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

[WanderingFool]

Once everyone got sick of being big burly space marines performing unbelievably farfetch'd stunts and propagating stereotype after stereotype, we went into a bit of a recession and became obsessed with the delusion of realism, muddy brown "Gritty" games seemed holy and divine. But not we've come full circle and I think a lot of people are sick of the "War is REAL and GRITTY and SHIT and DEAL WITH IT" attitude to games.

Personally, this annoys me for two major reasons:
1. Such "Serious" shooters (I assume they know who they are) try to create this atmosphere of an intense, visceral experience, which I am fine with, but in the end they aren't even realistic. They, too, have these ridiculous setpieces and glorified shooter mechanics and overpowered melees and quickscoping, but it's just all coated with a poorly textured holier-than-thou texture.
So, to not beat around the bush and just mention CoD, you can get a game that doesn't have any of the down-to-earth realistic qualities it claims are so important, but has the shitbrown/gunmetalgrey appearance of a game that would. All the cons and none of the pros, to my eyes. As opposed to a game that just straight admits that it's not remotely realistic and can thus have unique art styles or set pieces. (TF2 !)

2. The point of games is not to mimic reality. At times, mimicking reality in order to enhance the experience is good, but not all the time. The point of games is usually to have fun, or to stretch the imagination, or escapism or something along those lines.
_____________

However, I don't think all "Fun" shooters sacrifice story. If all goes well, we should get an exaggerated, colourful, unique new shooter in the next few months.

You had me at Brink. I just hope its as damn good as it sounds now, I really want this IP to last against the inevitable...*insert appropriate word in future*... that is COD 2011.

 

[Zannah]

oh yes because its true when you back it up with an opinion. Want to know how COD is more shallow? They release the same fucking game every year with only minor graphical enhancements.

AMERICANS WIN AND ARE DOMINATE!

see what i did there? I just spoiled the ENTIRE COD franchise for everyone in the past, present, and future.

Exactly, just like Modern Warfare, where the americans get nuked, and the british can just so save the day, and modern warfare 2, where america gets invaded, betrayed by one of the own, and two british soldiers gone rogue kill the american big bad, with the help of several russians.
Which in the end just proves, that the good cod games had a story at least complex enough that some people on this forum can't even follow them.

 

[Israirie]

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

This. I cringe while playing Modern Warfare / Black Ops just because they're equally as retarded and outrageous as any Duke Nukem title, all the while taking themselves very seriously. A large portion of these so called realistic shooters is roughly as believable as space swine police and shrink rays; the problem being they're not laughing at themselves.

And even worse - they create hordes of people who feel compelled to tell you how much they know because they have a good K/D ratio in CoD. As if playing modern warfare makes them a veritable Sun Tzu slash Suvarov. If you speak of anything war related, no matter how political sided the conversation may be, they butt in and swarm all over you with their superior xbox wisdom of firearms and infantry tactics.

 

[LtWiesel]

Oooooh no, the fun shooters return!!! we could end up having fun in games again oO

"WTF is Duty calls" on Youtube...thats why we want a few fun shooters next to the dozens of "realistic" games.

 

[Zannah]

oh yes because its true when you back it up with an opinion. Want to know how COD is more shallow? They release the same fucking game every year with only minor graphical enhancements.

AMERICANS WIN AND ARE DOMINATE!

see what i did there? I just spoiled the ENTIRE COD franchise for everyone in the past, present, and future.

Exactly, just like Modern Warfare, where the americans get nuked, and the british can just so save the day, and modern warfare 2, where america gets invaded, betrayed by one of the own, and two british soldiers gone rogue kill the american big bad, with the help of several russians.
Which in the end just proves, that the good cod games had a story at least complex enough that some people on this forum can't even follow them.

really? because its the same "hur hur america pwns" shit throughout the franchise. Seriously, the poster child for COD might as well be Stan from American dad. However, even if that was the case it wouldn't be enough to drop even a dollar on it let alone 60$.

So basically, you're judging the entire franchise, seven games made by several different developers on what ground exactly? Never having played any of them? Throughout the Modern Warfare franchise, the americans are, at best incompetent in their american bravado, and at their worst outright traitors, with british SAS jumping in to save the day. But surely the fact that in the WW2 games in the series, Americans win means it's all "hur hur derp derp" (except for the fact that you know... technically the US DID win ww2)

 

[Nfritzappa]

Know why I want Duke Nukem Forever?

16-Hour singleplayer game.

When was the last time any FPS had that long of a singleplayer? The only one I can think of is Half-Life 2, but I just checked and I clocked that in around 12 hours.

 

[TheDooD]

Sure, for some games a story makes it better, but the same old generic war shooter clones (Call of Duty, Battlefield, Halo, Medal of Honor, etc.)

Sorry for the minor derail, but in the order you listed those games:

Spoiler: images

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.

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.

That's a huge assumption that the old school gaming crowds hate multiplayer on principle. Those are the guys that use to setup huge LAN parties. It's more like people hate multiplayer because its normally full of the most annoying group of little pricks you'll ever meet.

OT

To me Black on the PS2 was the in-between the "serious" and "fun" FPS. It's story in my opinion was the granddaddy to the current modern warfare plot hole filled mess. Yet the gameplay was focused on blowing the shit out of everything in the room but at the same time you had guns based in reality.

 

[SeriousSquirrel]

Those "fun-shooters" had a lot more color than most modern shooters. I feel like the return of old games could help to even out the market a little bit, spruce things up a little bit.

 

[Zannah]

snip

snip

Black Ops' story was actually by far the best part about that abomination of a game, and far from taking itself serious at times. I haven't played Moh, and I hate BfBc2 with a passion. I don't say every modern shooter is the second coming of christ.

But again with that trailer, really? Would an treyarch made five minute video of a closeup of someones balls, while the voice from that farmville mock-ad yells "dicktits" fifty times per minute be considered a valid point in this discussion? No? Then why does this video keep popping up? If anything, people releasing stuff like that is a point in favor of NOT buying bulletstorm.

 

[Thespian]

Know why I want Duke Nukem Forever?

16-Hour singleplayer game.

When was the last time any FPS had that long of a singleplayer? The only one I can think of is Half-Life 2, but I just checked and I clocked that in around 12 hours.

I know, right? I sneezed and missed the Halo campaign. An infinite multiplayer that doesn't change or a singleplayer that ends before it becomes engaging. That seriously annoys me.

 

[Arsen]

Because some people remember the glory days when FPS's were fun over "trying to be a serious movie, story-arc with dramatic classical music in the background". Yeah, the storyline works for games like Thief, Metal Gear, etc...but a FPS just means you go around and shoot things and enjoy it.

Also, I couldn't stand the Halo series. The story was horrible, the characters extremely stereotyped, and the setting was just so boring. Ever played Hexen and Heretic? THOSE are brilliant games because of the atmosphere alone. Duke Nukem had humorous moments but it had serious gameplay elements as well.

Overall, not all games should be in-depth in terms of storytelling when the sole premiss it to run around and shoot everything. It gets to a point where it just becomes downright annoying. Even then, the "realism" factor in some games made me not want to play or overall care about the genre. It wasn't meant to be in other words.

 

[GiantRaven]

Well for instance you go from point A to point B, but you don't shoot the same thing ,because there are a lot of different aliens(and let's not forget Boss Fights.

Disregarding the boss fights (which can utilise differing elements of gameplay, so you have a valid point there), in terms of pure gameplay, it's the same thing; moving your character around to shoot what essentially amounts to glorified moving targets.

Coming from a gameplay perspective (as arguably one of the most important aspects of gaming. I say 'arguably' because even I don't agree with it, but it seems to be a common viewpoint) the 'fun' and 'not fun' concepts completely fall apart.

Second the story is better because it's fun and it's not been overused a thousand times.

What makes a story fun? Why is 'alien invasion' an inherently more 'fun' concept than 'stopping a terrorist attack'?

And as far as I can remember in realistic shooters like CoD,you don't get to beat a guy's balls like a punching bag.

Is that really 'fun'? It comes across as quite silly and immature to me, not a feature of a game that suddenly makes it more fun for being included.

And let's not forget all the over the top action and funny one liners,these games have.

I can't argue with that, it's nice when something doesn't take itself too seriously.

For me fun is when the game allows you to do something fresh and new(something that hasn't been done a million times).

Because the ideas behind Duke Nukem are such a fresh, new concept?

And c'mmon who do you think is better to play as Soap McTavish or Duke Nukem?

The choice between generic grizzled military man or generic testosterone fuelled pig? Is there a third option I can take, maybe a protagonist that is actually interesting?

 

[lacktheknack]

Yes, they may have been better at the time, but are you telling me that Duke Nukem 3D is better than L4D? By TODAY's standards?

Yes, I would. Because a burst of bizarre, overpowered immaturity is MORE FUN then having someone screaming in my ear because they got eaten by a zombie yet again. Which sums up my entire experience with L4D.