Poll: Are FPS games becoming unoriginal and bland?
- Thread starter DarqKiller
- Start date
Recommended Videos
The Blue Mongoose post=9.71776.737244 said:
Thats a fantastic idea my friend! Excellent thinking Jeeves!
I thought CoD4 was pretty fun, Halo 3 was kinda boring. Really, it just felt like you were sleepwalking through the whole thing and pretty much doing it all alone. Even when you had squadmates, their triggered speech was almost inaudible half the time due to poor range dynamics on the audio or whatever, which compounded the feeling of being alone against 9,912,161,617,824 enemies.PersianLlama post=9.71776.739430 said:
It didn't help that one of the most fun weapons in the game, the Spartan Laser, only made -two- appearances. And one of them was just sitting there blasting Guilty Spark.
I found myself agreeing heartily with Penny Arcade's analysis of Halo 3 being one giant non-experience. Even the "alien sphincter door" thing had been done in Prey, so it didn't feel quite as unique.
Personally, Portal's a first person puzzle game. Not once to you SHOOT someone, only sentry guns have that privilege. Just because you have to aim your portal gun does not make it a 'shooter'.
As to boring remakes, sometimes you can find that time makes memory sweeter to compare with reality. Halo 1 is far slower paced than 2, although its level design is, in places, vastly superior. Slower shield gen detracts a suprising amount of intensity from the game, and the more dynamic Flood of Halo 3 was a nice touch (I'm talking the in-game possession sequences, not so much the 'pure forms'). Half Life 2 is, imo, also better than HL 1, with a much more cinematic feel and more intelligent and interesting map design and enemies. This might be a very select group to sample, but sequels aren't always mindless money cows, and innovation in this world does seem to come slowly via gimmicks and tweaks than in grandiose, genre-purging sweeps.
As to boring remakes, sometimes you can find that time makes memory sweeter to compare with reality. Halo 1 is far slower paced than 2, although its level design is, in places, vastly superior. Slower shield gen detracts a suprising amount of intensity from the game, and the more dynamic Flood of Halo 3 was a nice touch (I'm talking the in-game possession sequences, not so much the 'pure forms'). Half Life 2 is, imo, also better than HL 1, with a much more cinematic feel and more intelligent and interesting map design and enemies. This might be a very select group to sample, but sequels aren't always mindless money cows, and innovation in this world does seem to come slowly via gimmicks and tweaks than in grandiose, genre-purging sweeps.
To tell the truth, I think the FPS genre as a whole lacks innovation these days. When you look at the modern output there really aren't that many things to fine tune. Nobody really cares about the plot in an FPS (although there are a few exceptions to this such as Bioshock, System Shock 2, or really any FPS ending with "Shock") and the real innovation comes from the things you shoot, what you use to shoot things you shoot, and the things that are shot from the things that you shoot. Call me redundant but as far as I can see (which admittedly with this genre isn't very far) that's pretty much it.
Shooters rarely ever were original my peers, don't get the "old man syndrome" (They don' make shoo'ers like they use ta!).
Come to think of it that can be said of any genre.
It works like this: an original game comes out and many copy it with varying degrees of success and their own innovation. This persists and that type of game becomes either a new standard for an existing genre or a new genre/sub-genre entirely. A new original game comes out, repeat ad infintatum (that's literary fag for "infinitly").
If there is any difference between now and "the good ole days" it's that the cycle is slowed down by the sheer complexity of games and the sheer number of ideas that have already been done. And lets not forget the money.
Come to think of it that can be said of any genre.
It works like this: an original game comes out and many copy it with varying degrees of success and their own innovation. This persists and that type of game becomes either a new standard for an existing genre or a new genre/sub-genre entirely. A new original game comes out, repeat ad infintatum (that's literary fag for "infinitly").
If there is any difference between now and "the good ole days" it's that the cycle is slowed down by the sheer complexity of games and the sheer number of ideas that have already been done. And lets not forget the money.
I thought the point of a shooter was aim, shoot, kill.
With a few varieties, but...
If a minute passes between a dude and a murder, than you are not playing it right. (Quote from Yahtzee).
With a few varieties, but...
If a minute passes between a dude and a murder, than you are not playing it right. (Quote from Yahtzee).
So long as its fun, why care? Sure, portal was great fun, largely because of the innovation but mostly because of GlaDos. This is the best example of presentation beating out innovation I can think of, 'cause portal had innovation up the ass.
Is it not ok to like Bioshock for it's story and not the occasionally-bland gameplay?
To like CoD4 for the sheer intensity of the firefights?
To like HL2 for the Gravity gun fun (among many other things like good characters)?
As much as it pains me to say it, innovation is overrated, mainly because if we judged games by how innovative they are, we'd have one decent game a year and one great game a decade.
Is it not ok to like Bioshock for it's story and not the occasionally-bland gameplay?
To like CoD4 for the sheer intensity of the firefights?
To like HL2 for the Gravity gun fun (among many other things like good characters)?
As much as it pains me to say it, innovation is overrated, mainly because if we judged games by how innovative they are, we'd have one decent game a year and one great game a decade.
Just played Ratchet and Clank Tools of Destruction, but does that count as a "shooter" or a platformer? I mean, I thought it was awesome simply because of the RYNO.
Also, Clear Sky just came out, and for a post-nuclear shooter, it's very "original" and fun, I'm kind of shocked there are so many naysayers.
Anyway, this is me just trying to find out if there have been some (mainly high profile) interesting shooters in the past year other than Bioshock which was pretty much system shock underwater.
Also, Clear Sky just came out, and for a post-nuclear shooter, it's very "original" and fun, I'm kind of shocked there are so many naysayers.
Anyway, this is me just trying to find out if there have been some (mainly high profile) interesting shooters in the past year other than Bioshock which was pretty much system shock underwater.
Isn't that a electrical hazard?ElArabDeMagnifico post=9.71776.739977 said:
Anyways, I have been bored to tears by shooters recently.(TPS Mercenaries 2 has been a lot of fun lately.)
Power-suit wearing grizzled (space?) marine #20097759047893845 A
And Aliens/Nazis/Robots/zombies, or any combination of said baddies.
QED.
And Aliens/Nazis/Robots/zombies, or any combination of said baddies.
QED.
Every shooter seems to have you kill nazis because nazis are just so damn *pleasing* to kill. We already wiped them out and chased the dregs clear to argentina, so theres no one to offend and no one to complain about it. The latter two reasons are good examples of why we get to shoot a lot of zombies or aliens.
Actually, I think we need MORE zombies to kill. I mean, there are throngs of the unliving just litterally dying for a taste of this delicious grey matter; im sure I could go somewhere besides a shopping mall to put a few thousand rounds in them.
Actually, I think we need MORE zombies to kill. I mean, there are throngs of the unliving just litterally dying for a taste of this delicious grey matter; im sure I could go somewhere besides a shopping mall to put a few thousand rounds in them.
