Tired Of 3d Polygonal Games...

[Radek]

Yeah, I know I'm a generalising but tell me a single not technical feature the olders doesn't have.

Imho there is a none.

Other people helping you out - squad-based combat. Orders. Voice communication over the internet. More complicated and fun game modes than just deathmatch. Smoke grenades. Sophisticated AI. Hit direction indicators. Real plots, cutscenes, narrative. Gameplay more complex than just killing everything in sight. Stealth missions.

Cooperative is nothing new I'm afraid. The rest is indeed a something what wasn't so prevelant in the old times. But I'm not sure if many of those thing weren't in the SystemShock1? Then we have the Ultima Underworld1/2 and ShadowCaster so... I'd not say "a more complex gameplay" is something really new. There were more intriguing games then - the MagicCarpet, the first Bethesda's Arena and many more, forgive my memory...

The fps shooter is just a fps shooter and the Doom1/2 in this regard conceptually is (well, almost) no different to the Doom3.

Perhaps because Doom 3 was DESIGNED to be almost identical to Doom 1, as it's a remake? That's not a very good example of a modern FPS.

Well... I mean a shooter is a shooter. The Doom3 has similiar theme to the originals and the same core concept (the shooting) but that's all. Gameplay wise is very different and certainly unlike the Doom1/2. Painkiller and SeriousSam are far closer conceptually to the Doom1/2. Doom3 is an example of syndrome of a "room with no more than three bad guys and then move to next room" at its worst.

Are we hearing anything to the same level with any today's FPS shooters?

Half-Life 2, for one.

​

But how long it will last and is it really so strong as was for the Doom1/2?

Perhaps I'm an old prick who complains too much. :lol:

But I had been playing various games for so long (starting from ZX Spectrum actually) and today's games rarely offers anything new. This is for a two reason - first it's hard to invent something new what would make sense from the gameplay standpoint and the second - the almighty $. In the old times you hadn't to have much to wrote a professional game. One person with time of few month could wrote a hit. Try the same today...

This is why I got so excited about the GP2x. Finally a machine strong enough to have an attractive (read - "not too ugly") content and developing costs what will not break a bank.

 

[c0ncept]

Cooperative is nothing new I'm afraid. The rest is indeed a something what wasn't so prevelant in the old times. But I'm not sure if many of those thing weren't in the SystemShock1? Then we have the Ultima Underworld1/2 and ShadowCaster so... I'd not say "a more complex gameplay" is something really new. There were more intriguing games then - the MagicCarpet, the first Bethesda's Arena and many more, forgive my memory...

​

I'd add things like location based damage to this, especially in fps', the first game that I'm aware that did this well was Perfect Dark (I could be wrong though as my knowledge of PC gaming history is limited), and its been brought up to scratch with Resident Evil 4.

However the point is that, yes although all these have been done before, most of the time they were done independantly of each other. For instance a game would be sold soley on the fact that you could network play it or you controlled a squad or whatever. Now the sense of immersion that you get in games is so much higher than at any other point in videogame history. Immersion is the point, I think, having thought about what rico said earlier about narrative I have come to the conclusion that yes, a plot or narrative isn't neccesserary to make a good game, but a sense of immersion is. And the fact is that modern games pull this off better, however we could trade examples all day disputing this fact...

Well... I mean a shooter is a shooter. The Doom3 has similiar theme to the originals and the same core concept (the shooting) but that's all. Gameplay wise is very different and certainly unlike the Doom1/2. Painkiller and SeriousSam are far closer conceptually to the Doom1/2. Doom3 is an example of syndrome of a "room with no more than three bad guys and then move to next room" at its worst.

​

yeessss, I suppose i see what your saying but then if you boil games down to their core elements then there are only a few types of games. This is called genre. I mean 'starfox' and 'pilotwings' could both broadly be interpreted as flying games, but this doesn't mean they're the same game, or even comparable. Its the layers of complexity that make games today so intriguing, its not 'just a shooter' its a'zombie filled survival horror with puzzle and strategy elements' and I like that.

But how long it will last and is it really so strong as was for the Doom1/2?

Perhaps I'm an old prick who complains too much. :lol:

​

how exactly would you characterise doom1/2's strength exactly? I'm not disagreeing that they're good games, but you've mentioned them so often that I can't help but think they're at the core of your argument and you haven't really articulated what it is about them that you think is so special.

I wouldn't say you complain to much, if anything this thread is the most interesting thats come along in ages, kudos I say.

 

[Radek]

how exactly would you characterise doom1/2's strength exactly? I'm not disagreeing that they're good games, but you've mentioned them so often that I can't help but think they're at the core of your argument and you haven't really articulated what it is about them that you think is so special.

Yes. I think the Doom (1 and 2) are something very special. They were like a first atomic bomb - a first serious step in a new direction...

They had an everything perfect at the time. The graphics, the insane gameplay, the taste of "3d" and even today some of the capabilities of Doom's "raycasting" graphics engine are very hard to duplicate using polygonal/z-buffer techniques. And there were a zero compromise regarding the content. Look how later ID's games became more and more uncontroversial.

Condensing all that I'm thinking the first Dooms are the best of IDsoftware's achievements. The Quakes started riding on the success of the hardware 3d accelerators and from being the virtuoso Carmack became just a craftsman. Best in the industry but still... he is no more like the Paganini.

Later we had the 3DRealms games based on the "build" engine. DukemNukem3D, ShadowWarrior and the Blood were all still a "2.5d" really but improved so much compared to the Doom1/2 they might you fool you were actually looking like the "true" 3d games" if not for these 2d sprites for the characters!

When resource are sparse you have to think. When we got the "3D" revolution started by the 3Dfx the developers get a powerfull tool. But this "power" didn't come for free. One hand given, the other taken. The Doom's engines are easily capable of sustain hundreds characters at the same time. Look what would happen to the Doom3 at the same conditions... Yeah I know these are a sprites but still - from gameplaying standpoint 100 is more than an 3.

I wouldn't say you complain to much, if anything this thread is the most interesting thats come along in ages, kudos I say.

​

Then Thanks you very much. This is one of the very best discussions I had been having.

 

[Memnoch]

As you can imagine I love the game. The attention to detail is amazing. Go have a look at WoW europe.

​

Amen brother!

 

[Rico]

Yes. I think the Doom (1 and 2) are something very special

​

Perhaps it is only nostalgia you feel. Doom was one of the first FPS games, and much better than Wolfenstein, as well as being one of the first experiences of grabbing a gun, marching through levels and killing everything in sight.

Doom 3 showed that we're tired of that gameplay now (OK, I'll accept that it's not really a remake of Doom 1) We need something new. Well, we'll never be able to recapture playing an FPS for the first time, but we can enhance it with squad-based combat (not co-operative like you thought I said), horror elements, added immersion (thanks c0ncept), better multiplayer modes etc...

Look at the original Battlefield 1942 with massively squad based combat with vehicles, commanders and artillery. Half-Life 2 with its brilliantly-crafted set pieces, or the crazy physics you could do to kill the guards. Stealth FPSs like No One Lives Forever that mix in comedy and don't always require you to shoot the enemy! FPS games have diversified, and have come a long way from Doom, perhaps you need to wait a few years to notice it. I won't deny that Serious Sam is still fun though ...

 

[c0ncept]

Yes. I think the Doom (1 and 2) are something very special. They were like a first atomic bomb - a first serious step in a new direction...

​

I totally agree, Doom and Doom2 were groundbreaking and innovative, but to say that games haven't progressed since then seems a little naive. After all you can't possibly expect groundbreaking and genre defining games to come along very often. If I may draw parrellels with early cinema; early in the centuary when cinema was becoming viable as a medium audiences were dazzled by images of moving trains. Thats right, no plot no characters nothing; Just a train moving. I tend to think that it was the newness of the medium that impressed people, they were seeing something they hadn't seen before. However as cinema advanced and audiences became more sophisticated they expected more. We've now got to the stage where cinema (and heres the link to gaming) have pretty much grown into their medium and truley groundbreaking and innovative films/games come along less and less.

When resource are sparse you have to think. When we got the "3D" revolution started by the 3Dfx the developers get a powerfull tool. But this "power" didn't come for free. One hand given, the other taken.

​

Absolutely, however thats not to say that a developer with plentiful resources can't produce a well thought out game that also looks nice. I have a feeling that middle-ware is part of the problem. I just can't quite articulate why.

Perhaps it is only nostalgia you feel. Doom was one of the first FPS games, and much better than Wolfenstein, as well as being one of the first experiences of grabbing a gun, marching through levels and killing everything in sight.

​

I'm not so sure if it is nostalgia. I was never into games as a kid and my first experience of doom was only a few years ago (on the gp32, no less!) and I have to say I can see why radek is so impressed with it. It just seems to have 'something' that many (not all, obviously) games nowadays just don't have. In part the commercialisation of gaming and the fact that since the playstation gaming has become a lot more mainstream are part of the problem. It means on one hand that the developers get a much larger budget to play with but on the other hand, much of the time they're content to deliver the same reheated left-overs to us over and over again, knowing that it will sell (tony hawks 7, anyone?)

 

[junker]

not much innovation, but FEAR is a damn good game, and quite scary at times. it isn't the type of game that would work with massive game worlds or huge numbers of enemies.
i don't see what your problem is with it! i haven't gone far into it, but the gameplay and feel of the game is pretty fun.
only problem i have with it and most new pc games is that it takes a good graphics card to run well, and even with my ok card i can't pour on the FSAA i'm so used to.

anyway gameplay will improve along with graphics, too. it hasn't been that long since the days of wolfenstein/doom/etc.

 

[Goity]

I'm not so sure if it is nostalgia. I was never into games as a kid and my first experience of doom was only a few years ago (on the gp32, no less!) and I have to say I can see why radek is so impressed with it. It just seems to have 'something' that many (not all, obviously) games nowadays just don't have.

​

It's easy?
Doom is the only FPS I can bear to play.

 

[Radek]

Yes. I think the Doom (1 and 2) are something very special. They were like a first atomic bomb - a first serious step in a new direction...

​

I totally agree, Doom and Doom2 were groundbreaking and innovative, but to say that games haven't progressed since then seems a little naive. After all you can't possibly expect groundbreaking and genre defining games to come along very often. If I may draw parrellels with early cinema; early in the centuary when cinema was becoming viable as a medium audiences were dazzled by images of moving trains. Thats right, no plot no characters nothing; Just a train moving. I tend to think that it was the newness of the medium that impressed people, they were seeing something they hadn't seen before. However as cinema advanced and audiences became more sophisticated they expected more. We've now got to the stage where cinema (and heres the link to gaming) have pretty much grown into their medium and truley groundbreaking and innovative films/games come along less and less.

When resource are sparse you have to think. When we got the "3D" revolution started by the 3Dfx the developers get a powerfull tool. But this "power" didn't come for free. One hand given, the other taken.

​

Absolutely, however thats not to say that a developer with plentiful resources can't produce a well thought out game that also looks nice. I have a feeling that middle-ware is part of the problem. I just can't quite articulate why.

Imho problem is a bureaucracy and... money. When to develop a game millions of $ are needed then you must be big (so you have a bureaucracy) or overpromise to attract someone who brings the funds. Then a deadline will eventually come and we have a rushed products.

Perhaps it is only nostalgia you feel. Doom was one of the first FPS games, and much better than Wolfenstein, as well as being one of the first experiences of grabbing a gun, marching through levels and killing everything in sight.

​

I'm not so sure if it is nostalgia. I was never into games as a kid and my first experience of doom was only a few years ago (on the gp32, no less!) and I have to say I can see why radek is so impressed with it. It just seems to have 'something' that many (not all, obviously) games nowadays just don't have. In part the

Yes, there many ports of Doom1/2 already. It's still alive thought no mainstream by any means. I'm looking forward to enjoy the Doom1/2 on my (hopefully soon) GP2x! You know what... I play sometimes the ZXSpectrum's ChuckEgg game... It's that weird or perhaps just it's still fun after so many years?

commercialisation of gaming and the fact that since the playstation gaming has become a lot more mainstream are part of the problem. It means on one hand that the developers get a much larger budget to play with but on the other hand, much of the time they're content to deliver the same reheated left-overs to us over and over again, knowing that it will sell (tony hawks 7, anyone?)

​

It's because gaming was much more like a niche thing then. So developers had a total freedom albeit smaller markets. Now gaming looks like a another thing in the "pop" culture. Far less freedom here but bigger money (both to loss and earn).

 

[junker]

i don't know what you guys are talking about, cuz FEAR is a masterpiece!

 

[torpor]

i've got three letters for you: SVG!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

yes, thats right. SVG rocks it, yo. you can't get much more fun than SVG-slinging 2D games that really push the envelope ..

 

[WarmFluffyUK]

I agree with everyone who said that Doom rocks yer sock off. It's one of the two reasons I bought a GP32, the 2nd being Pinball Dreams.

I have tried a lot of FPSs since the original Doom series (Doom, Doom II, Heretic Hexen & Hexen II) and so far I cannot get into them. Maybe a lot of the games are targeted at the male populous, i.e. based on war. Myself, I like a little myth and magic and scariness. And this is what Doom gave us. As an X of mine once said "Doom has shed loads of atmosphere", and I still play it today. Actually I play updated versions of doom such as JDoom or Doom 64 which have updated graphics, but underneath it all, it still gets me going.

Granted that the newer games have a lot to offer. I completed Halflife 2 a few months back but it still didn't come close to how I felt about Doom though. I wonder if it's a little nostalgia?

I am looking forward to something special to arrive on the games scene. Wheel of time came a little step closer, but I got fed up of that too.

 

[Rico]

http://www.gamepro.com/computer/pc/games/f...res/49588.shtml

'FPS Conventions That Need to Die'

Quite an interesting read...

 

[Radek]

http://www.gamepro.com/computer/pc/games/f...res/49588.shtml

'FPS Conventions That Need to Die'

Quite an interesting read...

​

Thanks for the link, pretty good article and to the point!

A good shooter has to have many weapons not for just more firepower but variety. In the ShadowWarrior (for an example) weapons are very different from each other. The sword is always handy at close distance thought useless (obviously) in a ranged combat. The shurikens are weak themselves however they bounce of the walls so you use this for an advantage. UZIs are pretty good overall but still the shotgun is more capable when you could get closer to an enemy. Rocket launcher is powerfull but you must be very cautious to not kill yourself as the splash range is big (as it should). Nuclear warhead is totally crazy but slow in an arming and better hide somewhere fast. And so on, and so on.

 

[c0ncept]

The main reason why "all shooters look the same" is that games have consistently failed to integrate the most central character--the alter egos themselves--into the game.

Probably the most interesting and relevent line in that article, and something thats hindered my enjoyment of a great many fps in the past.

A great article overall actually, I like the section on realism in weapons, its something that very few games manage (fps and non-fps alike) well and the section on the the environment, which I touched on in a previous post. I'll write an more in-depth post tommorrow, but I've got a collage to finish atm.

Keep up the good work guys, I haven't enjoyed a thread on this board like this in a very long time. Its also useful material for my dissertation, helps me to hammer my ideas into shape before commiting them to an essay. thanks!

 

[jegHegy]

Perhaps I'm an old prick who complains too much.

 

[Radek]

The main reason why "all shooters look the same" is that games have consistently failed to integrate the most central character--the alter egos themselves--into the game.

Yes. Quakes actually didn't have a main character in the first place. Just nameless "someone" and it is all to it...

Compare this to the characters of Duke3D, ShadowWarrior and Blood!
These have characters! And damn funny at this and they all are excellent in theirs ways of awesomeness.

Quakes... well... I admit I was impressed by graphics and actually bought all these games but... after the time they are like empty balloons. Nice surfaces but inside just air.

This is why I'm going to play the "build" games again on the GP2x! Like a crazy madman I should add! :wacko:

Haha. They are just perfect and who else like the "LoWang rap"?

Probably the most interesting and relevent line in that article, and something thats hindered my enjoyment of a great many fps in the past.

A great article overall actually, I like the section on realism in weapons, its something that very few games manage (fps and non-fps alike) well and the section on the the environment, which I touched on in a previous post. I'll write an more in-depth post tommorrow, but I've got a collage to finish atm.

Keep up the good work guys, I haven't enjoyed a thread on this board like this in a very long time. Its also useful material for my dissertation, helps me to hammer my ideas into shape before commiting them to an essay. thanks!

​

Perhaps I'm an old prick who complains too much.

​

You are a genius, you know?

 

[OrR]

If you are tired of the same crap all the time, take a look at gametunnel.com . Often there are crappy puzzle games but once in a while the Indie scene spits out something awesome. For example Darwinia, a game that you HAVE to play. ( www.darwinia.co.uk )
If you are looking for intelligent FPS, how about Mafia and Nolf2? They are some years old now but I greatly enjoyed them just weeks ago. Can't get into most FPS but these I played through.
Maybe go even further back and play some Outcast. First 3D game with an open, living world I have played and it had a great story and those amazing voxel graphics...
If you hate polygons, don't worry. Raytracing hardware chips are just in development. Might only take around five years until they arrive... :rolleyes:

 

[c0ncept]

If you hate polygons, don't worry. Raytracing hardware chips are just in development. Might only take around five years until they arrive... :rolleyes:

​

Don't blame the polygons, its not their fault. Its developers who seem to think that slightly flashier visuals will suffice instead of genuine innovation.

 

[Rico]

I played Darwinia, it looked awesome until my units moved themselves down into a slope that they couldn't get out of.

As for polygons, it's been researched that more polygons don't actually make things look more realistic. It's the facial animations, body movements, shader effects and little details that make things look real, even if they only have a small number of polygons.