"Just Another First Person Shooter"...

  • 54 results
  • 1
  • 2
#1 Edited by jakob187 (21758 posts) -

I saw someone write this the other day on a video for the trailer.  I don't know, maybe that person is too young to realize that Wolfenstein is not "just another first person shooter"...but that it is THE first person shooter.  There's never been a bad one, ya know.


But does anyone else feel and see this problem?  There are so many younger gamers nowadays who know about Call of Duty 4, World at War, Killzone 2, and they know nothing about Quake III Arena or Wolfenstein or Unreal Tournament.  Have the FPS games of our generation become "just another first person shooter"?

I know I'll be getting this on day one, because it's Wolfenstein, and there is NO way to fuck that up.

*EDIT*  Due to some confusion on what this thread is about, here's the question I am outright asking:

Can a game like Wolfenstein or Unreal or Quake compete in the "new FPS" market...especially since consoles have come into play as much as the PC for the genre?
#2 Edited by Al3xand3r (7574 posts) -

Well, duh, I'm sure you shun games your elders loved too :P

I don't know if I'll get it day 1, but Raven is a solid developer, as long as they're given the freedom, time and budget.

They weren't involved with the last Wolfenstein but they did make the awesome, golden Jedi Knight II: Jedi Outcast, you know.

RTCW was good but I wouldn't call it THE fps, not until Splash Damage came with Enemy Territory, and that was stand alone and free.

They're not involved here so I'm thinking Raven should just go for an awesome SP experience this time and skip MP until they can focus on it.

#3 Posted by Diamond (8634 posts) -
jakob187 said:
I saw someone write this the other day on a video for the trailer.  I don't know, maybe that person is too young to realize that Wolfenstein is not "just another first person shooter"...but that it is THE first person shooter.  There's never been a bad one, ya know.

But does anyone else feel and see this problem?  There are so many younger gamers nowadays who know about Call of Duty 4, World at War, Killzone 2, and they know nothing about Quake III Arena or Wolfenstein or Unreal Tournament.  Have the FPS games of our generation become "just another first person shooter"?

I know I'll be getting this on day one, because it's Wolfenstein, and there is NO way to fuck that up.
April Fools post? 
#4 Posted by jakob187 (21758 posts) -
Diamond said:
"jakob187 said:
I saw someone write this the other day on a video for the trailer.  I don't know, maybe that person is too young to realize that Wolfenstein is not "just another first person shooter"...but that it is THE first person shooter.  There's never been a bad one, ya know.

But does anyone else feel and see this problem?  There are so many younger gamers nowadays who know about Call of Duty 4, World at War, Killzone 2, and they know nothing about Quake III Arena or Wolfenstein or Unreal Tournament.  Have the FPS games of our generation become "just another first person shooter"?

I know I'll be getting this on day one, because it's Wolfenstein, and there is NO way to fuck that up.
April Fools post?  "
Absolutely not.  April Fool's is stupid.

Al3xand3r said:
"Well, duh, I'm sure you shun games your elders loved too :P"
Like what?  What is there TO shun?  I come from the days of Atari 2600 and NES as a kid, pumping quarters into arcade machines.  So what do you mean "shun games your elders loved too"?  I AM the elders...and I'm 26!!!  lol

Also, Raven is a more than solid SP and MP developer.  What they did with Marvel Ultimate Alliance ALONE was a fun experience.

Nonetheless, it just seems ludacrious to hear all these young bucks talking about this classic franchise like it's the new kid on the block or something.

"just another first person shooter"

That sounds to me like "oh, they are trying to rip off Nazi zombie mode from World at War"...  it's just annoying as Hell, and I'm kind of curious what other people think about this idea that older franchises like Quake, Doom, Wolfenstein, Unreal, and such...the ones that made the FPS genre the staple in gaming that it is TODAY...I wonder how people feel about their classic franchises being considered "just another first person shooter".

I mean, look at Jeff for a minute.  He mentioned something about Unreal Tournament III on the PC a couple weeks back on a Bombcast, if I remember correctly...and how the PC community just isn't there.  Why?  UTIII is a solid game...but is it too "old school"?

Same thing applies here.  Is Wolfenstein too "old school" in that it wants to be responsive, fun, and crazy exciting to play?
#5 Posted by Jayge_ (10221 posts) -
jakob187 said:
"I mean, look at Jeff for a minute.  He mentioned something about Unreal Tournament III on the PC a couple weeks back on a Bombcast, if I remember correctly...and how the PC community just isn't there.  Why?  UTIII is a solid game...but is it too "old school"?"
Not old school enough. I'm pretty sure UT2k4 has a much larger community than UT3 ever had (right now). The game wasn't console enough for Gears players, and it wasn't the UT that any of the actual PC players and fans wanted. It's solid, sure, but it doesn't hold a halogen lamp to any of the other UT games (besides 2k3).
#6 Edited by Al3xand3r (7574 posts) -

I'm 26 too. Well, just over 25. I never liked pong... Or things like uh, various other caveman games. Jumping frogs eating mosquitoes... Lol.

And yeah UT3 failed to grab fans. UT2004 had sold insanely well if I'm not mistaken.

#7 Posted by jakob187 (21758 posts) -
Jayge said:
"jakob187 said:
"I mean, look at Jeff for a minute.  He mentioned something about Unreal Tournament III on the PC a couple weeks back on a Bombcast, if I remember correctly...and how the PC community just isn't there.  Why?  UTIII is a solid game...but is it too "old school"?"
Not old school enough. I'm pretty sure UT2k4 has a much larger community than UT3 ever had (right now). The game wasn't console enough for Gears players, and it wasn't the UT that any of the actual PC players and fans wanted. It's solid, sure, but it doesn't hold a halogen lamp to any of the other UT games (besides 2k3)."
Well, and I understand that the lack of mods on UT3 really hurt it on PC as well...but for fuck's sake, can't a base game be good enough for people to play for ONCE nowadays?  I thoroughly enjoyed UT3, but unfortunately, there's nobody online!  As for the Gears players...hey, most of the Gears players wouldn't know a real game (or a good game for that matter) if it bit them on the ass.  Granted, I liked Gears 2 more than the first one...but nonetheless, Gears is a horrible franchise.  Far too slow, far too methodical, far too easy.

I mean, how much more old school does UT3 need to be?  It's got the speed, it's got the match adjustments...and it's got deathmatch.  I can't think of how much more old school I need a game to be.  Oh, and it's fucking gorgeous!
#8 Edited by Al3xand3r (7574 posts) -

I don't think it was the lack of mods. One problem with UT2004 was people didn't fucking play mods. So many good ones thanks to the Make Something Unreal Contest, yet none had a consistent fanbase. Red Orchestra was probably the only one you could consider succesful (prior to going stand alone) and it too didn't have too many players. For some reason, people just didn't play mods all that much. Probably because UT2004 offered so much by default, but really, I don't know how they could ignore such aaaaawesome experiences. Oh, Alien Swarm had some fans too. Whatever happened to its Source version. No updates in ages... I used to run a website dedicated to that material and broke it off for my army service hoping to come back and start again but damn, modding isn't what it used to be... People just don't like free fucking games anymore and bitch and whine about every little thing that isn't AAA quality about them. Frackers.

#9 Posted by Ravey (330 posts) -

I didn't like Return to Castle Wolfenstein very much, I remember looking forward to it and being a little disappointed by the singleplayer. The multiplayer was apparently quite good though. It's a shame though because they had some great developers working on it, but in the end it felt it was a bit uninspired and made me want to play the original game more than anything.

#10 Posted by jakob187 (21758 posts) -
Al3xand3r said:
"I don't think it was the lack of mods. One problem with UT2004 was people didn't fucking play mods. So many good ones thanks to the Make Something Unreal Contest, yet none had a consistent fanbase. Red Orchestra was probably the only one you could consider succesful (prior to going stand alone) and it too didn't have too many players. For some reason, people just didn't play mods all that much. Probably because UT2004 offered so much by default, but really, I don't know how they could ignore such aaaaawesome experiences. Oh, Alien Swarm had some fans too. Whatever happened to its Source version. No updates in ages..."
I was kind of talking about the underwhelming performance of UT3...but oooookay.  PC mods are another argument all on its own...

Ravey said:
"I didn't like Return to Castle Wolfenstein very much, I remember looking forward to it and being a little disappointed by the singleplayer. The multiplayer was apparently quite good though. It's a shame though because they had some great developers working on it, but in the end it felt it was a bit uninspired and made me want to play the original game more than anything."
I had no disappointment with it, but maybe that's because I knew what to expect from it.  However, did you play it on PC or Xbox?  If you played it on Xbox, then yeah...that wasn't a great port of the game.  It was okay...but that's about it.  The PC version, however, was stylin' and profilin'!!!

Again, I don't think people are quite grasping the question presented, so I'll make it clearer in the OP.
#11 Posted by Jayge_ (10221 posts) -
Al3xand3r said:
"I don't think it was the lack of mods. One problem with UT2004 was people didn't fucking play mods. So many good ones thanks to the Make Something Unreal Contest, yet none had a consistent fanbase. Red Orchestra was probably the only one you could consider succesful (prior to going stand alone) and it too didn't have too many players. For some reason, people just didn't play mods all that much. Probably because UT2004 offered so much by default, but really, I don't know how they could ignore such aaaaawesome experiences. Oh, Alien Swarm had some fans too. Whatever happened to its Source version. No updates in ages... I used to run a website dedicated to that material and broke it off for my army service hoping to come back and start again but damn, modding isn't what it used to be... People just don't like free fucking games anymore and bitch and whine about every little thing that isn't AAA quality about them. Frackers."
Tons of people played shitloads of UT2004 mods. They just didn't play total conversions very often. Entirely different scene. Although Source mods have blurred that terminology.
#12 Posted by jakob187 (21758 posts) -
JazzyJeff said:
"You know what, though? I love the classic games, but most of them have evolved into something not so revolutionary."
Dead Space didn't do anything to revolutionize the survival horror genre...but it was still a fan-fucking-tastic game.

Crackdown didn't do anything to revolutionize the open-world genre...but it was still a fan-fucking-tastic game.

So I guess this raises the age-old question:  does a game HAVE to be revolutionary in order to be worthwhile?  Isn't "fucking awesome" enough?
#13 Edited by Al3xand3r (7574 posts) -

Are you talking mutators then? Cos that's what Epic called those tweaks, not mods. Clever concept anyway, UT2004RPG was by far the best, tons and tons of blissful gameplay variety enclosed in like less than half a MB.

#14 Posted by Jayge_ (10221 posts) -
Al3xand3r said:
"Are you talking mutators then?"
No, I'm talking about mods.
#15 Posted by Al3xand3r (7574 posts) -

Okay... Well, what was a popular one then? I don't recall any gathering any large fan base. Clone Wars?

#16 Edited by ZeroCast (1869 posts) -
jakob187 said:
Can a game like Wolfenstein or Unreal or Quake compete in the "new FPS" market...especially since consoles have come into play as much as the PC for the genre?"
Well, i do believe that if  those "new FPS" games introduce something new to the known formula, then they might have a good chance in competing with a game like Wolfenstein for example, but that formula must be something out of the ordinary, something that the consumer would look at and say:"Woah, this looks good".
#17 Posted by jakob187 (21758 posts) -
ZeroCast said:
"jakob187 said:
Can a game like Wolfenstein or Unreal or Quake compete in the "new FPS" market...especially since consoles have come into play as much as the PC for the genre?"
Well, i do believe that if  those "new FPS" games introduce something new to the known formula, then they might have a good chance in competing with a game like Wolfenstein for example, but that formula must be something out of the ordinary, something that the consumer would look at and say:"Woah, this looks good"."
Right, but should someone really throw around the words "just another first person shooter" on a game that will assuredly be awesome (given that the companies behind it rarely fail) just because they don't introduce some crazy new shit to the formula?  I mean, this world-shifting thing or whatever it is...it's whatever.  I just think that a game should be held on the merit of what it DOES do, and not the fact that "oh, well, it doesn't introduce anything new, so it's just another first person shooter".

That's the thing.  Saying that Wolfenstein is "just another first person shooter" is putting it in the same class as Haze, TimeShift, Legendary, and all the other flailing FPS games that honestly sucked and WERE "just another first person shooter".  We're talking about WOLFENSTEIN, not some run of the mill bullshit!!!

Maybe it's just my age showing, but I would rather have excellent gameplay over fucking with a formula that isn't broken.  =  /
#18 Posted by Arkthemaniac (6535 posts) -

I freakin grew up on Unreal Tournament, man. To me, no FPS will top it.

#19 Posted by ZeroCast (1869 posts) -
jakob187 said:
"ZeroCast said:
"jakob187 said:
Can a game like Wolfenstein or Unreal or Quake compete in the "new FPS" market...especially since consoles have come into play as much as the PC for the genre?"
Well, i do believe that if  those "new FPS" games introduce something new to the known formula, then they might have a good chance in competing with a game like Wolfenstein for example, but that formula must be something out of the ordinary, something that the consumer would look at and say:"Woah, this looks good"."
Right, but should someone really throw around the words "just another first person shooter" on a game that will assuredly be awesome (given that the companies behind it rarely fail) just because they don't introduce some crazy new shit to the formula?  I mean, this world-shifting thing or whatever it is...it's whatever.  I just think that a game should be held on the merit of what it DOES do, and not the fact that "oh, well, it doesn't introduce anything new, so it's just another first person shooter".

That's the thing.  Saying that Wolfenstein is "just another first person shooter" is putting it in the same class as Haze, TimeShift, Legendary, and all the other flailing FPS games that honestly sucked and WERE "just another first person shooter".  We're talking about WOLFENSTEIN, not some run of the mill bullshit!!!

Maybe it's just my age showing, but I would rather have excellent gameplay over fucking with a formula that isn't broken.  =  /
"
Totally agree.Some people are stupid enough to say "just another FPS" because they obviously don't know who is behind the said game, it's like judging a book by its cover and saying:

"Oh this book sucks"
You reply :"Do you even know the author?"
He says:"no"
You:" STFU then".

It just doesn't work that way.

And you wanna know something interesting? Haze sucked even though it was done by the TimeSplitters guys, and look what happened to them?  They formed a new company to remove any association with a stupid game like Haze.
#20 Posted by Diamond (8634 posts) -

People are saying THIS Wolfenstein looks like 'just another first person shooter', I think.  Because so far it looks like a sub par FPS, frankly.  I liked the original Wolf3d, RTCW was pretty good, and Wolf : ET was great for free.  Can a game like THIS compete on consoles against modern FPS games?  I don't think so.  I'm just basing this on what I've heard and seen, but just because they use the Wolfenstein name, that doesn't mean the game is any good.

#21 Posted by DarkGamerOO7 (574 posts) -
@jakob187 said:
" JazzyJeff said:
"You know what, though? I love the classic games, but most of them have evolved into something not so revolutionary."
Dead Space didn't do anything to revolutionize the survival horror genre...but it was still a fan-fucking-tastic game.

Crackdown didn't do anything to revolutionize the open-world genre...but it was still a fan-fucking-tastic game.

So I guess this raises the age-old question:  does a game HAVE to be revolutionary in order to be worthwhile?  Isn't "fucking awesome" enough?
"
That is one of the major problems i have with gamers today is the "it doesn't do anything new so it sucks" moto, which is stupid. A great game is a great game, and after downloading Wolfenstein 3D I'm so gonna pick this game up. I really hope it's good. For all we know Wolfenstein could be a sleeper/cult hit that will win many awards, but may or may not flop in sales.
#22 Posted by Pie (7111 posts) -

IM LIKE BLAT BLAT BLAT IN DA CALL OF DUTY 5 WITH DA MP40 AND WOLFENSTEIN IS JUST A BIG RIP OFF LOLOLOLOLOL!!!!!!!!!

#23 Posted by FiestaUnicorn (1577 posts) -

From what I've seen of the new Wolfenstein it does look like it will be completely average.

#24 Edited by Joker77 (5 posts) -

  Return of Castle Wolfenstein was the first game I played on Xbox Live. It was really fun. I played it for a while. The soldier classes were what made is so cool and fun.
Beach Invasion was my favorite level. I hope they bring that level back in this game.

#25 Posted by atejas (3057 posts) -
#26 Posted by JoelTGM (5596 posts) -

What they once were doesn't matter, if those games don't change anything except the graphics as the years go by, then yeah they are just another first person shooter game.

#27 Posted by RHCPfan24 (8609 posts) -

I was not around at the stat of Wolfenstein 3D but i have since played a lot of it (thank you XBLA) and the follow-up, Return to Castle Wolfenstein. I believe this new game will be pretty rad, as all the weapons I have seen are great. I would say that these type of games can still survive in this generation but don't expect it to sell up to the standard that COD4 or Halo 3 has set these past years.

#28 Posted by atejas (3057 posts) -
@DOUBLESHOCK said:
" What they once were doesn't matter, if those games don't change anything except the graphics as the years go by, then yeah they are just another first person shooter game. "
What has Call of Duty changed over the years except the graphics and (more recently) the setting?
#29 Posted by Grilledcheez (3957 posts) -

I'm getting it one day one, but honestly the trailers aren't as impressive as I was hoping for.  I remember my brother playing return on PC all the time when I went to his house...good memories lol...I had to settle for the Xbox version.

#30 Posted by turbomonkey138 (4956 posts) -

If it aint broke don't fix it . There is nothing more you can do for the genre its come as fr as its gunna get

#31 Posted by marlow83 (239 posts) -

The history of the franchise has absolutely nothing to do with the quality of the new game. Even if it is Wolfenstein. It is really stupid, however, that people take a look at this game and say that it's "generic" but will look at the COD series and will say "if ain't broke, don't fix it" or whatever the hell. Point is, we just have to wait and see.

#32 Edited by JoelTGM (5596 posts) -
@atejas said:
" @DOUBLESHOCK said:
" What they once were doesn't matter, if those games don't change anything except the graphics as the years go by, then yeah they are just another first person shooter game. "
What has Call of Duty changed over the years except the graphics and (more recently) the setting? "
Setting is huge, that means all new environments, character models, and weapons.  Multiplayer has several ranks, unlocks, challenges, and game modes.  Gameplay is different now with the quick zoom where you look down the sights to take your shot.  COD4 is not just another fps, I don't need to give you proof just look at the amount of people who play it.
#33 Posted by atejas (3057 posts) -
@DOUBLESHOCK said:
Setting is huge, that means all new environments, character models, and weapons.
That's one change. And it's just aesthetic for the most part. The only difference between the Russian soldiers and the Middle Eastern soldiers is what they yell when they're getting shot at. Compare that to Painkiller where each level has a distinctly different setting and each chapter has it's own batch of enemies who not only look different, but fight completely differently.

@DOUBLESHOCK said:
Multiplayer has several ranks, unlocks, challenges, and game modes.
I was talking about the singleplayer, but I'll concede this point.
@DOUBLESHOCK said:
" Gameplay is different now with the quick zoom where you look down the sights to take your shot.
That's been around since the first Call of Duty.

@DOUBLESHOCK said:
COD4 is not just another fps, I don't need to give you proof just look at the amount of people who play it. "

Wii Fit must be the greatest game of all time. It certainly is the best selling.


#34 Edited by JoelTGM (5596 posts) -
@atejas said:
Wii Fit must be the greatest game of all time. It certainly is the best selling. "
Well, apparently soccer moms think it's the best video game fitness toy, nothing to do with being the greatest game, just means the target audience is much easier to sell to and there's really nothing else out there.  Anyway, I never said anything about COD4 being the greatest fps of all time either, I just said it stands out.  It sells a lot because it's a very well done game with an exp/reward system that was quite new to FPS players.
#35 Posted by JoshS (416 posts) -
@jakob187 said:     
"Can a game like Wolfenstein or Unreal or Quake compete in the "new FPS" market...especially since consoles have come into play as much as the PC for the genre?"
No. 
Quake 4 - sold like shit 
UT3 - sold even worse than shit 
Woldenstein - jury is out. We'll see in a month.
#36 Posted by JacobForrest (307 posts) -

Well, I know I'm going to buy it. Innovation is great and all -- and I say that without sarcasm -- but sometimes there's nothing better than a solid, adrenaline-charged FPS.

#37 Posted by EnchantedEcho (740 posts) -
@Al3xand3r said:
" Well, duh, I'm sure you shun games your elders loved too :PI don't know if I'll get it day 1, but Raven is a solid developer, as long as they're given the freedom, time and budget.They weren't involved with the last Wolfenstein but they did make the awesome, golden Jedi Knight II: Jedi Outcast, you know.RTCW was good but I wouldn't call it THE fps, not until Splash Damage came with Enemy Territory, and that was stand alone and free.They're not involved here so I'm thinking Raven should just go for an awesome SP experience this time and skip MP until they can focus on it. "
Agreed, Jedi Knight 2: Outcast was freaking awesome!
#38 Edited by Defias (171 posts) -

I have doubts for it but all the same I hope that it is an amazing game and is received well. I used to play hours upon hours on return to castle wolfenstein multiplayer. I actually forgot it was coming out so soon that I already spent all my money and can't afford it, too bad guess I'll have to wait.

#39 Edited by The_A_Drain (3973 posts) -

I've been saying this since the day Halo was released on Xbox. But people don't listen, they don't care to listen either. It's a shame that people refuse to acknowledge the fact that Wolfenstein, Doom, Quake, etc were wow-ing people, paving the way for more modern games and most importantly, technologies. Not to mention the strides they took to support mod communities (and in fact, without the mod community for these games, we would not have Heretic, Hexen, and more notably, Half - Life which ran originally on a heavily modified Quake engine, and a ton of other classic and influential games and technologies) 
 
These games were laying down the foundation for what we're enjoying today before Master Chief was even a twinkle in someones eye. Heck, forget twinkle, it's an outright reflection, whoever thought up Master Chiefs design obviously spent a LOT of time playing Doom as a kid. All you need to do in order to prove that is look at the guy, he is the Doom guy, i'm honestly surprised there was no lawsuit. 
 
But hey, to some extent it's about education, and we're all guilty of that to a degree. For example, anyone who thinks Wolfenstein 3D was the first FPS game is completely wrong. There was another ID game (the name of which I forget) before Wolf that used similar Raycasting technology, the tech that would eventually power the Wolf 3D engine. And before that there was Faceball, a first person shooter (I shit you not) for the Atari 2600 and Gameboy. There were also numerous university projects involving technology that utilised a first person viewpoint for gameplay, and one of them was even commercially released.
#40 Posted by jakob187 (21758 posts) -
@The_A_Drain: Hip-hop didn't start at 1520 Sedgwick, but that's where the birthplace of the culture as well as rap music is considered to be by many upon many.  Why?  Because it's a place they can easily recognize due to oral history, stories, and overall popularity.  So does that mean that DJ Kool Herc actually invented rap and hip-hop?  No.  Nonetheless, he brought the culture and the music to a vast amount of people that spread it all because of one party.  Wolfenstein 3D did the same thing.  It may not have been the first FPS game, but it's the one we most easily recognize for it because it's the birthplace we all know.  It popularized it. 
 
With that said, I don't want this new generation of FPS gamers to look at the comments I've said and think "oh, well, he's saying we should play Wolfenstein just because it is the granddaddy of FPS games, so we should show it respect like it's the fucking Don or something".  Part of me is sad that old school FPS gaming gets less attention than the new stuff today, but I'm saying that people should play Wolfenstein because it will more than likely be a damn good game.  Wolfenstein has, in my opinion, never put out a bad game.  A bad port, maybe...but a bad game?  Never.  The fact that FPS vets like Raven are behind this game (remember, these are the guys that made the Hexen franchise, as well as Heretic, and also have Singularity in the works) sell me on the quality without even having a name attached to it!
#41 Posted by bulletbeast (191 posts) -

well thats certainly what i think,  im not a big wolfenstein fan so i dont know what the hypes about, am i missing something here?, to me it just looks like another chaotic first person shooter with evil robot Nazis (ok thats original) but apart from that i dont understand, whats unique about it??
#42 Posted by jakob187 (21758 posts) -
@bulletbeast said:
" well thats certainly what i think,  im not a big wolfenstein fan so i dont know what the hypes about, am i missing something here?, to me it just looks like another chaotic first person shooter with evil robot Nazis (ok thats original) but apart from that i dont understand, whats unique about it?? "
Did you need something else other than a solid control scheme?  That's the problem with gamers today:  if it doesn't have a ton of new bells and whistles on it, they don't think it'll be any good.  Nonetheless, there WERE games before Halo and Gears and blah blah blah.  So long as it has solid multiplayer and an ass-kicking single player, then it'll be exactly what I want out of Wolfenstein. 
 
Nonetheless, the game does feature this "veil" thing that shifts you between dimensions.  That's something new to the series.  Personally, as long as I get to shoot some Nazis in the face, I'm cool.
#43 Posted by SJSchmidt93 (4899 posts) -

Fill me in with this info. 
 
Are the same guys that made all the other ones makin' this one too? If not, it won't be that great.

#44 Posted by jakob187 (21758 posts) -
@SJSchmidt93 said:
" Fill me in with this info.  Are the same guys that made all the other ones makin' this one too? If not, it won't be that great. "
id Software made Wolfenstein 3D.  Gray Matter made Return to Castle Wolfenstein.  Splash Damage made Enemy Territory.  Raven is making the new one.  Each installment was made by different people.  Therefore, I don't understand your question. 
 
Raven Software is currently known for making the Marvel Ultimate Alliance and X-Men Legends games, but long ago, their starting roots were in making Heretic and Hexen.  These were two games that came out alongside Doom as originators of the FPS genre.  They've been in the FPS genre for a while.  They are also working on Singularity.
#45 Posted by SJSchmidt93 (4899 posts) -
@jakob187:  
 
Clearly I don't understand the Wolfenstein series then.. heh.
#46 Posted by ascholzk (261 posts) -

ok so i think that the retro classics like quake and the original wolfenstein were revolutionary at the time of release, but as games evolve and improve, most of the older games can't stand up against the newer games. people should recognize classic games place in gaming history but also know that games evolve. 
as for the new wolfenstein, (i loved the original at the time), i personally think that it  looks fun but not spectacular.  

#47 Posted by Gav47 (1542 posts) -
@jakob187 said:
Can a game like Wolfenstein or Unreal or Quake compete in the "new FPS" market...especially since consoles have come into play as much as the PC for the genre?
"
I have never played a fps before I got my PS2 so my opinion may be skewed. I don't personally believe that games like these (Wolfenstien, Duke Nukem, Serious Sam) can make the transition to modern fps' without destroying what ever audience they have. The settings and characters are lost on people like myself and if the physics and viewpoint (iron sights zoom-in) are not like COD or Battlefield you can pretty much count me out as well.
But if you do make these changes are you alienating the people who are buying this for a good old shot of nostalgia. Its a difficult line for a developer to tread, so I will be holding of on buying this until I hear some reviews, but I am interested in it .
#48 Posted by CitizenKane (10508 posts) -

I might get this game next month when money starts rolling in again.  Hopefully I will see good reviews.

#49 Posted by Matfei90 (1288 posts) -

I was kind of in an odd age gap for all these old school classics. I was too young to really have an atraction to them when they were big (My first shooter of any type was Goldeneye... But I only had that since I had a 64). But I have given them a go retroactively, such as UT99 and Enemy Territory (thanks to Quake Wars).
 
But some of them (ie, Wolfenstein) have eluded my attention, so I can't really offer an opinion on them apart from I can recognise the impact they've had and I can respect that. These younger kids who got Halo for their 8th birthday and only have COD on their shelf to compete still annoy me as much as they do all you old-schoolers. For example, I talked to someone once who was under the impression Halo implemented the 'Killing Spree' multiplayer award, and hadn't a clue what I was talking about when I mentioned Unreal/Quake.

#50 Posted by mattysen (822 posts) -

Kids, haha what can you do with them? Sell them into slavery! I wish! Note: This is not a personal remark about minors

This edit will also create new pages on Giant Bomb for:

Beware, you are proposing to add brand new pages to the wiki along with your edits. Make sure this is what you intended. This will likely increase the time it takes for your changes to go live.

Comment and Save

Until you earn 1000 points all your submissions need to be vetted by other Giant Bomb users. This process takes no more than a few hours and we'll send you an email once approved.