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

[spartan1077]

...before there was halo.

Halo is a fun shooter though. we've always had fun shooters. People are just caught up in their nostalgia of the 'good ol' days' that they forget to open their eyes and see that we have some damn good games out now a days. But these new Serious Sam games and Duke Nukem games are going to be awesome...

 

[veloper]

Both squared jawed heros, fighting hordes of aliens all by themselves. Silly oneliners, colorful game design, oversized weapons, huge inventories, fast movement, no cover system, emphasis on sidestepping attacks, no iron-sights, precision = skill with the mouse.

Yawn... so 1995. Do not want.

I agree that a change from the CoD-style military shooter might be nice, but using gameplay mechanics from over a decade ago and just adding flashy current-gen graphics is hardly the way to go

Those type of games simply aren't for you then.

 

[Daveman]

Well I think so many shooters are samey at the moment that people are crying out for something new. All Call of Duty's, Medal of Honour's and Battlefield's just seem so similar I think everyone is just itching for something different even if that means draggin up stuff from the past, stuff where multiplayer K/D ratings don't really matter and everybody just plays it for the fun of it without feeling the need to compete. Like Timesplitters... *nostalgia*

 

[phantasmalWordsmith]

I like bulletstorm because I like the whole kill with skill thing. I like duke nukem because after being in development for so long, it had better be damn good. Serious sam and I are strangers to each other.

Way I see it, these "fun" FPSs are just a breath of fresh air. I'm not saying the old air is bad. Call of duty will still be the greatest selling FPS franchise (how long till it makes more money than Avatar did?)

 

[Veldt Falsetto]

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.

May I ask you what you think games like Modern Warfare and Halo are about?
Half Life, Bioshock etc are different yes but MW and Halo are basically exactly the same as the Duke Nukem style games except they take themselves too seriously, the defeat x amount of enemies is still there, infact it's all that it does except the odd level but the x is raised and the health given is lowered.

Just from a narrative point of view, what makes you think that these games have good story, again I'm not citing Half Life and Bioshock etc but lets go back to MW...er, no.

I mean ok, yes it is 'soaked in testosterone and immaturity' let me ask you, say it was...I dunno, Sam and Max the fun FPS, with witty jokes instead of stupid ones and less overcompensating, would it be a bad thing?


Basics, I have no idea how MW isn't what you describe as being bad.
In addition, this genre never went, Gears of War is probably the perfect example a bloody, repetitive, manly man, immature game.

 

[geier]

I want to see theese shooters because of one reason:
Todays shooters are BORING.

The most annoying thing about todays shooters is political correctness.
You're not allowed to make sexist comments, you must have a equal part asian, black, european, american, russian, woman hero/enemy or you are rassist....fuck that !

I just wanna have some mindless fun to release some stress, like in Postal 2.

 

[squid5580]

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 it's what made the genre what it is. Doom certainly played it's part, but Duke himself was the crowed 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.

Blasphemy!!! Steve Blum is King Midas. The Chuck Norris of voice acting! Anything he is in is automatic gold.

 

[Blind Sight]

I'd rather play a game with a terrible plot where I can dropkick an alien eyeball through a football goal then a game with a terrible plot where I shoot my billionth Russian or Muslim terrorist. I mean, that really annoys me, the Russians are portrayed as power hungry madmen in games like Call of Duty and Bad Company yet no one calls them on it. If you had to play a game where you fought evil, American imperialist pigdogs without any reasoning behind it the media would dub it a 'terrorism simulator' while it's perfectly acceptable to do so to the Russians. It's an annoying and lazy plot concept.

 

[RobCoxxy]

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!

This. A gajillion times.
That and the one-liners.

...

It's been revoked.

 

[OldAccount]

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.

I couldn't have said it any better.

As much as I like "realistic" shooters (and I use realistic in the vaguest sense of the word) I've been craving a different flavor for some time now and I plan to tear into Bulletstorm on launch day.

 

[Zannah]

So after a few pages of discussion -

1# Why do people get all defensive, to the point of insulting each other, and sending me hatemail, telling me how stupid I am for liking a shooter where you don't kill aliens. Really? Come on guys... If you like games I find horrible, feel free to do so. My own tastes deviate from the norm in many fields, and I didn't mean to insult anybody. I was merely trying to understand something and insulting me, or games I like or quote won't further any possible case you're trying to make.

2# More importantly - to stay in the comparison of alcohol someone gave a few pages ago - I can understand sharing a bottle of whine with my boyfriend on the couch, but I can't understand why I would sit alone and drown myself in beer. Sure, there might be people that have fun just slogging away, but stating again and again that they have, will not exactly help me understand why. In the same notion, people keep repeating it, but why would I settle for a lesser experience? Again, I can understand why one would watch Machete instead of Citizin Kane, because it's a different kind of experience. What I can't understand however, is why anyone would want to turn his brain off, and watch a twenty year old Steven Seagal movie.

3# Maybe the examples I've given were a little unfortunate, since hating cod/halo respectively apparently makes you as cool as quoting Yahtzee. Let's for what I'm actually referring to, take the example of Unreal II: Awakening. A fun little shooter from 2003. Quite linear, yes, and you do play a Space marine, but you also play a character as opposed to playing as Jean Claude van damme. The story telling was well ahead of it's time, you cared for the characters, and there were plenty of aliens to shoot, different aliens even. The fun of shooting stuff in weird scenery, with huge guns, it's all there - but why would I want to take the emotional impact away, why would I ever want less?

 

[Evil Alpaca]

I think its hilarious that Halo is getting lumped in with the serious fps series like Call of Duty and Modern Warfare. Halo strikes me as a game most akin to the funny shooter in part because the game is full of ridiculously colored environments (look at the covenant ships) and funny aliens (grunts and jackals).

The failing of the Halo series is when it tries to ape the seriousness of other more "realistic" games as shown by the atrocious and almost comical deaths in Halo: Reach.

As for why the "fun-shooters" are returning - I would have to say that preferences change with time and the video game industry isn't blind to this. People are tired of the super serious soldier and are more in favor of funny dialogue and one-liners.

 

[GiantRaven]

In my opinion we need "fun shooters",because a game isn't about the graphics or the retarded war story scenario.The game isn't meant to be a chore, it's meant to be fun.I'm tired of games like CoD,Halo and Battlefield bad company,because they're really repetitive and boring .All you do is go from point "A" to point "B" and in between you kill terrorists or russians.And a twisted story isn't always a good story (take black ops for example),a good story is the one that really sucks you in, and goes hand to hand with the gameplay.

And the difference between this and going from point A to point B shooting aliens, most likely also with a poor story, is? Other than the fact that a breath of fresh air is always nice, how is fundamentally more 'fun'?

 

[Hamster at Dawn]

"Fun-shooters" never stopped, it's just that people are now generally more interested in simulation than silliness.

 

[Zer_]

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.

Like, that's just your opinion, man.

 

[Kroxile]

I don't get why people are going around saying shit like 'Yay, DNF will be a blast of fresh air from all these modern gritty shooters' because (and this is what I hate the most) they constantly rant on about how old games are better.

NO THEY FUCKING AREN'T.
Yes, they may have been better at the time, but are you telling me that Duke Nukem 3D is better than L4D? By TODAY's standards?

Yes, they are. And yes I will.

So, fuck yea, to the return of old shooters!

 

[Smooth Operator]

Well you people are quite odd: "I don't like comedy, so all comedy must die"?!
If you don't like the old school shooters then ok, but demanding everyone stays on bland formula lane is insane.
There certainly is no shortage of modern warfare(4 installments just from Activision, not to mention all the clones: MoH, Bad Company, Crysis,...), lots of gritty serious drama to keep you busy.

And there are some comedy shooters for people who like that, now put down the pitchfork and find some understanding that not all have equal taste.
But Bulletstorm does seem to screw up the formula with those points, turns all fun into work.

 

[F'Angus]

Its nice that they've all worked so hard to make games super realistic and gritty and all that dramatic stuff but how much "MOAR" realistic can you get?? Nintendo for the most part has kept the same style and they've done pretty good with the same 5 games! I enjoyed Goldeneye64 because it was fun and a bit silly! I never judged it on its graphics! Hopefully these new "fun shooters" will put something back we lost long agooooo

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

Because you'll buy it regardless of what anyone says about it same as me!?

Hell yeah I'll Still buy the new CoD anyways