Older FPS Games Were Simply More Fun "How is it that on one hand developers suggest that they've found new ways to end spawn camping through rotational spawn points and more intelligent level design, but then give players control over a helicopter that has the ability to simply sit in a single location and rain hell down upon anyone stupid enough to be playing? Perhaps I've missed something here, but being 'modern' doesn't simply mean providing players the ability to sweep death across a battlefield for any extended period of time. While it's true that Modern Warfare provided us with completely new tools in which to fight players with, a lot of the core features from the title really haven't changed over the past few years since FPS gaming was first redefined. Gamers have been throwing down proximity mines since Goldeneye, laying turrets on walls since Perfect Dark, and if we were able to learn a single thing from TimeSplitters, it's that there can never really be enough weapon variation in a game."

Read Full Story >>
Oculus Quest Giveaway! Click Here to Enter
The story is too old to be commented.
JDouglasGU3018d ago

Duke Nukem Forever is betting on a lot of people sharing this sentiment.

ShawnCollier3018d ago

I guess that's why people always say to bet on Duke? :p

NAGNEWS3018d ago (Edited 3018d ago )

Red Faction is still on my top list
i remember when i completed the game without dying
(on ps2 with no memory saving LOL)

mephman3018d ago

I'm not sure about fun, but they were certainly less forgiving.

OpenGL3018d ago

Not sure why you got 3 disagrees, as old shooters were typically a lot less forgiving. Now when you die the game takes you back to your last checkpoint, and pretty much every game has regenerating health so a few seconds hidden behind a way returns you to full strength.

As to new shooters being more fun than old shooters, it's completely subjective and I think that both old and new shooters are capable of being a lot of fun today.

pixelsword3018d ago

It's because this gen thinks they have the toughest games ever, which is a total crock. The first few games were very hard, playing games with 1-hit kills and boards that restarted either the whole level or can severely set back your progress.

mastiffchild3018d ago

@OpenGL. I don't know why either. He wasn't saying either were great or shit and what he DID say is undeniably true in general-you might be able to ramp up the difficulty on most shooters these days to up the challenge but at the base level older games, not just shooters, always tend to be less forgiving. They had to be tough on gamers to make the games last long enough as old data storage methods were so limited(i.e you can't fit a great big game on cassette).

As for fun? I think it's hard to judge when today's have online modes but old shooters were limited to SP or at best a bit of splitscreen and so on. There's a load of things they could not technically do then, too, that they can now and the better storage of DVD and BR gives a massive advantage as well in terms of what's possible so it's far from even playing field which makes it hard to believe but, in this case true for me, some old shooters DO compete.

I think if I had to guess the game which, out of all the shooters I've played, actually gave me the most FUN it would be TS2. But, then, that's not really OLD, is it? I think games like early Doom and Wolfenstein gave great atmosphere, though, even if it's hard to get your head round when you look at the graphics with a modern eye and they remain great fun from a nostalgia PoV.

I suppose what you get most fun from is VERY subjective but as a rule I think we possibly grew up WITH the shooter in many ways and have become more sophisticated WITH it and as a result have always had the shooter we deserved. Only now when the tech improvements feel a bit more incremental are we starting to tap our pencils and demand a little more than we're getting. They've always been fun but now there's just more competition among shooter games AND we're a lot harder to impress which kind of balances out the tech advantages current shooters have over their ancestors.

jc485733018d ago

and rpgs, adventure, etc.

Regulator3018d ago

If you actually go back and play these games you will find most of them are crap now. Games do not age well, the only ones that do are the ones with a decent story, such as RPG's or your Zeldas. Or old school fighters/shooters.

Your FPS of yesterday look awful now, I went back to Deus Ex and nearly cried at how badly it aged. Best to leave most games in the past where they belong, unlike music/film they do not age well.

kramun3018d ago (Edited 3018d ago )

I completed Deus Ex again recently and while it may not look that great now it's got far deeper gameplay than most games released today.

Baka-akaB3018d ago (Edited 3018d ago )

depends , stuff like quake 2 and 3 aged well , and are still way more mp fun than cod .

No cod will resist the time of time and will need to be replaced by the next one . Quake , unreal tournament , counterstrike and a few other titles will always rocks

B1663r3018d ago

Doom 2 has aged incredibly well. Still a best in class of the fps shooter genre.

sonicsidewinder3018d ago

So wait a second, the only games to age well are rpg's with a good story?

Deus Ex is an Rpg with a good story (awesome story)

You have me confused.

Saladfax3018d ago

Deus Ex remains one of my favorite games of all time.

But boy is it sure ugly nowadays >.<

+ Show (2) more repliesLast reply 3018d ago
Aggesan3018d ago

Thew guy who wrote this article should play the resistance games. He'd find what he's looking for there. Lots of creative killing.

Show all comments (29)
The story is too old to be commented.