Opinions on Modern First Person Shooters

[Cruduxy Pegg]

10 hours ago, The-Heretic-Assassin said:

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

 

No that is only in Bioshock 2.

[A Nobody]

15 minutes ago, Pegg said:

 

No that is only in Bioshock 2.

Aw. Hope to get Bioshock 2 someday.

 

So back on topic, objective markers should stop being a thing. It's part of hand-holding, but it's a big part I don't like.

[jazzmaster9]

1 hour ago, The-Heretic-Assassin said:

Aw. Hope to get Bioshock 2 someday.

 

So back on topic, objective markers should stop being a thing. It's part of hand-holding, but it's a big part I don't like.

Again like all features it depends on the game.

Medal of Honor: Airbornes non linear design demands Objective markers.

[Cruduxy Pegg]

Objective markers aren't optional if the game devs didn't bother adding clues\dialogues\notes to find where to go before the next century.

[Reaper8888]

I think it's kind of a bummer that newer FPSs tend to lack cheat codes. What can I say, I'm more of a casual gamer and want to take the easy way out sometimes.

 

I'd like to see more modern FPSs that are based on demon-killing. This is particularly gratifying for me. FPSs that are strictly military-based and just focus on killing soldiers and games like Duke Nukem and Halo that  focus on killing aliens don't appeal to me as much.

 

[THEBaratusII]

To me, modern FPS games lack faster gameplay, It just feels slow, and also lacks cheat codes, It's just feels less challenging when it came to health regeneration. Not to mention, some or most popular modern FPS games have toxic communities in multiplayer.

 

I do wish to see more modern FPS games that are more based on fast-paced shooting and demon killing, because there are just too many military-based shooters out there.

[dsm]

On 3/1/2018 at 6:06 PM, The-Heretic-Assassin said:

What do you think of modern fps games? I'll put a little list of the things modern shooters are known for. The modern fps has these features...

Sprinting - Eh, sprinting has technically been around since Wolfenstein 3D (shift key to run faster), although I'm guessing you're referring to either a sprint limit or the feature that prevents you from shooting while sprinting. I haven't played any games with the latter function so I'm guesstimating that it would depend on the game; it might work for some, not so much for the more action-heavy ones.

 

Aim Down Sighs - This again depends on the game. If the Aim-down-sights is more of a convenience (allow easier sniping at range, but not necessarily required), I'm fine with it.

 

Vaulting or Climbing - This I like, especially if it works smoothly.

 

Regenerating Health - This I definitely dislike. A lot.

Regenerating health typically destroys any immersion I'd get from playing a first-person shooter. I know medkits aren't realistic, but they don't kill the feeling that you're a vulnerable Human being (unless you have a lot of health and can tank a lot of damage), because when you get shot, you can pretend you just got grazed in the arm and a medkit serves to let you pretend you spent a minute or two patching up the wound while the game conveniently skips that time to let you get back into action.

But just regaining health from sitting behind cover tends to make me not care about whether I get shot or not, killing all tension I'd feel if I actually had to retreat and look for health packs.

 

Weapon Carrying Limits - When Halo came out, I thought it was a novel idea, adding a nice touch of realism. But then I realized how limiting it is to the gameplay. No thanks.

 

Attachments for Weapons - Well, if we're talking like Doom 2016's weapon mods and if the resulting alt-fire mode work well at complementing the primary fire, then I'm all for it. Don't care for cosmetics.

 

Perks - Don't think I've played a game with perks, so I dunno.

 

Checkpoints - Don't mind them if they're placed well.

 

Hand-Holding - Only if the game is chock-full of busy details and confusing multiple routes that will make my head spin on the first playthrough, but even then, I'm sure I'd figure out where to go eventually, so meh.

 

Ranking or Level Up System in Multiplayer - don't really play multiplayer.

 

Game telling you what to do - Depends on how hand-holdy it is. If it tells you to place a Nuke somewhere in an Enemy Base, but leaves you with multiple choices on where to place it, without telling you which is the best place, then it's all right I guess.

 

No cheats (ex. Big Head Mode, Exploding Enemies After Death) - I like cheat codes for messing around and doing silly shit, so not having them is a demerit for the game.

[jazzmaster9]

3 hours ago, dsm said:

But just regaining health from sitting behind cover tends to make me not care about whether I get shot or not, killing all tension I'd feel if I actually had to retreat and look for health packs.

 

 

If you played Call of Duty 2 You will DEFINITELY care if you get shot especially if 2 Kar98 shots can just end you.

Health Regen allows for the game to have All enemies be Hitscan. It would just be unbalanced to play CoD 2-4 with Health packs, The D-Day mission in Allied Assault proves that.

[Rifle Infantry]

Modern shooters are okay in terms of basic player balance.

 

Problem is, they're just so stale.

 

What do I mean by that? Let's take Doom 1. It has seven basic enemies- the former human, former sergeant, imp, lost soul, cacodemon, baron of hell, and pinky, as well as two bosses in the form of the cyberdemon and spider mastermind. Classifying each enemy:

• Former human: Weak, but instantly damages the player. Slow moving. Cannon fodder. The player wants to eliminate these at once or interrupt their gunfire, or take cover if their health is low.
• Former sergeant: Weak, but threatening close up, and instantly damages the player. Dangerous up close, causing a different tactical choice than with former humans (as you will want to maintain distance).
• Imp: Dangerous up close but less so far away. Player will want to fight at medium range, where their weapons are strong, but they can easily dodge fireballs, which are fairly damaging.
• Lost soul: Charges and is tough. Player will want to avoid its charge and kill it while it's defenseless, or interrupt its charge.
• Pinky: Tough and melee. Player will want to eliminate these as they close in, and move around to not be cornered and bitten to death.
• Cacodemon: Flying, tough, lethal ranged attack. Player will want to avoid its ranged fire even more than an Imp, and so stands farther away (the large size of the cacodemon compensates for the lesser accuracy).
• Baron of hell: Enormous and extremely tough in melee. The player wants to avoid letting it corner them or getting hit; comparable to a massive Imp, but with added pressure to not get close.

Let's compare that to a selection of modern enemy archetypes used in most modern shooters. I'm going to name them via 4chan boards, because why not.

• /r9k/ (grunt): Fires a handgun or light weapon. Player will want to gun them down and take cover against hitscan retaliation.
• /b/ (moron): Carries a knife or other melee weapon. Stupidly walks or runs toward the player and tries to whack them. Player will want to gun them down and move on.
• /k/ (soldier): Fires an automatic weapon. Player will want to gun them down and take cover against hitscan retaliation. Sometimes throws grenade to force the player to move for a few seconds.
• /pol/ (shotgunner): Fires a shotgun. Player will want to gun them down first because they usually charge.
• /fit/ (heavy): Fires a heavy automatic weapon or shotgun. Player will want to pour gunfire into them while avoiding their hitscan attacks.
• /jp/ (sniper): Carries a sniper rifle. Player will want to gun them down and take cover against hitscan retaliation.

In all of these, the player's reaction is basically one of three things:

• I will shoot him.
• I will obstruct his view to me so that he stops shooting, then I will shoot him.
• I will shoot him, but shoot him with higher priority than other people I will shoot.

There is none of the movement or tactical thoughts present in Doom. Earlier games- such as Half-Life- have a diverse palette of enemies and force the player to use movement and thoughts, much like Doom, but the modern "action movie" type game in which your enemies go down in two shots and you regenerate health render most engagements exactly the same for the most part.

[jazzmaster9]

Well to be honest, i would not be expecting Terrorists/Historical Nazis to suddenly Shoot slow moving fireballs.

 

Doom and Call of Duty are two very different games with very different styles. The variety of modern shooters comes from enemy placement and objective placement, something which Medal of Honor Airborne and CoD4 did very well.

[DynamiteKaitorn]

Excuse my terrible idea of a joke but:

 

 

 

Croikey mate! I just got shot in my arse 20 times! Better sit just under this 'ere conveniently placed pile of sand bags! Those balley wankers really did a number on me!

*health fills up over time*

*stands up*

Oi! Eat this ya cunts! *still dies*

[DeadAstronaut]

 

[Aquila Chrysaetos]

Must agree with Sir Romero, because modern FPS's really do just seem like slogs. Go here and sit behind this piece of cover and peek out and shoot guys a couple times. There's your fun.

Like he said, it's too slow, too boring. Games like Doom and Half-Life were really fun because of the enemy variety the player faced, so it's not always the same no matter where you go.

Also, another thing: you're railroaded to an absolute degree. Follow this plot that the devs spent a year on because they spent a year on it and we need you to see our super cool plot. Yeah, don't care. Let me figure it out myself.

It was described by a guy I worked with once with amazing accuracy as "a movie with buttons."

Never heard a better description of modern FPS before or after.

[Vermil]

Too many modern FPS aim for realism, which I'm not a huge fan of in games; these days you get very few FPS with settings and gameplay like Wolf3D, Doom, Quake etc.

 

Can you tell I don't play sports games like Fifa either :p

[Aquila Chrysaetos]

8 hours ago, Vermil said:

Too many modern FPS aim for realism

https://www.theonion.com/ultra-realistic-modern-warfare-game-features-awaiting-o-1819594864

[jupiter_ex]

forgot to add: grenade position indicators. Whether it is showing a trail when it flies at you, or the indicator for how far away you need to move so it doesn't explode and tingles your cowardly hand-held butt experience of a PC FPS

[Lila Feuer]

Only problem is you will never notice the grenade landing at your feet in a CoD because too much visual noise, as games get more detailed it's going to be harder to notice the smaller details, especially during hectic scenes. Even then the grenades will blow up so quickly the indicator usually gives you no more than two seconds to get the hell outta dodge before you're cheesed.

[MTF Sergeant]

They prefer more on getting to cover and taking down enemies with stealth, rather than mowing them down right off the bat.

[kb1]

There's 2 main issues with today's shooters:

 

1. Massive development cost - Today, there are dozens of artists, developers, level designers, directors, developers, advertisers, etc. These games cost so much to build that the dev studios are afraid to try anything off the beaten path. They stick to tried-and-true, to please the masses and try to get some return on investment.
2. Spoiled gamers without attention spans - I can't totally blame the gamers, because of #1 above. But when a game contains multiple square miles of picture perfect terrain, multi-thousand triangle models, volumetric fog, multi-level soft shadows, reflective surfaces, bumpmaps, advanced pathfinding and AI, ragdoll physics, bla, bla, bla - and gamers are trashing the game online within hours, I find it to be a real shame. My gaming started out on 16-color, 8-bit CPUs rated in Mhz, with less RAM onboard than it takes to hold this post. I paid a quarter for 5-10 minutes of play, and, at that age, 25 cents was not always easy to come by. And, it was fun - a lot of fun.

I know the technology is not everything. But if someone were to tally up the calculations being done per second on one of these new games, it is mind boggling. It is, at least fascinating. If a really good VR system were ever to become really popular, people would never take it off. You'd find them naked and starved, just twitching and quivering. I guess it's natural for newer generations to take tech for granted. But I feel lucky that I haven't become bored yet. I can appreciate what the game studio was trying to accomplish, even if they failed at it.

 

It's a good lesson to game studios, to always make your game moddable, like Doom. That can serve to keep your title relevant (somewhat) and gives it a chance to live on. It also lets the community "fix" any poor decisions that the developers either wanted, or were forced to do (which happens more often that people realize.)

 

 

 

[jupiter_ex]

11 hours ago, Lila Feuer said:

Only problem is you will never notice the grenade landing at your feet in a CoD because too much visual noise, as games get more detailed it's going to be harder to notice the smaller details, especially during hectic scenes. Even then the grenades will blow up so quickly the indicator usually gives you no more than two seconds to get the hell outta dodge before you're cheesed.

 

as far back as, say, F.E.A.R., all you had to know that a grenade was thrown at you was recognize the particular "clang!" grenades made when bouncing off the floor. I never failed to notice that and the game had some pretty intense gunfight. I like to think that way is closer to what an actual combat experience might be like. Funny it is military shooters who had most of those gimmicks

 

Also, I've seen grenade indicators nowadays even in games that are not gunfight intensive such as Deus Ex Human Revolution. They simply love to just dumb down the experience

[Aquila Chrysaetos]

Fallout 4 has them.

Also, that sound should just be enough for you to know a grenade's landed at your feet (it is quite loud in real life when you know it's a real fucking grenade), but they can't be bothered to make the sound prominent in favor of visual cues, which, as Lila Feuer said, is washed out really easily, so you die and its like, "You didn't see the indicator in the mess of crap on the screen! How did you not see that?"

Really, it's all hand-holding, instead of letting the players figure out what to do.

 

Though, there's a problem with that one...

11 hours ago, kb1 said:

Spoiled gamers without attention spans

This. Absolutely.

The devs are trying to pander to these, but they can't do it because so much is expected because super-tech is just, like, something everyone has, right?

No. I never dreamed of having a flatscreen before 2006 and never actually had one until 2015, and that's just a television.

Everything has to have "ultra-realistic" graphics and "ultra-realistic" mechanics and has to walk you through the game because if it doesn't, then it's a shit game and not worth even looking at and nobody's ever going to get it. I think that's why modern RPG's have the stupid quest markers, because looking up a map (on the internet or in a book) is too difficult to do.

 

Okay, now my soapbox has been exhausted, I'm excited to see what you think of what I just said.

[Lila Feuer]

2 hours ago, jupiter_ex said:

as far back as, say, F.E.A.R., all you had to know that a grenade was thrown at you was recognize the particular "clang!" grenades made when bouncing off the floor. I never failed to notice that and the game had some pretty intense gunfight.

F.E.A.R. has actual sound design, something that is taken for granted nowadays.

[Starkiller]

14 minutes ago, Lila Feuer said:

F.E.A.R. has actual sound design, something that is taken for granted nowadays.

You can't forget about the enemy sound design as well. The A.I.'s reaction when you throw a grenade, communicating with a teammate, or kill one with the element of surprise ("Where did that come from!?" still never gets old). There is none of that in today's games, as far as I can tell. 

 

Hell, F.E.A.R.'s sound design is what drives the games atmosphere, as most of the time, the player is all alone, carefully treading his steps, and getting the lights scared out of them when they trip over a soda can. With no presence of Replica's/ATC/Nightcrawlers or the paranormal threat of Alma around. 

[Aquila Chrysaetos]

You can't forget the brilliant AI of that game that had the soldiers surrounding you, noticing your flashlight, or using grenades to flush you out. That's something many games seem to lack for some reason.

[Lila Feuer]

Also unlike CoD and similar titles, F.E.A.R. is not a post-processing mess with a million different things going on at once, sensory overload.

[jupiter_ex]

F.E.A.R was a postprocessing mess (I would know, I am the engine (?)). It was the exact example of an engine just stacking cutting edge features over cutting edge features and with zero optimization. It was graphically and physically stunning but the engine ran so bad they had the wisdom to put a ton of options I've never seen again (such as pixel doubling) to try to get the stuff to run in your computer. The "soft shadows" implementation is one of the worse and slowest I've ever seen. It's just a gaussian blur type of kernel bluring where you can actually see the second layer of shadow around the first one if you look, and it runs like crap. 

Don't know if that's what you meant by post processing mess anyway.

 

Anyway, I'd prefer to simply run away when a grenade flies at me than have an indicator telling my how many actual inches I have to step to the side to avoid the explosion. Next thing they'll add a GUI indicator showing me where bullets are going :P

[Aquila Chrysaetos]

4 minutes ago, jupiter_ex said:

Next thing they'll add a GUI indicator showing me where bullets are going :P

And what direction you're facing, the distance between you and your objective, the path to the objective...

Oh, wait, they already do that.

[A Nobody]

Shooters in the past think you're smart. Shooters today think you're dumb.

[Aquila Chrysaetos]

Morrowind (ES III) thought you were a goddamn genius. It'd give you directions to the locations and sometimes they were wrong. You needed an actual map to navigate that world effectively.

No compass, no objective marker, no path, just go find it yourself.

It was so much fun, but sometimes it was irritating.

[A Nobody]

Bioshock gave you the option to remove checkpoints and the quest arrow, which I like very much.