Current Events > Regenerating health ruined the FPS genre

(+) Yeah! (+)

Damn_Underscore posted...

The best thing about GoldenEye is the music

Doom is the only other FPS with a soundtrack that's even close to being as good

Disagree. PS1 DN3D had an amazing soundtrack as does quake 2
---

Kitt posted...

Why do nerds like to say stuff that they don't like ruined things?

The FPS genre was objectively ruined by bad simplistic design fads like that.

The FPS genre of today doesn't even really resemble the old days, and what it was replaced with is just wholly inferior. We went from a wide array of creative and distinct guns, to being artificially restricted to a couple/few that are as banal as possible.

We went from games having actual level design, to just being the bare minimum design-wise to get a player from point A to point B, often just a shallow sequence of rooms or corridors connected together with obvious start and stop points.

We went from a wide array of diverse and creative enemies, to a bunch of samey jamies.

We went from thoughtful resource management and damage you sustained meaning something to "oops there went most of my health gimme a sec" regen thoughtlessness that turns combat into a flat and simplistic not to mention mindless affair of just playing PvP Whack-a-Mole.

FPS games also used to have strong single player experiences, nowadays it's all about the Mountain Dewito Nacho Cheese multiplayer wankfests where single player is a tacked on vestigial feature detached quite a lot from the multiplayer.
---

2 guns doesn't mean shit when the game conveniently spawns weapons before fights where you'll need them the most.

I'm looking at you Resistance 2.
---

27_Sandman_40 posted...

GoldenEye, Doom, Perfect Dark, and Halo are great FPSs and still hold up today.

Wolfenstein and Quake are dated so Ill give you that, but the FPS genre was fucking amazing back in the day and still is.

Goldeneye doesnt hold up at ALL
---

ChromaticAngel posted...

weapon_d00d816 posted...

It creates depth

Lmao less options create more depth lol.

Umm yeah...

It forces you to actually think about your arsenal and how you want to go about an area depending on what kind of enemies you're fighting, at what ranges, etc. instead of being fucking Inspector Gadget with everything in the game at his disposal so he's always got the right tool for the job.

Try and use your brain before you speak.
---

weapon_d00d816 posted...

instead of being f***ing Inspector Gadget with everything in the game at his disposal so he's always got the right tool for the job.

FPS games usually have this thing called ammo. That restrict being able to use the best weapons every time.
---

I would love a quality Inspector Gadget game.

weapon_d00d816 posted...

Umm yeah...

It forces you to actually think about your arsenal

"Hmm, do I use gun 1, or gun 2"

vs

"Hmm, which of these 8 guns would be best here"

I know which of those looks more involving in the thought department.
---

Kitt posted...

Why do nerds like to say stuff that they don't like ruined things?

Because it is ruined. It is like making a pizzza, take the meat, take the cheese, leave it only the bread and sauce and call it a pizza.

Fuck the mainstream market. Fuck humanity. Fuck this planet. Fuck this universe and i hope heat death comes tomorrow
---

Darmik posted...

weapon_d00d816 posted...

instead of being f***ing Inspector Gadget with everything in the game at his disposal so he's always got the right tool for the job.

FPS games usually have this thing called ammo. That restrict being able to use the best weapons every time.

It's not just about power weapons, but everything.

Take for instance Halo. There are huge differences between going into battle with only a precision weapon and an automatic, vs an automatic and a shotgun, vs a pistol and a utility weapon, etc. If you could have all those minor weapons at once it would make you overpowered as fuck.

There's a reason video game devs don't listen to people like CEmen. You guys have shitty ideas.
---

LMAO if you still care about graphics, especially the graphics of early 3D games
---

Tmk posted...

weapon_d00d816 posted...

Umm yeah...

It forces you to actually think about your arsenal

"Hmm, do I use gun 1, or gun 2"

vs

"Hmm, which of these 8 guns would be best here"

I know which of those looks more involving in the thought department.

It's "do I leave behind gun 1 or 2 for gun 3" which is way more of a decision than "how far down should I scroll?"
---

I can agree in part with the sentiment.
---

Anisoptera posted...

*throws proximity mines on all body armor*

The best kind of trap
---

weapon_d00d816 posted...

It's "do I leave behind gun 1 or 2 for gun 3" which is way more of a decision than "how far down should I scroll?"

Choosing 2 out of 3 guns in a game that vomits all the ammo you'll ever need for everything at you is far less thought-provoking than choosing between 8+ guns that expect you to manage your ammo resources for all of them.
---

Yeah it would be overpowered in Halo. Because Halo handles weapons differently than other FPS games. The weapons need to be balanced for that system.

That doesn't mean it's automatically more deep. Doom and Wolfenstein having two weapons wouldn't be balanced either.
---

Half Life had the best system
---

TC, pick up rainbow six: siege.
---

Tmk posted...

weapon_d00d816 posted...

It's "do I leave behind gun 1 or 2 for gun 3" which is way more of a decision than "how far down should I scroll?"

Choosing 2 out of 3 guns in a game that vomits all the ammo you'll ever need for everything at you is far less thought-provoking than choosing between 8+ guns that expect you to manage your ammo resources for all of them.

You're still not getting it.

(when was the last time you even played an FPS god damn)

You don't know when you'll see those guns again and if you'll need it or not, and to still decide between the entire arsenal in the game, just if and when you'll see them next.
---

So you think decisions based entirely on unknowns is somehow better? Like wow, I have no idea if taking this, or THIS, would be better, because I don't know what's ahead, or when I might find this again.

That's not even good design. Like, in a vacuum, that's just straight up bad design, nevermind also wholly inferior to the old FPS system.

It's certainly not more thoughtful either. It just keeps more information away from the player. The less information to work off of, the less thought even comes into the equation. It's just guesswork.
---

weapon_d00d816 posted...

You don't know when you'll see those guns again and if you'll need it or not

You never need a specific weapon in a game designed for you to only hold two of them.

And if you do it's no longer an option.
---

Darmik posted...

Yeah it would be overpowered in Halo. Because Halo handles weapons differently than other FPS games. The weapons need to be balanced for that system.

That doesn't mean it's automatically more deep. Doom and Wolfenstein having two weapons wouldn't be balanced either.

It handles it in such a way that creates depth, just like most games that do it for reasons other than making believable sense.

And IIRC correctly the argument was apparently that it's NEVER deep.
---

Darmik posted...

weapon_d00d816 posted...

You don't know when you'll see those guns again and if you'll need it or not

You never need a specific weapon in a game designed for you to only hold two of them.

What are you even talking about?
---

Tmk posted...

Kitt posted...

Why do nerds like to say stuff that they don't like ruined things?

The FPS genre was objectively ruined by bad simplistic design fads like that.

Sure lol
And I speak as someone who isn't a big fan of regenerating health and the two weapon system.
---

A game that heavily limits your weapons does have to be designed to account for what you might walk in with at any given point. A classic example of this is "oh no a vehicle boss fight oh look conveniently placed rocket launchers with caches of rockets beside"

Such depth.
---

Tmk posted...

So you think decisions based entirely on unknowns is somehow better? Like wow, I have no idea if taking this, or THIS, would be better, because I don't know what's ahead, or when I might find this again.

That's not even good design. Like, in a vacuum, that's just straight up bad design, nevermind also wholly inferior to the old FPS system.

It's certainly not more thoughtful either. It just keeps more information away from the player. The less information to work off of, the less thought even comes into the equation. It's just guesswork.

It's not about unknowns, because the game gives you plenty of hints about what kind of area you're entering, or shit, you can be making this decision WHILE in said area.
---

This all boils down to "hurr durr older shooters had more depth because I had more options"

I played BioShock 1 again a few days ago and I still only use the fucking wrench and revolver half the time, because the game was so stingy with their ammo all the other weapons I had went untouched.

Or how about Doom 3, where the shotgun and plasma gun pretty much made everything else a joke

All being able to carry more than two weapons do is give you more choices, which isn't inherently an advantage if something works well all the time.
---

Tmk posted...

A game that heavily limits your weapons does have to be designed to account for what you might walk in with at any given point. A classic example of this is "oh no a vehicle boss fight oh look conveniently placed rocket launchers with caches of rockets beside"

Such depth.

That's just called casual garbage and it isn't deep regardless of what mechanics it uses. That's just out of the discussion here.
---

Tmk posted...

A game that heavily limits your weapons does have to be designed to account for what you might walk in with at any given point. A classic example of this is "oh no a vehicle boss fight oh look conveniently placed rocket launchers with caches of rockets beside"

Such depth.

Any examples of this other than Turok?

weapon_d00d816 posted...

It's not about unknowns, because the game gives you plenty of hints about what kind of area you're entering, or shit, you can be making this decision WHILE in said area.

That sounds like a lack of depth then and just a "pick the weapon we're telegraphing to use here" kind of crap.
---

Tmk posted...

weapon_d00d816 posted...

It's not about unknowns, because the game gives you plenty of hints about what kind of area you're entering, or shit, you can be making this decision WHILE in said area.

That sounds like a lack of depth then and just a "pick the weapon we're telegraphing to use here" kind of crap.

The depth is in the trade away system, not just knowing what you need, that's only the first step.
---

I found more depth in dodging projectiles while being aware of my surroundings and maintaining fire on enemies in a game like Doom or Resistance than I do in a trade-off system that was never needed.

And that used to be commonplace. Doesn't seem very common anymore.
---

Tmk posted...

I found more depth in dodging projectiles while being aware of my surroundings and maintaining fire on enemies in a game like Doom or Resistance than I do in a trade-off system that was never needed.

And that used to be commonplace. Doesn't seem very common anymore.

How does one preclude the other?
---

They don't necessarily, and yet the 2/limited weapon system came in a wave that did away with that being the norm in shooters.

It's kind of all part of a package. The old school FPS, vs. the new school one. The new school one has things like lacking enemy variety and weapon variety and level design, limited weapons you can hold at a time, regenerating health, multiplayer focus usually as well. That's just what a FPS is now.

Even without them being incompatible, I see no merit to having limited weapon slots in favor of the old style of holding them all.
---

weapon_d00d816 posted...

Darmik posted...

weapon_d00d816 posted...

You don't know when you'll see those guns again and if you'll need it or not

You never need a specific weapon in a game designed for you to only hold two of them.

What are you even talking about?

If a game is restricting you to 2 weapons you'll never truly make a wrong choice. So it doesn't really matter.

In Halo CE there's no real reason to pick up the Assault Rifle, the Needler or a Plasma Rifle. A plasma pistol/human pistol combo will get you through most of the game. Swap in a shotgun for the flood. The sequels gradually tried to balance each weapon so they're all useful. It needs to create a system where someone will want to keep a pistol over a rocket launcher. It also needs to create a system where if you need a rocket launcher the game will give you one. On top of this Halo often struggles with an over-reliance on alien weapons during campaigns because you spend most of your time fighting aliens and that's the usual weapons you have access to.

Games that give you access to all weapons can generally give the player a bit more freedom. If you want to save your rocket ammo you can. Meanwhile if you're carrying and saving rocket launcher in a two weapon system game you're wasting your time and making things difficult for no reason. The game will give you one when you need it.

I'm not saying that a two weapon system is better or worse. I'm saying there's nothing inherently more balanced or better about it. They both have to design their weapons around it.
---

In a lot of those other modern shooters like CoD and BF limited weaponry is largely irrelevant because the gameplay is designed around class roles and using a single primary weapon for the round/game/spawn. And in those games' campaigns being able to carry assault rifle A through assault rifle Z presents no advantage since they're all basically the fucking same.

It's all about the fundamentals of the underlying game.

I just find that when a game actually builds the trade away/limited arsenal system into the gameplay it's much more interesting than letting the player choose whatever whenever.
---

You generally can't use whatever weapon whenever you want in those games either. That's what you're missing.

If a game lets you access the entire inventory they need to make every single weapon distinct and unique. You can't get away with a bunch of different assault rifles that do the same thing. That doesn't mean each weapon has to be equal and each new weapon you pick up during the game has to feel like a reward that opens up new stuff for the player. There might be no reason to use a handgun unless you have ran out of ammo for everything else or it's the first weapon you use at the start. That's okay.

When it comes to multiplayer you can build up an arsenal as you play. If it's a limited system you're most likely sticking to a load-out.

On top of this your inventory staying with you allows the possibilities of weapon upgrades and ammo mods.

It all depends on the game. I personally don't think two weapon systems fit arcade shooters for example.
---

You have to find and conserve ammo but you're not making any tough decisions and creating unique playstyles by choosing different weapon combos when you have everything in your inventory.

Plus those full-arsenal games have to balance it by making certain ammo scarce, rather than making the weapon itself scare but giving it enough ammo to actually have some fun with it when you find it.
---

weapon_d00d816 posted...

You have to find and conserve ammo but you're not making any tough decisions and creating unique playstyles by choosing different weapon combos.

You don't usually have to make tough decisions in two weapon system games anyway. I'm not sure how you're creating unique playstyles either. You're limited to two weapons. That limits what you can actually wield from level to level.

weapon_d00d816 posted...

Plus those full-arsenal games have to balance it by making certain ammo scarce, rather than making the weapon itself scare but giving it enough ammo to actually have some fun with it when you find it.

What? How is that different from just...finding lots of ammo for something?
---

27_Sandman_40 posted...

gna647 posted...

And this is why rainbow six siege is the greatest shooter this gen so far

^^^^

Though Ubi has seriously fucked up a few hitboxes

fuck Cav and Ela

yeah but i mean...every complaint about Six so far are just minimal bugs.

the game is really balanced thus far and they're really good at updating it.
---

gna647 posted...

27_Sandman_40 posted...

gna647 posted...

And this is why rainbow six siege is the greatest shooter this gen so far

^^^^

Though Ubi has seriously fucked up a few hitboxes

fuck Cav and Ela

yeah but i mean...every complaint about Six so far are just minimal bugs.

the game is really balanced thus far and they're really good at updating it.

Minimal?

Minimal?

I have nearly 300 hours in Siege and there were game breaking glitches as recently as November
---

Darmik posted...

weapon_d00d816 posted...

You have to find and conserve ammo but you're not making any tough decisions and creating unique playstyles by choosing different weapon combos.

You don't usually have to make tough decisions in two weapon system games anyway. I'm not sure how you're creating unique playstyles either. You're limited to two weapons. That limits what you can actually wield from level to level.

You do in the games that actually make it a gameplay mechanic instead of just more out of "our game doesn't require you to use more than one weapon anyway so here's a rifle and a sidearm, pick your flavor".

You're creating unique playstyles by choosing what ranges/enemies/situations you specialize in. This is not at all unique here. Specialization is a form of depth found in many games.

Darmik posted...

weapon_d00d816 posted...

Plus those full-arsenal games have to balance it by making certain ammo scarce, rather than making the weapon itself scare but giving it enough ammo to actually have some fun with it when you find it.

What? How is that different from just...finding lots of ammo for something?

You usually don't.
---

weapon_d00d816 posted...

You do in the games that actually make it a gameplay mechanic instead of just more out of "our game doesn't require you to use more than one weapon anyway so here's a rifle and a sidearm".

You're creating unique playstyles by choosing what ranges/enemies/situations you specialize in. This is not at all unique here. Specialization is a form of depth found in many games.

Like what?

I bet in Halo we used the sniper rifle, rocket launcher and shotgun during the same firefights.

weapon_d00d816 posted...

You usually don't.

Which game is an example?
---

FPS games havent been improved upon since 1999

pretty much every "innovation" or design change has made the genre worse

look at QWTF and TFC compared to fucking Halo/CoD

the genre is a fucking meme anymore
---

ManSpread posted...

FPS games havent been improved upon since 1999

PlanetSide perfected combined arms shooters

Early 2000s fps games are GREAT
---

TheMarthKoopa posted...

ManSpread posted...

FPS games havent been improved upon since 1999

PlanetSide perfected combined arms shooters

planestside was fun and all for dicking around on

does it belong anywhere near the pantheon of great FPS games (qwtf, tfc, doom 2, cpma)?

hell no
---

ManSpread posted...

planestside was fun and all for dicking around on

does it belong anywhere near the pantheon of great FPS games (qwtf, tfc, doom 2, cpma)?

hell no

I guess if all you care about is technical skill

Tmk is trolling, right? The nonsense this dude is typing is giving me a migraine...
---