Slashdot Mirror
E3 2005 First Person Shooters
John Callaham writes "Computer Games Magazine takes a quick look at the upcoming first person shooter games that are expected to be show at this May's Electronic Entertainment Expo." From the article: "Today we start to look at all the games that have been announced and are out in the open and are likely to be show at E3 this May. First up: first person shooters. 2004 was truly a banner year for this genre; how many years can we have that contain UT2004, Doom 3, Painkiller, and Half-Life 2? Will this year be any different?"
...how many years can we have that contain UT2004, Doom 3, Painkiller, and Half-Life 2?
One?
Or, to be even more pedantic, all of them after 2004?
Pulp Audio Weekly - Geek News and Reviews
..is the one i'm really waiting for, seems like the one of the bunch with potential to have some real depth in it. you know, the kind of depth that makes you immersed in the world, the kind of depth that gives you some OPTIONS in how to advance rather than something tha makes you just scale the walls looking for the hole to the next room(or in the case of dull ww2 shooters.. something else than a shooting alley with invisible insta-death walls - it's fucking boring to play the same part over and over again to find the 'right' way out of the pothole).
(fuck the dots- you'd have to be braindead to not make the connection between stalker and s.t.a.l.k.e.r)
world was created 5 seconds before this post as it is.
They might understand why a magazine called [b]Computer Games[b] Magazine might not be mentioning Halo 2.
"Do you expect me to talk?" "No, Mr. Bond. I expect you to die!"
I'm pretty tired of the standard FPS formula by now, those games don't seem to offer much in terms of new gameplay. The only one that even tries is Timeshift and even there you could argue that idea has been seen before and overdone.
Is there something about first person shooters that requires them all to play the same plus/minus squad tactics? Some break the mold by adding character development and multiple playstyles but those are few and rarely the ones that get all the hype. How many different takes on "run into room, kill everything that moves, repeat" do we need? Yes, economists would say a whole lot because that's profitable. Or even better, make the game stealthy so the player moves much slower and your content lasts longer. But hell, what if I don't want any more of that? Usually people tell you to go with indy games then but the singleplayer FPS is one of the hardest arenas for independant development and quite frankly I don't know of any indy FPSes.
Another point: What happened to the more freeform level designs of "back then"? Back when people played Doom or Descent levels weren't just one long path with obstacles strewn in, they were always areas with keys and switches, making you stay in a level much longer (and making them better for deathmatches) and sometimes run through familiar areas again. Especially with no clues about where to go these levels just felt much more non-linear than those found in HL2 or Doom 3. It worked back then with small dev houses and primitive graphics, why doesn't it work with today's huge dev houses and impressive graphics anymore?
Justice is the sheep getting arrested while an impartial judge declares the vote void.
I'm sure this time, this is the year Duke Nukem Forever is released! You'll all see...