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

[Tyrant T100]

"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.

The Timesplitters games are probably the only example of games that were actually funny, fun and actually had good storylines and gameplay. Hell not just good gameplay but god-tier gameplay.

 

[Grimlock Fett]

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

FUTURE COD! Noobtube deflector belt! Auto destruct claymore device (Makes claymores explode in your hands when you try to plant them)

 

[Mcface]

BRINK is the only non-"modern" shooter im looking forward to.

I find very little enjoyment out of games like series sam or duke nukem.

I will not pay full price for a single player game that went out of style 15 years ago.

People are all stuck with the nostalgia factor, those games aren't very good compared to more recent tiles at all. and neither will these new ones.

people in the 70s thought giant afros and bell-bottoms were cool.
if you wear them now, you just look stupid.

It has nothing to do with nostalgia. Duke Nukem 3D is better than CoD: MW2, CoD: Black Ops, and every damn game trying to be like those. Even with its outdated graphics. That's why I'm looking forward to Duke Nukem Forever. I think I'm looking forward to the fan update for Duke 3D even more, though.

I massively disagree.
Duke Nukem is a shallow first person one man v the world shooter.
It's shallow. VERY SHALLOW. even compared to the COD series.
You are definitely blinded by nostalgia goggles.

Nope. MW was far more shoot-'em-up than Duke 3D ever was. It's full of complex puzzles and requires you to use all sorts of different weapons and equipment to accomplish multi-tiered tasks. You'd encounter a group of three or four enemies here or there, kill them, and then go swimming/shrinking/key finding your way through ten to fifteen minutes of puzzles.

I DARE you to try and go back and beat it. My guess is that you couldn't get halfway through before getting stuck and then quitting out of frustration. It's a game that requires quite a lot of thought, despite its humorous nature. You must have never played it before. Or if you did, you're thinking of a different game.

I played through some of it again just recently, so this is not nostalgia talking.

i beat them when i was 8 years old.
pretty sure i can do it now.

i simply dont want to.

 

[kasperbbs]

'funny' huh? being able to piss in the toilet or hit someone in the balls might have been fun when i was 10 years old ,but now it would get old real quick ,having your character talk about dicks and tits every 2 minutes doesn't qualify as funny or entertaining for me (i`m looking at you bulletstorm). Also youre basically playing that game in slow motion ,that kinda kills all the action for me. fist time i`m hearing about new serious sam title ,that might be awesome.

 

[Booze Zombie]

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

You took the words out of my mouth.
Also, OP, not taking yourself seriously doesn't mean you don't have a story or good humour, it just means the story's going to be like a b-movie and the humour is going to be very kurt.

 

[Netrigan]

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.

What I can't understand is how anyone would ever want to turn their brain off to watch a 20 minute old Steven Seagal movie... they were always pretty dreadful

It's hard to discount nostalgia in these things. But I still maintain that older games did some amazing things that are quite rare these days. Keeping the action pure is one small part of that. I mentioned before that I find it hard to replay modern games. There's simply too many unskippable story bits in the middle of the action, which often bordered on boring and pointless in the first playthrough. Half-Life is filled with these sorts of things and even though I've tried about half a dozen times, I've never been able to replay any of them a second time. I always get bored a couple of hours in.

One of my favorite games is Dark Forces II: Jedi Knight, which was one of the few story-driven shooters of the early FPS era. Barring a few voice-overs, the great bulk of the plot takes place only in cut-scenes, so it was a lot of fun to replay. No waiting around in locked rooms for the NPC to finish babbling. Another LucasArts game that managed much the same trick was Outlaws, a 2.5D shooter which wasn't nearly as good of a game, but had a brilliant score and an engaging story.

But let's use Gears Of War as an example of modern shooters (it's not a FPS, but it still utilizes a lot of the same tricks). I absolutely hate, hate, hate, hate how so much of the exposition is delivered via comm chatter... where you walk very slowly with your finger against your ear. Give me a (skippable) cut-scene, give me a non-slow-motion voice-over, give me a way to turn off the comm and just play the game. Totally kills every bit of replay value for me... and it's not like the story is terribly interesting. It's probably just slightly above Steven Seagal levels.

Level design in modern shooters is often extremely linear. Not the good sort of linear where X always happens before Y, but the bad kind of linear where every situation must be approached in exactly the same way, because the corridor/valley/path offers no meaningful deviation from your path. Lock people in a room while you shoot X number of enemies... in the last month alone, I've played three current gen shooters which used this technique ad nauseum. Weapon options rarely rise above the standard issue FPS armory. Used to be we got some giant monster for the boss fight, these days we're much more likely to get the ordinary human with waaaaaay too many hit-points or an anti-climax (in slo-mo). Alternatively, they can do the timed escape from exploding base, which I think is Halo's favorite way to end a game.

I just want current devs to look back at popular games of the past and figure out how to recreate the aspects that have been lost over the years. If you're an action-based shooter and want to encourage replay value, maybe you get real selective when you introduce story elements in-game... and make said story elements skippable. Don't make carbon copies of yesterday's games, but figure out how to take that energy & creativity and marry it to a modern vehicle.

 

[WildSeraph]

I think people are forgetting something here: Who's to say DNF and Serious Sam 3 are going to be mindless, only-like-it-for-the-one-liners, "Kill x people so you're allowed to kill x more people" games? They could very possibly have intriguing story and character, and be a bit serious, while STILL being silly and fun. You people are saying that, because the previous games had little story and were mostly just about shooting aliens, that the new games aren't ALLOWED to have a real plot!

Also, why does it have to be that you can either like "realistic" shooters or "fun" shooters? I feel both are just as good. I won't pay $50-$70 for either kind, but I still think they're very fun to play. It's all a matter of how you feel at the time. Sometimes, I want to shoot people with assault rifles. Sometimes, I want to shoot monsters with chainguns. Sometimes, I want to shoot abstract pixelated entities with beams that shoot out of my chest, but there aren't many games that let me do that.

 

[MinishArcticFox]

In all fairness stories now seem to consist of there are terrorists there kill their asses and you do that for 6-7 hours in varying degrees of brown. So at least trying something new even if it is old might not be a bad idea. Besides the impending end of year CoD release will balance these games out.

 

[Zannah]

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.

What I can't understand is how anyone would ever want to turn their brain off to watch a 20 minute old Steven Seagal movie... they were always pretty dreadful

Snip

I have that exact same feeling when playing through something like the hd remakes of the last serious sams - a game that succeeded where even borderlands failed, making even co-op boring.

I also remember Outlaws though (and how I could hardly play it, and still can't for more then a few minutes :/ - I agree that the story was great, but honestly, would dick jokes have improved that game, and was the "search every nook and cranny for the poorly animated key-card macguffin really an improvement for that game?

 

[Nopenahnuhuh]

Here's my 2 cents.

The golden age of shooters, in my humble opinion, was the Doom era and all it's pixelated, stupid fun glory. Half Life taught us you could have a deep story and characters in a shooter and it was all good before EVERYONE wanted to cash in. Before we knew it even the stupid fun shooters became about brooding war heroes in power armor (I.E. Unreal tournament 3), then things became silly, overly contrived, CoD wannabes all over generic FPS for all, and it SUCKED.

I'm happy the fun shooters are returning because I'm simply tired of all the heavy brown emphasis on "FOR AMERICA" or "FOR SPACE AMERICA" and all it's military bravado. Bring back the Duke, bring forth Bulletstorm, I welcome the old silly Shooters with open arms!

 

[Archemetis]

Ok, so some points,

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. (1)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, (2)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: (3)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, (4)but seriously - abandoning the story in favor of un-funny one-liners doesn't work. Bad Company 2 proved that much. (5)And neither badassery, nor comedic effect requires you to abandon years of game-design progress.
So, I ask you dear escapist, (6)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.

(1) 'The kind of fps we had before such games started to have stories beyond "demons / aliens / nazis over there, kill they ass".

Y'mean like in Halo where you kill Aliens?

Y'mean like in Modern Warfare where you kill russians, which... Let's face it is the MW version of Nazis.

(2) 'having all doors close, and defeat x waves of enemies was considered clever level design, especially when it happened five thousand times per level.'

You're right, because that's never happened in Halo or Modern Warfare... Or every shooter ever made...

I mean what is multiplayer if not a giant locked room full of waves of dudes?

(3) 'The kind of fps we had, before fps became any good.'

For shame, I'm sure you've hurt Goldeneye's feelings...

(4) 'but seriously - abandoning the story in favor of un-funny one-liners doesn't work.'

You've gotta be some kind of clairvoyant or something 'cos last I checked... None of those games have been released. So how do we know the story's been overlooked?

And I'm sure there are plenty of people who think Halo and CoD have stories, but all I've ever noticed is 'OMG ALIENS! GET THE GIANT RING! FUCK MORE ALIENS THAT ARE ZOMBIES!' and 'HOLY SHIT! TALIBAN! FUCK! RUSSIANS!' respectively...

Also I'm sure even the 'serious' shooters have had their fair share of masochistic one-liners.

'Boosh!' 'I need a weapon' (Which I'll wager still makes Halo fans cream their pants).
But I'm sure they don't derive from the story.

Duke Nukem trash talks, he says one-liners, he's overly manly, it's his character... It's scarcely a Duke Nukem game without it...

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

Whoa, whoa, whoa! Take it from somebody that still owns and has recently played a copy of Duke Nukem: Land of the Babes...
They're not ignoring years of game-design progress. If anything it's been very well integrated.

(6) 'why would anyone want such games to make a return?'

Because some people have their own idea of fun.
It just happens to include these kinds of games.
It's that simple.


Finally: '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.'

That sounds like a Judgement to me.
If you think you won't find it fun, that's fair enough.
The people who will probably won't like being questioned about their tastes.
Much like I'm sure you wouldn't be if someone asked you why you like what you like because it's stupid and silly. Even though that may just be what you like.

 

[Netrigan]

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.

What I can't understand is how anyone would ever want to turn their brain off to watch a 20 minute old Steven Seagal movie... they were always pretty dreadful

Snip

I have that exact same feeling when playing through something like the hd remakes of the last serious sams - a game that succeeded where even borderlands failed, making even co-op boring.

I also remember Outlaws though (and how I could hardly play it, and still can't for more then a few minutes :/ - I agree that the story was great, but honestly, would dick jokes have improved that game, and was the "search every nook and cranny for the poorly animated key-card macguffin really an improvement for that game?

Serious Sam over-did the "thousands of enemies" thing. Too many places where they lock you in a courtyard and throw hundreds of enemies at you in wave after wave.

Modern games use the same sort of mechanics. Quantum Of Solace would even prevent you from jumping through a large, knee-high broken window because you hadn't killed the prerequisite number of bad guys. While games like in Gears Of War and Half-Life disguise it a bit by having you operate manual equipment to open a door... progress being wiped out if you're attacked while doing so.

But Serious Sam ramped that up well past 11 and decided 27 would be better. Still love the vast majority of the game, but wish they had made those big stand-offs a whole lot less tedious. Two, maybe three waves should have been the limit.

And to me, it's not about dick jokes. I enjoy a good dick joke, but obviously not every game should have them. Bulletstorm got a pre-order from me because I think they're going to be doing something a bit interesting with it... and I generally don't buy FPS until the price drops.

 

[Zannah]

Loooooong Snip

Nope, I'm not judging those upcoming games, nor do I say it's wrong to like them. What I say is, in every single thread about these games, everyone is getting all pumped because "they'll be just like old days". Now those games from the old days I've played, I found them horrible, and I'm asking what I've overlooked, that makes people wish for those games to come back.

 

[Zinaxos]

The immaturity was the fun. In my opinion. Most games we have today, well most shooters anyway are all about terrorists and Russia. Usually a combination of the two. The original Duke Nukem games were about fighting crazy aliens that are trying to steal our chicks. Serious Sam was about F***ing stuff up with huge guns. And I would like that to come back. Make some stupid jokes, have big crazy guns and excess amounts of cussing for no reason. I could use some stupid, immature fun. FUN!

 

[GiantRaven]

It's not the story that determines whether a shooter is fun or not. What matters is how arcadey, and unrealistic it is, and how seriously it takes itself.

Timesplitters Future Perfect had a decent story and that was really arcadey.

And I'm sick of gritty realism crap I want lighthearted shooters with an arcadey feel.

So what you are saying is that if a shooter is not arcady, unrealistic and non-serious then it is not fun?

 

[gibboss28]

Loooooong Snip

Nope, I'm not judging those upcoming games, nor do I say it's wrong to like them. What I say is, in every single thread about these games, everyone is getting all pumped because "they'll be just like old days". Now those games from the old days I've played, I found them horrible, and I'm asking what I've overlooked, that makes people wish for those games to come back.

I think its mainly the change of setting thats bringing this about...well that might just be me, heh.

 

[Samurai Goomba]

Ugh, Serious Sam. I'll admit I only played the second one and a little of the first game, but BLEAGH. Painkiller did the whole "modern retro" thing about as well as I think anyone can, but the story was awful.

I agree with whoever said they hated the way Gears incorporates story elements. It's just terrible to have to walk in a circle while GRUFFY MCGRUFFGRUFF commander guy fills your ear holes with macho, self-congratulatory cow manure about killing generic aliens.

Bulletstorm looks like an interesting game. It reminds me of Vanquish and Bayonetta, the former of which is supposed to be really good, the latter I played and loved to death.

For me, a perfect FPS walks the line. Realism is sacrificed whenever it would inconvenience the player, and comedic elements and mindless action are used sparingly, in ways that enhance the experience.

 

[Samurai Goomba]

Oh, and the only "good old days" shooter I love is DOOM. DOOM is awesome because it IS NOT mindless. There are tactics in DOOM. There is great enemy variety. The weapons all feel different and are fairly useful. DOOM wasn't created to BE a mindless shooter, and that is the difference between something like the original 36th Chamber of Shaolin and nonsense like Kill Bill vol. 1.

If you're trying too hard to be cool, you never will be.

 

[Archemetis]

Loooooong Snip

Nope, I'm not judging those upcoming games, nor do I say it's wrong to like them. What I say is, in every single thread about these games, everyone is getting all pumped because "they'll be just like old days". Now those games from the old days I've played, I found them horrible, and I'm asking what I've overlooked, that makes people wish for those games to come back.

I never said you thought it was wrong for people to like them...

But you have judged them. Not prematurely in the sense you might be thinking but you've played the old games, found them to be undesirable in regards to your tastes at the time and as a result, deemed that any modern instalment couldn't possibly be good, at least by your personal standards.

Those people who claim they'll be 'just like the old days' are idiots, simply put. The next Duke Nukem (as the more popular example) game will be nothing like the others except the fact that the Duke will be present in it.

Everything else will have adapted to fit in the modern FPS genre, in case the transition to a... I guess some would call antiquated system could be too jarring for gamers who're used to the breed of games you've mentioned like Halo or Modern Warfare.

For one they've adopted regenerating health.
That's nothing like the old Duke Games.

As for what you've overlooked in terms of why people are so hyped for these titles.

Again, it's personal taste.
These people think it will be fun for the reasons you think it won't be.
Nothing overlooked, no big secret.

It's all boiled down to taste.