If Quake was done today

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W1ZtBCpo0eU

So true

True, funny and sad, very sad.

It's sad to think that today's kids are being raised with corridors, arrows, excessive tips and the "awesome" button, treated like derps by game developers while we were raised and forged by games like Doom, Quake, Hexen, Heretic, etc.

It's actually pretty tragic, how true this video is. And how valid a point it makes.

I dont see what people are complaining about, looks like goty material to me:P

On a serious note, he hit most aspects. But forgot 4 flaws with modern shooters, namely 2 weapon limits limits, health regen, over abundance of set pieces and heavy use of cutscenes (the devs trying to shoehorn a story in because that is "trendy").

I miss shooters back in the old days, no story detracting from the action. Though I dont mind an excellent story like Deus Ex's and System Shock 2's, but I feel that if you are going to have a story, it better be good, anything worse than good just ends up wasting our time. Gaming needs to be less cinematic.

Whats wrong with you guys? If you miss old shooters than go join me in Ql. But dun waste my time, you need to be atleast tier4 in CA to stand a chance, and be able to atleast 35% lg in a 1v1.

http://www.quakelive.com/#!profile/statistics/jigglywiggly

Every once in a while I think about picking up Q3A or Q3TA as I have both on Steam, and then I remember just how skilled players out there are at those games and I chicken out. lol.

But then I don't understand why you guys want hardcore games again if you don't want to play them...?JigglyWiggly_

[QUOTE="JigglyWiggly_"]There's not much point buying Q3A or bad Q3TA. Play quake live much better net code and it's more balanced. By that I mean weapon damage changes, 100 dmg for rail before was too much, although it would suit be better since I'm more of an aim player. LG did more damage too. But the reason probably was because back then everyone had crappier Internet. Quake live reg is also easier to hit rails, it's more leniant.NoAssKicker47

But then I don't understand why you guys want hardcore games again if you don't want to play them...?JigglyWiggly_

because we want newcomers to understand the point. the sad sureal point that fps's were alot more creative back before games like medal of honor AA and CoD were tying us down to realistic event and realistic game mechanics. fps's today arent bad and they certainly look alot better and sound alot better but it came at a cost of the fps losing its fun for veterans of the genre. fun had to die for the sake of the modern face of FPS's and its a darn shame. they have little/no appreciation for that.

quake, doom, unreal, UT99, DN:3D. this was the beautifully addicted era of the fps genre that was truly outstanding to watch being played.. now you have this..

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LWi1zeJNpoQ

and this..

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e_S2iW2bhGE

i rememebr playing doom2 day-in and day-out so much i had to BANDAGE MY FINGERS one time cause id run my finger raw. no killzone or CoD player does that..

True, funny and sad, very sad.

It's sad to think that today's kids are being raised with corridors, arrows, excessive tips and the "awesome" button, treated like derps by game developers while we were raised and forged by games like Doom, Quake, Hexen, Heretic, etc.

RyuRanVII

typical hyperbole by the gaming right-wing, with an unhealthy dose of nostalgia.

Corridors? Quake was the definition of a corridor shooter; it was literally hallway after hallway after courtyard after hallway. Oh, look, a key! Now go and open the door. Repeat.

Tips? Sometimes they are needed; how many people would know to press Q in Battlefield to spot enemies if the loading screen (not the in-game screen, mind you) did not tell you? How many people would know that you can dodge in Unreal Tournement if they didn't hold your hand for a level or two? Tips make better players, and better players make games more competative and fun.

Quake was awesome when I was a kid. I loved that game. I loved Wolfenstein, Duke 3D, Dune 2, Syndicate, Myst, Myth, and all those games. But I also believed in Santa Claus, loved Coco Puffs, and all that kiddy stuff. Looking back, I love that I enjoyed that stuff, but I also acknowledge that I've grown up and to hold that stuff to the same standard as I do modern products is just plain silly.

I envy the developers that made games during my childhood. They had things so incredibly easy, it is not even funny. Today's developers not only have to compete with a flooded market, but the tools they use are far more advanced and complex, and they are dealing with an ever-increasing snobby crowd.

The best we can hope for is that developers take the best of the old, and blend it with the new. And, for the most part, they do. Games are funner to play, easier to get into, and have more depth.

[QUOTE="NoAssKicker47"][QUOTE="JigglyWiggly_"]There's not much point buying Q3A or bad Q3TA. Play quake live much better net code and it's more balanced. By that I mean weapon damage changes, 100 dmg for rail before was too much, although it would suit be better since I'm more of an aim player. LG did more damage too. But the reason probably was because back then everyone had crappier Internet. Quake live reg is also easier to hit rails, it's more leniant.cain006

Thing is, if more people play quake, then the bigger the community is, then the more likely people will play it. Quake Live is the main game I play now, since it runs on pretty much anything and it's very fair. While there are lucks in spawn points in duel, it's very consistent. While like in CSS random HS happen often.

So basically, if you guys whine so much for hardcore games, just go play them and ignore what noobs are playing cause they're toal noobs.

[QUOTE="RyuRanVII"]

True, funny and sad, very sad.

It's sad to think that today's kids are being raised with corridors, arrows, excessive tips and the "awesome" button, treated like derps by game developers while we were raised and forged by games like Doom, Quake, Hexen, Heretic, etc.

mrbojangles25

typical hyperbole by the gaming right-wing, with an unhealthy dose of nostalgia.

Corridors? Quake was the definition of a corridor shooter; it was literally hallway after hallway after courtyard after hallway. Oh, look, a key! Now go and open the door. Repeat.

Tips? Sometimes they are needed; how many people would know to press Q in Battlefield to spot enemies if the loading screen (not the in-game screen, mind you) did not tell you? How many people would know that you can dodge in Unreal Tournement if they didn't hold your hand for a level or two? Tips make better players, and better players make games more competative and fun.

Quake was awesome when I was a kid. I loved that game. I loved Wolfenstein, Duke 3D, Dune 2, Syndicate, Myst, Myth, and all those games. But I also believed in Santa Claus, loved Coco Puffs, and all that kiddy stuff. Looking back, I love that I enjoyed that stuff, but I also acknowledge that I've grown up and to hold that stuff to the same standard as I do modern products is just plain silly.

I envy the developers that made games during my childhood. They had things so incredibly easy, it is not even funny. Today's developers not only have to compete with a flooded market, but the tools they use are far more advanced and complex, and they are dealing with an ever-increasing snobby crowd.

The best we can hope for is that developers take the best of the old, and blend it with the new. And, for the most part, they do. Games are funner to play, easier to get into, and have more depth.

yes but it had courtyards and you could fully explore those hallways and corridors.. now you jsut walk down them or when you dont want to your DRVIEN down them.

[QUOTE="RyuRanVII"]

True, funny and sad, very sad.

It's sad to think that today's kids are being raised with corridors, arrows, excessive tips and the "awesome" button, treated like derps by game developers while we were raised and forged by games like Doom, Quake, Hexen, Heretic, etc.

mrbojangles25

typical hyperbole by the gaming right-wing, with an unhealthy dose of nostalgia.

Corridors? Quake was the definition of a corridor shooter; it was literally hallway after hallway after courtyard after hallway. Oh, look, a key! Now go and open the door. Repeat.

Tips? Sometimes they are needed; how many people would know to press Q in Battlefield to spot enemies if the loading screen (not the in-game screen, mind you) did not tell you? How many people would know that you can dodge in Unreal Tournement if they didn't hold your hand for a level or two? Tips make better players, and better players make games more competative and fun.

Quake was awesome when I was a kid. I loved that game. I loved Wolfenstein, Duke 3D, Dune 2, Syndicate, Myst, Myth, and all those games. But I also believed in Santa Claus, loved Coco Puffs, and all that kiddy stuff. Looking back, I love that I enjoyed that stuff, but I also acknowledge that I've grown up and to hold that stuff to the same standard as I do modern products is just plain silly.

I envy the developers that made games during my childhood. They had things so incredibly easy, it is not even funny. Today's developers not only have to compete with a flooded market, but the tools they use are far more advanced and complex, and they are dealing with an ever-increasing snobby crowd.

The best we can hope for is that developers take the best of the old, and blend it with the new. And, for the most part, they do. Games are funner to play, easier to get into, and have more depth.

Games using brush geometry will have corridors. Quake like Doom had much more of a Dungeon Crawler design, then what you define as a 'coridoor shooter', you're horribly mistaken then.

The closest thing to quickly compare is Bioshock's levels, which share a lot in common with System Shock's; which also adapted the dungeon crawler level design. These are self contained areas, designed with exploration and combat in mind, and varying architecture and elevations (something we don't see in lots of shooters these days).

Many shooters today focus soley on the combat, followed by creating things happening around the player, who is stuck in a limited playing spade. This is very much a sort of Time Crisis like trend in level design, which fits with the stop and pop shooter design. This allows extremely rigid scripting, which has become a favourite of designers who want to play director - and do a poor job of it, then actually designing a functioning level.

Tips are terrible simply. They're a horrible way to try and compensate for a lack of tutorials, many of which are done terribly anyway. Look at Battlefield 3 and its complete lack of information, so much so that many players have no idea what their abilities are, and what vehicles can do when playing the game. That's pathetic game design. So instead they're dumped at the loading screen because 'well hey, we need something there right'.

Games like any media should be held to a certain standard, same with older games. That's what separates actual discussion from nostalgia clouded banter or disregard of the past. Then we have completely wrong perspectives such as 'games should be about X (usually 'fun')', which falls into the category of 'films don't need to be about story' in terms of horrible perspective.

Well yes development is harder and *easier* in certain regards. In the 90s engines were being made from scratch, and actually executing things was tooth and nail in difficulty; middleware was not common - it is today. The biggest problem is that triple A development is often dictated by accountants. As with Hollywood accountants do an amazing job at ruining things, because what should be a creative venture is turned into a profiteering business, based on target markets and audience testing, as well as being as conservative as possible.

BF3's singleplayer for instance, one of the most uninspiring wastes of an IP, with so little creative flair or smarts behind it. No wonder audiences are annoyed, when those games of yesteryear are still very playable today.

The best hope we have is intelligent designers yes learning from the past, competent coders backing them up, and the independent scene to flourish, as the triple A scene is already on a crash course for collapsing in on itself with the retail market.

There's also no such thing as funner, seriously it's not a word. Fun is an entirely subjective notion, while games have changed you can't gauge 'fun' as a sort of metric to determine recent titles as better than old. That not only is completely untrue, but a poor way to gauge anything. I wouldn't say they have 'more depth' at all either, that's a bad, bad generalisation.

typical hyperbole by the gaming right-wing, with an unhealthy dose of nostalgia.

Corridors? Quake was the definition of a corridor shooter; it was literally hallway after hallway after courtyard after hallway. Oh, look, a key! Now go and open the door. Repeat.

Tips? Sometimes they are needed; how many people would know to press Q in Battlefield to spot enemies if the loading screen (not the in-game screen, mind you) did not tell you? How many people would know that you can dodge in Unreal Tournement if they didn't hold your hand for a level or two? Tips make better players, and better players make games more competative and fun.

Quake was awesome when I was a kid. I loved that game. I loved Wolfenstein, Duke 3D, Dune 2, Syndicate, Myst, Myth, and all those games. But I also believed in Santa Claus, loved Coco Puffs, and all that kiddy stuff. Looking back, I love that I enjoyed that stuff, but I also acknowledge that I've grown up and to hold that stuff to the same standard as I do modern products is just plain silly.

I envy the developers that made games during my childhood. They had things so incredibly easy, it is not even funny. Today's developers not only have to compete with a flooded market, but the tools they use are far more advanced and complex, and they are dealing with an ever-increasing snobby crowd.

The best we can hope for is that developers take the best of the old, and blend it with the new. And, for the most part, they do. Games are funner to play, easier to get into, and have more depth.

mrbojangles25

1. And yet Quake is less linear than a lot of these modern shooters.
2. People dont need tips to figure things out. People can figure out themselves. Developers can use other stuff to teach people game mechanics, level design works for instance, the manual works too, so do tutorials, another method devs can use is to show us how to play as opposed to tell us. While the follwing video talks about non-PC games, it makes a good point regarding this topic. Look at this video, it has bad language and sexual refernces though though.

Tier 1-3 is pretty bad lol. Also ionusX to that video, it's very true. I have beaten that mission on veteran just by running for it with smoke spams, going through it slowly will take forever.

Thing is, if more people play quake, then the bigger the community is, then the more likely people will play it. Quake Live is the main game I play now, since it runs on pretty much anything and it's very fair. While there are lucks in spawn points in duel, it's very consistent. While like in CSS random HS happen often.

So basically, if you guys whine so much for hardcore games, just go play them and ignore what noobs are playing cause they're toal noobs.

JigglyWiggly_

typical hyperbole by the gaming right-wing, with an unhealthy dose of nostalgia.

Corridors? Quake was the definition of a corridor shooter; it was literally hallway after hallway after courtyard after hallway. Oh, look, a key! Now go and open the door. Repeat.

Tips? Sometimes they are needed; how many people would know to press Q in Battlefield to spot enemies if the loading screen (not the in-game screen, mind you) did not tell you? How many people would know that you can dodge in Unreal Tournement if they didn't hold your hand for a level or two? Tips make better players, and better players make games more competative and fun.

Quake was awesome when I was a kid. I loved that game. I loved Wolfenstein, Duke 3D, Dune 2, Syndicate, Myst, Myth, and all those games. But I also believed in Santa Claus, loved Coco Puffs, and all that kiddy stuff. Looking back, I love that I enjoyed that stuff, but I also acknowledge that I've grown up and to hold that stuff to the same standard as I do modern products is just plain silly.

I envy the developers that made games during my childhood. They had things so incredibly easy, it is not even funny. Today's developers not only have to compete with a flooded market, but the tools they use are far more advanced and complex, and they are dealing with an ever-increasing snobby crowd.

The best we can hope for is that developers take the best of the old, and blend it with the new. And, for the most part, they do. Games are funner to play, easier to get into, and have more depth.

mrbojangles25

-Who cares if the game is full of hallways, all of them are? The maps were designed in a way that gave the players a choice on how to get the keys. If you were good enough you could flat out ignore some of the keys. Choice is something that modern shooters lack, Modern Warfare didn't even let me open doors which pisses me off to say the least.

-There are things called tutorials for a reason. The game should be designed in a way that you jump in and it assumes you have read the manual or completed the tutorial. Sitting through 20 minutes of 'Press W to move forward' or 'Press E to use' is just stupid when it isn't hard to have a seperate tutorial of scripted crap outside of the main game.

-I hold games to the standard that Quake set and pretty much everything but Painkiller, STALKER and Unreal fall terribly short. The modern standard for the actual gunplay is much lower in favor of a more 'cinematic' experience. The 'cinematic' experience hides the fact that the level designers can't pace a map and just have enemies spawn non-stop to keep the illusion of a high adrenaline ride.

-The last statement I can agree with if they take more from the old and just add in what people expect from a new game.

I completely agree with mrbonjangles. I liked all the older shooters as a kid...grew up playing Doom/RoTT/Wolf3d/Blood/ect/ect...most shooters I play today are far better though. Doom is the definition of corridor shooter lol...this "dungeon crawl" non-sense is just silly. Anyways I really don't care, keep playing the oldies and living in the past, I on the other hand will be playing modern marvels like Crysis, BF3, STALKER, and other amazing games.Renevent42

Whats wrong with you guys? If you miss old shooters than go join me in Ql. But dun waste my time, you need to be atleast tier4 in CA to stand a chance, and be able to atleast 35% lg in a 1v1.

JigglyWiggly_

It's not a dungeon crawl, it's a maze of corridors...fact. I've played them all and no amount of pretending they were something they were not is going to change them. One thing being inspired by another doesn't make it that thing. There was a lot more to Ultima 7's world design that made it the dungeon crawl it was. Doom and all the rest were completely one-dimensional games (although awesomely fun).

Anyways nice history lesson but didn't need it...I played every old school FPS ever released (might of missed a few) including ones nobody talks about anymore (Blake Stone/Corridor 7/ect)...the FPS genre has come a LONG way. When I hear people whining and crying about FPS's today it's the same nitpicks...meanwhile they ignore EVERYTHING ELSE that has advanced and evolved over the years.

I enjoy the odd old school gem here and there, or even some newer entries that focus on old school gameplay. These games are dinosaurs for a reason though...they have been replaced by more refined and advanced mechanics. I'll take a game like BF3/STALKER/Crysis over any modern Doom rehash any day.

Oh well, let elitists be elitists I guess lol.

[QUOTE="JigglyWiggly_"]

Whats wrong with you guys? If you miss old shooters than go join me in Ql. But dun waste my time, you need to be atleast tier4 in CA to stand a chance, and be able to atleast 35% lg in a 1v1.

coolmonkeykid

It's not a dungeon crawl, it's a maze of corridors...fact. I've played them all and no amount of pretending they were something they were not is going to change them. One thing being inspired by another doesn't make it that thing. There was a lot more to Ultima 7's world design that made it the dungeon crawl it was. Doom and all the rest were completely one-dimensional games (although awesomely fun).

Anyways nice history lesson but didn't need it...I played every old school FPS ever released (might of missed a few) including ones nobody talks about anymore (Blake Stone/Corridor 7/ect)...the FPS genre has come a LONG way. When I hear people whining and crying about FPS's today it's the same nitpicks...meanwhile they ignore EVERYTHING ELSE that has advanced and evolved over the years.

I enjoy the odd old school gem here and there, or even some newer entries that focus on old school gameplay. These games are dinosaurs for a reason though...they have been replaced by more refined and advanced mechanics. I'll take a game like BF3/STALKER/Crysis over any modern Doom rehash any day.

Oh well, let elitists be elitists I guess lol.

Renevent42

There's strong dungeon crawler ethics in there, hence the level layouts, level design, architecture and key hunting. That's what the early stages of FPS were.

'I played so many games' doesn't equate to 'I understood these games and the evolution of a genre'. A player is thata player. Your points aren't exactly holding up that much weight to prove otherwise.

Again I said Ultima Underworld which was dramatically different to the Ultima series. I am not talking about Ultima 7, which is far more than a dungeon crawler by nature, despite involving questing in dungeons.

Again you can play as much as you want, but your own misconceptions and misunderstandings, even of my paragraph are not going to strengthen your argument.

Well yes that's what people do don't they, otherwise? Generations look back and wax nostalgia. Does that mean there isn't a valid point in positive design ethos of those previous games?

Well hell no, as there's tons of positive aspects of these games that can be learned and applied into game design ethics. I'm not talking about 'other people' I'm talking about the genre for what it is, as well as titles for what they are.

You're focusing entirely on the slanted perspective of others, just as those who would do vice versa.

Irony is games like Crysis, BF and STALKER do actually fall back on those 'dated dinosaur' ethos you are referencing.
These are games steeped in game design ethics from the shooter boom in the 90s, to the experimental phase in late 90s to early 2000s. GSC's Codename Outbreak, and DICE's Codename Eagle are excellent examples of those ethos in action in their earlier titles; these games are an evolution of them.

Which only goes on to justify my point. Glorious.

Now don't go confusing that this is 'the modern shooter' either, as it's a very different school of design to that of Doom in regard to the FPS genre; BF for instance and Codename Eagle shared more in common with the PC follow up to Battlezone, Terminator Futureshock and Hidden and Dangerous then it did Doom.

Again, for all the games you can have played, you're not presenting a compelling argument in regard to understanding here.
Nor have you anything to prove I'm 'elitist', which I do suppose reflects your amazing debating skills. Stay cla-ssy champ.

Yes, which is a direct adaptation of the dungeon crawler level design... I stated this. skrat_01

You stated it but it doesn't make it true. There's a lot more to dungeon crawlers than what's in Doom. Yes, there's an inspiration but the fact of the matter is the game is one dimensional.

I played so many games' doesn't equate to 'I understood these games and the evolution of a genre'.skat

Of course it does. I've seen and played them all and have witnessed their EVOLUTION. Funny you should use that term...you should look up it's definition.

Irony is games like Crysis, BF and STALKER do actually fall back on those 'dated dinosaur' ethos you are referencing. These are games steeped in game design ethics from the shooter boom in the 90s, to the experimental phase in late 90s to early 2000s. skat

Crysis and STALKER are very different games than Doom and other early FPS....what exactly did they fall back on and have in common other than they are FPS? Level design is totally different, gameplay is totally different (other than shooting guns), the pacing is totally different...

Which only goes on to justify my point. skat

Eh...it clearly proves my point. It shows that the FPS have evolved well past strafing through corridors.

Now don't go confusing that this is 'the modern shooter' either, as it's a very different school of design to that of Doom in regard to the FPS genre; BF for instance and Codename Eagle shared more in common with the PC follow up to Battlezone, Terminator Futureshock and Hidden and Dangerous then it did Doom.skat

Didn't you just get done saying they fall back on these dated dinosuar designs? That was supposed to be the 'irony'? Yeah...some amazing debating skill YOU have contradicting yourself in your own post :lol:

Doesn't matter anyways, because these games ARE modern FPS...the genre has evolved. [quote"skat"Again, for all the games you can have played, you're not presenting a compelling argument in regard to understanding here.

I am, there's a clear evolution in the genre and clear improvements....videos full of hyperbole and rose tinted glasses doesn't change that.

I completely agree with mrbonjangles. I liked all the older shooters as a kid...grew up playing Doom/RoTT/Wolf3d/Blood/ect/ect...most shooters I play today are far better though. Doom is the definition of corridor shooter lol...this "dungeon crawl" non-sense is just silly. Anyways I really don't care, keep playing the oldies and living in the past, I on the other hand will be playing modern marvels like Crysis, BF3, STALKER, and other amazing games.Renevent42

I like how you point out those 2 games. They were released in a time before pc gaming took a nosedive into **** I'd say the trend to release these so called interactive movies had to be post 2008 - 2009.

STALKER clear sky was released in 2010...it doesn't matter anyways as they are all modern shooters. With that said, what's the problem in using FPS games from the last few years anyways?

Beyond the few I listed, there's:

Red Orchestra 2: Heroes of Stalingrad

Hard Reset

Portal 2

ArmA II: Operation Arrowhead

Battlefield: Bad Company 2

S.T.A.L.K.E.R.: Call of Pripyat

Left 4 Dead 2

Killing Floor

These are all 2009+ games that are great (the ones I played, at least) and don't fall into this threads silly generalizations.

STALKER clear sky was released in 2010...it doesn't matter anyways as they are all modern shooters. With that said, what's the problem in using FPS games from the last few years anyways?

Beyond the few I listed, there's:

Red Orchestra 2: Heroes of Stalingrad

Hard Reset

Portal 2

ArmA II: Operation Arrowhead

Battlefield: Bad Company 2

S.T.A.L.K.E.R.: Call of Pripyat

Left 4 Dead 2

Killing Floor

These are all 2009+ games that are great (the ones I played, at least) and don't fall into this threads silly generalizations.

Renevent42

I see while using your foggy color glasses, the original poster forgot how BUNNY HOPPING ruined Quake 1-2.:cry:

roulettethedog

I've played a few matches of Quake Live and man I feel like I missed out one something. My bro and I had a lot of fun in Quake III Arena for Dreamcast :P

I've played a few matches of Quake Live and man I feel like I missed out one something. My bro and I had a lot of fun in Quake III Arena for Dreamcast :P

lil_d_mack_314

Remember when people were sick of Quake clones?

I think that video is very stupid, especially when it got to the speedrunning part. Glitching through a level isn't Quake's legacy - or appeal.

You stated it but it doesn't make it true. There's a lot more to dungeon crawlers than what's in Doom. Yes, there's an inspiration but the fact of the matter is the game is one dimensional.

Renevent42

Indeed, and it in terms of level architecture it shares much more in common with them than what we describe as 'linearity' these days, historically and by design.

Of course it does. I've seen and played them all and have witnessed their EVOLUTION. Funny you should use that term...you should look up it's definition.Renevent42

Alas it really doesn't. I've seen enough misinformed people come and go, happily proclaiming that they've played for X generations of systems. Same as someone who visits the cinema freuqently, but hasn't developed a historical or critical perspective to cinema.

Same goes for any form of media.

Not to say you aren't however points such as 'evolution' and hammy arguments aren't doing you any favours in this regard.

Crysis and STALKER are very different games than Doom and other early FPS....what exactly did they fall back on and have in common other than they are FPS? Level design is totally different, gameplay is totally different (other than shooting guns), the pacing is totally different...Renevent42

As I said "These are games steeped in game design ethics from the shooter boom in the 90s, to the experimental phase in late 90s to early 2000s." I never said they were doom clones, rather biproducts of the evolution of the FPS, steeped greately in the later stages of the late 90s and early 2000s.

Many of these are in the ethos of games before them. As I said, by nature these are very intrinsictly complex games, that go against the grain of todays window-dressing shooters. Those two in particular are extremely big on the immersive sim school of design, which we have games like System Shock and Thief - looking glass games nonetheless to cite, as well as a variety of others.

Eh...it clearly proves my point. It shows that the FPS have evolved well past strafing through corridors.

Renevent42

Didn't you just get done saying they fall back on these dated dinosuar designs? That was supposed to be the 'irony'? Yeah...some amazing debating skill YOU have contradicting yourself in your own post :lol:

Doesn't matter anyways, because these games ARE modern FPS...the genre has evolved.Renevent42

Heavily evolved from those older ethos.

The common modern video design trend is rigid scripting and rigid linearity, hence the topic of the thread, however those games you've cited go against those trends, rather taking far moredirect inspirationfrom those older game design ethos; as I explained previously.

There isn't a contradiction there at all.

You're just completely failing at actually reminding yourself whatthe topicwas directed at in regards to modern video games; which is what the discussion at hand is about.

Tsk tsk.

I am, there's a clear evolution in the genre and clear improvements....videos full of hyperbole and rose tinted glasses doesn't change that.

Renevent42

Yes there's a clear evolution of improvements in certain regards, however you'd be looking through shuttersto think that there wasn't any recessive aspects to modern game design.

It's not black and white in either regards.

Which again, is the point of the topic, and a reason why there's so much vocal dissatisfaction directed to the genre these days; it's for a reason.

Indeed, and it in terms of level architecture it shares much more in common with them than what we describe as 'linearity' these days, historically and by design.skrat_01

That's the thing...there's a handful of games that even fits the video...as has been factually proven...tons of FPS these days have great level design and (like open world/map) there's even improvements in this regard. Like I said from the start...rose tinted glasses tunnel vision elitist non-sense.

Alas it really doesn't. I've seen enough misinformed people come and go, happily proclaiming that they've played for X generations of systems. Same as someone who visits the cinema freuqently, but hasn't developed a historical or critical perspective to cinema.

Same goes for any form of media.

Not to say you aren't however points such as 'evolution' and hammy arguments aren't doing you any favours in this regard.skrat_01

/yawn

As I said "These are games steeped in game design ethics from the shooter boom in the 90s, to the experimental phase in late 90s to early 2000s." I never said they were doom clones, rather biproducts of the evolution of the FPS, steeped greately in the later stages of the late 90s and early 2000s.

Many of these are in the ethos of games before them. As I said, by nature these are very intrinsictly complex games, that go against the grain of todays window-dressing shooters. Those two in particular are extremely big on the immersive sim school of design, which we have games like System Shock and Thief - looking glass games nonetheless to cite, as well as a variety of others.skrat_01

You are using a lot of words to really say absolutely nothing. All these games are from the same genre...of course there's a shared heritage and mechanics built of the backs of the older games. Even more, many of today's FPS's are FAR more complex than Doom and it's ilk. Take a game like stalker...makes doom look like an arcade game for ADHD riddled children.

There's nothing intrinsically more complex about doom and 90's shooters...in fact...by comparison and feature for feature they are FAR simpler games. For it's time Doom was a marvel though, and Doom certainly has it's enduring mark on gaming.

Anyways that's all I will say on the subject...any normal person with eyes (and fingers for the mouse and keyboard) can look at Doom and compare it to Crysis/STALKER/ARMAII or a half dozen other modern shooters and clearly seen it's been outclassed. There's nothing wrong with that, computers have advanced a great deal.

Whatever, if you want to play elitist and pretend COD represents the only school of modern FPS design have it. The video is nothing more than some humerus truisms...like a good joke. For any joke to be funny there has to be a bit of truth to it, but if you honestly believe it represents an intelligent standpoint on the actual advancement of FPS's your kidding yourself.

If STALKER was warped back to 1993 people would have been blown out of their pants. Not just graphically either...the sheer amount of depth in it's game play mechanics would make Doom feel like a cheap demo.

That's the thing...there's a handful of games that even fits the video...as has been factually proven...tons of FPS these days have great level design and (like open world/map) there's even improvements in this regard. Like I said from the start...rose tinted glasses tunnel vision elitist non-sense.Renevent42

I don't disagree, so I don't see how the rose tinted glasses analogy of yours works at all.

Again, as I said, it's in regard to what's generally referenced as the modern FPS. It's a generalisation with truth attached to it, when games such as BF3, BFBC, COD and Homefront grace the gaming limelight with it.

As with the Doom clone era, there's problems in this one despite the improvements.

/yawnRenevent42

As I said "These are games steeped in game design ethics from the shooter boom in the 90s, to the experimental phase in late 90s to early 2000s." I never said they were doom clones, rather biproducts of the evolution of the FPS, steeped greately in the later stages of the late 90s and early 2000s.

Many of these are in the ethos of games before them. As I said, by nature these are very intrinsictly complex games, that go against the grain of todays window-dressing shooters. Those two in particular are extremely big on the immersive sim school of design, which we have games like System Shock and Thief - looking glass games nonetheless to cite, as well as a variety of others.skrat_01

You are using a lot of words to really say absolutely nothing. All these games are from the same genre...of course there's a shared heritage and mechanics built of the backs of the older games. Even more, many of today's FPS's are FAR more complex than Doom and it's ilk. Take a game like stalker...makes doom look like an arcade game for ADHD riddled children.

There's nothing intrinsically more complex about doom and 90's shooters...in fact...by comparison and feature for feature they are FAR simpler games. For it's time Doom was a marvel though, and Doom certainly has it's enduring mark on gaming.

Anyways that's all I will say on the subject...any normal person with eyes (and fingers for the mouse and keyboard) can look at Doom and compare it to Crysis/STALKER/ARMAII or a half dozen other modern shooters and clearly seen it's been outclassed. There's nothing wrong with that, computers have advanced a great deal.

Whatever, if you want to play elitist and pretend COD represents the only school of modern FPS design have it. The video is nothing more than some humerus truisms...like a good joke. For any joke to be funny there has to be a bit of truth to it, but if you honestly believe it represents an intelligent standpoint on the actual advancement of FPS's your kidding yourself.

If STALKER was warped back to 1993 people would have been blown out of their pants. Not just graphically either...the sheer amount of depth in it's game play mechanics would make Doom feel like a cheap demo.

Renevent42

A game like STALKER might have its strong merits, but a game like Homefront presents overwhelming negativity in understanding intelligent level design compared to an age old game like Doom, which certainly did.

There are fundemental complexities in Doom which are still relevant today, and these come in the form of its damn elegant level design, and use of its elements, right down to how it sets its tone and atmosphere. Space is a huge part of the form of a game, and Doom executes itself damn well, even to this day. Not to say there aren't oldschool shooters that do a terrible job -there's tons of those, and that's the same with recent shooters. For a grand example like Bioshock we have a rigid Call of Duty Black Ops.

There's a big difference in terms of smart design and working within technological limits.

Which is what I'm talking about, game design.

So instead of acting immature and making anotherremark about being elitist, because apparently you've got a pretty limited vocabulary when it comes to gaming forum insults, why don't you actually present a solid counter argument instead of 'Doom is old, old is thus dated and is inherently worse', which just reeks a well thought out balanced perspective.

The irony is I remember people complaining about games like Doom being repetitive in level design of trying to find a key. sSubZerOo

Nah, the real irony (not that I expect anyone to notice it or, least of all, own up to it) is that those who continually write off other people's opinions and views as simple "nostalgia," "elitism," etc. are, in their own inimitable, passive-aggressive way, acting like the true elitists. Go figure...

I should have known better than to come into this thread without my flame shield.

Its ok, I got one now.

Renavent, there is room for two if the gaming arch-conservatives get too bad for you.

[QUOTE="sSubZerOo"]The irony is I remember people complaining about games like Doom being repetitive in level design of trying to find a key. -wildflower-

Nah, the real irony (not that I expect anyone to notice it or, least of all, own up to it) is that those who continually write off other people's opinions and views as simple "nostalgia," "elitism," etc. are, in their own inimitable, passive-aggressive way, acting like the true elitists. Go figure...

So a gamer can't defend modern titles against the hypocrisy of others?

There's a big difference in terms of smart design and working within technological limits.skat

Which is basically saying there's nothing more complex about older FPS...they were just great for their day and of course were held back by technical limitations. Everyone know that. Doom compared to MANY fps today is a simple, simple game. It's not really even an opinion...you can compare games feature for feature, mechanic for mechanic. It just doesn't compare nor does it hold up.

Doesn't mean that for it's day it wasn't good design...but that's the crux of the argument here now is it? No, you got a bunch of people (like you) running around pretending Doom and other early FPS were the golden era of FPS gaming. You act is if there's been some downward spiral of complexity and depth since then and that modern FPS are a joke. Well, as we can now see, this is fantasy. It's naive and it's a really silly opinion to have.

why don't you actually present a solid counter argument instead of 'Doom is old, old is thus dated and is inherently worseskat

Apparently it's not my vocabulary that's the issue, it's your ability to comprehend the things I say. My argument lies on a few basic premises (which I've stated throughout the thread)...but I'll repeat them...one...that MANY modern FPS are in fact more complex, offer more depth, and are superior to their older brethren on a technological/mechanics/design/feature level. I've given examples as supporting evidence, spoken about actual mechanics/design/features, and how the older games simply did not have the level of complexity as many modern FPS.

Secondly, that the video is simply a joke and while it holds a sliver of truth, simply is a narrow minded view of the modern FPS. People holding it up like gospel are just making themselves out to look like silly willies. This is held up by the facts and evidence already discussed earlier and by the great selection of modern FPS that are not like that. Sure, you could play CoD and nothing else and that video would 'feel' like it held a lot more truth...the reality is it would only be out of ignorance.

Look, you can prefer the old school FPS all you want...have at it. I'm not trying to tell you that enjoying Doom more than modern FPS is wrong. That's your preference and you are entitled to it. But when you start spouting off stuff about "inherent complexity" and other non--sense and acting like these old school games had more depth...well then I gotta step in and set the record straight. It's obviously not the case for the FPS genre as a whole...and it only holds true-ish if you compare it to a VERY narrow range of games.

So there you have it ;)

[QUOTE="mrbojangles25"]

[QUOTE="RyuRanVII"]

True, funny and sad, very sad.

It's sad to think that today's kids are being raised with corridors, arrows, excessive tips and the "awesome" button, treated like derps by game developers while we were raised and forged by games like Doom, Quake, Hexen, Heretic, etc.

skrat_01

That was an excellent post and I agree entirely. Doom is definetly not a corridor shooter in the same sense as the COD singleplayer is.

typical hyperbole by the gaming right-wing, with an unhealthy dose of nostalgia.

Corridors? Quake was the definition of a corridor shooter; it was literally hallway after hallway after courtyard after hallway. Oh, look, a key! Now go and open the door. Repeat.

Tips? Sometimes they are needed; how many people would know to press Q in Battlefield to spot enemies if the loading screen (not the in-game screen, mind you) did not tell you? How many people would know that you can dodge in Unreal Tournement if they didn't hold your hand for a level or two? Tips make better players, and better players make games more competative and fun.

Quake was awesome when I was a kid. I loved that game. I loved Wolfenstein, Duke 3D, Dune 2, Syndicate, Myst, Myth, and all those games. But I also believed in Santa Claus, loved Coco Puffs, and all that kiddy stuff. Looking back, I love that I enjoyed that stuff, but I also acknowledge that I've grown up and to hold that stuff to the same standard as I do modern products is just plain silly.

I envy the developers that made games during my childhood. They had things so incredibly easy, it is not even funny. Today's developers not only have to compete with a flooded market, but the tools they use are far more advanced and complex, and they are dealing with an ever-increasing snobby crowd.

The best we can hope for is that developers take the best of the old, and blend it with the new. And, for the most part, they do. Games are funner to play, easier to get into, and have more depth.

Games using brush geometry will have corridors. Quake like Doom had much more of a Dungeon Crawler design, then what you define as a 'coridoor shooter', you're horribly mistaken then.

The closest thing to quickly compare is Bioshock's levels, which share a lot in common with System Shock's; which also adapted the dungeon crawler level design. These are self contained areas, designed with exploration and combat in mind, and varying architecture and elevations (something we don't see in lots of shooters these days).

Many shooters today focus soley on the combat, followed by creating things happening around the player, who is stuck in a limited playing spade. This is very much a sort of Time Crisis like trend in level design, which fits with the stop and pop shooter design. This allows extremely rigid scripting, which has become a favourite of designers who want to play director - and do a poor job of it, then actually designing a functioning level.

Tips are terrible simply. They're a horrible way to try and compensate for a lack of tutorials, many of which are done terribly anyway. Look at Battlefield 3 and its complete lack of information, so much so that many players have no idea what their abilities are, and what vehicles can do when playing the game. That's pathetic game design. So instead they're dumped at the loading screen because 'well hey, we need something there right'.

Games like any media should be held to a certain standard, same with older games. That's what separates actual discussion from nostalgia clouded banter or disregard of the past. Then we have completely wrong perspectives such as 'games should be about X (usually 'fun')', which falls into the category of 'films don't need to be about story' in terms of horrible perspective.

Well yes development is harder and *easier* in certain regards. In the 90s engines were being made from scratch, and actually executing things was tooth and nail in difficulty; middleware was not common - it is today. The biggest problem is that triple A development is often dictated by accountants. As with Hollywood accountants do an amazing job at ruining things, because what should be a creative venture is turned into a profiteering business, based on target markets and audience testing, as well as being as conservative as possible.

BF3's singleplayer for instance, one of the most uninspiring wastes of an IP, with so little creative flair or smarts behind it. No wonder audiences are annoyed, when those games of yesteryear are still very playable today.

The best hope we have is intelligent designers yes learning from the past, competent coders backing them up, and the independent scene to flourish, as the triple A scene is already on a crash course for collapsing in on itself with the retail market.

There's also no such thing as funner, seriously it's not a word. Fun is an entirely subjective notion, while games have changed you can't gauge 'fun' as a sort of metric to determine recent titles as better than old. That not only is completely untrue, but a poor way to gauge anything. I wouldn't say they have 'more depth' at all either, that's a bad, bad generalisation.

Doom still satisfies a part of my brain that no other shooter has done. Taking ont he hordes of monsters, the variety of enemies, the choice of weapons the grand scale of some of the encounters. Most games create those kind of moments with "Cinematic" events that force things upon you. Its the need for devs to put a film liek story and set peices into games that have ruined them. I thought games were about empowering the player and giving them a world to toy with, but most are just interactive movies that push you along its so-so story, and expects the story and set peices to be more engaging than the gameplay itself.

Doom still satisfies a part of my brain that no other shooter has done. Taking ont he hordes of monsters, the variety of enemies, the choice of weapons the grand scale of some of the encounters. D1zzyCriminal

I believe Doom has a good deal of similarities with the space shoot 'em up genre (going trough waves of enemies with different weapons), shoot 'em ups like Thunder Force III and R-type satisfyies that need for difficult adrenaline fueled entertainment, and playing Doom on a hard difficulty does the same thing. That's why i consider Doom ageless, it does what it does as well as it did years ago.

It's good, although "press space to start" should've been "press A to start".

So a gamer can't defend modern titles against the hypocrisy of others?

mrbojangles25

Sure you can, in a constructive way that doesn't make assumptions about people's preferance, unlike what you usually do.