Zannah said:
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.
So today, we have games where you walk into a room, have all the doors close, and have to listen to two NPCs slowly explain what you need to kill next.
I love modern shooters and I welcome more of them, but I do think the more fun/action oriented games of the past have a place next to them, because there are some things that haven't improved over the earlier version. Such as...
1) Constant disruption of action with inconsequential plot points. Whether it's being locked in a room having to listen to two scientists talk about a reactor that is about to blow up, wrestling camera control away from you to introduce you to a new enemy class, or having to listen to a commander officer explain the finer points of the mission before he's dramatically gunned down. Modern games just don't have the same flow. It's not a huge problem on first playthroughs since you have no idea what is and isn't important, but attempting to replay modern shooters will result in a whole lot more of "come on, already" as you wait impatiently for the NPCs to just shut the fuck up already.
2) Less imagination on display. Having to craft a proper story means that you have to explain all the elements in the story. The standard shooter arsenal has been fairly unchanged since 1993's Doom. This has less to do with realism than simple story immersion. If you're making a Western FPS then you've just limited the number of weapons to a handful. If you want to give the character Wild, Wild West style gadgets or just go sci-fi, you now have to fully flesh that out. In the past, you could have just given someone a bolo rifle with minimal explanation. These days, there must be a reason.
Same thing with enemy types. In the past, they just came up with all sorts of weird shit to toss in the weapon and didn't bother explaining why all these creatures are working together. These days, you have to craft some sort of back story. So you end up with a bunch of boring militia types over and over and over and over and over again. Oh, wait, this guy is different, instead of wearing a green uniform and shooting an assault rifle, he wears a brown uniform and shoots a shotgun.
3) Shooting shit is fun. One of the reasons why I enjoy Call Of Duty is that enemy soldiers go down quickly. One of the problems that started creeping into the genre with the introduction of the true 3D shooter (1995's Quake) is that games were reliant on fewer, tougher enemies. In Gears Of War, I have to shoot the standard issue grunt several times in the head with an assault rifle to kill them. Sure, this gives their AI a chance to show off, but it does slow down the game a lot.
In throw-back shooters, the games are designed for a lot of one-shot kills. Serious Sam has some amazingly tough enemies you have to dispatch, but they also gave you a cannon which can dispatch multiple bad-guys with one charged-up shot. Bulletstorm actually has the tough enemy design, but disguises it by letting you play with the enemy (they're tough enough to survive getting tossed about a bit, because tossing them about a bit is what makes the game interesting). The goal is outwitting a semi-brain-dead opponent (see all games that feature so-called "intelligent" AI), but in defeating scores of brain-dead opponents. For all you "tactical" guys out there, try clearing a courtyard in Serious Sam without a firm grasp of the game's tactics... only there's no hiding in a corner while your health recharges. You have to make a run for their health kit while rockets are raining down on you.
Conclusion) Moving forward often leaves valuable things behind. Mario went 3D, but still goes back to 2D every so often because the two styles are so different. Same is true of first person shooters. There are three games that changed everything: Quake, Half-Life, and Halo. Quake introduced the slower combat against tougher enemies dynamic (originally a technological limitation, but it opened the door for better AI), Half-Life integrated the story into the game-play, and Halo changed a lot of the core game dynamics (limiting weapon slots and health recharging). All of these things are positive changes, but every single one of them gets in the way of enjoyable game play mechanics of earlier shooters.
A game exactly like Doom will never happen again... at least not as a AAA game. But I think a lot of modern games can learn a lot from studying it and trying to recapture what has been lost. Things like the way the sound cues, level design, and AI combined to create areas where the unexpected could happen Such as when you're navigating a maze and you can hear an enemy is active... but the enemy is like a marble in one of those maze puzzles, unable to get to you until your movement frees it leading to a monster attacking you in unexpected locations. You just turn a corner and there he is in your face. Don't think a game has captured that sort of feeling since, mostly because all of those elements have been replaced. Mazes went out of vogue with true 3D, enemies are activated only when they're ready to attack you, and sound cues exist to remove tension by letting you know when you're safe.
Make no mistake, modern games can learn a lot from those older games.
