nicked on 9/10/2010 at 17:44
I dunno... I played Heretic for the first time ever a few months ago when I got it in the id pack on steam, and it had me hooked right up until I beat the final boss. I think there's definitely room for some real simple, stripped-down arcadey FPSes in today's environment, and I'm surprised we don't see that sort of thing much from indie studios.
A small team could easily take an old open source engine like id tech 2 or 3 (I forget which is which), put together some fun, cartoony graphics to make up for the shortcomings of an old engine (a la Blizzard's WOW style, or Torchlight) and put together a fun, solid, simple shooter in very little time, and it'd probably be really popular. I know it'd pique my interest.
Brian The Dog on 9/10/2010 at 18:17
Yes, I also wonder this. Lots of independent developers are selling their small games online now, but FPS seems to be a genre they shun, preferring various strategy games. Getting the engine from e.g. Quake III would be quite cheap and it still looks OK today. Or they could always use an open-source engine like Ogre to simplify development.
gunsmoke on 9/10/2010 at 20:32
Quote Posted by nicked
A small team could easily take an old open source engine like id tech 2 or 3 (I forget which is which), put together some fun, cartoony graphics to make up for the shortcomings of an old engine (a la Blizzard's WOW style, or Torchlight) and put together a fun, solid, simple shooter in very little time, and it'd probably be really popular. I know it'd pique my interest.
They already did that... it's called Serious Sam.
Renzatic on 9/10/2010 at 21:33
Quote Posted by Vernon
For me, Stalker is better than any of them. I guess it isn't a rip-roaring, shoot-everything-in-sight game like the ones you've cited, and it isn't exactly a pure FPS, but I've personally never had more fun playing a game outside of multiplayer team RTS.
I don't consider Stalker an FPS in the normal sense of the...er...word. Sure, it's first person, and you shoot things, but I found it to be more of a survival RPG than anything. It's only superficially related to Doom and its ilk.
What I'm talking about are the current standard bearers, Halo, COD, ect, and how they compare to the older games in the genre. I think the biggest problem with these games is their obsession with set pieces, scripted events, and comparatively simple level design tailored to make you feel more like a badass who blew up a bunch of dudes than offer up any challenge. It's the difference between "wow, I barely got out of that really super awesome intense ambush alive" vs. "wow, I just exploded like 50 buildings and took out 10 helecoptors with that one rocket then got on a spaceship", or more simply "wow, that was fun" vs. "wow, that was neat".
Sure, scripted cinematic FPSes can be grand experiences. We have Half-Life 1 & 2 to show us that. But you rarely ever see games where you explore your environments anymore, where you find secrets, all while dodging fireballs and killing hordes of evil bastards. Level design now is basically a pretty corridor connecting you from one cinematic experience to the next, and I feel like they're lesser games for that.
Maybe I wouldn't be so critical if we had some variety. But oh no, practically every FPS out now wants to be the next Halo or COD. It's getting boring to me.
Sulphur on 9/10/2010 at 21:49
Those're a genre unto themselves now, Renz: the arcade first person shooter. Painkiller, Serious Sam, et al. You already know that, though. I think there hasn't been any advancement in the genre pretty much because it reached a plateau a long time ago. You can inject a bit of life into an arcade shooter by throwing in something new like physics, or giving it a unique mechanic, but mostly everything that can be hacked out in the genre has been already.
Still, a few shooters do the formula justice and deliver on it as well as ye olde greats. That's part of the reason why I'm looking forward to Bulletstorm, but it seems quite a bit set-piece focused too.
Vernon on 9/10/2010 at 22:51
Quote Posted by Renzatic
What I'm talking about are the current standard bearers, Halo, COD, ect, and how they compare to the older games in the genre.I think the biggest problem with these games is their obsession with set pieces, scripted events, and comparatively simple level design tailored to make you feel more like a badass who blew up a bunch of dudes than offer up any challenge.
Yeah I agree with this completely. There are good ones out there, but they are so thin on the ground
Bluegrime on 9/10/2010 at 23:25
Halo, the first one especially, was a meatgrinder on Legendary. I enjoyed it because it offered a "fair" challenge for what it was. I liked having a back to back series of complete do or die situations without the game tacking on old school cheapness like having more enemies teleport into a room/have them stand up where they died/removing set items like ammo and medkits. I actually had fun playing Halo on the hardest difficulty vs nannysaving my way through the pain-in-the-ass Nightmare mode of id games.
My 2cents.
I'm dusting off the PS2 and playing Gladius. It's an old Lucas Arts tactical-ish rpg. So far the plot is Rome vs generic Barbarians and held together with voluminous cheese. But the gameplay is fun, it plays like the old school sprite tactical rpgs with input commands for doing everything. Its very much like the button mashing/tapping sequences from Resident Evil 4 & 5, except you have an onscreen meter to help you see the right timing. Given that literally every move you make in combat depends on some form of button mashing this is a good thing, infact the meters make it so easy you'll be many times better then the computer. It took all of five minuets to get the timing down for scoring a critical hit 9/10ths of the time and it lets the stat heavy hero characters hit way above their level or gear. This is not a bad thing given some of the extremely particular challenges some of the arenas have ( my favorite being 'male and female' after starting with those as my main heroes ) and it makes otherwise tedious fights move along much quicker.
Overall its a pretty fun game, even if it is ugly and cheesy. I paid $10> for it and it's definitely worth that.
Renzatic on 10/10/2010 at 06:19
Quote Posted by Sulphur
Those're a genre unto themselves now, Renz: the arcade first person shooter. Painkiller, Serious Sam, et al. You already know that, though. I think there hasn't been any advancement in the genre pretty much because it reached a plateau a long time ago. You can inject a bit of life into an arcade shooter by throwing in something new like physics, or giving it a unique mechanic, but mostly everything that can be hacked out in the genre has been already.
Yeah, Painkiller was pretty decent. It had the gunplay down pat, but still falls a bit short in level design when compared to the stuff from the late 90's.
Case in point, I just played through The Great Temple in Blood. That was a well designed level. It was complicated enough I actually got lost in it for a bit, but not so bad I ended up running in circles for 3 hours, and so many nooks and crannies, I was constantly finding little secrets lying around. Painkiller had some damn neat boards, but nothing quite like what I've seen just in the first episode of Blood.
The arcade FPSes are mostly about fighting, and they do that well, but I'd still like to see some complicated oldschool style maps thrown in there with all that combat. It's like everyone is so scared of the dreaded keycard hunts we used to see back in the day, they don't want to attempt anything more than glorified arena battles anymore.
