A bit of both actually. I like the older FPS games for their many weapons and health packs. I hate the current regenerating health system where your screen is filled with red blotches obscuring you from the action when you need to see the most. I understand the lack of a health bar makes the game look less cinematic but I'd rather have a health bar with a clear screen when I'm about to die than a red screen obscuring my vision. That's why I enjoy the resistance series with its multiple weapons and health packs which were reintroduced in resistance 3.
I really dislike regenerating health. It slows games down to a crawl when you're stuck behind cover for 10 seconds, then you get up and shoot one or two dudes, repeat ad nauseam.
Where modern shooters prioritize cover as the first means of defense, older shooters emphasized movement and quick thinking. I recently got into the Tribes: Ascend beta and it's reminded me why calling CoD "Fast-paced" is such a misnomer. Nothing beats the adrenaline rush of grabbing a flag, turning around while skiing backwards at 150 km/h, and nailing one of my pursuers with a perfect spinfusor shot.
But alas, console controllers wouldn't be able to keep up with that, so ADS and regenerating health it is.
I like a combination of both. Big, open levels are great for some games, but I also love my CoDs and Uncharteds with their tight pacing and epic setpieces. Health packs, multiple weapons, and more open levels are pretty great though. Really, I could go for either, but like you said if forced to choose I'd take the modern model as I've been more exposed to it.
I'm not sure Halo would fall into your definition of "new", it's kind of a weird halfway point between what you describe.
No ADS, limited use of health packs, critical path'd levels but not straight corridor crawls, open-ended encounters w/ minimal scripted set piece moments, plenty of space to move...
It's not old school, in fact it pisses off a lot of die hard PC gamers, but play Reach and compare it to MW3. They are very different games.
I definitely prefer the original model. After playing a few CoDs the Michael Bay Cutscene, Cutscene, Explosion, Health Regen, Cutscene style of FPS just doesn't do it for me. Though the one thing I dislike about old school shooters is that they are very heavy in resource management. Gotta watch that ammo and health. And I'm terrible at it! :)
I feel there's actually three FPS genres eras, there's the retro Doom/DN3D era, the post Halo era which also includes the CoDs and MOHS, then the post-CoD4 era.
I feel there's actually three FPS genres eras, there's the retro Doom/DN3D era, the post Halo era which also includes the CoDs and MOHS, then the post-CoD4 era.
Who came up with this classification system? Seems fairly arbitrary.
@mosdl: Agreed. I remember when Doom was shareware and there were folks bringing 4 PCs to gaming shops, and setting up a LAN so we could play multiplayer...good times.
I literally bought the game for $5 on a 3.5'' floppy. No box, no book..just a disk with a home made label.
I'd rather see more of a mix between the two. The cool semi-realistic level designs of Duke3D, iron sights, maybe something like Far Cry 2's health system. I'm pretty tired of the ultra-linear Call of Duty-style of level design, but on the other hand throwback shooters like Hard Reset and Serious Sam 3 did next to nothing for me.
Log in to comment