The "fun-shooters" return. But why would anyone want that?

[Zannah]

So between bulletstorm, Duke nukem, and the upcoming serious sam sequel, throughout lots of threads, people on here have been celebrating the return of the so called 'fun-shooters'. A somewhat misleading term, that refers to the kind of fps we had before there was half-life, before there was Modern Warfare, before there was halo. The kind of fps we had before such games started to have stories beyond "demons / aliens / nazis over there, kill they ass". The kind of game we had in times where going into a room, having all doors close, and defeat x waves of enemies was considered clever level design, especially when it happened five thousand times per level, with nothing else.
In short: The kind of fps we had, before fps became any good.

Now, on the off chance of sounding sexist, maybe you need to be a guy to like that kind of games, but seriously - abandoning the story in favor of un-funny one-liners doesn't work. Bad Company 2 proved that much. And neither badassery, nor comedic effect requires you to abandon years of game-design progress.
So, I ask you dear escapist, why would anyone want such games to make a return?

Disclaimer: This is by no means a judgement on the upcoming games, I don't know those. It's just that all the "good old games" mentioned in the various discussions about these games, are from my perspective horribly boring, repetetive grindfests soaked in testosterone and immaturity, and that I'm trying to grasp why anyone would want a game coming out in 2011 to be like a game that wasn't any good in 1995.

 

[Professor Cubbage]

Because I'm tired of games that take themselves so fucking seriously.

 

[the_pleasure_is_mine]

Because as much as I love toast and enjoy eating toast, if I have toast every day for a year with little to no variation between each slice, then damn it am I going to be tired of toast.

 

[TimeLord]

I think it's more that shooters have become generic nowadays.

Yawn.... Shooting Terrorists.

Yawn.... Shooting power armoured space marines.

I want to shoot aliens in the balls with overpowered, oversized weapons!

 

[Hazy]

It's just that all the "good old games" mentioned in the various discussions about these games, are from my perspective horribly boring, repetetive grindfests soaked in testosterone and immaturity, and that I'm trying to grasp why anyone would want a game coming out in 2011 to be like a game that wasn't any good in 1995.

You're saying that like the majority of today's grimdark, "ultra super serious realistic" shooters don't fit that mold to the T.

Anyway, people are excited for Douk because Rephrase: Duke was the pinnacle of greatness. Doomguy had the firepower, but Duke had the personality. Doom certainly played it's part, but Duke himself was the crowned king. Though, the fact that it's been in development for longer than some people on this site have been alive certainly has something to do with it's anticipation.

You've got me on Bulletstorm, though. The game looks like shit - not even Steve Blum can keep that one together.

 

[Klumpfot]

Because I enjoy games that don't mind taking the piss out of themselves. Also, I don't care all that much for the generic gritty style of a lot of modern FPS games. You may think the older ones were more stupid, and you are very much entitled to your own opinion, but I don't think serious is necessarily the same as smart. Contrast Hot Fuzz with, oh, I don't know... Most other modern action movies?

 

[F'Angus]

Because we need a break before another CoD comes out...

 

[lolnoobzor]

Having a 'fun' atmosphere, and not taking yourself seriously doesn't mean the gameplay has to be regressive.

Think about it, what people remember about Duke Nukem is the fun stuff, not the grind. So if you take the fun stuff and build a modern FPS around it, I see it as a win-win situation.

And as others already mentioned, and many more will, give me another sepia-tinted desert or blue-filtered 'realistic' urban environment and I'll puke.

 

[Woodsey]

I don't particularly understand it either.

I'm sure all those sexual-innuendos in Bulletstorm are give-you-a-bit-of-a-chuckle-the-first-time funny, but since we've known what all of them are for months, who gives a crap?

"Funny" games rarely work in my experience, so it's much better to have something serious that has a sense of humour about itself (which plenty of shooter do, if I'm honest), then something that's trying to throw sex-gags at you all the time.

Still, each to their own.

 

[Odbarc]

Will fun-shooters exceed the color palettes of brown, grey, black, not-as-black and orangish-brown?

 

[Zannah]

Because I enjoy games that don't mind taking the piss out of themselves. Also, I don't care all that much for the generic gritty style of a lot of modern FPS games. You may think the older ones were more stupid, and you are very much entitled to your own opinion, but I don't think serious is necessarily the same as smart. Contrast Hot Fuzz with, oh, I don't know... Most other modern action movies?

Good point here, actually - but Hot fuzz had, aside from the comedy, a plot, competent people in both crew and cast, character development, all that. And that's all fine.

But saying the Old Sam/duke games are better then say Modern Warfare, strikes me as saying some 80ths Van Damme flick is totally better then inception "because dude, that takes it self soo serious".

 

[michael87cn]

Isn't it obvious? The space marine/army boy gig is getting OLD. There's only so many times I can pretend to be in the army before I barf, or die of boredom.

Plus, realistic dying isn't always fun. Realism isn't always fun. Games were never supposed to be about ultra realism...

Tactical Shooters are fun in their own right, but I don't think ALL FPS games should become 'Modern Warfare' clones/replicas... the action is slow paced and requires too much thinking sometimes, you just want a doom/quake/duke nukem romp of blasting people away every 5 seconds.

Think about it I mean.. 10 years from now is Call of Duty 13 really going to be any different from Call of Duty 1-5? You're going to be running around dodging bullets and shooting tanks... at least halo had aliens/alien weapons/spaceships to make things interesting/use your imagination however don't even get me started on halo/gears of war ranting... and now I think I've used enough backslashes for one post so I'm ending it here.

 

[Flishiz]

I think it's all just a matter of contrast. The reason we've had a glut of more "Serious" shooters in the past decade was because technology just couldn't allow for much of anything more advanced than lots o' guns and squishy things to shoot them at. Now that we have the capacity for voice acting, rendered cutscenes, and better pacing, the industry decided to take a turn and work on those. Now we're in a state where we're given ability and preference.

Such a thing is hardly new in human history. Whenever a new technology becomes widespread just about everyone starts to use it (just for fun compare how many railroad companies existed in 19th century America and see how many there are today....with far more rail in the nation than those waistcoat-bearing industrialists dreamed of), but then things fall into their appropriate niches. It's not like we're reverting to "fun" shooters in any ways, it's just that we've overused the "serious" shooter, and now that's it's not vogue, we have the option to have high-gloss funfests or super-powered space marine grumblethons.

 

[similar.squirrel]

Think of it like Tarantino reusing elements from old pulp films. Unless the developers are actually lazy enough to re-skin mind-nineties game mechanics, in which case you're right. But I don't think they're stupid enough for it to come to that.

 

[Klumpfot]

Because I enjoy games that don't mind taking the piss out of themselves. Also, I don't care all that much for the generic gritty style of a lot of modern FPS games. You may think the older ones were more stupid, and you are very much entitled to your own opinion, but I don't think serious is necessarily the same as smart. Contrast Hot Fuzz with, oh, I don't know... Most other modern action movies?

Good point here, actually - but Hot fuzz had, aside from the comedy, a plot, competent people in both crew and cast, character development, all that. And that's all fine.

But saying the Old Sam/duke games are better then say Modern Warfare, strikes me as saying some 80ths Van Damme flick is totally better then inception "because dude, that takes it self soo serious".

I wouldn't compare Modern Warfare to Inception. That's more akin to Psychonauts, ain't it?
Anyways. The essence of the question, as I read it, is "Why is fun and stupid better than serious and generic?" and my reply would be "It isn't, necessarily. It is a question of taste".

Personally, I had a better time playing through Serious Sam 2 and Duke Nukem 3D than I did playing through Call of Duty: Black Ops (which is the only recent Call of Duty I've played). A much, MUCH better series of absolutely superlative shooters is TimeSplitters, which show that you can indeed be both fun and goofy without being light on quality.

 

[WanderingFool]

Well,

The kind of fps we had, before fps became any good.

This part I disagree with you, there have been improvments in the FPS genre, but to say that before Halo, HL, and MW, these games were not that good is a serious opinion. And everybody has an opinion, cause, I think those games you mentioned are where games started to get serious, and became less fun. CODs More modern take on the series was interesting when COD4 came out, but after that, it went down hill fast, first with MW2, and than with Blops (which while having some interesting parts, save for the one plot twist which didnt seem all that surprising, it was still an easy bore.) What I like about these games, is that it isnt taken seriously, it has bad one-liners, it is a ode to macho-ism, and all that other good shit. Its different, and I like that.

Also, how is making games like Bulletstorm and DNF causing developers...

And neither badassery, nor comedic effect requires you to abandon years of game-design progress.

Actually, neither badassery nor comedic effect requires you to abandon years of game-design progress. Cause its true, you can make a game like Duke Nukem Forever and Bulletstorm, and put all those modern FPS skills to use, and I would dare say that those games were not possible back in "the days", without all those years of innovation and game design.

 

[Jack and Calumon]

They were fun for a reason. Gameplay.

Duke Nukem 3D had many ways to kill people and fun Easter Eggs to go explore the level again. Found the secrets? Rocket Launcher? Did you see the Shrink Ray anywhere? Open the hidden doors? Did you pay for the strippers? Serious Sam gave you awesome weapons and pointed you in a direction while you killed creative enemies with big guns. What did Call of Duty do? Gave you the same enemies with almost identical weapons and a plot that consists of "IT'S WAR! DO WHAT MEN IN SUITS TELL YOU TO!" I'd comment on Halo but having only played the first, I don't think my opinion of how bland it felt counts that much.

Calumon: Why would people want fun games? Maybe the same reason people want to eat cake and play, because it's awesome!