Will old school always get low GS score from now on?!

It boggles the mind to see some good FPs get some low score here at Gamespot. Clearly the reviews are biased because the reviewer is rating the game other games and also that he is expecting the game to come up with something absolutely new which ia almost impossible for an FPS.

For FPS you can re invent the hweel with every game that comes out so why judge it with what it could be? why not judge it for what it is? Most FPS are about going on a path an shooting stuff up...like i said you cannot revolutionize that too much. The only thing you can add is more realistic features to the game but what if the intent was to have a run and gun mindless game like the first days of fps, should the game loose a lot of points because of that?

hard reset and space marines got low reviews...ok the reviews make sense but like i said they are old school fps, 10 years ago those game would have been called cutting edge, now people just go meh! does that disqualify it from being good?

It boggles the mind to see some good FPs get some low score here at Gamespot. Clearly the reviews are biased because the reviewer is rating the game other games and also that he is expecting the game to come up with something absolutely new which ia almost impossible for an FPS.

For FPS you can re invent the hweel with every game that comes out so why judge it with what it could be? why not judge it for what it is? Most FPS are about going on a path an shooting stuff up...like i said you cannot revolutionize that too much. The only thing you can add is more realistic features to the game but what if the intent was to have a run and gun mindless game like the first days of fps, should the game loose a lot of points because of that?

hard reset and space marines got low reviews...ok the reviews make sense but like i said they are old school fps, 10 years ago those game would have been called cutting edge, now people just go meh! does that disqualify it from being good?

kokonut1971

Things evolve.

Would you call a cellphone from 10 years ago good just because it was good 10 years ago? I think not.

[QUOTE="kokonut1971"]

It boggles the mind to see some good FPs get some low score here at Gamespot. Clearly the reviews are biased because the reviewer is rating the game other games and also that he is expecting the game to come up with something absolutely new which ia almost impossible for an FPS.

For FPS you can re invent the hweel with every game that comes out so why judge it with what it could be? why not judge it for what it is? Most FPS are about going on a path an shooting stuff up...like i said you cannot revolutionize that too much. The only thing you can add is more realistic features to the game but what if the intent was to have a run and gun mindless game like the first days of fps, should the game loose a lot of points because of that?

hard reset and space marines got low reviews...ok the reviews make sense but like i said they are old school fps, 10 years ago those game would have been called cutting edge, now people just go meh! does that disqualify it from being good?

Arthur96

Things evolve.

Would you call a cellphone from 10 years ago good just because it was good 10 years ago? I think not.

Hard Reset is short, unbalanced and unpolished. Space Marine is extremely repetitive. These were issues ten years ago too.

[QUOTE="kokonut1971"]

It boggles the mind to see some good FPs get some low score here at Gamespot. Clearly the reviews are biased because the reviewer is rating the game other games and also that he is expecting the game to come up with something absolutely new which ia almost impossible for an FPS.

For FPS you can re invent the hweel with every game that comes out so why judge it with what it could be? why not judge it for what it is? Most FPS are about going on a path an shooting stuff up...like i said you cannot revolutionize that too much. The only thing you can add is more realistic features to the game but what if the intent was to have a run and gun mindless game like the first days of fps, should the game loose a lot of points because of that?

hard reset and space marines got low reviews...ok the reviews make sense but like i said they are old school fps, 10 years ago those game would have been called cutting edge, now people just go meh! does that disqualify it from being good?

Arthur96

Things evolve.

Would you call a cellphone from 10 years ago good just because it was good 10 years ago? I think not.

[QUOTE="kokonut1971"]

It boggles the mind to see some good FPs get some low score here at Gamespot. Clearly the reviews are biased because the reviewer is rating the game other games and also that he is expecting the game to come up with something absolutely new which ia almost impossible for an FPS.

For FPS you can re invent the hweel with every game that comes out so why judge it with what it could be? why not judge it for what it is? Most FPS are about going on a path an shooting stuff up...like i said you cannot revolutionize that too much. The only thing you can add is more realistic features to the game but what if the intent was to have a run and gun mindless game like the first days of fps, should the game loose a lot of points because of that?

hard reset and space marines got low reviews...ok the reviews make sense but like i said they are old school fps, 10 years ago those game would have been called cutting edge, now people just go meh! does that disqualify it from being good?

Arthur96

Things evolve.

Would you call a cellphone from 10 years ago good just because it was good 10 years ago? I think not.

lol but can't say the same for say... Violins or pianos.

[QUOTE="kokonut1971"]

It boggles the mind to see some good FPs get some low score here at Gamespot. Clearly the reviews are biased because the reviewer is rating the game other games and also that he is expecting the game to come up with something absolutely new which ia almost impossible for an FPS.

For FPS you can re invent the hweel with every game that comes out so why judge it with what it could be? why not judge it for what it is? Most FPS are about going on a path an shooting stuff up...like i said you cannot revolutionize that too much. The only thing you can add is more realistic features to the game but what if the intent was to have a run and gun mindless game like the first days of fps, should the game loose a lot of points because of that?

hard reset and space marines got low reviews...ok the reviews make sense but like i said they are old school fps, 10 years ago those game would have been called cutting edge, now people just go meh! does that disqualify it from being good?

Arthur96

Things evolve.

Would you call a cellphone from 10 years ago good just because it was good 10 years ago? I think not.

I think Hard Reset is a great game. Another one they recently scored very low that I disagree with is Rock of Ages. But in the end, who really cares? It's all just personal opinion. raven_squad

[QUOTE="raven_squad"]I think Hard Reset is a great game. Another one they recently scored very low that I disagree with is Rock of Ages. But in the end, who really cares? It's all just personal opinion. vfibsux

[QUOTE="Arthur96"]

[QUOTE="kokonut1971"]

It boggles the mind to see some good FPs get some low score here at Gamespot. Clearly the reviews are biased because the reviewer is rating the game other games and also that he is expecting the game to come up with something absolutely new which ia almost impossible for an FPS.

For FPS you can re invent the hweel with every game that comes out so why judge it with what it could be? why not judge it for what it is? Most FPS are about going on a path an shooting stuff up...like i said you cannot revolutionize that too much. The only thing you can add is more realistic features to the game but what if the intent was to have a run and gun mindless game like the first days of fps, should the game loose a lot of points because of that?

hard reset and space marines got low reviews...ok the reviews make sense but like i said they are old school fps, 10 years ago those game would have been called cutting edge, now people just go meh! does that disqualify it from being good?

Lach0121

Things evolve.

Would you call a cellphone from 10 years ago good just because it was good 10 years ago? I think not.

lol but can't say the same for say... Violins or pianos.

Yes but you can with games.

No matter how good games were 10 years ago, specifically reusing the formula in modern games is silly. I can always go on GOG, download say... Duke Nukem and play it.

Old school is old school for a reason: it's old. It should stay that way.

[QUOTE="Lach0121"]

[QUOTE="Arthur96"]

Things evolve.

Would you call a cellphone from 10 years ago good just because it was good 10 years ago? I think not.

Arthur96

lol but can't say the same for say... Violins or pianos.

Yes but you can with games.

No matter how good games were 10 years ago, specifically reusing the formula in modern games is silly. I can always go on GOG, download say... Duke Nukem and play it.

Old school is old school for a reason: it's old. It should stay that way.

[QUOTE="Arthur96"]

[QUOTE="Lach0121"]

lol but can't say the same for say... Violins or pianos.

vfibsux

Yes but you can with games.

No matter how good games were 10 years ago, specifically reusing the formula in modern games is silly. I can always go on GOG, download say... Duke Nukem and play it.

Old school is old school for a reason: it's old. It should stay that way.

hard reset and space marines got low reviews...ok the reviews make sense but like i said they are old school fps, 10 years ago those game would have been called cutting edge, now people just go meh! does that disqualify it from being good?

kokonut1971

A 7 is still a good score(hence the 'good' under the score)

[QUOTE="vfibsux"][QUOTE="Arthur96"]

Yes but you can with games.

No matter how good games were 10 years ago, specifically reusing the formula in modern games is silly. I can always go on GOG, download say... Duke Nukem and play it.

Old school is old school for a reason: it's old. It should stay that way.

Diophage

I think Hard Reset gets bonus points for not being a CoD clones.

[QUOTE="Diophage"][QUOTE="vfibsux"] Completely disagree, because old school does not mean outdated graphics, it means awesome gameplay. The old school games were better in so many ways because gameplay was greater than visuals. Today it seems most new games are so busy trying to push the visual element they forget to create a good gaming experience. Saying that, just as with Hard Reset, you can get that old school gameplay feel and throw in new graphics and have a good time with the best of both worlds. Who wouldn't love to see old school classic recreated exactly as they were but with modern graphics? Why does old school gameplay have to stay back in the 80's and 90's? What you are talking about would better be related to movies than pc gaming.GummiRaccoon

I think Hard Reset gets bonus points for not being a CoD clones.

[QUOTE="vfibsux"][QUOTE="Arthur96"]

Yes but you can with games.

No matter how good games were 10 years ago, specifically reusing the formula in modern games is silly. I can always go on GOG, download say... Duke Nukem and play it.

Old school is old school for a reason: it's old. It should stay that way.

Diophage

I think most old school shooters are as shallow as their modern counter parts. I mean, what did you do in games like Doom and Quake that was so deep? You just run around, kill enemies, look for keys and repeat the same crap over and over. There are some exceptions to the formula, though, like the original Half-Life.

Shooters yes, but was speaking in general terms. Still rather have an old school shooter that doesn't resemble a theme park ride.

[QUOTE="Arthur96"]

[QUOTE="Lach0121"]

lol but can't say the same for say... Violins or pianos.

vfibsux

Yes but you can with games.

No matter how good games were 10 years ago, specifically reusing the formula in modern games is silly. I can always go on GOG, download say... Duke Nukem and play it.

Old school is old school for a reason: it's old. It should stay that way.

considering that standards and quality are constantly evolving, usually for the better, yes..."old school" games will continue to get the lower scores they deserve.

Don't get me wrong, I enjoy old school feeling games, but the hard truth is that they are dated and require less thought to produce imo.

Had Painkiller (anything after Battle Out of Hell never happened) come out this year it would have probably scored a 8.5 or 9 because the game is a good game regardless of age because it has good design decisions and does what is set out to do very well.

Hard Reset didn't really accomplish what it set out to do from design decisions. Who thought limiting sprint in this type of game was a good idea? Strafing is arguably the most important element in this type of game. Then the campaign was extremely limited in enemies and length. Painkiller was constantly throwing new things at you where you had to think on your feet for the 10-15 hour campaign (more if you unlocked all the tarot cards).

I would generally agree. Old-school is old-school for a reason, innovation has come along and set a new standard. I mean, would you be happy with HL2 if it was just improved graphics and a new story? I sure as hell wouldn't. Or TF2 for that matter. I'm not saying I don't appreciate old-school RPG and FPS games, but I wont put them in the same weight class as modern counterparts when it comes to reviews. That is not to say they aren't good games (Hard Reset seems pretty cool, EYE is a modernized Deus Ex from the feel of it), but a lot of innovation in FPS has come along in the last ten years.SerOlmy

Yes, 100 times yes. Half-Life 2 had terrible gunplay, terrible enemies and had a laughable story. All it did well was the constant changing of locations and the use of narrative storytelling (it makes a terrible story average to good because of how it is told for instance).

'Innovation' took away multiple paths through a level and forced linear corridor after linear corridor with regenerating health. As far as I'm concerned shooters should be looking back at Quake, Painkiller, Half-Life 1 (despite not liking the sequel I consider this one of the best FPS of all time) and Doom for inspiration. There was a time when the FPS genre actually got my blood pumping. Every time I replay those games my blood is pumping on the highest difficulty.

Can the same be said for Call of Duty after 10 runthroughs of the highest difficulty? In fact why would I ever bother playing a Call of Duty game or Half-Life 2 through more then once or twice?

Had Painkiller (anything after Battle Out of Hell never happened) come out this year it would have probably scored a 8.5 or 9 because the game is a good game regardless of age because it has good design decisions and does what is set out to do very well.

Hard Reset didn't really accomplish what it set out to do from design decisions. Who thought limiting sprint in this type of game was a good idea? Strafing is arguably the most important element in this type of game. Then the campaign was extremely limited in enemies and length. Painkiller was constantly throwing new things at you where you had to think on your feet for the 10-15 hour campaign (more if you unlocked all the tarot cards).

[QUOTE="SerOlmy"]I would generally agree. Old-school is old-school for a reason, innovation has come along and set a new standard. I mean, would you be happy with HL2 if it was just improved graphics and a new story? I sure as hell wouldn't. Or TF2 for that matter. I'm not saying I don't appreciate old-school RPG and FPS games, but I wont put them in the same weight class as modern counterparts when it comes to reviews. That is not to say they aren't good games (Hard Reset seems pretty cool, EYE is a modernized Deus Ex from the feel of it), but a lot of innovation in FPS has come along in the last ten years.Whiteblade999

Yes, 100 times yes. Half-Life 2 had terrible gunplay, terrible enemies and had a laughable story. All it did well was the constant changing of locations and the use of narrative storytelling (it makes a terrible story average to good because of how it is told for instance).

'Innovation' took away multiple paths through a level and forced linear corridor after linear corridor with regenerating health. As far as I'm concerned shooters should be looking back at Quake, Painkiller, Half-Life 1 (despite not liking the sequel I consider this one of the best FPS of all time) and Doom for inspiration. There was a time when the FPS genre actually got my blood pumping. Every time I replay those games my blood is pumping on the highest difficulty.

Can the same be said for Call of Duty after 10 runthroughs of the highest difficulty? In fact why would I ever bother playing a Call of Duty game or Half-Life 2 through more then once or twice?

LOL, I guess we played different version of HL2...

Had Painkiller (anything after Battle Out of Hell never happened) come out this year it would have probably scored a 8.5 or 9 because the game is a good game regardless of age because it has good design decisions and does what is set out to do very well.

Hard Reset didn't really accomplish what it set out to do from design decisions. Who thought limiting sprint in this type of game was a good idea? Strafing is arguably the most important element in this type of game. Then the campaign was extremely limited in enemies and length. Painkiller was constantly throwing new things at you where you had to think on your feet for the 10-15 hour campaign (more if you unlocked all the tarot cards).

[QUOTE="SerOlmy"]I would generally agree. Old-school is old-school for a reason, innovation has come along and set a new standard. I mean, would you be happy with HL2 if it was just improved graphics and a new story? I sure as hell wouldn't. Or TF2 for that matter. I'm not saying I don't appreciate old-school RPG and FPS games, but I wont put them in the same weight class as modern counterparts when it comes to reviews. That is not to say they aren't good games (Hard Reset seems pretty cool, EYE is a modernized Deus Ex from the feel of it), but a lot of innovation in FPS has come along in the last ten years.Whiteblade999

Yes, 100 times yes. Half-Life 2 had terrible gunplay, terrible enemies and had a laughable story. All it did well was the constant changing of locations and the use of narrative storytelling (it makes a terrible story average to good because of how it is told for instance).

'Innovation' took away multiple paths through a level and forced linear corridor after linear corridor with regenerating health. As far as I'm concerned shooters should be looking back at Quake, Painkiller, Half-Life 1 (despite not liking the sequel I consider this one of the best FPS of all time) and Doom for inspiration. There was a time when the FPS genre actually got my blood pumping. Every time I replay those games my blood is pumping on the highest difficulty.

Can the same be said for Call of Duty after 10 runthroughs of the highest difficulty? In fact why would I ever bother playing a Call of Duty game or Half-Life 2 through more then once or twice?

The fact that you say anything about HL2 was terrible completely undermines everything you say.

The fact that you say anything about HL2 was terrible completely undermines everything you say.

GummiRaccoon

Strong argument you make there. Care to enlighten me on how my opinion is wrong? I can respect the majority of people on this board who like it but if you don't want to look like a troll add why you like it or why you think I am wrong.

We need more first person shooters that aren't always about linear, scripted experiences. I think Prey 2 and Rage look promising in the regard that they step out of that convention a bit. Nothing wrong with games like Call of Duty existing, but we have way, way too many of them. Diophage

This. Much of the appeal of 'old school' shooters are their lack of some extraneous gaming conventions such as a focus on story, heavily scripted encounters, recharging health and aim down sights. The lack of these can make for a liberating experience.

I have always favoured halo over most console fps because it had huge, unscripted battles where the player could make SOME descisions for himself, unlike COD for example.

By extraneous I dont mean bad, but not completely neccecary to have for a game to be fun. Unfortunately hard reset doesn't have the same branching levels doom had, but it still has great gameplay and graphics.

Imo it deserved an 8, but a 7 isn't a travesty. I hope RO2 gets a decent review though

[QUOTE="GummiRaccoon"]

The fact that you say anything about HL2 was terrible completely undermines everything you say.

Whiteblade999

Strong argument you make there. Care to enlighten me on how my opinion is wrong? I can respect the majority of people on this board who like it but if you don't want to look like a troll add why you like it or why you think I am wrong.

The problem is you are the one making the claim that everyone in all of the gaming world would disagree with, seeing as how HL2 is the highest rated game of all time.

If you are going to claim that it is terrible, YOU are the one who needs to provide proof.

[QUOTE="Diophage"]We need more first person shooters that aren't always about linear, scripted experiences. I think Prey 2 and Rage look promising in the regard that they step out of that convention a bit. Nothing wrong with games like Call of Duty existing, but we have way, way too many of them. R3dx3

This. Much of the appeal of 'old school' shooters are their lack of some extraneous gaming conventions such as a focus on story, heavily scripted encounters, recharging health and aim down sights. The lack of these can make for a liberating experience.

I have always favoured halo over most console fps because it had huge, unscripted battles where the player could make SOME descisions for himself, unlike COD for example.

By extraneous I dont mean bad, but not completely neccecary to have for a game to be fun. Unfortunately hard reset doesn't have the same branching levels doom had, but it still has great gameplay and graphics.

Imo it deserved an 8, but a 7 isn't a travesty. I hope RO2 gets a decent review though

[QUOTE="Arthur96"]

[QUOTE="kokonut1971"]

It boggles the mind to see some good FPs get some low score here at Gamespot. Clearly the reviews are biased because the reviewer is rating the game other games and also that he is expecting the game to come up with something absolutely new which ia almost impossible for an FPS.

For FPS you can re invent the hweel with every game that comes out so why judge it with what it could be? why not judge it for what it is? Most FPS are about going on a path an shooting stuff up...like i said you cannot revolutionize that too much. The only thing you can add is more realistic features to the game but what if the intent was to have a run and gun mindless game like the first days of fps, should the game loose a lot of points because of that?

hard reset and space marines got low reviews...ok the reviews make sense but like i said they are old school fps, 10 years ago those game would have been called cutting edge, now people just go meh! does that disqualify it from being good?

Los9090

Things evolve.

Would you call a cellphone from 10 years ago good just because it was good 10 years ago? I think not.

Very good point...there are some goods that are timeless but will probably go down a full point in rating due to its time.

No that's a very bad point imho, a cellphone is essentially a utility device, a game is purely an entertainment product.

Films are a much more fair comparison, there are a lot of movies that were awesome back in the day but aged badly. But yet there are those timeless classics that can still spank many of the best movies today.

[QUOTE="Whiteblade999"]

Had Painkiller (anything after Battle Out of Hell never happened) come out this year it would have probably scored a 8.5 or 9 because the game is a good game regardless of age because it has good design decisions and does what is set out to do very well.

Hard Reset didn't really accomplish what it set out to do from design decisions. Who thought limiting sprint in this type of game was a good idea? Strafing is arguably the most important element in this type of game. Then the campaign was extremely limited in enemies and length. Painkiller was constantly throwing new things at you where you had to think on your feet for the 10-15 hour campaign (more if you unlocked all the tarot cards).

[QUOTE="SerOlmy"]I would generally agree. Old-school is old-school for a reason, innovation has come along and set a new standard. I mean, would you be happy with HL2 if it was just improved graphics and a new story? I sure as hell wouldn't. Or TF2 for that matter. I'm not saying I don't appreciate old-school RPG and FPS games, but I wont put them in the same weight class as modern counterparts when it comes to reviews. That is not to say they aren't good games (Hard Reset seems pretty cool, EYE is a modernized Deus Ex from the feel of it), but a lot of innovation in FPS has come along in the last ten years.FelipeInside

Yes, 100 times yes. Half-Life 2 had terrible gunplay, terrible enemies and had a laughable story. All it did well was the constant changing of locations and the use of narrative storytelling (it makes a terrible story average to good because of how it is told for instance).

'Innovation' took away multiple paths through a level and forced linear corridor after linear corridor with regenerating health. As far as I'm concerned shooters should be looking back at Quake, Painkiller, Half-Life 1 (despite not liking the sequel I consider this one of the best FPS of all time) and Doom for inspiration. There was a time when the FPS genre actually got my blood pumping. Every time I replay those games my blood is pumping on the highest difficulty.

Can the same be said for Call of Duty after 10 runthroughs of the highest difficulty? In fact why would I ever bother playing a Call of Duty game or Half-Life 2 through more then once or twice?

LOL, I guess we played different version of HL2...

I also don't see what's so great about HL2. While I think the story is very good, I didn't think much of the gameplay. Enemy variety also left a lot to be desired. Maybe I just played it too late? I got it with the Orange Box.

[QUOTE="GummiRaccoon"]

The fact that you say anything about HL2 was terrible completely undermines everything you say.

Whiteblade999

Strong argument you make there. Care to enlighten me on how my opinion is wrong? I can respect the majority of people on this board who like it but if you don't want to look like a troll add why you like it or why you think I am wrong.

[QUOTE="Whiteblade999"]

[QUOTE="GummiRaccoon"]

The fact that you say anything about HL2 was terrible completely undermines everything you say.

skrat_01

Strong argument you make there. Care to enlighten me on how my opinion is wrong? I can respect the majority of people on this board who like it but if you don't want to look like a troll add why you like it or why you think I am wrong.

[QUOTE="vfibsux"][QUOTE="Arthur96"]

Yes but you can with games.

No matter how good games were 10 years ago, specifically reusing the formula in modern games is silly. I can always go on GOG, download say... Duke Nukem and play it.

Old school is old school for a reason: it's old. It should stay that way.

FelipeInside

And I disagree with that. Gameplay by no means is worse these days. Look at HL2.... they revolutionized the FPS gameplay and made it still fun and awesome.

You do realize HL2 came out 7 years ago? Hardly "these days" esp when talking in terms of the PC. "Back then" the GeForce 5000 series and Radeon 9800's were top of the line graphics cards, just to give you some perspective.

I would argue HL2 still fits into the old school category as a non-linear fps with large levels and puzzles to solve.

[QUOTE="R3dx3"]

[QUOTE="Diophage"]We need more first person shooters that aren't always about linear, scripted experiences. I think Prey 2 and Rage look promising in the regard that they step out of that convention a bit. Nothing wrong with games like Call of Duty existing, but we have way, way too many of them. FelipeInside

This. Much of the appeal of 'old school' shooters are their lack of some extraneous gaming conventions such as a focus on story, heavily scripted encounters, recharging health and aim down sights. The lack of these can make for a liberating experience.

I have always favoured halo over most console fps because it had huge, unscripted battles where the player could make SOME descisions for himself, unlike COD for example.

By extraneous I dont mean bad, but not completely neccecary to have for a game to be fun. Unfortunately hard reset doesn't have the same branching levels doom had, but it still has great gameplay and graphics.

Imo it deserved an 8, but a 7 isn't a travesty. I hope RO2 gets a decent review though

[QUOTE="FelipeInside"][QUOTE="vfibsux"] Completely disagree, because old school does not mean outdated graphics, it means awesome gameplay. The old school games were better in so many ways because gameplay was greater than visuals. Today it seems most new games are so busy trying to push the visual element they forget to create a good gaming experience. Saying that, just as with Hard Reset, you can get that old school gameplay feel and throw in new graphics and have a good time with the best of both worlds. Who wouldn't love to see old school classic recreated exactly as they were but with modern graphics? Why does old school gameplay have to stay back in the 80's and 90's? What you are talking about would better be related to movies than pc gaming.vfibsux

And I disagree with that. Gameplay by no means is worse these days. Look at HL2.... they revolutionized the FPS gameplay and made it still fun and awesome.

You do realize HL2 came out 7 years ago? Hardly "these days" esp when talking in terms of the PC. The GeForce 5000 series and Radeon 9800's were top of the line graphics cards, just to give you some perspective. I would argue HL2 still fits into the old school category as a non-linear fps with large levels and puzzles to solve.

[QUOTE="vfibsux"]

[QUOTE="FelipeInside"]

And I disagree with that. Gameplay by no means is worse these days. Look at HL2.... they revolutionized the FPS gameplay and made it still fun and awesome.Diophage

You do realize HL2 came out 7 years ago? Hardly "these days" esp when talking in terms of the PC. The GeForce 5000 series and Radeon 9800's were top of the line graphics cards, just to give you some perspective. I would argue HL2 still fits into the old school category as a non-linear fps with large levels and puzzles to solve.

Yes it has some linear too it, as Fel stated is was revolutionary and probably could be said it was the beginning of the modern day shooter on rails. I still think it falls more into the old school category than what we get these days. Maybe I'm remembering it wrong, been a while since I played it but I loved the game, and I hate modern shooters.

Crysis/Far Cry's are def in a category by themselves when it comes to shooters. When talking modern shooters I'm talking more the BF and CoD series.

HL2 (...) non-linear

vfibsux

Does not compute...

[QUOTE="Diophage"][QUOTE="vfibsux"]

You do realize HL2 came out 7 years ago? Hardly "these days" esp when talking in terms of the PC. The GeForce 5000 series and Radeon 9800's were top of the line graphics cards, just to give you some perspective. I would argue HL2 still fits into the old school category as a non-linear fps with large levels and puzzles to solve.

vfibsux

Yes it has some linear too it, as Fel stated is was revolutionary and probably could be said it was the beginning of the modern day shooter on rails. I still think it falls more into the old school category than what we get these days. Maybe I'm remembering it wrong, been a while since I played it but I loved the game, and I hate modern shooters.

Crysis/Far Cry's are def in a category by themselves when it comes to shooters. When talking modern shooters I'm talking more the BF and CoD series.

I disagree, I think it is just that many of the new 'old school' shooters are not good enough ! Gamespot does not rate Old School stuff badly. Look at all the indiegames with high ratings, they are certainly old school in scope and graphics but get very high ratings. Also, check out the recent review for Avadon: The Black Fortress, an low-graphics, hardcore RPG that is as old school as it gets and it got a 7 ! The same as Warhammer 40K and Dead Island ! So, I disagree.

If you are going to claim that it is terrible, YOU are the one who needs to provide proof.

GummiRaccoon

Didn't read the post where I said it had terrible gunplay, terrible enemies and a laughable story? Your post in response pretty much says "you say this so you must be wrong."

[QUOTE="vfibsux"]

[QUOTE="FelipeInside"]

And I disagree with that. Gameplay by no means is worse these days. Look at HL2.... they revolutionized the FPS gameplay and made it still fun and awesome.Diophage

You do realize HL2 came out 7 years ago? Hardly "these days" esp when talking in terms of the PC. The GeForce 5000 series and Radeon 9800's were top of the line graphics cards, just to give you some perspective. I would argue HL2 still fits into the old school category as a non-linear fps with large levels and puzzles to solve.

That's what I don't understand. If I remember correctly, Doom, Quake and Duke just had one linear path to finish each level...

[QUOTE="Diophage"][QUOTE="vfibsux"]

You do realize HL2 came out 7 years ago? Hardly "these days" esp when talking in terms of the PC. The GeForce 5000 series and Radeon 9800's were top of the line graphics cards, just to give you some perspective. I would argue HL2 still fits into the old school category as a non-linear fps with large levels and puzzles to solve.

FelipeInside

That's what I don't understand. If I remember correctly, Doom, Quake and Duke just had one linear path to finish each level...

[QUOTE="GummiRaccoon"]

If you are going to claim that it is terrible, YOU are the one who needs to provide proof.

Whiteblade999

Didn't read the post where I said it had terrible gunplay, terrible enemies and a laughable story? Your post in response pretty much says "you say this so you must be wrong."

You need to provide how the gunplay was terrible, how the enemies are terrible and how the story is laughable.

Nothing you said provided any proof of anything.

If you are going to challenge to top rated PC game of all time as being terrible, you better provide significant back up to your claim. Just saying what you think is terrible doesn't explain how it is terrible.

[QUOTE="FelipeInside"]

[QUOTE="Diophage"]Half-Life 2 is totally linear. I even thought Half-Life 1 was pretty linear. The only first person shooters that give me the feeling that they're non linear are Doom, Quake, Duke Nukem, or similar games like that. Well, that, and games like Crysis (not 2), Far Cry, Far Cry, etc. DanielDust

That's what I don't understand. If I remember correctly, Doom, Quake and Duke just had one linear path to finish each level...

[QUOTE="DanielDust"][QUOTE="FelipeInside"]

That's what I don't understand. If I remember correctly, Doom, Quake and Duke just had one linear path to finish each level...

Diophage

I still don't know to what extent.

CoD is very linear.... but there are still a few ways to get around in "some" of the maps. HL2 in general is linear, but some maps give you a good freedom to tackle it from various points.

They aren't as free as something like Crysis... but the old school ones were VERY linear imo.... only one way in, one way out...which is natural cause it was the way FPS were designed back then.

[QUOTE="Diophage"][QUOTE="DanielDust"] Correct, Duke was the one that had pretty 3D levels, certain maps took you from up high to down low, but they were all linear, can't go here go that way, get card, open this and continue is linear not non linear.FelipeInside

I still don't know to what extent.

CoD is very linear.... but there are still a few ways to get around in "some" of the maps. HL2 in general is linear, but some maps give you a good freedom to tackle it from various points.

They aren't as free as something like Crysis... but the old school ones were VERY linear imo.... only one way in, one way out...which is natural cause it was the way FPS were designed back then.

It depends some people consider backtracking as a bad thing that doesn't hide the linearity at all and I am one of those, Duke, Quake, CoD, they are all just as linear for me, Wolfenstein, Splinter Cell and others, those are not that linear, there are few games that manage to not be so linear and also not feel awkward, the FPS that goes for atmosphere and experience is never that open, and there are few that take the risk to make non linear ones, because a non linear shooter has a different purpose and people have different expectations. Put CoD in such a formula and a disaster will happen, linear games need only to impress you and it might easily do that, but an open shooter can't impress anyone with its intensity and action, it needs substance and lots of it if the devs want such a game to be great and not one of the hundreds that get released each year.

[QUOTE="FelipeInside"]

[QUOTE="Diophage"]I was never debating to what extent they were non-linear, but they are most certainly less linear than Call of Duty and Half-Life 2. Diophage

I still don't know to what extent.

CoD is very linear.... but there are still a few ways to get around in "some" of the maps. HL2 in general is linear, but some maps give you a good freedom to tackle it from various points.

They aren't as free as something like Crysis... but the old school ones were VERY linear imo.... only one way in, one way out...which is natural cause it was the way FPS were designed back then.