Opinions on Modern First Person Shooters

[-Votterbin-]

4 hours ago, cyan0s1s said:

Oi, I have something that should be added to the list for modern FPS. Cover-based firefights. What are your thoughts regarding these?

No. No.

 

No.

 

The short version is that most modern shooters are way too easy, with regenerating health and this garbage. I don't like it and I want literally every trend in modern shooters to GO AWAY

[A Nobody]

Pyro added something I forgot to mention. Modern first person shooters are easier than old-school ones.

[ENEMY!!!]

In my previous post I flagged up objections to checkpoint-only saves, but I am all for checkpoints if they're available in addition to manual saves.

 

I've been thinking that one good compromise in games like DOOM 2016 would be to only allow manual saves when not in combat.  I can see for instance how the "save scumming" phenomenon would break the flow of the game if you were to save and reload repeatedly while in the middle of wave-based combat. 

 

However, checkpoint-only saves have the side-effect of strongly nudging you into approaching the game in a certain way.  For instance I enjoy getting immersed in the environment, exploring areas, hunting for secrets and experimenting, trying foolish things, and a checkpoint-only save system heavily discourages me from doing this, because of the repeated scenario of clearing out an area, dying while trying to find a secret, and then being required to clear it out again.  Due to the checkpoint-only save system I ended up approaching it in a different way, mainly focusing on getting to the next checkpoint, which broke some of the immersion and meant that I get less out of the game.  I am still yet to complete it because there is less of an incentive to keep going back. 

 

Another issue, common for people with young families, is being called away urgently just before you get to the next checkpoint, and losing a lot of progress.  The concerns over save scumming are a case where it's considered that we need to be protected from ourselves, mainly because a minority abuse the right to save manually.

Edited March 2, 2018 by ENEMY!!!

[Woolie Wool]

4 hours ago, DooM_RO said:

I am not sure why people complain about checkpoints. Is it really worse than save scumming?

Some people actually like savescumming, and they're quite often the people who most virulently hate checkpoints.

 

Quote

Another issue, common for people with young families, is being called away urgently just before you get to the next checkpoint, and losing a lot of progress.  The concerns over save scumming are a case where it's considered that we need to be protected from ourselves, mainly because a minority abuse the right to save manually.

I have an idea, instead of a paternalistic "consideration" for people "abusing their rights", why not respect the wishes and autonomy of your players and just let them have what they want?

[[McD] James]

3 hours ago, ENEMY!!! said:

Another issue, common for people with young families, is being called away urgently just before you get to the next checkpoint, and losing a lot of progress.  The concerns over save scumming are a case where it's considered that we need to be protected from ourselves, mainly because a minority abuse the right to save manually.

1

 

This is patently ridiculous. 

[Lila Feuer]

6 hours ago, The-Heretic-Assassin said:

Pyro added something I forgot to mention. Modern first person shooters are easier than old-school ones.

Not entirely so, CoD MW2 was pretty damn tough even on normal difficulty. Those Brazil missions, ugh. Then again, repeatedly spamming enemies at you while trying to move up through or complete an objective counts as 'difficulty' in modern shooters, so.

[CARRiON]

7 hours ago, Pyrolex said:

The short version is that most modern shooters are way too easy, with regenerating health and this garbage. I don't like it and I want literally every trend in modern shooters to GO AWAY

 

Actually, in my experience modern shooters are actually much harder due to the fact that you do only have regenerating health and have to duck for cover in order to get it back. And when I say harder, I mean like a bullshit harder. A lot of the maps in these shooters don't always support this mechanic very well and often times I'm scrambling to find cover somewhere as my screen is a blurry mess covered in fruit juice. Even on the normal difficulty I find you can only take about 6-8 hits before you die.

 

This is probably the single biggest flaw with the regenerating health mechanic. Most games that have it, have maps that aim for realistic environments. This combined with your weighted and often slow moving character can make trying to find cover while getting shot in the ass feel clunky and even aggravating. Getting shot often means your screen jerks around, your screen gets redder, bloodier, it blurs, your audio distorts, it's just a god damn mess. And sometimes even when you do successfully find cover, an enemy will throw a grenade which are insta-killers and force you back out in the open, scrambling for new cover. It's a frustrating experience, to say the least. It's why I only play them once or twice just to experience the atmosphere and appreciate the firefights before moving on completely.

 

Call of Duty, as in the first game, had health kits to get back health. However I don't recall it working very well with the pacing of the game. It's been many years since I last played it though.

[PsychoGoatee]

I agree that modern shooters are harder if you want to run and gun. Since they're usually copying the to me boring CoD mold, where you're supposed to use cover and pretend its war etc, so you get the "red screen of death" if you run into the open. Which is boring, since it just means you have to play the way they want. That said, it's probably possible to run and gun those games if you're a CoD pro or something, but they are often designed to keep you in cover.

 

Even Titanfall 2, one of the more praised recent single player FPS campaigns, has a lot of CoD style stuff like that. They have really dumb slow AI, but if you're in the open in front of several of them you're just going to get hit, as far as I can tell.

 

In general I like games that are somewhat open in how you can approach battles, more options the better, so these on rails type of games that pick one specific intended way are boring.

 

That said, I take each game on it's own merits if they're at all of interest to me. I really love some games in the recent style, like Bioshock Infinite. But for sure I want more of the classic intricate more interesting style of FPS level design, and combat. Though combat I'd also like to see go somewhere new, with more interesting varied enemy behavior etc. So that volume of monsters or healthsponge aren't the only options.

[A Nobody]

Mmmmm.

Edited March 6, 2018 by The-Heretic-Assassin

[Deleted_Account]

It's probably nostalgia talking, but I hate most modern FPS games. They're way too slow and its cut scene after cut scene.

[-Votterbin-]

23 hours ago, Ex Oblivione said:

It's probably nostalgia talking, but I hate most modern FPS games. They're way too slow and its cut scene after cut scene.

+1

 

If I wanna watch a war movie, I'll go rent Saving Private Ryan and not spend $60 on a movie disguised as a video game.

[Battle_Korbi]

Yeah, I knew you guys would pop out eventually :)

[Deleted_Account]

I just don't understand why the player has to move like he's walking through molasses only to be intercepted by a five minute cut scene.

[june gloom]

sigh these threads

[A Nobody]

14 minutes ago, arobase said:

sigh these threads

?

[StoneMason]

I personally don't consider Doom and Quake's design as "The Gold Standard" for the FPS genre as a whole. If the game is clearly going for a different playstyle altogether, I'd rather judge it on its own merits, rather than needlessly comparing apples to oranges. Most of the things listed, while they aren't always done perfectly, I believe have a place in FPSs. Only thing I'd say is truly terrible is hand-holding, but that isn't exclusively a "modern FPS" thing.

[Avoozl]

The real issues I find with modern gaming is regen-health, two weapon limit, an overabundance of ammo and health but at some points to an infinite amount in too many convenient locations, also the over-reliance of a cover-hugging mechanic which games like Mass Effect 2-3 did even despite the fact that I overall enjoyed those games, I can't say that I so much like finishers either, also blatant giant location markers which fill the actual player view is another, and too many unskippable cut-scenes oh god the cut-scenes I am looking at you Max Payne 3, too much linearity is another, getting weapons handed out to you like candy very quickly and too soon is another I am looking at Rage and Far Cry 3 here, in Far Cry 3 you only have to disable radio towers to get a whole load of weapons for free without having to pay for them I'd rather work on gaining money to buy them.

 

The only modern FPS game I have enjoyed recently was Deus Ex Mankind Divided and this is despite my disappointments with it compared to Human Revolution. I have found more enjoyment with old FPS games which I never got to play in their time than with most modern FPS games.

Edited March 6, 2018 by Avoozl

[A Nobody]

20 hours ago, Mason. said:

I personally don't consider Doom and Quake's design as "The Gold Standard" for the FPS genre as a whole. If the game is clearly going for a different playstyle altogether, I'd rather judge it on its own merits, rather than needlessly comparing apples to oranges. Most of the things listed, while they aren't always done perfectly, I believe have a place in FPSs. Only thing I'd say is truly terrible is hand-holding, but that isn't exclusively a "modern FPS" thing.

Mmmmm.

[SGS Man]

20 hours ago, Mason. said:

I personally don't consider Doom and Quake's design as "The Gold Standard" for the FPS genre as a whole. If the game is clearly going for a different playstyle altogether, I'd rather judge it on its own merits, rather than needlessly comparing apples to oranges. Most of the things listed, while they aren't always done perfectly, I believe have a place in FPSs. Only thing I'd say is truly terrible is hand-holding, but that isn't exclusively a "modern FPS" thing.

 

I don't find hand-holding to be absolutely terrible as a concept. "Stanley Parable" is an interesting, albeit superficial take, on hand-holding in games. While SP is satire, the concept of hand-holding can be taken in interesting directions.

[A Nobody]

It's said that Bioshock Infinite was modernized. Is that true?

[jazzmaster9]

Its a mixed bag.

You get amazing games like Bioshock Infinite, CoD4, Shadow Warrior, Battlefield 1 and Far Cry 3 that has a lot of the features listed in the OP ...

 

But then you get Infinite Warfare which just fails.

 

Features like ADS and Health Regen are NOT inherently bad, bad implementation is.

Edited March 9, 2018 by jazzmaster9

[A Nobody]

22 hours ago, jazzmaster9 said:

Its a mixed bag.

You get amazing games like Bioshock Infinite, CoD4, Shadow Warrior, Battlefield 1 and Far Cry 3 that has a lot of the features listed in the OP ...

 

But then you get Infinite Warfare which just fails.

 

Features like ADS and Health Regen are NOT inherently bad, bad implementation is.

The Shadow Warrior reboot has those features???

[jazzmaster9]

2 minutes ago, The-Heretic-Assassin said:

The Shadow Warrior reboot has those features???

Yes, it has ADS and Health Regen(via Healing spell, but also has health pickups) but it is used very well because you still have to work for your health.

[snapshot]

On 09/03/2018 at 1:53 PM, The-Heretic-Assassin said:

It's said that Bioshock Infinite was modernized. Is that true?

Yes, It's got the Halo-y Armor Regeneration, 2 weapons limit and it's very linear compared to what was shown in earlier Trailers and Gameplay reveals (or even the earlier BioShock entries).

[jazzmaster9]

2 minutes ago, dmg_64 said:

Yes, It's got the Halo-y Armor Regeneration, 2 weapons limit and it's very linear compared to what was shown in earlier Trailers and Gameplay reveals (or even the earlier BioShock entries).

Though despite that its still a great game, I found the gunplay more enjoyable than in BioShock 1 and 2, though Bioshocl 1 had the better atmosphere and puzzles

[snapshot]

Indeed, It's a fun game and I like the relationship between Booker and Liz.

[seed]

3 hours ago, jazzmaster9 said:

Yes, it has ADS and Health Regen(via Healing spell, but also has health pickups) but it is used very well because you still have to work for your health.

 

I... am not sure what the new SW games do falls under the typical health regen this thread seems to refer to.

 

Also in the 2013 title after you unlock some perks that improve its efficiency you can just keep on healing yourself ad infinitum at no cost (it's unlimited from the very beginning, but not very useful until you progress into the game, that's what I meant to say there). It did have some balancing flaws, yet nothing really major, and I still managed to die even with this anyway.

[A Nobody]

Off topic, but do you play as a Big Daddy in Bioshock Infinite?

[A Nobody]

10 hours ago, dmg_64 said:

Yes, It's got the Halo-y Armor Regeneration, 2 weapons limit and it's very linear compared to what was shown in earlier Trailers and Gameplay reveals (or even the earlier BioShock entries).

D:

[Egg Boy]

On 3/1/2018 at 7:30 PM, Mr. Freeze said:

Really the only problem with the FPS market is the incoming wave of "retro" shooters that don't look or play retro in the slightest (Strafe, Dusk, Ion Maiden, Hellscreen etc etc etc). Tired of slaughterfests devoid of exploration and suspense; it's like these people never played Doom at all but read articles about it. 

Both Dusk and Ion Maiden play like old skool FPS with some modern touches. Lots of exploration and secrets in both, and some of the suspense in Dusk is great. I wouldn't consider either "slaughterfests." I don't think it's a good idea to copy everything Doom did, because in a way, that's regression. Dusk has some great things to bring to the table. While Ion Maiden doesn't really improve the formula in any particular way, the level design is great and the sprite work is fantastic.

 

When it comes to "modern FPS," it really depends on how it's handled. I think the first two Modern Warfare titles are ok, I didn't play them on release or anything, but MW's story is much better than it has any right to be, and the sequel has better level design. The gameplay isn't necessarily the high point, usually these games excite their audiences with beautifully detailed set pieces, and are meant to extend the game beyond the multiplayer a bit. But I don't really think "Modern FPS" necessarily fits the description you're giving. Maybe I would have agreed three or four years ago, but the genre is actually really diverse at the moment. With a lot of options for competitive or casual multiplayer shooters as well as a few great singleplayer experiences (See DOOM, Resident Evil 7 [it counts], Prey, and Dusk). It's sad that singleplayer shooters aren't as common nowadays, but the few that do come out are really cool.