The "fun-shooters" return. But why would anyone want that?
- Thread starter Zannah
- Start date
Recommended Videos
I actually want more silly FPS games.
It raises the chances of us ever getting a sequel to Conker's Bad Fur Day.
It raises the chances of us ever getting a sequel to Conker's Bad Fur Day.
In fairness, I think they're very different things, almost to the point of being different genres.
Far be it from me to dismiss the strides a game like Half-Life made in story telling and scripting. I loved Half-Life- to the point that I bought it intending to give it to a friend for his birthday, started playing it, and ended up giving him Rainbow Six instead because I just couldn't put the thing down. Games like Bioshock, too, show just how far games have come in presenting compelling and intelligent experiences.
But I have to admit, I don't always want a compelling and intelligent experience. Oh, I always want my games to be competent. I don't want "fun-shooter" to become like "popcorn movie"- an excuse for mediocre design and half-hearted polish because, "hey, what did you expect?"
But sometimes I don't want to think excessively about weight limits and load-outs. I don't want to worry about hitting innocent civilians. I don't want to have to achieve complicated goals (goals which may well be little more than thinly disguised variants on "bring the red keycard to the red door.") I don't want to spend half the game cowering behind cover, waiting for my support to flank. I don't want to admire the thoughtful characterization of the game's villains.
I want to have an experience that's more about what I want to get out of it than the one the game's designers want to present to me. I want catharsis and stress-relief. I want to wildly circle-strafe around tons of enemies as a minigun pumps out more ammunition than I could conceivably carry with an elephant and a cargo bearing team. I want to laugh wildly as I stand in the middle of carnage that I somehow just managed to survive by the skin of my teeth.
There is no conceivable way a weapon like Serious Sam's cannon could work, throwing out a cannonball that mows down everything in its path without loss of momentum. The game pretty much hand-waves it, like it does many of the weapons (including the magical infinite-ammunition pistols.) But it's fun, and funny. So is the sheer improbability of taking on a bad guy five times the size of Godzilla on a plain that seems to be about the size of Rhode Island in scale.
There are definitely elements of the old FPSs that I'd be more than happy not to revive (*cough* monster closets *cough*) But I think there's room for innovation in the sub-genre as well, in different directions. And I certainly think there ought to be room on the market for both kinds of shooters. Hopefully the "me-tooism" of the industry won't bite us if one or more of these games is successful.
Far be it from me to dismiss the strides a game like Half-Life made in story telling and scripting. I loved Half-Life- to the point that I bought it intending to give it to a friend for his birthday, started playing it, and ended up giving him Rainbow Six instead because I just couldn't put the thing down. Games like Bioshock, too, show just how far games have come in presenting compelling and intelligent experiences.
But I have to admit, I don't always want a compelling and intelligent experience. Oh, I always want my games to be competent. I don't want "fun-shooter" to become like "popcorn movie"- an excuse for mediocre design and half-hearted polish because, "hey, what did you expect?"
But sometimes I don't want to think excessively about weight limits and load-outs. I don't want to worry about hitting innocent civilians. I don't want to have to achieve complicated goals (goals which may well be little more than thinly disguised variants on "bring the red keycard to the red door.") I don't want to spend half the game cowering behind cover, waiting for my support to flank. I don't want to admire the thoughtful characterization of the game's villains.
I want to have an experience that's more about what I want to get out of it than the one the game's designers want to present to me. I want catharsis and stress-relief. I want to wildly circle-strafe around tons of enemies as a minigun pumps out more ammunition than I could conceivably carry with an elephant and a cargo bearing team. I want to laugh wildly as I stand in the middle of carnage that I somehow just managed to survive by the skin of my teeth.
There is no conceivable way a weapon like Serious Sam's cannon could work, throwing out a cannonball that mows down everything in its path without loss of momentum. The game pretty much hand-waves it, like it does many of the weapons (including the magical infinite-ammunition pistols.) But it's fun, and funny. So is the sheer improbability of taking on a bad guy five times the size of Godzilla on a plain that seems to be about the size of Rhode Island in scale.
There are definitely elements of the old FPSs that I'd be more than happy not to revive (*cough* monster closets *cough*) But I think there's room for innovation in the sub-genre as well, in different directions. And I certainly think there ought to be room on the market for both kinds of shooters. Hopefully the "me-tooism" of the industry won't bite us if one or more of these games is successful.
/threadNighthief said:
seriously, games like cod dont have a good story, they have terrible storylines. Duke Nukem for example has a terrble story, knows it, and exploits that and makes us have fun. COD/Halo games have terrible storylines, think that they are incredible and tell us that their games are art.
I'll gladly play Duke Nukem 3D over any cod/halo pseudo-art attempt at storytelling game any day of the week.
I don't understand: everyone here is bashing games for being realistic, yet they also lump Halo in with the other shooters. Last time I checked, a 7 foot, power armored cyborg with a laser and green rocket launcher did not fall into the generic category.
This does make good sense. However, some people (usually the old school gaming crowd) find the idea of interacting with people terrifying, so they hat multiplayer on principle.OhJohnNo said:Sorry for the minor derail, but in the order you listed those games:Assassin Xaero said:
Find the odd one out!
Thank. You. So. Goddam. Much.
I'm sick of people labeling Halo as just another generic shooter, because it isn't, as you just demonstrated.
Anyway.
OT: Personally I think the thread title is a bit of a misnomer. Why do you think people nowadays play so many shooters like CoD online? Not to revel in the awesome realistic-ness, but to have simple fun with friends. The definition of a fun shooter.
Still, I get what you mean, and if I'm honest I think I'm looking forward to some of these games as well (assuming 1) I can get my hands on them and 2) they don't suck).
Comedic shooters and "serious" shooters have always been enjoyable for different reasons. Personally, I can't see why we could never have had both at the same time, and thus get the best of both worlds, but I guess that's the way corporations work (or rather, don't).
Actually... I think I do see why. It's because of a simple divide between multiplayer and singleplayer. HYPOTHESIS:
Generally, Multiplayer is seen as where the crazy fun happens. If you want to loosen up, let your pants down and indulge in some serious hilarity, you go and play CoD or Halo or Battlefield online. And let me tell you... as a general rule for the amount of fun you'll have on a game's multiplayer with friends, assign an arbitrary value (from 1 to 5) of how much you enjoy the game in question, and multiply this by the number of friends you're with. The arbitrary number you come up with roughly sum up how much of a good time you'll have if you aren't a horrendous sociopath.
As such, game devs generally see the singleplayer as where they get down to business, as it were, and set about trying to craft a decent experience that can be taken seriously on your own. After all, they reason, if the player just wants crazy fun, he goes to the multiplayer lobby - we have to give them some reason to play the singleplayer. The logical choice is to make it enjoyable for a different reason - say, a gritty story that tries to take itself seriously. Whether you think games like CoD succeed with this (or whether it's a good idea) is another matter.
Of course, since I can't speak for the devs, there's a chance I am talking bullshit. But it makes sense to me.
...Wait, that wasn't "OT" at all, was it? Oh, dammit.
Personally, I rage-quit due to getting lost in the levels. I felt so inept.Xzi said:
A power armoured cyborg who moves as if he's made of bubbles, no less.ultrachicken said:
Let me ask myself a question:
Would I rather play a game where I can take about 5 bullets before dying but with regenerating health with some big generic conspiracy plot, or would I want to enjoy a game where I play as some extremely powerful badass who can take a rocket to the face (usually) who has an arsenal of ridiculously overpowered weapons of pure destruction used to slay my foes in ridiculously amusing ways wit not as much plot?
I don't know about you, but I highly prefer mindless over the top violence with little story than generic boring storylines with generic boring gameplay.
Besides, Halo doesn't have a huge pink demon with a giant mouth with an adorable name, who happens to be someone's avatar...
Would I rather play a game where I can take about 5 bullets before dying but with regenerating health with some big generic conspiracy plot, or would I want to enjoy a game where I play as some extremely powerful badass who can take a rocket to the face (usually) who has an arsenal of ridiculously overpowered weapons of pure destruction used to slay my foes in ridiculously amusing ways wit not as much plot?
I don't know about you, but I highly prefer mindless over the top violence with little story than generic boring storylines with generic boring gameplay.
Besides, Halo doesn't have a huge pink demon with a giant mouth with an adorable name, who happens to be someone's avatar...
I think shooters like these run in a cycle similar to fads in that they are cyclical. We had 'fun shooters' in the 90's: so many that we became over-saturated with games in which the main goal was murdering X number of Y, picking up keys of certain colors and, killing the final giant-ass-thing. This over-saturation coupled with new hardware developments (and the uprising of the internet) lead to consumers demanding something different and new: the realistic shooters that would accompany the new consoles with the more realistic graphics. Here we are now in the (relative) beginning of the 2010's and we see an over-saturation of military based shooters taking place in either
A) World-War something
B) Dystopian Future with sci-fi overtones
C) Dystopian Future with real-world overtone
D) Alternate Actual War scenarios.
People are tired of killing Nazis and, Russians and I'm honestly surprised zombies are still as popular as they are too. People are ready for a change and the people delivering that change are the 20-somethings who remember killing robo-hitler as kids, mutant-dinosaurs with lasers and gattling-gun arms and, asking themselves, 'Why are there so few of these now?'
The kids who live, eat and, breath Call of Duty today who grow up to become developers and designers will likely make/ bring back the realistic shooter in a decade or so when we are once again over-run with silly shooters. I predict Ghost's N' Goblins FPS reboot will be the 'enough is enough' moment that ends the upcoming return of silly-shooters.
A) World-War something
B) Dystopian Future with sci-fi overtones
C) Dystopian Future with real-world overtone
D) Alternate Actual War scenarios.
People are tired of killing Nazis and, Russians and I'm honestly surprised zombies are still as popular as they are too. People are ready for a change and the people delivering that change are the 20-somethings who remember killing robo-hitler as kids, mutant-dinosaurs with lasers and gattling-gun arms and, asking themselves, 'Why are there so few of these now?'
The kids who live, eat and, breath Call of Duty today who grow up to become developers and designers will likely make/ bring back the realistic shooter in a decade or so when we are once again over-run with silly shooters. I predict Ghost's N' Goblins FPS reboot will be the 'enough is enough' moment that ends the upcoming return of silly-shooters.
Well, I don't think a person's sex determines tastes. I'm female and enjoy some of the old fps. I'm slightly confused by your argument though. How does making a game that is a bit lighter, equal throwing away gameplay?Zannah said:
If your argument was like a few others, that you are annoyed at people saying that old games are better; I could understand, but this just seems odd to me.
And loss of plot!? I'm sorry but fps aren't exactly known for that. For example, CoD world at war is a game about world war 2. It has less surprises than a 6th grade history paper. A realistic period piece, is by definition, unsurprising. What makes a game like that good is the execution.
I think there is plenty of room for both.
Because is industry is stale and tired of all these hyper realistic mediocre shooters. This will help me so I dont have to keep playing Painkiller.
Being a massive Halo fan... I make sure to never make that mistake.ultrachicken said:
Halo may get a lot of hate, but it's far from bland and as far as realism goes, its as realistic as a Sci Fi shooter is going to get...
Not everybody wants to sit down and effectively witness a novel unfold as they play.
My guess is that "fun-shooters" have the same appeal as hack and slash games - mindless fun.
You can pick up those kinds of games whenever suits you, mindlessly kill shit for as long as you desire, then go and do something else.
My guess is that "fun-shooters" have the same appeal as hack and slash games - mindless fun.
You can pick up those kinds of games whenever suits you, mindlessly kill shit for as long as you desire, then go and do something else.
Screw my comment, this won the thread.lostzombies.com said:
Enjoy your cookie. ENJOY IT FOREVER.
