Old FPS model vs. New FPS model.

Which one do you prefer and why? This is what I mean by Old FPS model:

• Multiple Weapons carried at a time.
• Health Packs
• Large Levels
• No ADS.
• Little or no Cover.
• Lacking in Plot or Story.

And this is the New FPS model, or rather the Halo model:

• Regenerating health
• Linear Levels
• Cinematic Set pieces
• Lots of cover
• Strong Multiplayer
• ADS for two levels of aiming
• Complex Stories

Personally, I prefer the Halo model because that's what got me into gaming. I got a 360 just last year, and never was really into PC gaming. I love CoD, especially for the amazing single player and I'm really hooked to it's Survival mode. But that is only because those are the kinds of games I was exposed to more. Sure I played a little CS, HL2, Doom 1 and 3, and Painkiller but none of those games really drew me in as much as Halo, CoD and Gears. So I played them more and therefore I prefer those style of games, but which one do you prefer?

There are things in both that I like and some I dislike. I like having multiple weapons, but I prefer aiming down the sites. I like health packs, but I prefer it to have a better plot. I'd rather have large, less-linear levels, but I do like cool set pieces. I'd argue that both have had strong multiplayer as well. If I had to choose, I'd choose the old kind of shooter.

That said, I'd really like it for something else to come along and change up the formula again. This generation of shooters has been stale for a long time, in my opinion.

The old FPS games had plenty strong multiplayer...

I prefer the older style of shooters like painkiller, serious sam, Classic Doom and DN3D. I feel the real successor to that style of game is not the "explosion tourism" Call of Duty model. If they put better, faster combat in games like Fallout 3/NV I think that would be a great successor to the classics.

New model. I don't like playing as Rambo when it's too easy to die.

@RandyF:

True it has become stale, but I don't mind. I don't buy every Call of Duty that comes along, just the IW ones and I haven't regretted it. The Old model is the Old model because it was made for a different time, when games were new and made for a smaller audience.

They have always had liner levels. except for Arena shooters like UT. The ability to carry multiple weapons went away when FPS's went to consoles. To my recollection most shooters have always had story's, but they just have been told out side of the game play.

I liked UT, but for some reason i lost intrest in FPS's a while back, the last FPS i played was COD:MW I do play TPS and FPS's with RPG mechanics though such as Human revolution, and Mass Effect.

New model for sure.

@Zidd:

I prefer the older style of shooters like painkiller, serious sam, Classic Doom and DN3D. I feel the real successor to that style of game is not the "explosion tourism" Call of Duty model. If they put better, faster combat in games like Fallout 3/NV I think that would be a great successor to the classics.

You know I think you're right. What makes CoD so fantastic are the mechanics. Yes you ADS and shoot guys, but it works so nicely that you feel like you're in complete control. CoD's engine applied to a Skyrim-esque game would be incredible.

Old model definitely. I mean, guys, Wolfenstein: Enemy Territory....

@Thiemen: A thousand times yes.

I felt Resistance 3 was a near perfect meeting of the two, and probably my favourite FPS experience since HL2.

...which isn't a massive surprise considering it tries its damnedest to emulate that game.

@dhvl2712 said:

Which one do you prefer and why? This is what I mean by Old FPS model:

• Lacking in Plot or Story.

You make Gordon Freeman cry :(

I -hate- regenerating health. It makes no sense and it's a crutch. On another note, I'm ok with recharging shields. I think Halo 1 did this the best, with regenerating shields but static health. The recharging shields gave you wiggle room while the static health made it so that you didn't simply rambo into a room, then hide behind cover, rinse repeat.

Linear levels are fine, but give me the illusion of choice. I don't want to follow a guy with a giant arrow over his head the whole game. I don't want to see the exit point down the hallway, blocked off by a fridge that's been knocked over that I can't jump or climb over.

Don't give me a $60 Michael Bay movie experience. I find it insulting. Sorry people who liked BF3/MW's campaigns. I don't want constantly streaming, respawning enemies pushing me forward.

What happened to AI using tactics? Adapting to changing environments? Emergent gameplay where we punch holes in buildings with rocket launchers to make doors. Where the level is as much a weapon as the guns you're using.

I can't believe I'm saying this, but I miss the days of 1942 mods like Desert Combat where some jerk would beach the aircraft carrier trying to ram it into a battleship.

Halo 3-ODST online?

All I hear is the screeching of 10 year olds..

@Thiemen said:

Old model definitely. I mean, guys, Wolfenstein: Enemy Territory....

Then again, Return to Castle Wolfenstein. New model.

Both models have their place. I personally prefer the old style because it has better multiplayer than the new ones. I tend to prefer ridicolous over realistic as well. Rocket Launchers and Rail Guns>Fucking knife fights and AKs. I think older shooters tend to be a bit more balanced in MP as well, especially since you're never locked out of options because you didn't play enough "I hate persistent MP". Aim Down Sights doesn't do anything for me, I don't see the point. And cover just slows the game down, run and gun fo' life.

That said, there is lot to like about the new model. Shooters with an actual story is just awesome (complex might be a little excessive though), health packs have always sucked hard and there is definitely something to be said for a flashy rollercoaster. Games like Halo and CoD are just plain fun. And for the amount of bitching i did up top, the multiplayer in these games is fun as hell, I'm always up for some Halo.

Old model. I really like both tactical shooters (eg. Rainbow Six) and fast paced shooters (eg. Quake 3). The vast majority of modern shooters are neither tactical or fast paced. I like multiplayer with a high skill ceiling and singleplayer that's focused on the gameplay, not the story or setpieces. I enjoy RPGs because you get to make the story. I don't want to play story based games where you just observe a set story.

That being said, Halo (older ones) and Rainbow Six Vegas are among my favorite shooters of all time and you'd probably consider them modern. I'm mainly just against games that are similar in style to call of duty 4+.

The Hard Reset model. Well, the Hard Reset model + a better narrative.

Both. I barely consider them the same genre.

Even though I think Quake 2 is one of the best FPS game ever made I much, much prefer the newer style.

I dont care what "feature" sets the games use, I just want them to be fun again. I would take a new UT or a new Quake over anything thats been coming out even if they modernized them a little.

@dhvl2712: I just want a new Ghost Recon, damnit. I prefer games with a little more tactic to them, less spray and pray.

Both have their positives, Half-Life, Wolfenstein and Early MOH games follow the old FPS route and theyre still great The FPS genre is only getting stronger in my opinion, plenty of variety in setting/enemies/weapons across games.

Old style... but I like Mouse and Keys and shooters that move at a billion miles an hour (Quake 1, done, full stop.)...

@dhvl2712 said:

And this is the New FPS model, or rather the Halo model:

• Strong Multiplayer

Off sides duder. You are implying that Unreal Tournament, Doom, Quake, etc didn't have strong multiplayer. I would argue that they had better multiplayer than the modern system. In current games you get lots of advantages for having played the game a bunch. Perks, boosters, kill streaks, whatever you want to call them. In old games it didn't matter how much time you had played; if you were better than the other guy you won. A guy hopping into a modern FPS today is fodder, he is so handicapped. He could be more skilled than everyone else but they all have the gear to have advantages and it's just not a fair game.

While I can't really take a side, I will say that I miss when FPS games had singleplayer that wasn't just a 5 hour explosion fest.

Both are awesome. I'd like to see more of the old model, but yeah, they are all awesome when done right.

I really like aspects of both. I kind kind of care less about ADS. I think that Halo is probably the best mix of the old (open environments, interesting weapons, badass combat) but it also has the two weapons system and vehicles. A game like Doom is still awesome because your just thrown into these big well designed levels with hundreds of enemies just firing at you. Some points of those games seem like a FPS bullet hell. Your dodging dozens of imp's fire balls and you are shooting constantly. Also enemies are tough to kill so your always in the thick of things.

While CoD4 is still really awesome i think it marks an era of not as great shooters.

Just to name some shooters I like Doom, Doom II, Halo series, Half-Life 2, Max Payne, CoD4, Borderlands, Vanquish (probably one of my favorite games of recent memory), Gears of War, Uncharted.

More games need to be like Halo or Doom environment wise (all games have taken from Halo seem to be the regen health or the two weapon thing, and not enough games have large one shot interesting labyrinths with tons of secrets like Doom did), or there needs to be more games with bullet time like Vanquish or Max Payne.

@ShaggE said:

Both. I barely consider them the same genre.

I agree although I see them as subgenres within the larger shooter genre. Kind of like how Final Fantasy and Baldur's Gate are still RPGs. There are elements of the old I enjoy and new innovations from the current crop of FPS games that attract me. For example, health-packs always made me fight conservatively, but with the invention of recharging health meters, I am a bit more aggressive and inventive since any loss is temporary. There's something to be said for the monster-in-the-closet enemy or guys who just run at you (screaming), but that doesn't mean I can't be equally entertained by intuitive A.I. that uses tactics to attack me. As in all things, this doesn't need to be an either-or decision. I can appreciate both for what they offer and be satisfied with my experience.

I think a mix like what we get in Half-Life is best.

Ghost Recon and Rainbow Six 3 on the original Xbox > any current FPS on console. No aim assist, you had to work for those long range kills by scoping them out with your binocs. (Ghost Recon)

Shame Ubisoft royally fucked both them series up. Ghost Recon by adding third person and Rainbow Six by adding a cover system. Third person mechanics just lead people to abusing camera angles around corners, took away a lot of the skill.

I liekd the old style and i liked the new style. but i am burned out on FPS thank you very much, they are full of people i hate.

I prefer the Half Life 2 model.

I like the old style multiplayer better, but those newer games make for more fun singleplayer campaigns I find,. Still, I dig both.

Both can be done really well and both can be done really poorly. I think, when I look at a game genre, I don't look at the common mechanics being used. Rather, I look at the experience while playing the game. So, I don't really care what FPS model is used I just what a good experience.

The old model, since i played allot of that on singleplayer and multiplayer.

Guess that if you got into FPS gaming in the last years on consoles you'd like the newer version.

I'd say old, because I pretty much liked all shooters back in the day, where now I just play Halo.

New model. I don't like playing as Rambo when it's too easy to die.

New, model for sure. Though it should be said there is a bit of a trend to use health packs. Resistance 3 and the new max payne (I know max isn't first person, but...)

I felt Resistance 3 was a near perfect meeting of the two, and probably my favourite FPS experience since HL2.

...which isn't a massive surprise considering it tries its damnedest to emulate that game.

Why is it called the Halo model if Halo has no aim down sights? There's a pretty big difference between Halo and Call of Duty. And don't accuse me of being one of those dumb kids, my first FPS was Chex Qu-err, Doom. Ultimate Doom.

I would say the older games, but there isn't a solid line dividing them. I think the first Call of Duty has a much better campaign than Quake II, for example. Having no cover and tons of enemies won't automatically make the game better if the design doesn't hold up (I'm thinking of Serious Sam in particular).

New one by FAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAR.

Far.

I like old level design, I prefer to manage my weapons than carry everything, I like medkits/armor in the FEAR style or medkits plus regen shields like ODST/Reach, I like plot but I hate it when plot is overbearing, scripted sections that make me follow or wait for something suck, I like reloading but wish more games had active reload, I LOVE ADS.

God there's so many things about FPS design that have gotten better and worse over time.

Timesplitters 2 & 3.
Best shooters ever.

Most definitely the old one.

@Zidd: You mean Borderlands.

I love the larger levels of yore, but only if there are interesting things to see in these larger levels. In newer model FPS games, I simply don't understand why they even allow the player to move. If they want to take control away from me to show off these set-pieces that much, why do they even give me control at all?

I think Dead Space was probably the best mixture of the two in recent memory.

I prefer the old one. I like to have fun. But i think that if these two styles merged, they could create GREAT stuff, because the Old Style has its flaws: The retro level design is puzzling and needless, and the the lack of regenerating health, while it sure adds to the tension of the fight, it also may encourage repeating the same sequence over and over again just so you can get a pattern right and finally beat said sequence... Only to die 5 seconds later because you had 5 Health Points.

@dhvl2712 said:

• No ADS.

???????

You've got so many kinks in you theory so I'll just treat your post as a troll post.