All These New Games Suck

T

thedocta45

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
Oct 10, 2007
Messages
1,325
Personally, I don't think all the newer games are that bad.

Specifically I am talking about FPS games, I think that game designers have gotten lazy, take for example the Doom vs COD map layout image I see being thrown around.

I will say that linear game play does serve an important function and that is to progress the story, but when used entirely for the game that's where the problem begins.

I made this post because I am honestly tired of seeing these mediocre games released and would like to do something about it.

So I am going to ask for the community's input and assistance. No I'm not going to blow up EA headquarters, and no I don't need your money.

If you could answer a few questions that would be great.


Q: What do you not like about current FPS options?
A:

Q: What do you like about current FPS options?
A:

Q: Do you think a game with a Doom style map that has you "backtracking" would be acceptable?
A:


Q: Do you think a game that mixes open world maps, Doom style maps, and linear maps ( to advance the story) would be successful?
A:

Q: What cliches are you tired of seeing in games?
A:

Q: What would you like to see in future FPS style games?
A:

Answer as many questions as you would like, or offer other ideas.

On a side note does anyone know any game engines that have the destructible features from the original Red Faction?

Thanks in advance
 
Honestly, I do not like FPS / Action games all that much. And when I do like them somewhat, it is almost entirely for the multiplayer. As bad as FPS games are becoming, the other genres are declining even faster.
 
Eh sure I'll bite.

1. Modern military shooters, all of them.

2. Way too many COD clones, not enough unique ideas. Regenerating health is fucking stupid.

3. Depends how well it's done.

4. See 3.

5. Regenerating health.

6. No regenerating health, just get rid of it entirely. It kills pacing. Developers need to figure out a better option.
 
Q: What do you not like about current FPS options?
A: Biggest complaint? Laziness. You ever go down an alley or something and just get stopped by an invisible way because they want you to go down one hallway but are too lazy to give you a reason to only go that way? Thats fucking lazy put up a fence or something. Even better put an easter egg for people who think outside the corridor so to speak. It's forgivable like once a game but modern shooters have that kinda laziness all over the place. It tells me they were paid to produce a product and that's what they delivered nothing nothing more nothing less.

Q: What do you like about current FPS options?
A: The two weapon system sort of. For single player games I like a slight bit of realism for how many weapons you could really haul around. Not many people realize how heavy a shotgun alone really is. All bets are off for mp.

Q: Do you think a game with a Doom style map that has you "backtracking" would be acceptable?
A:Yes, with a hitch. backtracking is fine but fill a level with neat stuff to do or things going on. Too many shooters today only expect you too look at your next objective or who to shoot. Stalker had tons of backtracking but it's a pretty game with lots of things to do and see.


Q: Do you think a game that mixes open world maps, Doom style maps, and linear maps ( to advance the story) would be successful?
A: Sure it would lots of games with that mix have been successful.

Q: What cliches are you tired of seeing in games?
A: Poorly tested gameplay. Not just glitches but games where they don't bother to test things like limited ammo to keep the suspense. Repeating the same sequences over and over. Wolfenstein 2009 received poor reviews specifically because it was just plain boring. There was no innovation.

Q: What would you like to see in future FPS style games?
A: Imagination, MOAR TESTING. No regenerating health and nigh infinite ammo. Developers rely to heavily on hardmode to make up for lack of proper testing and pacing. All it does is make enemies tougher and unrealistic.
 
Well I've thought a lot about this and decided to do something about it. I'm an amateur 3d modeler but can do pretty well with hard surface stuff and I'm seriously going to try to make a game with kickstarter and UDK.

Before I give the details, I would say to your questions the problem is a safe sale plain and simple. Big studios stick with what they know and will rinse repeat till people stop spending record amounts of money. I mean why would they change the cod formula when every new one outsells the old? Can't blame them. However I do NOT want to play that shit anymore.

I want to play something fast paced like quake 3 (specifically rocket arena 3), but make it more accessible with more variety and more customization. Here's my idea.

1. Have the pace of a quake or unreal game
2. Add variety to the classic weapons and have a ton more available. For instance you could have a standard rocket launcher with normal attributes, then another that moves slower but has way more splash damage, or maybe one with hardly any splash but deals a ton of damage. The variety is endless. I'm thinking at least 40 weapons. A huge thing the quake and unreal games are missing.
3. Have a few melee weapons as well
4. Have the characters have different stats, like one would have a little more health, maybe one does slightly more damage etc, but make the differences very small for balance.
5. One of the funnest things ever put into a game is rocket jumping (especially in ra3 with no damage to the player), but it's hard for a lot of people to do. Make right click by default(free to bind to whatever key) give a rocket jumping ability no matter what weapon you are equipping. Make the whole thing one button press so no jumping and shooting needed.

There's more but this is the jest of it. If anyone reading steals this idea I will cut you.
 
Worst cliche? Like someone already said,military shooters.
What would I like to see? More open world,non-linear games like the STALKER and Fallout series.
 
Some thoughts on the premise of your game. IMHO, people who are into games like Quake 3/ra3 etc. probably do so because they specifically are not accessible, and it actually requires a fair amount of skill and dedication to become proficient at those games. By taking the basis of Q3 and then trying to make it more accessible, you would be removing exactly that which many people in that niche find appealing about those games. In essence, you seem like you're trying to make a new breed of hardcore game for hardcore FPS gamers but at the same time removing some of the aspects that made those games actually hardcore. People who don't like Q3/RA, they probably don't like it because of the fast pacing and gameplay. The net result of all this would be that there would be very, very few people who like fast paced old-school style FPS but think they are too inaccessible. Your market is virtually nonexistent.

When you say you want 40 weapons, that is hard to implement and there's a reason why you rarely (or never) see it in games. Because if you have 40 wepaons to choose from, chances are there will be a few that are ultimately "better" than the rest, and everybody will just use those and ignore everything else. The result is that you waste a ton of effort/resources in designing and creating 40 weapons, 35 of which will never get used.

Arguably the same goes for character classes/customization as well. There will most likely be a set of customizations that are "more effective" than the rest and those will be what everyone uses, abandoning the rest.

"old school" games like Q3 had limits on the customization and this actually helps their gameplay because everyone is fairly balanced. Was not "equality for all" one of the original motivations behind the Q3 rocket arena mod? A totally equal playing field where everyone is the same character with the same weapon- you go out and kill each other with your skill not your in-game advantages?

It's not that you would intend for this to happen, just that it is exceedingly difficult to properly balance that many combinations and have them all be equal. I am not involved in professional game development, but I would not be surprised to learn that balance issues is one big contributing factor to developers when deciding how many weapons they will include in their games.

The closest analog I can think of is the original starcraft and brood war- one of the very very very few instances in gaming ever where a large number of unit variety (analogous to "weapons" in your game) was properly balanced against each other such that (nearly) all units in the game had some purpose. And arguably the reason for its incredible success as a competitive e-sport. Mind you this was only achieved after literally years of patching/tweaking what was already released too. When played at the highest levels, you actually saw excellent utilization of units because there was no single "ultimate way" to play. IMHO even SC2 failed to measure quite up to SC/BW standards in this regard, and frankly I think it has more to do with that is so difficult to do correctly, and not because Blizzard didn't try or were too lazy to balance things properly.

Anyway just my $0.02. I'm not trying to shoot your idea down, just some thoughts I had.
 
thedocta45 said:
150 views and no comments come on guys we gotta save gaming.
Click to expand...

That's because we all just wanted to read some dumb rant about how gaming has died. We aren't commenting by and large because your premise is faulty and the whole thing is useless. I think plenty of good games come out so I disagree with the whole idea of your post, but I also fully realize that some guy writing a rant on a board won't do anything to change gaming.
 
1.
COD4 was the best game they did and after that 5 was WWII and it was unique and some fun.
then they all went crap.
the latest is crap and a money sink. Expansions that are NOT expansions pay for a map.
now BF3 is on the same thing and BF4 is coming out in Oct.
Just bleed them dry.
(THANK YOU CONSOLES) those morons will pay for anything over and over and over too bad most of us don't have mommys credit card.
this makes sure they are paid to do nothing. Again console owners pay and think they are getting a deal. PUBLIC SCHOOL NO DOUBT
oh sorry pubic skool so you know who I am talking about


2.
ALL of them are just a quick way to make a buck and same old same old.
IF they want to do WWII go look at medal of honor. AWESOME Multiplayer fun

to your last question
COD4 AND MEDAL OF HONOR WITH BETTER GRAPHICS ....NOTHING ELSE CHANGED
BF2 and 3 with NO PLANES...SO AGAIN ITS CALLED BAD COMPANY
 
Last edited:
Sycraft said:
That's because we all just wanted to read some dumb rant about how gaming has died. We aren't commenting by and large because your premise is faulty and the whole thing is useless. I think plenty of good games come out so I disagree with the whole idea of your post, but I also fully realize that some guy writing a rant on a board won't do anything to change gaming.
Click to expand...

I was thinking "Oh, look. Another one of THOSE threads.". I don't think we're going to be saving gaming on [H] with our words & pure will power.
 
Q: What do you not like about current FPS options?
Click to expand...
I want a new Unreal Tournament game - fast paced deathmatch and a big list of other modes, tons and tons of maps (50+) right out of the box, easy tools to produce more if you are a savvy user, dedicated servers to easily host and run your own modded gametypes and maps, etc. I want to dodge jump off walls and shoot lasers and rockets and everything else during capture the flag and every other gametype you can imagine. No current FPS I've seen seems to have as much variety right out of the box, or potential for community creations, as UT99 or UT2k4 did.

As for single player, the games seem like they are on rails. Even if the game is wide-open on a big island like Crysis, you still have a very visible compass/mapmarker waypoint showing you exactly which direction you have to go. It is very challenging if not impossible to ever get lost. In a game like CoD, you only have a single path and no matter how much it twists and turns it can still be displayed as a simple straight line. Games like Unreal felt much more alive in their single-player maps, with all sorts of places to discover, get lost in, etc. This was great and is missing today at least in the games I am playing.

Also do not like QTE things very much.

Q: What do you like about current FPS options?
Click to expand...
I like small perks, and other things that help you customize your "character" or loadout or whatever. I enjoy the robust matchmaking systems - but I still like a big server list and self-hosting a whole lot more.

Q: Do you think a game with a Doom style map that has you "backtracking" would be acceptable?
Click to expand...
extremely yes. Look at some of the maps of Unreal levels -- they have big open spaces, mazes, everything. Easy to get lost in, find secret places, you name it. levels should be a joy to explore, NOT just something you run past on the way to a blinking minimap waypoint..


Q: Do you think a game that mixes open world maps, Doom style maps, and linear maps ( to advance the story) would be successful?
Click to expand...
Extremely. I feel like this somewhat describes Unreal, even.

Q: What cliches are you tired of seeing in games?
Click to expand...
The modern NATO soldier. The world war II Allied Powers soldier. The burly ultra-masculine future-marine.

Q: What would you like to see in future FPS style games?
Click to expand...
I want more immersion, more chances to accidentally take wrong turns and get lost. If at no point in a game do I get frustrated with figuring out where to go next, what am I even doing when I play? I should have to think and explore and learn the terrain.
 
thedocta45 said:
I made this post because I am honestly tired of seeing these mediocre games released and would like to do something about it.
Click to expand...

I'd like to know what you intend to do about it before I answer said questions.
 
I'm assuming this applies to SP more so than MP since that's what it sounded like from the OP.

Q: What do you not like about current FPS options?
A: The player has little control over the actual gameplay. Every level is designed to be played in a way that the devs want you to play them. There are cutscenes everywhere. It seems you're playing to progress from point A to point B, rather than enjoy the stuff that's between points A and B in interesting ways.

Q: What do you like about current FPS options?
A: Honestly, the Halo games are pretty good. In any given level, you can choose to go about it in different ways and kill the enemies in different ways. I liked this a lot and the Halo campaigns remain as the only modern FPS campaigns that I've played multiple times and have any desire to beat on a higher (legendary) difficulty.

Q: Do you think a game with a Doom style map that has you "backtracking" would be acceptable?
A: Honestly, I find it annoying to backtrack a lot.


Q: Do you think a game that mixes open world maps, Doom style maps, and linear maps ( to advance the story) would be successful?
A: Yes

Q: What cliches are you tired of seeing in games?
A: Trying to make everything overly dramatic ... from plot to slow-mo explosions with the main character jumping out of the way just in the nick of time. BTW, all of these 'intense' scenes are always in a cutscene rather than during actual gameplay. If they are during gameplay, they are typically QTE's or very controlled. A fantastic example of player produced epic hollywood action sequences is JC2.

Q: What would you like to see in future FPS style games?
A: Everything I've already said. Basically, more control to the player and less dick holding telling players how they should play and what their character is doing rather than the player actually doing it.
 
Ruahrc said:
Some thoughts on the premise of your game. IMHO, people who are into games like Quake 3/ra3 etc. probably do so because they specifically are not accessible, and it actually requires a fair amount of skill and dedication to become proficient at those games. By taking the basis of Q3 and then trying to make it more accessible, you would be removing exactly that which many people in that niche find appealing about those games. In essence, you seem like you're trying to make a new breed of hardcore game for hardcore FPS gamers but at the same time removing some of the aspects that made those games actually hardcore. People who don't like Q3/RA, they probably don't like it because of the fast pacing and gameplay. The net result of all this would be that there would be very, very few people who like fast paced old-school style FPS but think they are too inaccessible. Your market is virtually nonexistent.

When you say you want 40 weapons, that is hard to implement and there's a reason why you rarely (or never) see it in games. Because if you have 40 wepaons to choose from, chances are there will be a few that are ultimately "better" than the rest, and everybody will just use those and ignore everything else. The result is that you waste a ton of effort/resources in designing and creating 40 weapons, 35 of which will never get used.

Arguably the same goes for character classes/customization as well. There will most likely be a set of customizations that are "more effective" than the rest and those will be what everyone uses, abandoning the rest.

"old school" games like Q3 had limits on the customization and this actually helps their gameplay because everyone is fairly balanced. Was not "equality for all" one of the original motivations behind the Q3 rocket arena mod? A totally equal playing field where everyone is the same character with the same weapon- you go out and kill each other with your skill not your in-game advantages?

It's not that you would intend for this to happen, just that it is exceedingly difficult to properly balance that many combinations and have them all be equal. I am not involved in professional game development, but I would not be surprised to learn that balance issues is one big contributing factor to developers when deciding how many weapons they will include in their games.

The closest analog I can think of is the original starcraft and brood war- one of the very very very few instances in gaming ever where a large number of unit variety (analogous to "weapons" in your game) was properly balanced against each other such that (nearly) all units in the game had some purpose. And arguably the reason for its incredible success as a competitive e-sport. Mind you this was only achieved after literally years of patching/tweaking what was already released too. When played at the highest levels, you actually saw excellent utilization of units because there was no single "ultimate way" to play. IMHO even SC2 failed to measure quite up to SC/BW standards in this regard, and frankly I think it has more to do with that is so difficult to do correctly, and not because Blizzard didn't try or were too lazy to balance things properly.

Anyway just my $0.02. I'm not trying to shoot your idea down, just some thoughts I had.
Click to expand...


That's a fair criticism and in every game there's never going to be 100% balance, hell blizzard games other than starcraft come nowhere close. However balance would be my main focus by eliminating all the other fluff most games have.

The way I would do this is using the rocket launcher example again. Every weapon variation would mostly follow the same formula trade offs. More projectile speed, less damage or less splash. Quicker fire rate, less damage etc. It really wouldn't be hard to balance if you think about it using a precise formula that could apply to all sorts of weapons.

As to your first criticism you could have applied that to any game type. Imagine if someone would have said that about realistic shooters and using the original rainbow six as a comparison. Accessibility might turn some people off for sure, but in the end makes for a much larger audience. Also I don't think I'm betraying the originals in any way just making them flat out more fun and customizable and adding tons of variety with one simple formula that keeps everything balanced. Which is essentially what all the original weapons are based off anyways, just making a ton of weapons using that formula instead of just 8 or 9.

Even quake 3 had balance problems between the weapons. Nobody uses plasma as much as lightning, but I bet they would if the damage was upped to the appropriate amount. The mg gun is mostly useless in quake live, I would change that. As far as the characters go the differences would be there but like I said be very very slight to avoid the issue you brought up. Most of the attribute changes would be 5% at the most.
 
We need more Arena style shooters, like Quake and Unreal.

Screw these Military shooters.
 
thedocta45 said:
150 views and no comments come on guys we gotta save gaming.
Click to expand...

I was in the process of writing a comment then i was like... shit I don't even play FPSes anymore. ( not because I prefer the older ones but because I just don't care for the genre that much)
 
butterfliesrpretty said:
That's a fair criticism and in every game there's never going to be 100% balance, hell blizzard games other than starcraft come nowhere close. However balance would be my main focus by eliminating all the other fluff most games have.

The way I would do this is using the rocket launcher example again. Every weapon variation would mostly follow the same formula trade offs. More projectile speed, less damage or less splash. Quicker fire rate, less damage etc. It really wouldn't be hard to balance if you think about it using a precise formula that could apply to all sorts of weapons.

As to your first criticism you could have applied that to any game type. Imagine if someone would have said that about realistic shooters and using the original rainbow six as a comparison. Accessibility might turn some people off for sure, but in the end makes for a much larger audience. Also I don't think I'm betraying the originals in any way just making them flat out more fun and customizable and adding tons of variety with one simple formula that keeps everything balanced. Which is essentially what all the original weapons are based off anyways, just making a ton of weapons using that formula instead of just 8 or 9.

Even quake 3 had balance problems between the weapons. Nobody uses plasma as much as lightning, but I bet they would if the damage was upped to the appropriate amount. The mg gun is mostly useless in quake live, I would change that. As far as the characters go the differences would be there but like I said be very very slight to avoid the issue you brought up. Most of the attribute changes would be 5% at the most.
Click to expand...

I get your point but I don't think it's anywhere as easy as a "simple precise formula" that you can use to balance weapons. Equalizing DPS or whatever amongst all of them does not make them balanced- there are some aspects you cannot control in a formula. Such as how do you quantify the limited range of a flamethrower vs. a sniper in a simple precise formula? How do you quantify the time-delay, impulse nature damage of a grenade launcher vs. the longer range, continuous damage model of a flamethrower or machine gun? A grenade launcher is next to useless in a rocket arena game where you spend 50% of your time flying midair, so even though a grenade launcher might have the same DPS as a sniper or a plasma beam, it has substantially different situational effectiveness. That is precisely why truly balanced games are so hard to do- there is no simple process that you can apply to get balance. And the difficulty of balancing X number of items/weapons/skills/etc. increases exponentially with increasing X.

If you make the character attribute changes too slight, then the differences become meaningless, lost in the noise of the random nature of gaming. Say for example 5% more HP is easily offset by the unpredictable nature of impulse/splash damage from a rocket... if it lands 1 foot closer to your left you're dead, 1 foot farther and you're alive with 1HP... in order to reliably benefit from that you'd have to be able to control either where your rocket hits or where you stand to within 1 foot- not easy in a fast paced rocket jumping game. The point of customization would be lost because everybody still plays the same way and more or less have the same character.
 
Q: What do you not like about current FPS options?
A: Current WW2 or Imaginary WW3 scenarios or Tactical only ones

Q: What do you like about current FPS options?
A: Graphics & they at least try to put some kind of story in now

Q: Do you think a game with a Doom style map that has you "backtracking" would be acceptable?
A: Yes! get rid of the shooters on rails!


Q: Do you think a game that mixes open world maps, Doom style maps, and linear maps ( to advance the story) would be successful?
A: Yes again!

Q: What cliches are you tired of seeing in games?
A: WW1,2,3 blah boring.

Q: What would you like to see in future FPS style games?
A: I would like some fuggin variety with weapons at least. Why does the RPG or a grenade launcher have to be the biggest weapon anymore? I mean, bring back the BFG 9000 or even better, the BFG 10k from Quake 2! I want a gun that hits EVERYTHING and liquifeys them all too! or Turok Dinosaur Hunter's Fusion Cannon, or hell ill take the XP-5 Microwave Pulse gun and broil them from the inside out till the pop into a steaming pile of gore or or the UV-9 Ultraviolet gun and bake them to the bones from the Crusader series.
 
Q: What do you not like about current FPS options?
A: Shit AI, too similar, cramped level design, many have absolutely awful weapon sounds, lack of creativity in weapons and the goddamningly stupid XP GRIND. A lot of mods for games are better than the game the mod came from, too.

Q: What do you like about current FPS options?
A: A few games seriously pushing hardware which, hopefully, increases the quality of the visuals and details in future games. Sound design has improved in a lot of areas as well.

Q: Do you think a game with a Doom style map that has you "backtracking" would be acceptable?
A: Acceptable but only to a degree. A lot of times it seems to be a cheap copout to developing larger, more diversified levels. You can avoid backtracking AND rails at the same time, you know.

Q: Do you think a game that mixes open world maps, Doom style maps, and linear maps ( to advance the story) would be successful?
A: If that is all people based their purchase off of but it certainly wouldn't hurt to try. The rest of the content has to work with these ideas, too.

Q: What cliches are you tired of seeing in games?
A: All of them. Nothing is original anymore so it is hard to expect anything else, though.

Q: What would you like to see in future FPS style games?
A: A destructible environment, open map game with a dynamic AI that gives an objective and 100 ways to complete it. Sandbox environment, essentially, that adapts to the player.
 
In a word yes, I am interested in seeing what other gamers are looking for in a game.

I have my own ideas some of which have been outlined in my questions. Such as the question about level design.

It may just be a pipe dream of mine, but I would like to put together a really great and different fps.
 
give you a few more things.
Get rid of crap like BF3 and origin bs game joiner.
Why do I have to reboot the game to change to another map?
It should be in game and get rid of this crap, you know like it used to be.

Get rid of devs that think that a plane should never take damage and fly around forever and kill 90% of the people on the ground. They are not cannon fodder for just the few pilots to have fun.

Quit asking for $$$$ for a five minute map that is ripped out of the game and sold back to us.

Quit saying that its your way or the highway, give the people servers that they can mod and have fun on. You know like it used to be.

whats next $90 games and we get to pay $20 a month to play?
and of course it will be the same old shit.

That all goes back to consoles, they say those people do NOT want to spend more than 10 hours playing a game and all you need is some cool explosions and ohhhh and ahhh and they will buy it.
 
Q: What do you not like about current FPS options?
A: Most are very mod-unfriendly. In the old days, huge modding communitys would grow around games and keep them going long after official support ended (see BF1942). No LAN play. No replayability.

Q: What do you like about current FPS options?
A: Many of the new FPS games coming out have good graphics.

Q: Do you think a game with a Doom style map that has you "backtracking" would be acceptable?
A: Yes, as long as the map was interesting.


Q: Do you think a game that mixes open world maps, Doom style maps, and linear maps ( to advance the story) would be successful?
A: No, but I would buy it.

Q: What would you like to see in future FPS style games?
A: More games like BF1942 and SWAT4 (i know, two completely different styles)
 
Q: What do you not like about current FPS options?
A: Weapon limits, frequent unskippable cutscenes, no health bar, too slow paced campaigns. And also, I don't like campaigns that require you to drive a vehicle or control an airborne unit and kill enemies with it, that is very boring

Q: What do you like about current FPS options?
A: Graphics

Q: Do you think a game with a Doom style map that has you "backtracking" would be acceptable?
A: I guess


Q: Do you think a game that mixes open world maps, Doom style maps, and linear maps ( to advance the story) would be successful?
A: It depends how it is designed

Q: What cliches are you tired of seeing in games?
A: Everybody trying to copy each other, slow paced gameplay and long tedious bullshit cutscenes really ruin it for me

Q: What would you like to see in future FPS style games?
A: More old style FPS games like Quake & Doom would be perfect and none of this "realistic" CoD like bullshit, its overdone and overplayed
 
I'll happily contribute here.

Q: What do you not like about current FPS options?
A:
- Lack of humour. Why can't we have something absurdly humorous monty python-like? Wheres the humour? Okay so we have TF2.. but TF2 isn't even that absurd at all. I wish somebody would make something that's just flippin crazy.
- Game made for console AND THEN converted to PC like pc gamers are 2nd grade; low FOV, lacking UI and control options.
- Plot and goal of the game is usually the same old boring cheesy hollywood movie shit. ie BORING and LAME.
- Acting is often mildly retarded.
- No risk in failing/dying, thus, no excitement.
- Lack of suspense.
- Lack of depth in gameplay
- Lack of detailed hit detection
- Post processing effects are distracting, ugly and tax performance too much

Q: What do you like about current FPS options?
A: Day Z. And that's about it. It's great because there's a sense of reward from optaining a weapon, why? because the game has RISK. If you die you start over, and you die easily. The battles thus have meaning and excitement while ironically the game is without a clear goal other than just surviving. It's great to have a bit of excitement for a change.

Q: Do you think a game with a Doom style map that has you "backtracking" would be acceptable?
A: Doesn't catch my interest particularly. But I would welcome any well designed arena shooter. as in; adjustable FoV, runs great, feels great, isn't designed for gays. I'm Thinking UT99 or Q3 with better graphics and physics but equally as fast and smooth? Sure why not.

Q: Do you think a game that mixes open world maps, Doom style maps, and linear maps ( to advance the story) would be successful?
A: Sure! I'm a huge fan of variety.

Q: What cliches are you tired of seeing in games?
A: Focus on redundant and cheesy storylines. I'll go to movies and book for stories for fuck sake... WW2. Regenerating health. Retarded acting. Lack of good humour, generally. Everything trying to appeal to gay children and adults at the same time and as a result fails to please both.

Q: What would you like to see in future FPS style games?
A: I'd like to see high value gameplay-wise FPS MMOs of different flavors. One with a western theme one sci-fi, and so on. I believe MMO is the future style of gaming. All we need are devs with the determination for it, doing it for the love in their design, not just the bucks!!!
 
Damn, some people do respect good ol games.
Had to reg just to post this.

Q: What do you not like about current FPS options?
A: Regenerative health system, dev controlled gameplaying (no using your own brain is needed), lazyness of simply using cod game-engines on every game, too much specific military s***t. PC gamers being leftout, games are actually made on pc's and optimized for consoles and then console versions are quickly and sloppy ported to pc. eg. not much customizable game options. There was one action game i played where you could actually only change screen resolution and brightness and not any detail, shader or anything else (there werent even any config files to mess with.). I believe it was Bionic Commando, though gameplay suprissed and it was very good to play. Lastly, most devs not really focusing on sound but rather picture/graphics. Games like doom3 which utilized EAX Advanced HD had unbelievable soundworld with its echoes, reverbs and other envirvonment affected sounds.

Q: What do you like about current FPS options?
A: Graphics are really nice. Cover thing is nice add to game but not completly cover shoot because it gets boring. This realistic limited gun carrying is also okay to me and i actually like it and approve it. Strange since i love all dooms and duke nukems (except 2012 forever) and other good old games. Mirror's Edge actually also pulled it off with the whole regenerative health and limited gun carrying, even i hate regen health it worked and same goes with last years Spec Ops The Line somehow using Unreal engine/Gears Of War it all worked mainly also because this whole new environment, Dubai.

Q: Do you think a game with a Doom style map that has you "backtracking" would be acceptable?
A: I would take it right away but not sure about this unfortunate young casual mass.


Q: Do you think a game that mixes open world maps, Doom style maps, and linear maps ( to advance the story) would be successful?
A: If done correclty it could work.

Q: What cliches are you tired of seeing in games?
A: Three letters. COD. i actually played sp COD2 (2005) and it was only mediocre game but acceptable. If i aint completely wrong, the same thing has continued eversince (regenhealth, linear level and dev controlled playing)

Q: What would you like to see in future FPS style games?
A: Take direction like Max Payne 3. Rockstar Games actually respected in someway Remedy's Max Payne creation. I for one was very suprised to see non regenhealth game in 2012. Let players play and explore the game and not only watch it and go by the "rules" of the dev. Originality so that idea and or scenes in game arent all predictable.


also those two youtube videos of "doom done today" and "quake done today" are really good videos and also so sad but true.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top