of well deserved flak, but an FPS game is never bad because its an FPS - it's bad because it's a bad game. Hell, looking back many of the games that really stand out for me are First Person Shooters; from DOOM, Goldeneye and Perfect Dark to Mechwarrior 2: Mercenaries (just because you're playing as a 3-story, 80 tonne Mech doesn't mean it's not an FPS...), there are some absolute classics in there.

All of them were brilliant in their own way, and it's almost sad to see how many have been seemingly forgotten. Whatever happened to Bots? Does anyone remember when an FPS title had four players and sixty guns, rather than the other way around? Hell, it seems even the much-boasted ideals of "Massive" Online FPS gaming is gone. Resistance has slashed its multiplayer numbers, and Killzone hacked their games down from 32 to 24 (less for GW and Operations). Kind of sad really.

Realistically, I think all we need to see from FPS developers is evidence that they are learning from what came before, not just copying it. My biggest complaint about "Modern" FPS shooters like Call of Duty and... well... the Call of Duty clones is that they are, as stated, clones. I can't honestly say that I can see the difference between playing Call of Duty, or Battlefield or Medal of Honour or whatever. Maybe I would if I actually played these games, but as an outsider they all look exactly the same, but we all know Halo when we see it, even if we don't actually like it.

That, once again, is where DOOM shines; you know when you're playing it. You know when you're watching someone else play it. Hell, you can tell DOOM is being played just by standing outside the door and listening to the sound effects! That is good game design, and all the truly classic games, be they Mario, Zelda or whatever, do the exact same thing. The genre needs a few more attempts to push boundaries, do something new and, above all, do something distinctive and a lot less copy-pasting of others. In short, more Borderlands, less Black Ops.

Yeah, and then when you are down to 3 health and have to go through a hallway with two of the hardest enemies so far in the game, plus another little strogg, you are fucked and have to spend an hour trying to do it... Not fun. Regenerating health, although annoying, keeps balance so this doesn't happen. They could at least have it regenerate to a certain point (25-30), so you still have a fighting chance...

I think that's why I enjoyed Resistance 1 so much - it had the "Hybrid" health system, which sadly they abandoned for Resistance 2. We can but hope they have a return to sanity for Resistance 3.

For those unfamiliar with it, the "Hybrid" system works as follows; your health is split into four bars, and they are drained successively. Each bar can regenerate over time, but only as long as there is some health still inside.

Or, to put it another way:
If you are reduced to 99-76% health and duck into cover, you'll regenerate to 100% health.
If you are reduced to 75%, you don't regen at all.
If you are reduced to 51-74% health, you'll only regen to 75%.

This continues all the way down, meaning that you always, in theory, can rely on having 25% health if you're careful. This system also encourages players to go looking for health packs, because it's always nice to have full health in case someone has a rocket launcher up ahead.


The other problem that DOOM has, which may divide the gamers out there, is item loss on death. If you die in DOOM, you respawn with a pistol and nothing else. That can make previously easy segments very hard going. I think, where a modern game to return to old school high-speed mayhem, you would have to give players back all their gear on death. That way, you don't force players to rely on quick-load to progress forwards.

 

[Netrigan]

Ah, Doom2. Had some great level design there...some silly ones like barrels of fun which didn't fit the theme, though.

They knew how to do proper jump scares back then.

I think they succeeded by not scripting any of them. They just provided a creepy environment with some good sound effects. Then the scares happened when they happened. Low health and ammo were big contributors, but the straight-ahead AI combined with twisty passages meant that enemies were like marbles in a tilt-maze... you'd hear them roaming around, but never knew when you'd turn a corner and be face-to-face with a Demon.

But mostly, it was just a high-octane action game... and I think that was the key. Games like F.E.A.R. or Dead Rising go out of their way to scare you, but the heavy scripting means you see most of the scares coming.

 

[Jakub324]

Fuck Doom. Cover based combat exists because it's popular, and why is it popular? Because it just WORKS BETTER than running and gunning because developers know how much health you are going to have (assuming health regenerates, which it always does these days) so they can balance levels properly. Run and gun has a place, but cover-based combat should remain dominant.

 

[Assassin Xaero]

Yeah, and then when you are down to 3 health and have to go through a hallway with two of the hardest enemies so far in the game, plus another little strogg, you are fucked and have to spend an hour trying to do it... Not fun. Regenerating health, although annoying, keeps balance so this doesn't happen. They could at least have it regenerate to a certain point (25-30), so you still have a fighting chance...

I think that's why I enjoyed Resistance 1 so much - it had the "Hybrid" health system, which sadly they abandoned for Resistance 2. We can but hope they have a return to sanity for Resistance 3.

For those unfamiliar with it, the "Hybrid" system works as follows; your health is split into four bars, and they are drained successively. Each bar can regenerate over time, but only as long as there is some health still inside.

Or, to put it another way:
If you are reduced to 99-76% health and duck into cover, you'll regenerate to 100% health.
If you are reduced to 75%, you don't regen at all.
If you are reduced to 51-74% health, you'll only regen to 75%.

This continues all the way down, meaning that you always, in theory, can rely on having 25% health if you're careful. This system also encourages players to go looking for health packs, because it's always nice to have full health in case someone has a rocket launcher up ahead.


The other problem that DOOM has, which may divide the gamers out there, is item loss on death. If you die in DOOM, you respawn with a pistol and nothing else. That can make previously easy segments very hard going. I think, where a modern game to return to old school high-speed mayhem, you would have to give players back all their gear on death. That way, you don't force players to rely on quick-load to progress forwards.

So, in other words, a modified version of the Chronicles or Riddick health system, only difference being health kits instead of med stations?

 

[Wargamer]

Fuck Doom. Cover based combat exists because it's popular, and why is it popular? Because it just WORKS BETTER than running and gunning because developers know how much health you are going to have (assuming health regenerates, which it always does these days) so they can balance levels properly. Run and gun has a place, but cover-based combat should remain dominant.

No, it shouldn't. Cover based shooting does NOT "work better". If cover based shooting is better, why do the most successful online FPS games not use it?

What traits dominate the online scene? In my experience, the following traits dominate online play, which I will call the "Triple-A" rule of online play:

1) Ambush: If you open up on a player who doesn't know you are there, you win.
2) Accuracy: If you can land more bullets into the enemy than they can land into you, you win. Alternatively, if you can get the headshot and they can't, you win. Either way, the better shot wins.
3) Aggression: Players who keep moving and keep attacking tend to do better than those who are timid. If you slow down, you give the enemy a chance to take stock of what's going on and, thus, retaliate.

So, why do these traits not show through on single player? Because, as other have said, single player is so linear these days that you can't use the tricks that Multiplayer requires. The enemy will always be ahead of you, will probably be dug in, and there's bugger all means to flank around or bypass the attack altogether. As such, the only option left is to cower in cover and snipe the enemy one by one.

If you designed single player levels the way Multiplayer maps are, you'd see cover-hugging tactics go out of the window.