Discussion in 'Picture Threads Archive' started by Synsensa, Sep 10, 2018.
Arma is not Overwatch and Dishonored is not Doom.
Is that an observation or a challenge?
If all FPS are just remakes of the same game, then what the hell happened to Doom 3?
What do you mean?
The Platonic Form of an FPS is, IIRC, Duke Nukem.
Reusing the same name and just adding a number at the end made it too obvious that it was nothing new?
Well, if all FPS games are just remaking Doom 2 over and over again, how did a game that was a direct sequel to Doom 2 wander so far off-template? Why did it take the studio- heck, the whole industry- until 2016 to successfully remake the game they've allegedly been remaking the whole time?
Do you recall, in Doom 2, between the midi thrash metal and the sprinting through lava, much time spent walking slowly through dark rooms with a flashlight instead of a gun?
I preferred Doom 3 over the other games in the series myself.
The first video game I ever really liked was a Doom 1 conversion called Chex Quest that came for free in a box of cereal.
Cereal box games were the bomb. Monopoly, Lion King, some sort of Aladdin game, Game of Life... top tier of gaming right there.
Like most FPS games I've played, I don't recall much about Doom 2 at all. The soundtrack changes. The weapons change. Whether the "monsters" are hiding in darkness or around corners changes. Whether the "monsters" are soldiers or zombies or cereal eaters changes. But the game remains the same.
Maybe you could say that about FPS games in 200* but there's a lot more diversity now. And okay, sure, we can apply the trash/decent/good 90-9-1 ratio, except now there's enough good and different titles to actually matter and make it a hard sell to simply state that "all FPS games are the same"
If it diverges significantly it isn't a first person shooter. If the 'game' is looking at a first person view and shooting at stuff, it's an FPS, and an FPS is an FPS.
Note, I have nothing against FPSs, or playing FPSs, I just don't consider them particularly memorable.
is Skyrim an FPS if you only use spells and bows?
Well, "shoot" has always included batting them in the melon with handy things and or chain saws, so the 'only use spells and bows' part isn't a factor. I always thought that TES games had a large FPS component but included enough stuff around that to make them not really an FPS. Between open world exploration, character interactions, various forms of crafting, and some degree of interactive storytelling they slipped out of the FPS genre, at least for me.
After being blown away by Dark Souls and ending up finishing it, I've followed the logic and started Dark Souls 2.
First impressions weren't good : it's very obvious the team must have changed a lot between both, and it feels very much like a (good) fanfiction of the first : all the superficial aspects are here, but the true, well, soul isn't. It's a very competent game, don't misunderstand me, but it really seems to ape the feeling and style of the original instead of being a continuation.
I also had one of the weirdest difficulty curve experience ever. Dark Souls was hard, but mostly fair. Also, it was hard due to being pityless, but not being actively malicious : you had to learn things to survive, but could rely on observation and patience to carry you through without too much trial-by-error. DS2 is nothing on the sort, it just slapped me across the face with a sledgehammer. Repeatedly. To the point that I only could carry on by abusing the "limited respawn" feature (often hated, as I could see while seeking help on the Net, but I found it a godsend (that is anyway cancelable by joining the Covenants of Champions).
The two first real maps were an incredibly grueling gauntlet of endurance, that could be only described as bashing my head against a wall until it crumbled, with the commensurate headache. Basically, it took me nearly all the week-end to just clear Forest of Fallen Giants and Heide's Tower of Flame. Considering they are only the first two zones in a game that has over 25, you can guess just how much crestfallen (inside joke) I was.
And then, somehow, the game suddenly became WAY easier. I was dreading the No Man's Wharf, which was described as nightmarishly hard compared to the Tower, and yet I just basically facerolled it with a single death (boss battle included), then I also cleared The Lost Bastille, Belfry Luna, made a short easy way in Huntsman Copse and am about to clear Sinner Rise.
And so in about six hours, I've cleared more ground and died just nine times (four of them being surprised by the dwarves of the belfry, these buggers pack a punch), compared to the 19 hours and 134 death (yes, I wrote it down) it took me for the two first zones.
I'm perplexed, as in "WTF happened ?". But at least the game went from "intolerable, only going through because I'm terribly stubborn and don't want to give up" to actually pretty fun. Still wondering how anyone could ever say that DS2 was easier than DS1.
Time Splitters was Goldeneye, though. And Half-Life. Also Turok.
Did you level Adaptability and improve your roll at that point? That changes things immensely as does gaining a half decent shield and the endurance to use it.
I had a similar introductory experience to DS2 as you did, though not quite so painful. I remember hammer players asking what all the fuss was about and why didn't we just dual-wield maces to stunlock everything. So I've got a half-theory that the bad defensive options given to you at the start meant that reactive players had a much harder time of it than players able to first-strike the enemies with heavy/long weapons.
Using a shield in dark souls is just being extra masochistic. Unless it's DS3 and the start of the game and you're a knight.
TimeSplitters 2 was the greatest couch multiplayer game of all time
Separate names with a comma.