Have single-player FPS gone backwards?

MetalSoup

There's a GIF for that
TotalBiscuit brings you an exposé on the current state of first person shooters in comparison to older games in the genre.


I strongly agree with him for the most part. The only modern single player FPS that I still enjoy is the Half-Life franchise, I can't really think of anything else I really like as much as I did games like Doom, Duke Nukem 3D and the Quake game. What do you guys think?
 
Related video: oldie, but goodie :D


The thread title is incorrect. Games SHOULD go backwards. All this progressive "forward" movement isn't for me.

I like the question he raised about level design vs open world. I recently played Dishonoured and I think one of the reasons I enjoyed it so much was the level design. It wasn't brilliant, but it was sure of a lot better than anything else I played recently.

The Half Life games were very linear, but they had great level design - mostly manifest in how the story is told through it.

I think you just grew up tbh...

Doubt it. I've seen plenty of anecdotal evidence suggesting that even young people today who haven't grown up with classics like Duke 3D really like it and sometimes even prefer it if they give it a try.
 
I think you just grew up tbh...

I'll never grow up!

Also agree with Ser_Bunnylot. Dishonored was really good. It had lots of places to explore and "secrets" to find, I don't know if I would classify it as an FPS though, as I spent most of the time sneaking around. :)
 
I think you just grew up tbh...

Growing old is mandatory; growing up is optional. :)

I agree. FPS titles nowadays in general are too easy or at least too restrictive compared to shooters of old. The level design was way better back then and there were no -- or at least very few -- cutscenes or other pace-slowing nonsense to interrupt your play. There was also less in the way of gimmicks and hand-holding such as regenerating health or hints that pop up on the screen. I had to laugh at the Quake video. That is spot on. Nowadays you'd have to pay for the shareware episode, instead of it being free, and the rest would be paid DLC. And you'd only have about 2 or 3 of the game's weapons initially too.

In the past, people would say that a game looked like a movie (that was said about Half-Life). Now they look and play like movies, it seems.

This image pretty much says it all:

Q2gsF.png


I can't really think of anything else I really like as much as I did games like Doom, Duke Nukem 3D and the Quake game. What do you guys think?

Duke Nukem 3D will always be the king of shooters for me.
 
I strongly agree with him for the most part. The only modern single player FPS that I still enjoy is the Half-Life franchise, I can't really think of anything else I really like as much as I did games like Doom, Duke Nukem 3D and the Quake game. What do you guys think?

You cite the HL franchise as a good modern shooter franchise; HL2, which strongly dictates the gameplay of Ep1 and Ep2, was released closer to Quake 1 than to the present day.. I'm not sure it qualifies as a modern shooter anymore. :( Which emphasizes the point of the video, IMO.
 
I strongly agree with him for the most part. The only modern single player FPS that I still enjoy is the Half-Life franchise, I can't really think of anything else I really like as much as I did games like Doom, Duke Nukem 3D and the Quake game. What do you guys think?

You cite the HL franchise as a good modern shooter franchise; HL2, which strongly dictates the gameplay of Ep1 and Ep2, was released closer to Quake 1 than to the present day.. I'm not sure it qualifies as a modern shooter anymore. :( Which kinda emphasizes your point about modern shooters, IMO.
 
Totalbiscuit makes a good point about the level design and generic weapons.
I think the reason why FPS are how they are these days is due to the multi player audience.
FPS is a lot more multiplayer focused these days. Also, it brings along the following:

"Your gun does 0.1 more damage than mine?! Nerf it!!"
"Your rocket launcher can one hit kill?! OP!!"

And the publisher/PR person responds. Why?
Because the criers bring in the money through micro-transactions.

Can you imagine the outcry if someone discovered a rocket launcher in the middle of a multiplayer map?
Want the extra edges, buy a DLC? Everyone is generically equal unless you pay more.
Simply put, secret finds don't bring in cash.

Single player FPS these days still holds some of the level design with secrets. Eugene has mentioned Dishonoured as an example.
 
The problem is: Most shooters these days are your typical Modernised War Fighters.

Give the player a few maps -- some weapons, and watch them fight to their (virtual) deaths.
Fewer developers are implementing newer and completely different ideas/perspectives to the modern shooter genre.

What, in my opinion, needs to happen is: Make something other developers are too afraid to try out. Newer innovations, fresher ideas.
something that will have consumer in awe. It must have the same impression on the gamer as when franchises began. For instance - first time anyone saw Battlefield 3 gameplay, we were so stunned by how cinematic and good it looked - now it's "Meh". Having said that, Frostbite 3 still looks incredible.

TITANFALL (for me), is one of those games, and Destiny. Definitely something different - and worth a look-see.
 
I just wish they would take some 3rd person gameplay mechanics and implement them into an FPS. They are kind of getting there with cover based gameplay in FPS's but things like evasive manouvers and more hand to hand combat etc. are really missing in the FPS genre in my opinion.
 
The FPS and TPS genre's problem is that they no longer target gamers as their core audience. They target dudebros. In terms of complexity and in terms of intelligence/concentration required to play, the shooter genre has always been the genre with the lowest bar for entry. There's nothing inherently wrong with that; I enjoy the occasional shooter as well.

But, the problem is that the moment a game is in any way complex, it no longer appeals to the dudebro crowd. And there's really not much anyone can do about it, because the dudebro crowd is huge and as long as they keep buying this trash the decline of the shooter genre will continue.
 
I recently finished Bioshock Infinite and before that Metro 2033. Both were epic games imo. So my answer would be no.
 
Ironically enough, if you strip away the story then the gameplay of Bioshock Infinite is about as generic FPS as you get. It might not have been a bad game, but it sure as hell was a terrible FPS.
 
I couldn't stand Bioshock. Terrible game.

What was wrong with it? Sure the shooting wasn't brilliant but the story damn sure was!

Watched the video and I agree.

@Wyzak I'm pretty sure he was talking about Fps games in general. I mean Bioshock infinite and Metro isn't your average setting compared to Afganistan,Russia,USA etc. You see in Modern military shooters
 
Last edited:
I couldn't stand Bioshock. Terrible game.

To each their own then I guess. I loved it like I said above.

@Wyzak I'm pretty sure he was talking about Fps games in general. I mean Bioshock infinite and Metro isn't your average setting compared to Afganistan,Russia,USA etc. You see in Modern military shooters

Yeah I guess, but then wouldn't that just be the same for everything? There are way more games on the market now than there have ever been before and as such the average quality will probably be lower. Do you play all FPS games, or do you play the above average ones?
 
TotalBiscuit brings you an exposé on the current state of first person shooters in comparison to older games in the genre.

I strongly agree with him for the most part. The only modern single player FPS that I still enjoy is the Half-Life franchise, I can't really think of anything else I really like as much as I did games like Doom, Duke Nukem 3D and the Quake game. What do you guys think?

That made me think of this:

Michigan1985 said:
This game will forever be one of the best fps games ever created. I remember downloading every frag video I could find, this being one of them. Damn kids playing COD don't know what they missed out on. Don't make them like they used to, that's for sure.

Ironically enough, if you strip away the story then the gameplay of Bioshock Infinite is about as generic FPS as you get. It might not have been a bad game, but it sure as hell was a terrible FPS.

I strongly Agree, I watched a bit as my brother played on PC. While his skill in shooters is not as advanced as mine, he seemed to do well enough not to die all the time. It also looked rather generic looking, if I was not quizzing him every 30 seconds as to what, why, who and how? I would loose interest in the action altogether. As you said without the story it seemed like a average FPS to me.

I was hoping to pick it up on the SSS, but it's too much at the moment.
 
Last edited:
I played Doom 1 the other day to kill some time, and I ended up spending 4 hours on it - hugely entertaining. Then I got sad. They don't make them like that anymore. I texted a friend who totally agreed with me.
But why?
It's a relatively simple game where you can't even look up or down. The objective is to just reach the other end of the level. All you do is run and strafe and shoot monsters. Story? Pfft.
But maybe that's just it? Doom is simple by today's standards, but it got the basics spot on. The shooting feels good, it feels fulfilling. It's fun. It's pure.
The level design is actually excellent...corridor shooter it may be, but the levels are really well designed.

Where I feel many shooters fall flat is that they fail to even get the basics right, like the satisfaction of simply shooting an enemy. Also, regenerating health and the duck & cover system is, imo, rubbish. Doom made life tough by throwing swathes of enemies at you, and there was nowhere to hide. It was intense. How intense - how much fun - is it to hide behind an indestructible object and just pot-shot enemies, who don't even use cover properly and inevitably will pop their heads out from behind cover, so you just sit there and wait?
It was fun for 5 minutes but it's run it's course as a gameplay mechanic, imo. Been there, done that.

Obviously we can't sit and play Doom for the rest of our lives, but it does highlight that getting the basics right is more important than adding some nonsensical story, useable vehicles and supposed non-linear level design just for the sake of it, or to appear more sophisticated. Linearity can be a good thing, a great thing even.
I loved Borderlands 2, but all the driving got insanely boring and the enemies couldn't use cover properly for tuppence. Okay, so it's not a traditional shooter but at heart it's still a shooter.

Think of what would happen if they launched Doom 4 tomorrow. I bet it would have sniper rifles, regenerating health, duck & cover (or something close to it) vehicles, non-linear level design, some sort of deeper storyline than Doom 1...and it would be all the worse for it.

From a member on Metacritic:

"I had never played a doom game before I downloaded this on xbox live and I was really surprised by how good it was. Even though the graphics are dated, the game play is actually a lot more fun than most modern fps games."

From another:

"I never played doom 1 before it came with doom 3, so I never knew what all the rage is about. I didn't realize I would have so much fun playing it. It was more fun than a lot of the modern games out nowadays. The shooting and hit detection was spot on and the shotgun so satisfying. The game was both challenging and fun to find secrets and get to the exit"
 
Last edited:
Back
Top