• Advertisement

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

FPS games getting boring the more you play

This topic is 5045 days old which is more than the 365 day threshold we allow for new replies. Please post a new topic.

If you intended to correct an error in the post then please contact us.

Recommended Posts

After going through a heap of single player FPS games, I noticed that with most of them, my interest to the game faded as further I came. Is this a common opinion or am I alone at this? Some of the games I´m referring to, Return to castle wolfenstein, far cry, mohaa, call of duty, etc. With a lot of these games, there is a *wow*, and a *gasp* in the beginning, but the further you go the more boring it gets. I suppose the reason that those games get boring is because the gameplay is not addictive enough. If I would compare the old wolfenstein with the new one, I would rather play the old one (at single player ofcourse), then the new one, just because the gameplay is more addictive with the orginal. My conclusion would be then that newer games have better graphics, and more features, but lacks in addictive gameplay. The question witch, in my opinion, co-excist´s with this conclusion would be: what it is the big difference witch makes an old game (wolfenstein, doom, etc.) more addictive then the "great" FPS games of these days? ps. sorry for my english

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Advertisement
If you were to play Wolfenstein 3D now, would you still find the gameplay so addictive?

One reason Wolf3D and Doom were so addictive, if that''s the right word, is that they were one of it''s kind when they were released. Now we get new 3d FPS every couple of weeks at least, and nothing is "new" enough. All of these games are more or less repetetive, Wolf3D and Doom more so than most of the current FPSs. One way of making the games more interesting is a better story and things to break the repetetiveness.

Ps.: I''m talking about single player games here...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I think that most "modern" FPS lack a lot of luster now for a number of reasons:

1. As we play more games, our standards raise and our attention-span for "something interesting" is much more demanding.

2. We were younger when these "classics" were released. Wolfenstein no doubt had more effect on me when I was younger than it would have had if I was much older in the same period.

3. The more complex a game becomes, the more likely certain elements will become under/over-bearing. This means that a simple game is much easier for designers to balance - and easier to avoid certain gameplay pitfalls that may lead to repetitive decision-making on the part of the player. Repetitive decision-making is not the fault of the player, but the designer. The player may choose something consistently, but that is an effect caused by unbalanced rewarding.

Perhaps you are just a bit nostalgic (I am sometimes).

Not only that, but a trend that I see in many FPS games today is that the various rewards for gameplay are actually visual. Maybe more gameplay-centric reward system would provide the variety that gamers are looking for. I appreciate the particle-effect body-part explosion systems nowadays, but I don''t continue to play in order to feed my need for violence and gore.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Doom had a great athmosphere and gameplay. The game basicly sent you to hell right away. I don''t know...maybe modern fps games do not really give enough new elements to the genre. It''s a bit like tetris doesn''t really get that much better with graphical updates or 3d.

I''m not sure why old games would be more addictive though. Perhaps they are more "gamey" with their crude graphics and lack unnecessary hollywood-imitating drama?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Well, actually that was the reason I started this topic.
I played wolf3d again, and still found it addictive
edit: in response to frostburn


[edited by - Phoenix1_3 on April 14, 2004 3:53:27 PM]

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Another thing that I think of when it comes to Wolfenstein and the ol'' FPS is that they have fairly simple choices. You don''t have to puzzle-solve, platform-jump, outsmart enemy AI, duck for cover, etc. - you just see a guy, stand in the middle of a hallway, and hold the mouse button until your gun stops firing. Dodging never really became much of a significant element in Wolfenstein. If you wanted to kill one of the main bosses, you got the biggest gun you could find, chased him down, and prayed that you gun shot faster.

It was arcadey-fun

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
True, those old games where arcade like fun.
But to take the topic to a other level, while playing counterstrike: CZ (the single player version), I noticed that game, roughly said, sucked like hell. But still I continued playing it (heard the same thing, from other people). Why ? The gameplay was addictive!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I just want to say that right now I''m playing through doom and doom II using the doomsday engine. Yeah, the doomsday engine slightly improves the graphics, supporting higher resolutions, better textures, and a particle system, but that''s not why I''m enjoying the games so much. The nostalgia factor is not the reason, either, I didn''t play much of doom when it came out (my computer wasn''t good enough). The reason is these games were designed well- they were designed to be fun. Addicting? Not totally. It''s nothing like diablo II or everquest. The games are just plain fun, and that''s why I keep coming back for more.

I would play wolfenstein 3d, too, but I can''t get past not using the mouse and WASD keys to move. (to think, that''s all I used for years and years!

Every time I read posts like this people spout out the same replies about nostalgia etc. etc. I just want everyone to realize that they should probably think about it more... what made these games so good in their prime?

To reply to the original post.. I definitely agree with you. Wolfenstein kinda sucked in my oppinion because of a few reasons- for one, the nazis didn''t speak German. I couldn''t get over this.. it just didn''t make any sense at all. It''s part of what made the original so cool! Also, I didn''t feel I was driven by the story. In the original, (at least for the first episode) I was trying to escape castle Wolfenstein. Get me out of here! In the modern remake, I escaped the castle with ease, then my officers were like, hey, you''ve been trhough a whole lot, so we''re sending you back to nazi germany to take them on all by yourself! Screw you, guys! It wasn''t believable, and I didn''t feel like continuing.

I think another reason why games today aren''t very lasting is that they''re all very similar. Who here is sick of the WWII-era games? In all the games-- ALL of them-- I always get the feeling of been there, done that, shortly after the initial wow-factor of the new graphics engine. The original Unreal was awesome... what a beautiful and original world they made! Half-life... you''re in a huge underground facility in the middle of a terrible crisis... that''s great! System Shock (1 and 2)... it doesn''t get much cooler than these games.

I think that games today have lost their originality and driving stories, and are more focused on suckling all that they can get from a tried and true formula.

~Mark

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I dunno. I played Halo for months. I played all the difficulty levels (never beat Truth & Reconciliation on Legendary, though), hunted down easter eggs, amused myself by only using a pistol or a needler, experimented with glitches, and started fights I knew I couldn''t win, just to see how well I''d do. But mostly, I just played through levels like "Attack of the Control Room" or "The Silent Cartographer" or "Halo" because I really, really enjoyed the gameplay.

The reason many FPS games get boring is because the designers try to mix up the gameplay toward the end. Generally, I find that these "spice-ups" come in two flavors: "Gameplay Shift" and "Crazy Hard".

"Gameplay Shift" is when they introduce some new enemy, or crazy vehicle, or a really obnoxious puzzle element that just makes you basically play a different game for a while. They try to trump your skills, or mitigate the effectiveness of your weapons, or otherwise mess with your gameplay experience. It generally doesn''t work, especially when they replace the old style with the new one. In Halo, I like fighting Covenant and Flood concurrently, but when the Covenant just disappear and the Flood take over, that''s a quantum leap in gameplay, and I don''t like it.

"Crazy Hard" is when they just throw so damn many enemies at you that you can''t possibly beat them fairly. You either have to play and play and play until you find some little glitch in the AI that lets you systematically exterminate the enemies without actually fighting them, or you have to cheat. Postal did this. The later levels in that game were so incredibly difficult that it was all I could do to stay alive long enough to type in the "skip level" cheat. I never saw more than a screen''s worth of the last three levels, and some of them still took three or four tries. That''s crazy. I know Postal isn''t an FPS, but you get the idea.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I think what made the original 3d shooters fun was their uniquesness they where new and every add feature was an original improvement. Now a days fps come out so often that they have become overused generally they all also use one of 2 or 3 major engines. The other big diffrence is the growth of the multiplayer market, alot of fps focus entirly on this. There is also a tendy to rush devoplement to finish the game before the competition can release a similar product.

-----------------------------------------------------
Writer, Programer, Cook, I''m a Jack of all Trades
Current Design project: Ambitions Slave

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I think the people making comparisons in this thread are using some double standards here. I replayed the original Wolf 3D back when I bought RTCW. I also replayed the Doom games at the same time, just for the hell of it.

Addictiveness, fun factor, story... none of the old games excelled in these areas from my perspective. They were still great games for the standards they had to meet back in their day, but by today''s standards they don''t put forth squat. I mean, we''re talking about games that had no real story. You spent all your time running around killing things. That was it. There was no in game scripting, no in game plot sequences, no in game dialog or interactions beyond point and shoot (with the exception of a few hidden/secret areas).

All of today''s newest FPSs are superior to the originals in every single aspect I can think of. Beyond the superior graphics and sound, which are a given, even todays basic FPS provides better environmental interaction, NPC interaction, opponent interaction, in-game story, etc. Because the classics had virtually none of these things at all. Exploding barrels and lava/acid pools are pretty much the extent of environmental interaction in the classics. If that is all you want from your games, that is perfectly fine, but don''t try claiming some of the classics are superior to today''s games for these reasons.

I personally spend more time playing multiplayer online than anything else. I played about the first few hours of RTCW, then proceeded to enjoy the online battles for several months. Never went back to single player. I''ve put a good many hours into Quake 3 and the Unreal Tournaments. I''ve spent more time playing Neverwinter Nights online than in the single player campaign. I did enjoy playing Max Payne 2 for a bit, but I still never even finished that game (I think I got roughly 80% completed, which didn''t take that long actually, but that''s another topic) Half Life did a good job in single player, but that''s yet another game that I spent FAR more time playing online with all it''s various mods.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
quick reply, so no real depth...

I got started in the industry with FPS games, so my aim is really good. There is no FPS game that I can''t own, but if a user has bad aim the game is tough. To me, that''s ALL more FPS games are. They don''t try, they are just ''cool'' graphics, and neato effects, so after about 25% of an FPS game, it''s a boring pile. IMO, FPS games have no real gameplay, like jak and daxter without the powercells, they are just 3d rooms where you kill stuff. Nevertheless, I always check out the new games and enjoyed the fun of Painkill and Farcry, but that''s only cause they looked cool and had fun new ways to kill people. Metroid Prime is probably the only FPS where killing everything isn''t important.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Try a few mods? They can add a new life to some games, totally changing gameplay to the extent that you have to relearn it. After I got bored of many HL mods, I played natural-selection, another hl mod, for a long time, finding that it introduced so many new gameplay aspects to learn and work out. Remember that some of the older fpses, though old, have a more mature community that has produced some fantastic mods, taking gameplay risks that most commercial FPSes wouldnt take.

[edited by - ch1pz on April 14, 2004 6:34:10 PM]

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I''m not an FPS fan. At all. So my post will be a bit biased. End disclaimer.

It seems that we''re going through an other "crisis" period. Back in the (golden, greatly-missed) days of the SNES, people kept releasing platformers over and over until they got stale and people got bored of them. Granted, they had quite a bit more variety than FPSes, gameplay-wise (compare, say, Megaman X, Super Mario World, and Run Saber, and you''ll see quite a difference in gameplay), but the genre was wearing thin. Now that the 2D era is behind us (sniffle...) and that 3D is mainstream, FPSes are taking the same place platformers were back then.

My prediction is that eventually, a new level of progress will occure (I doubt it''ll be 4D games, but y''know what I mean...). This will open up a couple of new genres and something else will become the genre of choice for game developpers.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
When I hear "original Wolfenstein" I think of the Apple II.

You know, where you start out with nothing on a radomized 2D castle map, have to kill the guard, open a chest, ...

Those SS guards were tough.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
There doesn''t need to be a story to make a game good. In the original quake, for example, I have no idea what the story was supposed to be. And yeah, you ran around and killed stuff, that was the gist of the game. It''s 3d engine was groundbreaking, but that''s not entirely why it was so popular. All of the baddies were unique and fun to fight. Remember the fiends? So cool. The zombies that you had to kill with grenades or else they get back up? Awesome! There were also some ingenius traps that are to this day hard to match. Games like RTCW don''t have anything that good. The zombies with the shields were ok I suppose, and I enjoyed the first boss as well.

I guess what I''m trying to say is if an FPS doesn''t have a good story, it should at least be *fun* to run around and shoot everything you see. Games these days try to blend RPG elements or even strategy elements into FPS, and if they don''t each element top notch, the entire game suffers tremendously. ...or, they try to be too realistic. This is why I like serious sam so much, it has so many great FPS elements done right!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Anonymous Poster
im a bit of a cs player/fan, one of the reasons i love it, and why so many others get addicted to it, is that you get rewarded on a social level. if you do particularly well, your teamm8s tend to praise you in a manner that is not found in single player games. dont get me wrong, the first colour game i played (before this i had an amstrad with black and green screen ) was doom on a 486dx-66, it was brilliant, had a great atmosphere above anything else. the key system got tedious occasionally, but, because the levels were REALLY small compared to those of today, it never got toooo difficult to find the keys. unfortunately, the main idea today is that, less levels, bigger levels is the way to go. i am fully in favour of the way HL conquered this, because there were actually a lot of subdivisions in the bigger levels. solving puzzles actually gave satisfaction and the nice touches continued throughout the game. In single player FPS games, there needs to be constant variety to hold attention. For exactly the same reason resident evil has always done well, even though it has the most tedious design error in any game (the door opening animations), games like HL, Doom, and Quake (played that on the 486 as well, in lowest res and no sound - QUALITY) excel. They constantly throw up challenges that are satisfying or excite you. Theres nothing quite like getting complacent then having a monster jump through a window at you. That is why these games work. Not just because they were original, they are addictive, because something different to attract your attention occurs every couple of minutes, and to excite you. The most bored I got in hl was near the end at the alien levels, in quake i got bored in the medieval levels because they were repetitive with poorly designed traps. At the end of the day the reason why I''m more interested in CS than any other game single player or mp, is because there is constant variation. If I pull of a 1 shot head shot thru a box while they were jumping i feel satisfied.
And of course the number of CS leagues there are. You get a real world incentive for playing. Seeing my clan beating a clan who thrashed us the last time they played us is immense, as is seeing us do well in UK cups. Theres nothing like that sort of satisfaction in any other game imo.
That''s my 2 cents

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
My point exactly ChickenMcOwnage!
It doesn''t matter if a game has a great story, it doesn''t matter if a game has great graphics. As long as the gameplay is good, the game will be good. With Quake 1 & 2 I didn''t care how the game looked, I didn''t care how great the story was. I just loved the gameplay. Witch made me want to continue the game (I still sometimes start q2, just to play a fast singleplayer game (sounds crazy ey ?)).

AP, although I share your opinion, I was reffering to SP.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Anonymous Poster
thought you were, just don''t have much care for SP anymore, last game I bought was Planetside (actually it was Condition Zero, but that doesn''t really count ) and that bored me more than anything, it was fine for 2 weeks, then I just cba.

Next SP, unless I decide to buy Farcry (which is, although meant to be good, out of the equation for me for introducing monsters - WHY?), is HL2, and I will buy that purely for having fun with a well-used physics engine as a pose to just an addition to make the game look better. What''s the point of technical advance if it doesn''t add to the game? Farcry demonstrates how graphical advancement can add to a game by allowing you to practically freeroam an island, whereas games like Max Payne (although brilliant because of the plot, atmosphere in general, and everyone''s favourite feature), have a physics engine that isn''t used at all for anything other than effect. Yes, ragdoll physics is sexy, but for someone playing the game, I would guess they wouldn''t notice the difference between scripted and ragdoll 9/10 times, if they weren''t told that ragdoll would be used beforehand.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Ok, first I'd like to say that I know this thread is kind of old, but just saw it, and I wanted to add my thoughts.

I have an Atari 2600. I hook it up and play. The games are VERY basic, but VERY addicting. I can't really say that I am nostalgic for them, since Atari (more or less) went bankrupt before I was born.

The thing that makes them so addicting is, is their simplicity. You can play break out, and understand the goal of the game, and the controls a few seconds after you power it on. Then you try, try and try again to get the high score. You could play for hours just trying to sharpen your skills, unfortunately, not many people play these games any more, so you can't really use them in competition.

I used to program for Ti-Calculators (one of my games is on Ticalc.org) and they have some incredibly addicting games, that are--- simple.

My point is that simpler games are more addictive, because in essence- they require less brain power, and more concentration on one particular action.

Perfect example: on www.addictinggames.com (just look at the name!) the first game that is listed (or used to be) is the "Helicopter Game" The game is really simple, and I actually have a version of it my cell phone, and for dream cast! (from homebrew.dcemulation.net) and basically you have a object, that goes up when you hold a button, and falls when you release it (only one button) your goal is to navigate it through a 2d scrolling screen with out crashing (touching) anything. I recommend that you play it. Anyway, some of my friends and I kept trying to topple each others high scores. I eventually got over 5k and stopped when no one else could, but I kept playing and playing in the mean time.

Allot of 2d games are addicting, because once again, they aren't complex. More examples: Metal Slug, Sonic, Mario, Tetris, Lolo, Dr. Mario, etc.

Now, after a long intro, back to the topic of FPS. The original Wolfe stein and Doom games were VERY simple, and VERY addicting, with a variety of four weapons, and 3 enemies (wolf3d) In wolf 3d, you can only look left\right, and fire. The game play is addicting because you are concentrating on winning, exploring, and only having to click one button to kill the enemy. Strafe \ Look are very easy to manage.

I found wolf3d very addicting. At first my goal was to beat it, I knew how to play, that was no problem, and I had to focus on sharpening my skills, and taking down the enemies, I didn't have to worry about constantly unique over-stimulating terrains, or combination attacks, or secondary fire advantages over primary weapons, all I had to do was get my timing and movement right, and I could get a step further in the level. After the game was over (expansions too) I then moved to repeat it with all the treasures and secrets found, and then again with a faster time on each level. Finally after no more combinations I was more or less through with the game, but I still enjoy a game of it every now and then.

As far as to day, I love games, complex ones too. FPS like Medal of Honor, have tons of different missions that require you to understand your objective and do it accordingly, it certainly isn't like wolf3d where everyone is your enemy, and you’re what moves. But I still prefer to play UT over Counterstrike. I mean really, I don't want to spend the time to pick out and buy a damn weapon each time I die. UT for me is allot more fun, I just pick my gun, ammo, armor, and kick some ai ass.

I think that modern FPS suffer from trying to puff up the game play with complex strategies, lots of choices, and detail that is unnecessary to have fun, and be addicting. In my opinion, this is partially due to the fact that the general public always wants more, and would pay for a game that advertises that it has 50 weapons vs. 10. And a game that has 100 missions instead of 20. That’s just the way the market is.. people don’t like feeling like they’ve been skewed, even if its for the sake of game play.

Pheew! I’m out! I practically wrote an essay!

)>- Gtronics -<(


[edited by - Gtronics on April 17, 2004 12:27:56 AM]

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Anonymous Poster
doom = a top down shooter from 1st person perspective. It had a lot in common with older shooters. But games are getting too slow, too long and too serious now.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
quote:
Original post by Anonymous Poster
doom = a top down shooter from 1st person perspective. It had a lot in common with older shooters. But games are getting too slow, too long and too serious now.


Hmm... I''ve wondered. Would "enough" (whatever that means) people enjoy more FPS''s as simple as Doom, or would "too many" (whatever that means) people be like "Dude... you can''t even jump!".

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
@Gtronics:
One word. Well... acronym: DDR.

Simple enough a concept for ya? And look at all the insanity it''s brought to the arcades.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Anonymous Poster
The secret behind why some people love the old fps''s:

You dont have to have any amount of skill at all its sorta like Starcraft, grab a certain weapon and blast away.

Hmm lets see you like the old games better because you played them while you were young didnt everything seem funner while you were younger,

Swings, Trees, Masturbation, Gameing.

Personally I cant wait for the FPS genre to die and for FABLE to come out.

But intill then Play Conqueror ad 1086.

Best game to date
Is fps/rpg/tbs

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Advertisement