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

[GiantRaven]

I decided to pop MW2 back in to play the campaign, having not played in a while. My line of thinking being that I only think it's bad because that's what been pushed into my brain by people here and interviews with Randy Pitchford and such. 15 minutes later I popped the disc right back out due to just how fucking BORING it was. Multiplayer wise, let's just say that it's just as frustrating and grindy as I remember.

The co-op mini-missions are really the saving grace of Modern Warfare 2. Great fun to play if you have friends over.

 

[The Random One]

The problem is not we don't want our games to be serious. The problem is that they aren't. CoD and its MW child, Halo, even HL to a point are all about shooting people who are shooting at you; they just pretend that because you can only carry two guns at a time and people bleed more/less profusely they are taking their subject matter more seriously.

They are not. And fun-shooters - Duke Nukem specially - know that. It's that kind of mentality we want back.

Also, before FPS's became good? None of those games came out before GoldenEye, you silly goose.

 

[Klopy]

I don't mind games being made in a genre, but I HATE how genres come in waves. A game type may sound good so a couple companies make the same kind of game. I wish that there were more 'original' games. COD and MOH were fun, but so were the 'copies'. COD351 will also probably be fun. But its been done before! I want more original stuff.

When a game type 'returns' I think its fine... but come on... Why won't they make new games?! Ugh.

 

[Vault101]

Realism in shooters is a barrier to creativity. Frankly almost every story in a game sucks anyway so I'd rather they just stop trying and elevate shooting mechanics back to where Quake 3 left them; a beautiful ballet of explosions and precision shooting.

ok I know its opionion, and what you liek in a gam but...

thats simply not true, to alot of us story is right behined, somtimes jsut as important as gameplay, if Im going to play a game I need a motivation to do so, do you think there would be so much buzz over the dead island trailer if it just presented itself as "here is an island, here are some zombies, shoot them!!!!" what we got instead was a moving short film, somthing to give us emotional attachtment to whats going on, plus there are plenty of game storys better than movies and or depth as books

could you honestly tell me AVATAR has a better story than Mass effect? honestly? (because if you say yes then your an idtiot...regardless of what you think of eaither of them..well that was harsh but seriously)

anyway I do avoid games like COD or any shooter that realisetic in favor of ones like half life 2, bioshock and F.E.A.R. 2

the way I saw it thease games never really had much story to begin with, a 6 hour campaign then straight to online

 

[GiantRaven]

could you honestly tell me AVATAR has a better story than Mass effect? honestly? (because if you say yes then your an idtiot...regardless of what you think of eaither of them..well that was harsh but seriously)

I don't know, are we talking first or second game here?

[/can of worms]

 

[Vault101]

because mindless games can be the most fun? story is all well and good but thats not what everyone wants all the time sometimes people just want mindless fun or carnage and not have to put up with conspiracies, terrorist and other done to death fps stories.
also if a game takes itself less seriously it can do alot more, and there normally hilarious aswel

To be honest though I didnt play many of those "realistic" shooters They didnt seem to have much story to them, just a 6 hour campiagn then straihgt to multiplayer

or mabye Im wrong?

and after a quick read on wikipedia bulletstorms story seems kinda interesting...,mabye

anyway as for shooters Im really looking forard to homefront, hopefull it will be good because tis story focused

 

[Netrigan]

I don't mind games being made in a genre, but I HATE how genres come in waves. A game type may sound good so a couple companies make the same kind of game. I wish that there were more 'original' games. COD and MOH were fun, but so were the 'copies'. COD351 will also probably be fun. But its been done before! I want more original stuff.

When a game type 'returns' I think its fine... but come on... Why won't they make new games?! Ugh.

It's like the old bus joke. Wait around all day, then three come along at once.

Happens in Hollywood all the time. When The Abyss came out, just so happened that two other underwater movies came out at the same time. Back in 1981, we saw The Howling, Wolfen, and An American Werewolf In London all come out... despite there not being any popular werewolf movies for several years. In both of these cases, I think the inspiration came from novels. Only a couple of years before The Abyss, Michael Chricton released The Sphere, while 1978 saw the release of the best-selling Wolfen novel.

Ideas are like that. Same event can inspire numerous people to start working on similar ideas, then suddenly there's a mini-glut when they all come to market at the same time.

 

[Clive Howlitzer]

I think its mostly just a breath of fresh air from utterly boring and brown military FPS that take place in a sandy dusty environment or a hot jungle. Not all of us have a hardon for military hardware.

 

[Vault101]

could you honestly tell me AVATAR has a better story than Mass effect? honestly? (because if you say yes then your an idtiot...regardless of what you think of eaither of them..well that was harsh but seriously)

I don't know, are we talking first or second game here?

[/can of worms]

First one obviously

that said The second ons story was still good even if it dose move "sideways" who cares? it was about the charachters and you got insight into the ME universe, Im thinking ME3 things will really pick up

plus ME2's story is still a million time better than AVATAR's because with AVATAR its been done a million times, and both sides of the conflict are assholes but the movie seems to want to make us hate humanity (as if there isnt enough of that) and totally worphip the na'vi

 

[Vault101]

I think its mostly just a breath of fresh air from utterly boring and brown military FPS that take place in a sandy dusty environment or a hot jungle. Not all of us have a hardon for military hardware.

exactally people are over thinking this

besides who says you cant have mindless fun and story? why do you have to choose? saints row 2 did it

 

[Traun]

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.

What? Duke Nukem was a Doom clone, it brought nothing new or exciting to the genre, the only memorable thing from the game was the character and the setting, no one remembers Duke Nukem for original or innovative gameplay.Remove the tits and one-liners and you will have the type of generic first-person shooter that saturated the market at the time.

 

[GiantRaven]

First one obviously

that said The second ons story was still good even if it dose move "sideways" who cares? it was about the charachters and you got insight into the ME universe, Im thinking ME3 things will really pick up

plus ME2's story is still a million time better than AVATAR's because with AVATAR its been done a million times, and both sides of the conflict are assholes but the movie seems to want to make us hate humanity (as if there isnt enough of that) and totally worphip the na'vi

Oh, for sure, I really liked Mass Effect 2's story. It was nice to play a game set in space where you weren't saving the entire universe at that present time. It was a nice 'day in the life of'-esque break. Kind of like a nice breather between the epic nature of the first game and, undoubtedly, the third game.

I also liked that it broke the cliché of knowing all about your antagonist. I liked that you don't learn much about the collectors, you just know they're up to some bad shit so you go and fuck them up.

Anyway, I'm way off topic now.

Woo! Games are fun!

 

[Hazy]

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.

What? Duke Nukem was a Doom clone, it brought nothing new or exciting to the genre, the only memorable thing from the game was the character and the setting, no one remembers Duke Nukem for original or innovative gameplay.Remove the tits and one-liners and you will have the type of generic first-person shooter that saturated the market at the time.

Let me rephrase that, I didn't mean to word that like I did:
"Duke was the pinnacle of greatness in the genre."

Didn't mean to make it sound like Duke stole Doom's spotlight, just that it made an interesting formula all the more fun.

 

[Owyn_Merrilin]

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.

What? Duke Nukem was a Doom clone, it brought nothing new or exciting to the genre, the only memorable thing from the game was the character and the setting, no one remembers Duke Nukem for original or innovative gameplay.Remove the tits and one-liners and you will have the type of generic first-person shooter that saturated the market at the time.

There's also mouselook and the third dimension, one of which was new, and the other of which was fairly rare at the time. I'd say that mouselook alone made Duke Nukem an important step for the genre.

 

[LikeDustInTheWind]

Honestly, I enjoyed the Bulletstorm demo. Not because it was funny (which it isn't really) and not because it was different, but because it allows you to relax and just blow sh*t up without worrying about tactics and planning.

100% realism would make a game boring. CoD and the like are fun games and all but they're not good stress-relievers. And isn't that one of the points to giving you a virtual gun? Just saying "go crazy, blow things up and have fun with it" was the reason many great FPS's were created. Sometimes, a testosterone-fueled explosive rampage is the funnest thing in the world.

 

[Vault boy Eddie]

I'm getting none of them, that kind of humor was good when I was a teenager, now it's just bleh.

 

[Netrigan]

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.

What? Duke Nukem was a Doom clone, it brought nothing new or exciting to the genre, the only memorable thing from the game was the character and the setting, no one remembers Duke Nukem for original or innovative gameplay.Remove the tits and one-liners and you will have the type of generic first-person shooter that saturated the market at the time.

It was a bit more than that.

It was pretty much the earliest major game that featured recognizable environments. Doom rarely looked anything like what it was supposed to represent. An Earth suburb looks remarkably like most of the environments you've been wading through for ages. But In Duke, a movie theater looked like a movie theater. A rooftop looked like a rooftop. A couch looked like a couch.

It also featured destructable and interactive environments. Doom had the random button, but Duke had toilets, water fountains, and walls that could be destroyed by explosives. The Build engine was quite good as sprite-based engines go and games like Shadow Warrior and Blood would utilize these features as well. Things took a pretty big step backwards with the release of Quake and it took a few years for interactive environments to get up to Duke levels.

I'm also a fan of the weapons, which were a bit more creative than what had come before and what we'd see as the True 3D age got underway.

 

[MAUSZX]

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

YEAHH YOUR DAMN RIGHT

 

[Defense]

I don't mind when "fun shooters" come back, but I really don't like potty humor in video games. I don't mind the over-the-top killing and the non-realism at all, I just despise the humor. I know some people like that, but there's a reason I didn't like Natko's "Your mom" jokes in Killzone 2.

Isn't it obvious? The space marine/army boy gig is getting OLD. There's only so many times I can pretend to be in the army before I barf, or die of boredom.

Plus, realistic dying isn't always fun. Realism isn't always fun. Games were never supposed to be about ultra realism...

Tactical Shooters are fun in their own right, but I don't think ALL FPS games should become 'Modern Warfare' clones/replicas... the action is slow paced and requires too much thinking sometimes, you just want a doom/quake/duke nukem romp of blasting people away every 5 seconds.

Think about it I mean.. 10 years from now is Call of Duty 13 really going to be any different from Call of Duty 1-5? You're going to be running around dodging bullets and shooting tanks... at least halo had aliens/alien weapons/spaceships to make things interesting/use your imagination however don't even get me started on halo/gears of war ranting... and now I think I've used enough backslashes for one post so I'm ending it here.

The difference between CoD 13 and CoD 1-5 will be that CoD 1-5 don't suck ass.