Hard Light Productions Forums
Off-Topic Discussion => Gaming Discussion => Topic started by: FlamingCobra on November 27, 2012, 05:32:31 pm
-
epic lulz. (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C4yIxUOWrtw&feature=plcp)
-
The Keys Taggart! What do they mean? (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NURfvG0lfpA)
-
MEIN LEBEN! (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F0J_q-spmaE)
-
And let us not forget the classic that spawned it all. (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W1ZtBCpo0eU)
-
someone do one for freespace.
-
someone do one for freespace.
Oh, that one is easy.
All you have to do is delete it from your hard drive, because it wouldn't even exist.
-
It'd have much less buttons to assign and flashier graphics (which we have anyway, thanks to FSO...), no modability and arcade-y flight model that doesn't even pretend to have anything to do with reality. Probably one, upgradeable ship with fixed weapons and an absurd number of missiles and unlimited gun ammo. Dinky capships with a gimmicky way of fighting them. 2D art would've been much cheaper and VA would've been amateur. All cutscenes done in-engine, and no mainhall (main menu used instead). It'd most likely be a low budget game, indie or otherwise. Oh, and it'd be completely obscure. Think Sol: Exodus or Project Freedom (aka. Starmageddon 2). You most likely didn't hear of the latter, and for a good reason. It's a medicore game from a Polish developer (IIRC).
-
and arcade-y flight model that doesn't even pretend to have anything to do with reality
/me dies from laughter
On a more serious note: If FS were to be developed today, it would have streamlined controls (Seriously, does anyone actually use ALL of the various options available? I would bet noone does), and probably no Robert Loggia. Otherwise, most of it would be the same; but then I am someone who replaces the words "if it was made now" in this thread and the linked videos with "if it was made to appeal to today's mass audiences by the same developers doing today's AAA titles with a budget of a modern AAA title and all the corporate risk management structure attached to it", which while more accurate is also more unwieldy.
-
i use all the controls mapped to my hotas and not many others. frankly i cant even remember what all by hotas buttons do. i kinda know that one hat switch selects weapons and one distributes power. i remember all the keyboard commands i use. but if freespace2 was done today, it would be one of those games that supports an xbox 360 gamepad and no other input devices at all. all the gauges would be combined into a single everything gauge. all weapons would be on an aimbot. etc..
-
It'd have much less buttons to assign and flashier graphics (which we have anyway, thanks to FSO...), no modability and arcade-y flight model that doesn't even pretend to have anything to do with reality. Probably one, upgradeable ship with fixed weapons and an absurd number of missiles and unlimited gun ammo. Dinky capships with a gimmicky way of fighting them. 2D art would've been much cheaper and VA would've been amateur. All cutscenes done in-engine, and no mainhall (main menu used instead). It'd most likely be a low budget game, indie or otherwise. Oh, and it'd be completely obscure. Think Sol: Exodus or Project Freedom (aka. Starmageddon 2). You most likely didn't hear of the latter, and for a good reason. It's a medicore game from a Polish developer (IIRC).
Throw in changeable weapons, limited ammo for everything, in mission pre-rendered cutscenes and slightly more expensive VAs and you get Project Sylpheed!
-
I love how that summary has roughly 80% similarity with the FreeSpace 2 game that we actually got. Namely:
1) arcade-y flight model
2) unlimited gun ammo
3) gimmicky way of fighting capships (Avoid the beams, set them up the bomb)
4) the VA is about one step up from amateur. If that.
5) The mainhall is just a pretty main menu.
6) It was a low budget game.
Of the things not covered in that, Blue Planet (and FSO) gave us:
1) cutscenes done in engine
2) main menu instead of mainhall
3) flashier graphics
-
Project Sylpheed
NOOO! (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D6vFr2b7J-A) That game never happened, THAT GAME NEVER HAPPENED!
-
4) the VA is about one step up from amateur. If that.
wut.
-
4) the VA is about one step up from amateur. If that.
wut.
"Amateur" does not mean "bad". If I recall correctly, GTVA Command's VA got picked up a few blocks from where they were recording because they liked the sound of his voice. That is the very defintion of amateur. Granted, there was also Robert Loggia and Ronnie Cox, but that's why I said a step above, instead of just plain amateur.
Random note: the Volition interview thread that I attempted to refresh my info on seems to have been fairly destroyed by something. It ended three words into the first answer, and I'm not sure why.
-
Yeah IDK what happened, I was so proud of it :(
-
At least it's still on the wiki.
-
The nostalgia in that video is nauseating. The original Doom is a complete and utter pile of **** by any modern standards. It's only notable because there wasn't much like it when it was made. I feel no hesitation in saying Halo 4 is better than the original Doom in every way.
The only way Doom could be considered better is because of what it reminds people of. Given the average age of gamers, that's typically their college years. Big surprise.
Complaining about how modern games have no character is like complaining about how all Americans are stupid. You're just looking at the ones that support your conclusions and omitting the ones that don't, all the while thinking doing it makes you cooler.
For the record, I've never been able to stomach the original Doom or its contemporary shooters for more than 5 minutes because of how incredibly bland and shallow they are.
-
The nostalgia in that video is nauseating. The original Doom is a complete and utter pile of **** by any modern standards. It's only notable because there wasn't much like it when it was made. I feel no hesitation in saying Halo 4 is better than the original Doom in every way.
The only way Doom could be considered better is because of what it reminds people of. Given the average age of gamers, that's typically their college years. Big surprise.
Complaining about how modern games have no character is like complaining about how all Americans are stupid. You're just looking at the ones that support your conclusions and omitting the ones that don't, all the while thinking doing it makes you cooler.
For the record, I've never been able to stomach the original Doom or its contemporary shooters for more than 5 minutes because of how incredibly bland it is.
(http://cdn.memegenerator.net/instances/400x/29701874.jpg)
-
Actually serious.
And do note you're talking to a guy who thinks that Baldur's Gate 2 and Planescape: Torment are the best games ever made.
-
It's not trolling, just a fairly unpopular opinion. I agree in that a lot of the love for old games is suspiciously rose-colored. There are a lot of games that might have seemed awesome at the time, but only because we didn't know any better, and/or they brought something new to the mainstream. I never liked the Doom games, UT, or Counterstrike. Go back even farther and most of the games for the NES were smelly turds as well. I don't think that shovelware is any more or less prevalent now than it was back in that era. Our expectations are just higher.
-
sometimes you just want to kill stuff without all the bull****. descent was the same way, you just want to load a level and blow **** up. its an aspect of gaming i actually miss. story based play kinda slows up the action considerably. so you end up with a stark contrast between action fps and fps as a storytelling medium. doom 3 had that slowed down by the plot feel, which is why i really liked the doom 3 classic mod. not that there isnt room for the story based fpses in my collection.
i do notice a trend with shooters though, is that the ones that revolve around the story only get played through once or twice and then get shelved, but i still load up quake every now and again and play a few levels. the reason for this is once you know the outcome of the story, then playing the game for the story isnt really worth it anymore. because the game was meant to tell the story, it easily gets trumped by the action oriented games when im looking for a short fps break.
-
Comparing the original Doom, a game that came out in 1993, with any modern FPS is complete and utter nonsense no matter how you spin it. Whether or not it was a good game in the context of the time period it was released in is something potentially worth discussing; bringing in comparisons with anything modern is not. It's a bit like saying "lol I know you like the P-47D but the F-15E Strike Eagle is a much better plane". There's just too much of a technological leap between the two for any meaningful comparisons to be made.
-
The technological leap is kinda a meaningful comparison in itself y'know.
-
Not for comparing stuff on the same footing. You need to take into account the context of the time period something was made in. You can say that Modern Warfare 3 is a better game than Doom 1, but the comparison is ridiculous. Of course it is - but did MW3 mean the same thing to the industry as Doom 1 did when it first came out? Arguing for the sake of arguing is kind of meaningless.
-
Come on newman, you are eggregiously missing the point. It's not about "comparing" games, it's about pointing out where current games are going into. You have to compare the experiences like that to see if we are losing important traits in the games or not. I find the videos quite good in exposing current ridiculous tropes in fpshooters that frankly, kinda have made me go look elsewhere for entertainment.
-
newman: It is a silly comparison, I agree. That works both ways. One can't say MW3/Halo 4/whatever are better than Doom any more than one can say they're worse, which this video essentially does. Doom was definitely a landmark game, and it was a good game at the time, but modern shooters, even ones like MW3, offer more complex gameplay than Doom does. Which is natural, since they take advantage of technologies that didn't exist then. I don't contest that Doom is a more important game, but it's certainly not better. Our expectations have just gone up.
Interesting question: how far apart do two games need to be for a comparison to be meaningless? Crysis 2 and Half-Life 2 are ~7 years apart, and I don't think anyone finds a comparison of those two silly (except for graphics). Hell, Ep.2 (which doesn't change HL2's gameplay significantly) and Crysis 2 are only 4 years apart.
Half-Life 1 and Doom are ~5 years apart. Halo 1 and Doom are 8 years apart. Are either of those silly comparisons?
Luis Dias: That isn't where modern games are going, it's where the modern combat FPS have already gone. Most of the gameplay conventions that video makes fun of (apart from regenerating health) aren't present in Crysis, for instance. Not many are in Halo 4 either. The description says it's a comment on the games industry, but it isn't. It's a comment on the ever popular CoD franchise. That video isn't "if Doom was made today", it's "if Doom was made by Infinity Ward or Dice".
Apart from the things that don't really age (like story), I'd say game are only getting better. We just need a new console generation so big developers have new technology to take advantage of.
-
Yeah well I'm a curmudgeon and you are wrong just because. And this is undeniable, so QED.
-
sometimes you just want to kill stuff without all the bull****. descent was the same way, you just want to load a level and blow **** up. its an aspect of gaming i actually miss. story based play kinda slows up the action considerably. so you end up with a stark contrast between action fps and fps as a storytelling medium. doom 3 had that slowed down by the plot feel, which is why i really liked the doom 3 classic mod. not that there isnt room for the story based fpses in my collection.
i do notice a trend with shooters though, is that the ones that revolve around the story only get played through once or twice and then get shelved, but i still load up quake every now and again and play a few levels. the reason for this is once you know the outcome of the story, then playing the game for the story isnt really worth it anymore. because the game was meant to tell the story, it easily gets trumped by the action oriented games when im looking for a short fps break.
Doom 3 wasn't really a doom game imho. I can't really think of any modern analogue for the actual doom trilogy, but if I had to guess it would be Serious Sam that comes the closest, and even that is years old already.
Also I'm just curious, what do you guys feel are the top 3 most important non-trivial features of an FPS that have been seen since Doom? Since Half-Life? Since CODMW? Since ever?
e: :p
-
It's first perspective, it's personal and it is about shooting. Dat seems obvious... derp
-
Also I'm just curious, what do you guys feel are the top 3 most important non-trivial features of an FPS that have been seen since Doom? Since Half-Life? Since CODMW? Since ever?
Effective hitboxing, predictable gun behavior, and logical camera placement.
I mention the third because a surprising number of first-person games down the years have not actually placed the player's eyepoint in the head. Back in the Doom and Duke3D days it was actually pretty commonly somewhere in their chest, and that still crops up on occasion. I've also run across a few where they're actually third-person shooters because if you test it enough, you realize the camera is just a little over their head.
In this respect 3D rather than sprites and the resulting complexity of player-not-see-selfing has been something of a blessing.
-
Also I'm just curious, what do you guys feel are the top 3 most important non-trivial features of an FPS that have been seen since Doom? Since Half-Life? Since CODMW? Since ever?
1) mix of standard and interesting weapons
2) minimum of mid mission cutscenes/QTEs to tell the story
3) multiple approaches to each situation
and if I was to go on
4) good hit registration
5) varied multiplayer including a co-op of the main story
6) lots to shoot
7) atmospheric environment
edit
reworded point 2
-
The core of FPS is multiplayer, the genre would never have survived as long as it has without strong multiplay support. The difference with games like 'Doom' over more modern games is that it was written first a single player game, with multiplay added later, whereas I always got the feeling that many modern FPS games place multiplay first and a campaign as a concession to single-player fans.
There are some exceptions to the rule, Crysis was more a single-player game in my experience, the Half-Life series is interesting as in it straddles the fence, the main game was really single-player oriented, but the engine spawned one of the most successful multiplayer games of all time.
I think it would be interesting to research what games people play multiplayer compared to single-player, I think the mistake that a number of companies make is assuming that these are the same types of games.
-
Comparing the original Doom, a game that came out in 1993, with any modern FPS is complete and utter nonsense no matter how you spin it. Whether or not it was a good game in the context of the time period it was released in is something potentially worth discussing; bringing in comparisons with anything modern is not. It's a bit like saying "lol I know you like the P-47D but the F-15E Strike Eagle is a much better plane". There's just too much of a technological leap between the two for any meaningful comparisons to be made.
you completely missed the point. i was compairing story driven shooters with action shooters. not modern shooters with old skool shooters. thats why i brought up the doom 3 classic mod. its essentially the first episode of doom one done in the idtech4 engine. id say that non-multiplier action shooters are getting rarer than space sims (hince why the example was a mod and not an actual game).
-
Nuke: Crysis and Crysis Warhead reached an interesting balance there. The story was decent, but the real meat of the game was in how you actually got to your objective. Whenever I play through the first five or six levels of the original Crysis, I still find things I missed the previous times I played.
Crysis 2 was much more story driven, which obviously made the story quite a bit better, but it lost out on what made the gameplay of the original game really special, so it has a lot less replay value.
-
sometimes you just want to kill stuff without all the bull****. descent was the same way, you just want to load a level and blow **** up. its an aspect of gaming i actually miss. story based play kinda slows up the action considerably. so you end up with a stark contrast between action fps and fps as a storytelling medium. doom 3 had that slowed down by the plot feel, which is why i really liked the doom 3 classic mod. not that there isnt room for the story based fpses in my collection.
i do notice a trend with shooters though, is that the ones that revolve around the story only get played through once or twice and then get shelved, but i still load up quake every now and again and play a few levels. the reason for this is once you know the outcome of the story, then playing the game for the story isnt really worth it anymore. because the game was meant to tell the story, it easily gets trumped by the action oriented games when im looking for a short fps break.
Doom 3 wasn't really a doom game imho. I can't really think of any modern analogue for the actual doom trilogy, but if I had to guess it would be Serious Sam that comes the closest, and even that is years old already.
Also I'm just curious, what do you guys feel are the top 3 most important non-trivial features of an FPS that have been seen since Doom? Since Half-Life? Since CODMW? Since ever?
e: :p
i did not say doom 3, i said doom 3 classic, which is a mod for doom 3. its completely different. meh i already explained it. it was a badass mod. i had a bloodgasm.
i cant really say any feature or even name any landmark games aside from the obvious, but i can tell you what i liked and dont like.
i dont really like tactical shooters, not at all. i cant name one i enjoyed playing. story driven shooters have very little replay value. i rather liked prey, for its gravity isnt always down paradigm, it actually in a way reminded me of descent in a way (and portals). really pushed the tech for shooters in a new and interesting direction. so i didnt really like it because it was story driven, but for its gameplay aspects.
also i quickly grew bored with multiplayer areana games, i mean its good to have one or two in your collection for when youre in the mood. i still play q3a from time to time, but i dont get excited when a new unreal comes out anymore. what i do like is sandbox fpses. i liked farcry 2 and crysis. farcry 2 got a lot of flak, but i enjoyed the game a lot. im not sure what the first in this genre is (i want to say far cry), but id probibly like it if i played it.
then there were the doom alikes, the first quake. the second quake started going into mission based play and away from action play, but it still counts to a degree. from their id mostly did arena games and story driven shooters. ocasionally you find a mod like doom 3 classic that reminds me how awesome some basic gameplay can be. its the same thing i like about 6dof action shooters. lot of easy to kill enemies, and its all about clearing the map, no bs.
-
The core of FPS is multiplayer, the genre would never have survived as long as it has without strong multiplay support. The difference with games like 'Doom' over more modern games is that it was written first a single player game, with multiplay added later, whereas I always got the feeling that many modern FPS games place multiplay first and a campaign as a concession to single-player fans.
There are some exceptions to the rule, Crysis was more a single-player game in my experience, the Half-Life series is interesting as in it straddles the fence, the main game was really single-player oriented, but the engine spawned one of the most successful multiplayer games of all time.
I think it would be interesting to research what games people play multiplayer compared to single-player, I think the mistake that a number of companies make is assuming that these are the same types of games.
i kinda disagree about multiplayer. i mean there are still people out there who make and play doom maps. and sometimes im like, i feel like a game of doom, clear 3 maps and i put it away for another year.
before q3a came out fps games had everything. good multi, good sp. look at how badass quake2's game modes were. you could do sp, coop, dm, ctf, whatever. after q3a/ut came out games were either made for multiplayer or singleplayer exclusively. sp games went story driven (and eventually sandbox) and mp games went for multi arena and class based team play multi. so the fps genre has a been fractured into a ****ton of subgenres.
-
2) minimum of mid mission cutscenes/QTEs to tell the story
Gonna have to jump in here and say that QTEs are not inherently bad things, there are just ways to do it that don't suck and ways to do it that suck.
Resident Evil 6 does it in such a way that it sucks. The Force Unleashed did it in such a way that it sucked. Halo 4 does it in such a way that it didn't suck. Silent Threat: Reborn did it in such a way that it didn't suck. Modern Warfare 2, for all its other faults, had good QTEs.
Granted, the latter three had significantly fewer QTEs present, but I tend to think that even if RE6 and TFU had less, they'd still be badly placed and annoying. It's all about where they are and what they do, not necessarily that they're there.
-
you completely missed the point. i was compairing story driven shooters with action shooters. not modern shooters with old skool shooters. thats why i brought up the doom 3 classic mod. its essentially the first episode of doom one done in the idtech4 engine. id say that non-multiplier action shooters are getting rarer than space sims (hince why the example was a mod and not an actual game).
I wasn't replying to your comment at all, so there's point missing across the board here :)
-
and that is why there is a quote button
-
and that is why there is a quote button
True. I deeply apologize for this unforgivable transgression.
-
On the mention of QTE's and their sucking/not sucking
Heavy Rain
Go
-
I just played through Doom1 a few days ago for the very first time and I thought it was amazing.
-
i kinda disagree about multiplayer. i mean there are still people out there who make and play doom maps. and sometimes im like, i feel like a game of doom, clear 3 maps and i put it away for another year.
before q3a came out fps games had everything. good multi, good sp. look at how badass quake2's game modes were. you could do sp, coop, dm, ctf, whatever. after q3a/ut came out games were either made for multiplayer or singleplayer exclusively. sp games went story driven (and eventually sandbox) and mp games went for multi arena and class based team play multi. so the fps genre has a been fractured into a ****ton of subgenres.
Well, in a way that's the Bethesda effect, they saw the FPS engines, and realised that, with work, an engine like that would provide an entirely new way of presenting Role Playing Games that fulfilled the fantasies of every D&D player out there. Now you could not simply watch your character, you could be your character.
The interesting part is that the whole divergence of types is actually starting to blend back into itself, where we now get games like Fallout or Borderlands which, whilst wearing a 'Sandbox RPG' mask, are really Sandbox FPS games in my opinion. I'll note here that it's perfectly possible for a FPS to have an excellent storyline, this is not an observation on that so much as an opinion that Role Playing is not the same as 'Level Grinding', a fact that does not always survive the transfer to computer very well.
I think ID were perfectly aware of the multiplay potential of Doom when they created it, but technology got in the way, the only real way for most people to play was by Serial lead, which was a pain. In many ways, despite the fact that Multiplay was difficult, it was the multiplay that helped keep it alive far longer than, say Blakestone or even Wolfenstein which didn't have the ability iirc.
It's difficult because there are exceptions to the rule, the Elder Scrolls series were all about level grinding, but when they tried to create a system to mitigate that effect, it didn't go down too well, Borderlands have stories that are part of a larger plot, which suggests roleplaying elements, but all wrapped up in an arcade-style shooter etc.
-
...the only real way for most people to play was by Serial lead...
Iunno, DWANGO was pretty darn popular.
-
It was certainly popular in the US, but for most countries outside it, dialing Houston was not really a cost effective option. I remember that we had to move my computer to my brothers' room to even play by Serial lead, what with signal degradation being what it was at the time. ID could certainly see the potential of Doom multiplay at the time, but they also knew that, given the technological landscape at the time, more people would be playing it single-player.
-
multiplayer really hit big with quake though. by then almost everyone who owned a computer had internet access. so a copy of quake pretty much right out of the box had netplay support. the catch was you had to know the ip of the server. it was easy to find a quake server with search fu (i dont think we even had google yet). doom on the other hand was a pita to set up for multi. lan or otherwise.
-
multiplayer really hit big with quake though. by then almost everyone who owned a computer had internet access. so a copy of quake pretty much right out of the box had netplay support. the catch was you had to know the ip of the server. it was easy to find a quake server with search fu (i dont think we even had google yet). doom on the other hand was a pita to set up for multi. lan or otherwise.
And thus gamespy was born.
-
Enjoy democracy in heaven. Oh yes, there is a new one.
-
An4x, I think you're terribly addicted to youtube. You need to ease off man, withdraw.
-
An4x, I think you're terribly addicted to youtube. You need to ease off man, withdraw.
No, let him loose! He's hit and miss, but I like the steady stream of videos.
-
I played doom with direct connect cables, you know the ones we could use to connect to printers? Now THAT was awesome :D
-
I played doom with direct connect cables, you know the ones we could use to connect to printers? Now THAT was awesome :D
did serial link back in the day, a pig to set up but the lols on nightmare was awesome
-
these things are so wanky it's unbelievable
-
these things are so wanky it's unbelievable
yep but back in the mid 90s when networks went commonplace in homes you took what you had, and the results when it was working were ace
-
Since the thread has been bumped...
"Amateur" does not mean "bad". If I recall correctly, GTVA Command's VA got picked up a few blocks from where they were recording because they liked the sound of his voice. That is the very defintion of amateur. Granted, there was also Robert Loggia and Ronnie Cox, but that's why I said a step above, instead of just plain amateur.
Well, Command was voiced by a guy who was also was an announcer for a local radio station. So not actually amateur.
The definition of amateur is that you don't make a living from it. That doesn't necessarily conflict with finding somebody a few blocks away.
Random note: the Volition interview thread that I attempted to refresh my info on seems to have been fairly destroyed by something. It ended three words into the first answer, and I'm not sure why.
Which thread is this? If it was due to the character encoding problems last year, it should be fixed.
-
(i dont think we even had google yet).
Lycos was launched in 1994, Yahoo! in 1995, Dogpile in 1996, Google in 1998. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Web_search_engine
-
quake came out in '96, so yea, we didnt have google.