I know I'm a bit late to the party but I've got to bring up the "Spunkgargleweewee" thing again. We don't need to use the term to use the concept it represents. I think we can agree that JRPGs are significantly different from Western RPGs, yes? They are different enough to be different genres entirely. So, what would be the different names between 'realistic shooters' and '13 weapons in your backpack' shooters? Should we call one 'realistic shooters' and the other one just 'shooters' or what?
Shooter Genre Distinction
- Thread starter confluxfighter
- Start date
Recommended Videos
Old school? I mean I've heard them referred to as "old school shooters" and it somewhat fits, I must say. Often they are contrasted with "modern shooters", so this is another good distinction. The problem comes when the next shooter fad comes, how do we call it - "post modernistic"?
Oh god, no literature or art definitions. Those make zero sense.DoPo said:
I do like the idea of a different name style.
"Modern American Military"
"Chaotic aliens and demons everywhere with tons of guns"
"Space Marine"
"Pretty realistic"
"Shooter RPGs"
"Futuristic shooters"
Things of that nature.
What you are describing are genres AND settings. We just want genres. Let's stick with the term 'realistic' shooter for Black Ops and Medal of Honor and such. What we need is a term shooters like Doom and Painkiller.
I think 'oldschool' and 'brown' would work.
Oldschool is the way they were made in the beginning. Games like Half Life 2 were prettier than Doom and had better plots (going from 'teleportation experiments go wrong and hellspawn invade earth' to, um, nevermind) but preserved things like getting health from medikits and carrying lots of guns.
Then we have the 'brown' shooter, which has evolved on consoles. It features regenerating health and being limited to carrying two weapons, because the game that really brought the FPS to the consoles, Halo, limited you to carrying two weapons and for practical purposes had regenerating health. Along the way, player characters slowed down, (because it's hard to aim with a controller and jump around like a rabbit on crack) and infinite hordes of enemies were often recruited as a counterbalance to regenerating health. It also appears to have picked up bad habits like QTEs and cover mechanics.
Now a lot of people will say that the colour brown does not feature all that heavily in modern console shooters and the archetype, Halo, had bright colour schemes and very little brown. I'll point out that the colour gold did not feature heavily in the golden age of comics, nor did they switch to a silver colour during the silver age. The term 'brown shooter' has stuck, and has lasted longer than 'spunkgargleweewee' and is less silly.
Brown is also the colour of a certain unpleasant substance, which is appropriate because most of the mechanics it represents are bad ones that keep making it into games because publishers hate change and don't play their own games enough to see how bad most of them are:
-QTEs are either pointless busywork or incredibly frustrating.
-Cover mechanics lead to players staying away from cover, lest they find themselves glued to it when the enemy chuck a grenade.
-Slow movement is just less fun.
-Having an infinite supply of enemies removes the satisfaction of killing them, because you are at best buying time while you get to the real objectives. Especially when the real objectives are simply getting to the next checkpoint.
-A two weapon limit is arbitrary and unnecessary. You may only have one button on consoles to switch weapons, but you could, for instance, hold that button down and use the analogue stick to select from a wheel with say 8 weapons.
-Regenerating health is the one thing with pros and cons that is arguably an improvement.
Oldschool is the way they were made in the beginning. Games like Half Life 2 were prettier than Doom and had better plots (going from 'teleportation experiments go wrong and hellspawn invade earth' to, um, nevermind) but preserved things like getting health from medikits and carrying lots of guns.
Then we have the 'brown' shooter, which has evolved on consoles. It features regenerating health and being limited to carrying two weapons, because the game that really brought the FPS to the consoles, Halo, limited you to carrying two weapons and for practical purposes had regenerating health. Along the way, player characters slowed down, (because it's hard to aim with a controller and jump around like a rabbit on crack) and infinite hordes of enemies were often recruited as a counterbalance to regenerating health. It also appears to have picked up bad habits like QTEs and cover mechanics.
Now a lot of people will say that the colour brown does not feature all that heavily in modern console shooters and the archetype, Halo, had bright colour schemes and very little brown. I'll point out that the colour gold did not feature heavily in the golden age of comics, nor did they switch to a silver colour during the silver age. The term 'brown shooter' has stuck, and has lasted longer than 'spunkgargleweewee' and is less silly.
Brown is also the colour of a certain unpleasant substance, which is appropriate because most of the mechanics it represents are bad ones that keep making it into games because publishers hate change and don't play their own games enough to see how bad most of them are:
-QTEs are either pointless busywork or incredibly frustrating.
-Cover mechanics lead to players staying away from cover, lest they find themselves glued to it when the enemy chuck a grenade.
-Slow movement is just less fun.
-Having an infinite supply of enemies removes the satisfaction of killing them, because you are at best buying time while you get to the real objectives. Especially when the real objectives are simply getting to the next checkpoint.
-A two weapon limit is arbitrary and unnecessary. You may only have one button on consoles to switch weapons, but you could, for instance, hold that button down and use the analogue stick to select from a wheel with say 8 weapons.
-Regenerating health is the one thing with pros and cons that is arguably an improvement.
"Modern Military Shooter" is the cynically acceptable term.
Though I think that rather that the setting we should be focused on how they prefer the scripted action sequence rather than the procedural setpiece to achieve "fun".
Though I think that rather that the setting we should be focused on how they prefer the scripted action sequence rather than the procedural setpiece to achieve "fun".
Halo is kind of a bad example. It has elements from both old school and brown shooters.
How about old school and modern? Brown just has a negative attachment and, while I don't like the games, we can't just write them off if we ever want to be able to discuss them.
How about old school and modern? Brown just has a negative attachment and, while I don't like the games, we can't just write them off if we ever want to be able to discuss them.
I didn't say it was a prime example. I said that it was influential. It was a successful FPS on consoles at a time when the FPS was considered a PC genre. Other console FPS's followed it, establishing regenerating health and the two weapon limit as staple on console FPS games.confluxfighter said:
The problem with 'modern' is that it has an accepted but shifting definition -ie the sort of game available today. In ten years the FPS could evolve dramatically. Then what will we call the games of 2012? You wouldn't call Quake 3 a modern FPS today and you'll look silly if you call COD 4 a modern FPS in 2022.confluxfighter said:
Eh, TBH Black Ops and such should be called Hollywood shooters IMO. They're not realistic in the slightest, and they've got a lot in common with Hollywood action movies.confluxfighter said:
Realistic Shooters is a title that should go to the shooters that are actually realistic, from memory the ARMA series was known for this, but I haven't played any of them to know.
Doom and Painkiller IMO fit closest with the term "Arcade Shooter", even though they're not games that you'll find in an arcade. They have an arcady sort of feel to both the worlds and the mechanics, and its the best name I can come up with to label them with.
(Pseudo)-Realist Shooter (Generally also military themed)
Tactical Squad shooter
Stealth Shooter
There seems to be a new trend for MMOFPS in recent years.
SRPG
And yeah, whatever you want to call your Doom/Painkiller/Serious Sam/Unreal/Duke Nukem style shooter where you can haul around 10-12 oft-times implausible, but amusingly diverse weapons.
Tactical Squad shooter
Stealth Shooter
There seems to be a new trend for MMOFPS in recent years.
SRPG
And yeah, whatever you want to call your Doom/Painkiller/Serious Sam/Unreal/Duke Nukem style shooter where you can haul around 10-12 oft-times implausible, but amusingly diverse weapons.
Just say modern shooter or old school shooter, and if something doesnt quite fit into either, use your brain and describe it with something else.
Also the term "Spunkgargleweewee" is one of the stupidest terms I've ever heard used. Its slightly annoying when Yahtzee uses the term, but I expect that sort of dickery from him, its just in his character. But when so many people just copy him and use the term, its really annoying, and sounds super damn immature, even worse than the 12 year old kiddies who play those games
Also the term "Spunkgargleweewee" is one of the stupidest terms I've ever heard used. Its slightly annoying when Yahtzee uses the term, but I expect that sort of dickery from him, its just in his character. But when so many people just copy him and use the term, its really annoying, and sounds super damn immature, even worse than the 12 year old kiddies who play those games
At what point, after being shot, do I auto heal if I just hide behind a "chest high wall" for a few seconds in REAL life?
Never have nor will I ever support "realistic shooter."
Never have nor will I ever support "realistic shooter."
Well mostly it boils down to Modern Military Shooter and then there are Arena Shooters, one trying to push the casualness the other craziness.
Obviously there are cross-over attempts but the mix always fell onto one side or the other.
Obviously there are cross-over attempts but the mix always fell onto one side or the other.
> Implying there's only two types of shootersconfluxfighter said:
> Leaves out titles like Halo, Gears of War, and Call of Duty as they only let you hold two weapons and are not at all realistic by any stretch of the imagination.
I've heard the term "Corridor shooter" used a lot, particularity in reference to Doom. Then, there's stuff like the 007 games (or at least how they were when Electronic Arts still made them), in which you also have a huge flood of objectives at hand that aren't things that happen automatically for you on your journey from Point A to Point B. Serious Sam pits you against massive onslaughting hoardes of enemies in enormous open environments. There are no two distinct types of shooters. In fact, all the ones I've described are the ones in which a charfacter actually walks around, carrying guns. This isn't even putting into account games such as Space Invaders, BattleTanx, Geometry Wars, Zero Wing, and Yar's Revenge.
I still find it perplexing that some people will challenge you to a duel to the death if you classify the Metroid Prime games as first-person shooters. It always seemed to me they had more in common with old school FPS games than the military shooters of today, with the big explorable environments and arsenal of weapons.