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

[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.

Uhhh...

That's every old-school shooter this thread describes, ever.

Replace aliens with demons, remove the oneliners and the vertical aim axis and you got Doom, which is not a bad game to be compared with.

If you exclude "colourful game design", even Daikatana falls under that.

And that game is pretty different.

And also remove the hordes and include terrible, cramped level design.
From what I've seen on the youtube longplay, Daikatana most of the time pits you against few baddies at once, which is typical for the early fully 3D shooters that did away with the 2D sprites. See also Quake, HL1 and Hexen2.

The thing is Duke3D and Serious Sam were fast paced fun. Many like to see this back, because the modern cover based shooter doesn't quite give the same rush.

 

[Someone Depressing]

I'm sick of FPS' that have shitty brown or stupid grey background and atmosphere, I'd rather have variety than realism.

EDIT : Oh, and here's a pretty good idea games industry! Screw cover based combat! It's pointless repetetive dull and I dont want to sit next to a sweaty white-guy weilding a giant minigun under a blank peice of wall. I have own personel space!

 

[suitepee7]

a game not being good in the past is your opinion. obviously a return to the 'silly-shooters' isn't your thing, and thats your choice. personally i enjoy both, but there has been too much realism in games lately and frankly, i want to play something silly. i want to play a game where my main weapon is a rocket launcher and i need medkits. these games were by no means bad, just not to your taste. i am personally psyched for bulletstorm, duke and SS because i enjoy that kind of stupidity, and while i enjoyed the more modern ones i enjoyed the oldies equally.

 

[MinionStarwind]

Where you can get health back by actually picking up a medkit (bandages heal everything) instead of sitting in a corner and healing up 'Terminator-style'?

I approve of being able to kill people/aliens with a lazer gun made from a giant mystic phallic object that i'll only use at the final boss.

 

[JourneyThroughHell]

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.

Uhhh...

That's every old-school shooter this thread describes, ever.

Replace aliens with demons, remove the oneliners and the vertical aim axis and you got Doom, which is not a bad game to be compared with.

If you exclude "colourful game design", even Daikatana falls under that.

And that game is pretty different.

And also remove the hordes and include terrible, cramped level design.
From what I've seen on the youtube longplay, Daikatana most of the time pits you against few baddies at once, which is typical for the early fully 3D shooters that did away with the 2D sprites. See also Quake, HL1 and Hexen2.

The thing is Duke3D and Serious Sam were fast paced fun. Many like to see this back, because the modern cover based shooter doesn't quite give the same rush.

Nah, there's a lot of little bugs and frogs at moments, too.

But it's really closer to Doom than HL1.

 

[Trikeen]

Plain and simply put: the world NEEDS Duke Nukem (and the like) back. Desperately.

I'm sick of morally questionable protagonists in gritty settings. It's the difference between 'Quantum of Solace' and 'Goldfinger'.

 

[Cheesepower5]

... Modern Warfare focused on its story? This is the game where 80% of the players ONLY play online dude(ette?). Halo I can understand, since it tries and Half Life is a given, but really?

It's not like they're not modernizing the mechanics in any way, they'll probably be at least as innovative as the last 18 or so Modern Warfare knock-offs.

 

[ThatDaveDude1]

Yes, why WOULD anybody want videogames to be fun?
/Sarcasm

 

[Squilookle]

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

If you really think that no FPS before your little list had anything more than "demons / aliens / nazis over there, kill they ass" and "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"... then I'm not even going to bother arguing with you, because it just isn't even worth it.

 

[Professor Cubbage]

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

Your so right thats why Mass Effect, Red Dead Redemption, Dragon Age and many other serious games suck, right?

No this thread is about First Person Shooters not RPGs or open world games. I'm so sick and tired of games like Black Ops with their generic brown-grey corridor maps and their entirely one-dimensional characters.

Oh and please tell me where in my post does it say I think serious games suck. And not everyone thinks those games you listed are good so stop telling me I should like them.

 

[the-kitchen-slayer]

It's a simple case of "Hey, something different! Let's take a break from the nowaday norm and put realism on the shelf for a little while to do what gaming's all about: Have fun"

At least, that's how I see it. Am I getting any of these games? Uh, no. I've got Guild Wars 2 on the horizon to get ready for

 

[Brian Hendershot]

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.

Wow...that said everything I wanted to say.

Also, on a unrelated note, DICKTITS!

 

[Sakurazaki1023]

Realism is a barrier to creativity

Fixed.

The problem with many modern games is that they try too hard to be realistic. There is only one "style" that defines reality, thus all realistic games will look exactly alike (minor differences in texture and rendering aside). By clinging to realism, many games simply ignore the fact that art style and aesthetic choice can make a game exponentially more enjoyable. Would Okami, Borderlands, Crackdown, or Valkyria Chronicles have been worse games without their respective art styles? Probably not, but they wouldn't be as unique and original. We don't enjoy extreme repetition in our gameplay, why accept repetitive graphics?

Video games can be used to create any world or situation imaginable, so why are we content to just replicate real life?

 

[Scottay]

They Will either be bad or but for thank the lord Saviour and sweet baby Jesus they will be at the very least DIFFERENT. You know that thing that separates other things from being very alike or the same? The same thing that can keep you interested in something you've done before. The best thing for FPS as a genre to be doing IS BEING DIFFERENT AND TRYING NEW THINGS THAT GO AGAINST STATUS QUO. Granted these types of games have been done before but in the current environment they are a breath of fresh air. If some one wants to seal them selves in a little bubble and play the same games with minor variations all the power to ya but don't you dare think to judge something that not like your game as to be bad. Variety, ITS THE GOD DAMN SPICE OF LIFE. With out it I would not play video games.

 

[mireko]

Because they're fun.

Look, none of these games are going back to the 90's for their level design. The biggest difference between "fun-shooters" and MODERN CALL OF HONOR 6, aside from tone, is the speed and pacing of the game. It's a return to fast-paced combat, and that's the most important thing. And hey, Bulletstorm even has Jennifer Hale, which is more than CoD can say for itself.

You don't need testosterone to enjoy these games any more than you need testosterone to enjoy Touhou, or Devil May Cry.

Realism is a tool, not an end, and when it begins to interfere with the player's fun it needs to be dialed down. Incredibly, some people are tired of sitting behind cover waiting for the screen to get less bloody (so real!).

[sub]That said, I don't care about Duke Nukem. Maybe if I had been a fan back in the day, but I wasn't.[/sub]

 

[Preston_r]

I started playing FPS games with the Castle Wolfenstein 3D. Played Duke, Doom, and a slew of others during the 90's. Played SOE's Planetside too for awhile. Got out of FPS and a lot of games in general as the newer consoles rolled out and I lost interest.

Just got my 360 last year. Got L4D2.

and I love it.

Now, I tell you all that to ask you this - I consider L4D2 to be a Fun shooter.

What do you consider it to be?

 

[TheYellowCellPhone]

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

With this post, I declare this thread over.

 

[Grampy_bone]

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

Except that this is pretty much what Halo, Call of Duty, and everything else are today. Only without health management, difficult checkpoints, lack of secrets and exploration, or any meaningful way to enhance your character's abilities or stock up on supplies.

In short, modern shooters are a regression in terms of gameplay depth, which they gloss over mostly with glitzy graphics, hyped storylines, and fancy production values.

 

[McShizzle]

Old FPS's have no level design? No story? I don't think some folks commenting here have ever played those "older" shooters. Granted the story can be sparse, but here's a hint for you "The level design IS the story." This is true in at least DOOM, Duke Nukem 3D, Shadow Warrior, UnreaL. Maybe modern FPSers have gotten to used to their hands being held.