Ye Olde First Person shooters

[v-600]

are better than modern ones.

Discuss. This could go for the console shooters as well except for the fact that they didn't get proper network play until dreamcast/xbox time.

With the GOG sale I just bought Unreal tournament. In the last steam sale I got the serious sam pack.

I say that in either single or multiplayer player mode FPS from 10 years or so ago are just more fun than more modern shooters. Or maybe I am just reminiscing with rose-coloured glasses.

Run, gun and strafe with health packs, instagib, ludicrous weapons and pretty much unlimited ammo makes for more entertainment than fancy graphics, limited weapons, conserving ammo, sneaking and 3 hits to die.

I will throw counter strike (as a team based, limited health, tactical game) against this argument, and you could make individual cases for games like dishonoured (modern sneaker) but generally I think it holds true.

 

[Topweasel]

In the end I enjoy both types of games. But I am a sloppy player with little patience so even in "survival games" I have a tendency to Rambo it.

 

[darkewaffle]

Single player has gotten far better. Doom and Wolfenstein were fun at the time, but don't hold up to, say, Farcry 3.

Multiplayer it depends what you're looking for. The arena FPS genre (which you seem to be referring to) is pretty dead/stagnant currently (maybe Tribes Ascend counts?), but that's not to say there aren't good multiplayer FPS. They just offer a different experience than they did fifteen years ago.

 

[BrightCandle]

I much prefer the push towards more realism. The current big sellers don't really cater for my desires actually, Arma 3 is about the closest game to what I am looking for but I would really like something like that with better CQB. Counterstrike was a big push towards more realism as was Call of Duty. Most games have stupid health recharging mechanics and tunnel gameplay, but it doesn't have to be that way.

 

[SlitheryDee]

Current day single player FPSs are much better than they used to be, at least for me. I like it when they at least try to tell you a story in the course of the game. I remember never really wanting to beat games like Doom because I didn't know what I was doing or why I was doing it. I could move on to another level and kill everything there, but for what? So I can watch a brief animation of a map of levels or small amount of text? This was back when Doom was still considered to be a modern game as well, so I wasn't comparing it against something better at the time. All I remember is never really feeling invested in it. I liked RPGs a lot back then, which makes sense to me now given their much heavier emphasis on story.

I suppose I need there to be more of a payoff than just competent gameplay. They're trying to do that now at least. Games like the Crysises and all the Bioshocks are FAR more enjoyable to me than The Unreals and Dooms of yesteryear, mostly because I can immerse myself in the games more easily. There seems to be a point to everything I'm doing, at least in the context of the game. They have moved from a barebones mechanical twitchfest that has the distinct feeling of being limited and pointless to a genuine experience, which is far better IMO.

 

[futurefields]

the technical terms are "strafe shooter" ie. Unreal, Quake etc... and "twitch shooter" ie. COD, BF

 

[cbrunny]

Goldeneye/Perfect Dark FTW.

 

[Revolution 11]

For me, there are two types of FPS that I enjoy a lot. The first type is the realistic/simulation/tactical shooters like Arma, Red Orchestra 2, and the old Rainbow Six games. The second is the silly/stylized/pure/mechanical games like Doom, Wolfenstein, Duke Nukem 3D, the Unreal games, and Goldeneye.

Most other FPS games that try to straddle the line or mix and match attributes from these two categories tend to mess up and create more problems.

 

[Midwayman]

I'm not much of a stealth player, but I like the tactical game much more. Its not that sci-fi/fantasy type shooters can't be fun but the guns and world rarely come together in a cohesive whole that really make sense. Most of them feel like the have very arbitrary rule systems.

 

[smackababy]

the technical terms are "strafe shooter" ie. Unreal, Quake etc... and "twitch shooter" ie. COD, BF

A twitch shooter is a game that requires reflex reactions. Quake, Unreal, and CS all have that in common. Especially CS with hit scan weapons.

COD and BF both suffer from the moronic "cone of fire" and auto aim that is plaguing modern shooters. Neither of which really relies on who sees and shoots first, but who gets the best cone of fire RNG.

 

[shortylickens]

I liked the tactical total conversions for Unreal much better than most modern shooters.
But the communities for those things are small and move to new things after a while.

 

[futurefields]

A twitch shooter is a game that requires reflex reactions. Quake, Unreal, and CS all have that in common. Especially CS with hit scan weapons.

COD and BF both suffer from the moronic "cone of fire" and auto aim that is plaguing modern shooters. Neither of which really relies on who sees and shoots first, but who gets the best cone of fire RNG.

Quake and Unreal are strafe shooters, CS is a twitch shooter.

 

[fixbsod]

I was wavering on which option to pick as I do love a fun run-and-gun game with health packs and loads of guns, however ultimately settled on the 2nd. Done properly (Metro 2033, MGS4, Batmans, Dishonored, etc) gives a much more immersive and enjoyable experience. Sure it can take a little more time to ease into it and get into the groove, but once there it's a richer, deeper, more memorable time.

 

[smackababy]

Quake and Unreal are strafe shooters, CS is a twitch shooter.

No. "strafe shooter" is not a term. Strafing is a technique. A twitch shooter is an FPS that relies solely on the reactions of the players, unlike COD, BF, Halo, etc.

 

[Lil Frier]

I don't think there's a choice to make here. I loved Unreal on Xbox, and I loved watching my dad play it and Quake on PC, and I loved playing Urban Terror on my dad's account. I like some CoD games, and I love Halo (which kind of used both styles in games). There's no one way I prefer over the other. It's more about having a decent campaign (if one's there), while having entertaining and balanced multiplayer.

 

[futurefields]

No. "strafe shooter" is not a term. Strafing is a technique. A twitch shooter is an FPS that relies solely on the reactions of the players, unlike COD, BF, Halo, etc.

COD and BF are twitch shooters. Halo is a strafe shooter.

 

[maniacalpha1-1]

CoD and BF may have cone of fire, but there are reasons for cone of fire. For example, if you're running and then suddenly stop to fire, your cone will be bigger than someone who was just standing there waiting. As it should be.

 

[Topweasel]

CoD and BF may have cone of fire, but there are reasons for cone of fire. For example, if you're running and then suddenly stop to fire, your cone will be bigger than someone who was just standing there waiting. As it should be.

For Realism sake sure. But if you have the skill and have what should be cross hair aimed perfectly at a persons head and pull the trigger, specialling in CoD that doesn't even bother with bullet physics, and it doesn't hit them in the head then it isn't a Twitch game like the old style DM's like UT and Q3.

CoD is pretty fast paced and it and BF require a lot of skill but neither are twitch games by the standards set 10 years ago.

 

[smackababy]

CoD and BF may have cone of fire, but there are reasons for cone of fire. For example, if you're running and then suddenly stop to fire, your cone will be bigger than someone who was just standing there waiting. As it should be.

Not really. The "cone of fire" represents a random spear where a bullet my hit, which is very unrealistic. What would be realistic is, after sprinting, my aim was jerky and moving. Thus, achieving what the cone of fire is trying to achieve, only in a way not so dishonest and bull crap. The bullets are going to travel in a very predictable path from the barrel of the gun. There is very little variation. The problem with that is it gives an unfair advantage to people who have really good aim, thus making the masses of players, upset that one guy can kill him every time no matter what.

 

[smackababy]

COD and BF are twitch shooters. Halo is a strafe shooter.

Again, strafe shooter is not a term. I can find zero reference to strafe shooter outside of this thread and another thread on a different forum where a user is being called out for the same thing a year ago.

Stop making up BS.

 

[Midwayman]

Not really. The "cone of fire" represents a random spear where a bullet my hit, which is very unrealistic. What would be realistic is, after sprinting, my aim was jerky and moving. Thus, achieving what the cone of fire is trying to achieve, only in a way not so dishonest and bull crap. The bullets are going to travel in a very predictable path from the barrel of the gun. There is very little variation. The problem with that is it gives an unfair advantage to people who have really good aim, thus making the masses of players, upset that one guy can kill him every time no matter what.

Clearly you have never fired a real firearm. You can fire one from a bench and get a cone of fire.

 

[smackababy]

Clearly you have never fired a real firearm. You can fire one from a bench and get a cone of fire.

That is rather rich. I have fired quite a few firearms. They do not fire in any sort of "cone" the way it does in a video game. They fire in a path from where they are aimed, with little variance. Now, your aim might change slightly, resulting in where you're hitting to be different, but that isn't' a cone of fire.

 

[futurefields]

Again, strafe shooter is not a term. I can find zero reference to strafe shooter outside of this thread and another thread on a different forum where a user is being called out for the same thing a year ago.

Stop making up BS.

It's not BS, it's gameplay. Strafe shooters are called that because you have lots of health so every fight becomes a strafing dogfight. COD and BF are called twitch shooters because you die much faster, rarely are you in long dogfights where you are strafing aroung. Theres a lot of sidestepping but not much circle strafing.

 

[BSim500]

Both. It's not really an either-or answer. Deus Ex, Doom & Operation Flashpoint were all great fun all with different styles of play. As for new vs old, new games are certainly more realistic, but that's not always the same thing as being more fun (which is the primary reason for playing games). Regenerating health (infinite health per level) is no more "realistic" than stimpacks (finite health per level). Weapon limits work well for ARMA style games, but can make pseudo-arcade shooters boring & rigid. Some of the hardest "conserving ammo" games I've played have been community Doom WAD's which deliberately starved the player on high level settings, so even the same game can fit into both poll categories depending on map design. Cutscenes & QTE's can be annoying as hell in any game. For pure "stress relief", Doom (via Doomsday engine) & Serious Sam still work way better for me than any modern game.

Maybe it's just me, but I'd say many such games work really well when they don't take themselves too seriously and let the gamer game instead of trying to "entertain" them. At the end of the day, you basically just pick whatever game whose style suits your mood at the time you want to play (which can change day by day for each person). I regularly switched from Quake 3 to Thief to Age of Empires, and back again. It all depends on your mood as very few gamers limit themselves to just one sub-genre / style of gaming.

 

[Aikouka]

It's not BS, it's gameplay. Strafe shooters are called that because you have lots of health so every fight becomes a strafing dogfight. COD and BF are called twitch shooters because you die much faster, rarely are you in long dogfights where you are strafing aroung. Theres a lot of sidestepping but not much circle strafing.

Pretty sure they're really called Bunny Hop Shooters!