Calling all 90's kids! What made 90's FPS's so good?

I'm a HUGE Build Engine fan. Like, MASSIVE fan. Spent thousands of hours on the editor when I was young.

And I absolutely LOVE 90's FPS games, 2.5D or 3D.

These days I can't bare to play most FPS games. They're just so generic and forgettable.

Am I alone here?

Why is that? What did the 90's FPS games do that made them so good?

Here's what I've got:

Enemies actually came at you
One thing that I loathe about modern games is that all the enemies more or less are just whack-a-mole, popping in and out of cover and take periodic pop shots. Game like Doom and Duke Nukem the enemies went straight at you and gave you a sense of urgency.

They got to it
Also, I love that the games had you shooting bad guys within 10 seconds of starting a game. No overly long cut scene. No dragged out tutorials. No obligatory tram ride intro, post HL1 (which actually did it right). Just start, and pew-pew-pew.

They didn't hold your damn hand
Speaking of no tutorials, I LOVE that they had a "figure it out" attitude. I miss the fun of learning how a game worked. Now that's completely sucked out of the experience. Also, the maps were ACTUAL maps, not a long troth with periodic cut scenes. Also, also, no "Halo Health"; it actually mattered if you got shot.

The weapons. Oh man, the weapons
Snarks from Half-Life. Shrink ray from Duke Nukem. BFG! Eight Ball Cannon! How about a severed head that shoots things when you stick your fingers in holes in the back? Shadow Warriors got you covered, and here's a Nuke while we're at it! Man I loved it!

Today? This SMG that does high damage, or this one that fires faster.

So yeah, what about you? What did you love about 90's FPS games?

 

I think what made them awesome was that there were like... three of them. Going back and playing those games now... man they were terrible.

Also the maps. They weren't so linear.

 

Wow you aint kidding. Its weird

 

Hmm, I'd take Halo or Battlefront over Doom or Wolfeinstein any day. Sorry.

One of the other things to consider is there weren't any real FPS shooters before the 90s. These things were new and amazing. 90s FPS games felt innovative because nobody had seen the mechanics before. Now a new FPS doesn't feel particularly innovative, because we've all played FPS games before. But the model is far more refined and better.

Here are some reasons I like modern games better.

• Halo health. In Doom if you got shot to many times that was it. You might as well restart the level, because you were going to die anyway. And if you died on the last battle of the level you had to start the whole thing over.
• Intelligent enemies. Pretty much every Doom and Wolfeinstein enemy behaved the same. Charge forward and shoot. Or charge forward and melee attack.
• Balance. I don't know anyone in my peer group that ever clocked Doom without IDDQD. While I don't mind a challenge, its nice to actually be able to finish a game.
• Story. To this day I still don't know why Doom happened. Wolfeinstein was slightly better, you were a prisoner escaping. But neither game had any memorable story moments.
• Variety. Doom and Wolfeinstein were pretty much the same slog every time. All of the encounters were basically shoot the monster faster then the monster shoots you. Blakestone introduced a little bit of variety with the innocents. But come on, no vehicles, no sniper rifles, no stealth.
• Graphics. It might not be a fair comparison to make, but its real.

All that said I do miss my shrink ray.

 

Man, that's one of the up-sells for me.

 

I bet there is a market for retro FPS games. Id play a game like goldeneye or perfect dark (not the 360 remake), and strafe pretty much proves it, you dont need the fancy graphics or story-lines.

 

You know what I forgot:

I miss not having waves. Waves are the WORST!

 

Pretty sure I'm a 90's kid, but I don't remember too many FPS games that could actually be called good. I do remember spending a lot of time going "WHERE'S THE F***ING KEYCARD?!"

I draw the line at Perfect Dark and Deus Ex. Before that, they pretty much all suck.

 

Well you're basically looking at different markets. A lot of people think today's games are the greatest. And a lot of people think older games were better in certain ways.

@Not_Sure I agree with you. Not saying modern FPS all suck. But I think a lot of us hate all of the crap that has come into the games over the years. I think these days there are just a lot of people (mainly the younger folks I'd guess) who rely on the hand-holding and want that linear point A to B limited thinking required sort of game experience. And they want the story and constant cut scenes (I guess). I think these are probably the key dividers between the groups who prefer modern games and the groups who prefer the older games. Of course, graphics are very important to many people as well.

The emphasis is more on pure gameplay in the older FPS. Basically the goal is just to get the player into action asap and let them enjoy obliterating "bad guys" and exploring the areas. Without continual cut scenes, hints popping up and arrows binging "move-a-that-away".

 

I do think there's an important point in the OP's post, which is this:

More realistic doesn't always mean more fun.

Most of the differences he describes are from more realistic weapons, more realistic AI, etc. OK, maybe not the maps (those were more realistic when they were nonlinear). But in general, I think the FPS audience has been gradually demanding more and more realism, and for those particular players, that means "more cool" and therefore "more fun."

But for many of us, the opposite is true. We want wacky weapons, unrealistic enemies, jump plates that launch you 60 meters across the arena where you land without missing a beat, etc.

I've been playing a lot of retro games lately, and it's striking how much the greatest games of all time (Super Mario Bros. 3, Super Metroid, Sonic, etc.) didn't care about making sense — not even a little. They were complete nonsense. But they were ridiculously fun nonsense. Everything was optimized for how it played, not for how it modeled the real world.

To some extent I'm shooting myself in the foot here, because my particular area of interest is agent AI, and making NPCs that behave more realistically, more like PCs. From what I just said above, that would seem fairly pointless. But I don't think they're really at odds... a smart AI gives you more opportunities to make NPCs that are fun, not just more realistic. But maybe that's a topic for another thread.

 

No, you can save wherever. No check points, so just save before the last battle if you want.

Eh? Doom wasn't really all that hard, and it had multiple difficulty levels, so a spazmodic monkey could complete the game on the easiest level. I finished it several times; balance wasn't a problem. (I found the hardest difficulty level annoying because of the respawning enemies, but for people who do like that sort of challenge, it was there.)

Some guys on Mars were making a teleporter, but they messed with forces they didn't understand and unleashed a portal to Hell and demons escaped oh noes! Then you shoot the demons. It's not about "story moments", it's about just having fun playing a game.

Vehicles could be fun, but not having the other things is good. Forced stealth sections in action games is something that's ridiculed these days for a reason. I like a good stealth game, but not when I'm mowing down demons with a BFG 9000.

It's an aesthetic. Witness the topics around here where people are deliberately wanting to make pseudo-3D games with sprite enemies.

Try the Serious Sam games.

--Eric

 

These two points actually contradict each other. For one, the entire reason the newer games are linear is so that there is nothing but the core gameplay. You don't spend fifteen minutes hunting for the goddamn keycard in an empty level, because that's not a part of the core gameplay. Modern wisdom is to not have aspects of your game that you don't think are important, and in this instance that's exploration. The modern corridor shooter is designed explicitly to keep your action boner at full mast.

And story is there to provide context, without it you just have a violent pornography which Doom arguably is (cue Carmack's "story in a videogame" quote). This is the irony of Hatred taking so much flack for providing the wrong context, even if it's just another violent pornography. We are in an era where games end up denigrated to the status of a toy if they don't have a story. To the modern eye, games have to have a story to be taken seriously, otherwise Call of Duty would have ditched the single-player that most people don't even play.

 

I think it mainly goes back to what different players enjoy in the game. For me hunting for a key or whatever is gameplay. Of course, it is better if there are enemies to obliterate along the way. Searching for items gives it an adventure / mission aspect. I'll take that anyday over hand-holding guidance through maps A to B. Like I said man it is just the difference in people. For you the modern style suits your preferences very well. I am not saying it is terrible and there are things that have improved for sure. However, myself and many others just prefer some things to be done the way they used to be. It's kind of like as much as it puts you off seeing older games and they look lame that is the same for us when looking at modern games. It is just a matter of preference.

 

Ahh, so that explains why I don't like FPS/shooter games.

 

I should probably point out that nothing I talked about is actually my preference. The core of Doom is fighting enemies, and progression is definable as finding more things to kill. Yet for some arbitrary reason, progression is gated by some arbitrary gizmo in an arbitrary point in the map. That just ain't good design.

There are shooters in which exploration is a key part, like Deus Ex, but they are fundamentally a different breed. Mechanics are put into exploration, and they can provide leverage to other aspects of gameplay beyond resource management. Exploration would be important enough that it would actually be mentioned on the back of the box. It's one thing to say the game has exploration, its another to say it was important.

Also to point out a double standard, do you like the hand holding in Super Mario Bros.? The game is so restrictive that you can only go right.

 

I'm about positive that that "restriction" had more to do with garbage collection than design choice. Aside from the original SMB being the only Mario game with that, it had more to do with the fact that the game dumped everything just off frame.

But if SMB was made today?

Oh man, you'd start the game and read 5 minutes of "story", then it would give a pop-up on how to walk right, followed by another pop-up telling you to watch out for the goomba, followed by another pop-up telling you how to jump, followed by telling you to hit the blocks, followed by another cut scene.

WHERE'S THE EXPLORATION AND DISCOVERY IN GAMES ANYMORE??? What's wrong with "figure it out"?

(Sorry, I'm on "bar time")

Anyway, maybe there's a happy middle ground we can find. What if health was lost and recharged to a point, and that point lowered with each hit. Like a bullet takes 10 HP but also lowers max HP by 5 points, then health kits restore you max health.

And yeah, key cards kinda sucked.

But I still stand by my statement that waves suck. Waves are a cheap way to pad levels at the cost of player strategy. And a LOT of times I'm sitting there in the same ^&@$#$ing room for ten minute clearing out the same &*^W#$ing enemies, over and over. It's bull crap and everyone knows it. And the idea is that "Well players will just have to stay on edge", but isn't relative safety supposed to be the point of clearing out an area? No, now you just find a rock to hide behind for five seconds, kill off that wave, rinse, and repeat. Blech!

Also, @JoeStrout : i remember the reaching Surface Tension and encountering the first soldier in HL. It was a room full of crates and you catch a glimpse of them before they dart to cover. Then he threw a grenade, and as I ran he met me with a ready SMG. After a reload I felt savvy to him and readied myself: grenade, run, ready to shoot. Not there. POP! I die, and he comes running up from behind me from a different way. That beats the hell out of whack-a-mole any day.

 

Valid points. I am trying to figure out why I like older games more than modern games. When someone makes a post like the OP it resonates with me as I am sure it does with some other people. I "get" what he is talking about but trying to define exactly in concrete terms what the appeal is for older games and what the dislike is for newer games is not as easy as it seems like it should be.

The original Super Mario Bros game was solid. Certainly a turning point for the time period in regards to player control and level design. A lot of people loved the game but I wasn't as impressed with it and spent more time playing Castlevania and Contra.

I need to give it some good thought and see if I can pin down exactly what aspects of old(er) games I prefer over modern games.

One thing I know that I dislike about modern games are:
Hand-Holding - by this I mean tutorials and continual hints directing me how to move, how to jump and just whatever that gets in the way of me getting into the actual gameplay.

I will put some thought into it. I still think it is a matter of preference. Because most of the people who talk about how much better modern games are... clearly that would mean these games are more aligned with how these players want their games to be. Likewise, people who talk about how much better games used to be well that would be an indication those older games are more aligned with how thise players want their games to be.

When I have a clear list of what I liked about old games and why... and what I don't like about modern games and why... I will post it.

 

Yeah i actually read a review of hotline miami 2 where they gave it a bad score because they didnt like the story and they were comparing it to Far Cry 3 (100+ man team to a 2 man team). The story is just there to set up the narrative, I almost always just skip the story in games anyway.

 

Look at an NES controller. Now look at a dual shock controller. Simply put, S*** got more complicated. Add to that that it's probably better to have people actually finish your game, so people would be interested in your next game. I would imagine not finishing the last game does have an effect on the next one's sales.

Just what games are you playing where this is such a big issue? At this point, it sounds like you're irate about how people won't RTFM. Just answer me this: is this a game that can be played by someone who has never played a game?

 

?? Just about any game from the PS3 launch on seems to be this way to some degree. I remember starting Borderlands and was unable to move. Had to wait until mr. robot rolled over and gave me directions. Assassin's Creed. I started the game and was guided through various moves. BING! Use this to walk. Run. Camera. Grab. Etc. And many games I have checked out seem to be the way. Even many Indy games.

In fairness, the last modern game I bought was Diablo 3 and then the expansion. I don't even buy modern games any more because, for the most part, I just don't care for them. Well I should qualify that by saying most AAA games. I do buy Indy games and when I do they are games designed in a retro style.

Anyway, I am going to spend some time thinking about what exactly (and I think it is probably many things) that I dislike about modern games and why... and what exactly I like about older games and why. Ultimately, I think it just comes down to different things appeal to different people. Some people like FPS games and some hate them. Some people like platform games and others hate them. And so on. I think it is probably the same kind of thing going on with the "older games" and "modern games" groups. Maybe we just liked running through a level dying hundreds of times and spending weeks and months steady to finally beat a game. Not sure but I will play some older games and newer games and see if I can pinpoint what it is.

 

Tutorials are an interesting point. Old school games had much simpler control schemes, so one could argue that there was no need for a tutorial. Doom has a single axis controller, weapon switching, and the fire key. That's it. No crouching, no strafing, no reloading, no entering vehicles, no melee attacks, no scopes...

That said, having to "calibrate your targeting computer" by looking at targets on a screen was a bit much.

I think the problem with the AC tutorial set up is that the game can be completed without any advance techniques. So in order to have the player learn these techniques they must be force fed. Otherwise most players would miss the nuance of a particular action happening only "if I'm standing on a ledge and have weapon x equipped and have an enemy targeted and hold down right trigger and push the green button".

If you take the tutorial out of most modern games, most players will miss half the exploration space the game offers. It would become more like the mortal kombat games, where many players never got past button mashing.

And of course there are games like portal, which consist only of tutorial levels.

 

You might be onto something there regarding old school games having simpler control schemes. For the most part at least. Certainly there were simpler controllers for the old consoles. That actually resulted in some overly complex control schemes at times as designers tried to map many techniques to just one or two buttons and a joystick.

Overall though yes the control schemes were much simpler. I've been thinking about that too. It might have something to do with it. As a general rule I think I'd prefer less controller input requirements. Ideally just a d-pad and 3 to 4 buttons should be plenty it seems to me. That is probably an "old school" view.

 

Come on. Are you really having issues with the idea that a game is spending ten seconds to explain "left analogue move, right analogue camera?" Are ten seconds so insufferable that you would rather see no one new to games ever learn to play them? Hell AC has modifier keys that change what the face buttons do along with movement speed and even how the character generally behaves, and you don't think this is important to explain to people? You're basically advocating for games to be exclusive and cryptic.

 

I am thinking about it still...

to help me reach a conclusion let me ask what are the modern (released within the last 3 years) equivalents to:

Rise of the Triad

Blake Stone Planet Strike

The Catacomb Abyss

I am talking about a game play, atmosphere perspective. Do they even make games like these any more? Or has it all become, like @JoeStrout mentioned, about realism and (as I say) graphics over game play?

 

Well, they did a Rise of the Triad remake a couple years ago.

--Eric

 

You might need to go into a little more detail, because all I see are Doom knock offs with a wacky coat of paint.

 

We are talking about early 90s FPS games here. That's all they were, a series of iterations on Doom. While I spent hours playing these games as a kid, there is little other then nostalgia to recommend them to me today.

When you put them up against the text based adventures and the platformers that were common at the time, they look pretty great. I mean, 3D, how awesome is that. You'll note many of the games actually had 3D in the title, because it was an awesome new technology.

But put against todays games and there is very little to recommend them.

In my childhood first person shooters had a very clear progression. Each new release made the previous release redundant. Wolfientstien < Doom < Quake < 007 < Perfect Dark < Halo < then I got married and had kids and stopped keeping up with the latest shooters.

I downloaded 007 a while back, just for old times sake. Fired up an emulator, played for about three minutes, gave up and went back to a modern game. Its just not worth it.

I didn't realise they made a 3D version of catacomb. That's awesome. That one I might have to try.

Here is another item to think about. The old 2D games don't seem to have lost as much lustre with me as the 3D games have. It wasn't that long ago that I clocked the 2D version of catacomb again.

 

One thing we have to remember is that there are a TON more gamers today than there were back then. Decades ago, it was a niche market. It was hardcore gamers that loved the challenge and exploration.

The general public doesn't like that (or isn't smart enough for it). That's the reason there's so much hand-holding and linear, corridor combat.

Companies could just as easily create games with the complexity and "figure-it-out" sense of the older generations, but they'd be appealing to the very small, niche group that played games back then.

 

Except Doom II sold somewhere around 2 million copies or more (and Doom I not far behind), so no, not really all that niche. Plenty of companies would love to get 2M sales.

--Eric

 

You might enjoy a roguelike fps called ziggurat, made in Unity. No bs hexen fps mechanics.

 

Hey, I remembered that Doom 4 is apparently still a thing, and found this page. If that's true, the original version was a linear COD script-fest, now abandoned in favor of what essentially sounds like a remake of the original, complete with unlimited weapons, no reloading mechanics, no regenerating health, and keycards (which I actually like as long as they're found naturally when exploring the level, and not obnoxiously hidden—it's not mechanically different than something like finding new abilities in Metroid to get to new areas). Plus fatalities, melee combat, and double-jumping. Sounds better than Rage!

--Eric

 

These games were all pre-Doom I think. Even if one came out at the same time or later they were built on the Wolfenstein 3D engine I think except for The Catacomb Abyss. I think that one was pre-Wolfenstein and they went on later to make Wolfenstein.

The Catacomb Abyss had around 20 different enemies of varying strengths and a fair amount of unique behavior spread across them. There were two weapon powerups to collect, healing potions, keys (of course) and scrolls that sometimes provided a subtle hint to help you out. So, for this one just a modern game that has the same kind of setting (you are a mage journeying through several different areas and in each maze along the way there is a variety of specific spot descriptions describing where you are sometimes kind humorous), variety of enemies, weapon power ups, destructible walls leading to many secret areas, a ton of stuff to collect.

Blake Stone: Planet Strike has many things to collect (several different types of food alone), pushable walls (again we see some form of secret areas that used to be a big part of these games), some scientists you could speak to and they turned out to be our informants, the map had an interesting aspect in that it could be powered up, close to 20 different enemies. For this game just a modern game that has this type of setting, possibly enemies who are actually friends providing information, ammo and other items to help you, secret areas, lots of different collectibles and weapons to find.

Rise of the Triad also has quite a bit of stuff to collect. The interesting parts of this I'd say were the different weapons, the jump pads that launched you up into the air, the moving platforms and the way the collectibles were positioned often requiring you to ride up a platform and move off in order to collect something and so forth. So for this one, a large variety of very different and cool weapons, lots of drops as well as items scattered around to collect and an environment you interact with sort of like ultra simple puzzles.

There is something more about these games. Most of them were just a bit crazy in some ways. From the title / option screens with different wording for the difficulty settings to the little extras such as selecting quit presenting "Release Cyanide Gas?" or "Drive your jeep off a cliff right now?" while not part of the actual game play these things did help to establish an atmosphere that this is all about just having fun. The games did not take themselves too seriously. And maybe this is the biggest change between games back then and games today. I have noticed the emphasis has been on increasing realism more and more as time passes and have mentioned before I think perhaps some of the fun was lost along the way.

Anyway, if there are some modern games similar to what I described above please let me know and I will definitely check them out.

 

I suppose you could add CoD4 to the end of the list, but at that point FPS stopped iterating on the core of the genre's mechanics. The things being explored in development stopped being shooty-shooty-bang-bang-biggity-bang, and now the genre has so many appendages it's starting to give Cthulhu a run for his money. You've got FPS within an open world (Far Cry), FPS with Diablo-esque weapon generation (Borderlands), FP survival with or without zombies, and an almost unhealthy bukkake of RPG elements that just got into everything. Hell, the RPG elements largely go back to 2000 and 99 with Deus Ex and System Shock 2.

Yeah, Perfect Dark fairs a bit better, but the controls...

No, that is not the reason. The reason they are structured this way is to control the PACING. They are delivering to you a fast paced, action-packed experience. If you went out and saw Mad Max recently, you have zero ground to complain, because they are there to do the exact same thing.

 

Half of what you talked about is ubiquitous, and the other half has nothing to do with the core of the genre and has since died off. Do you lament not having lives too?

Consider how many hands actually worked on those old games. By modern standards, they were indie. You might have found more than ten people who worked on the engine, but otherwise the number of developers stayed in the single digits. The more people on a project, the more normalized it ends up.

I should point out that kind of atmosphere is a dime a dozen in the indie scene, and it's usually symptomatic of an inability to build a proper atmosphere. If you can't make a proper story, or have some actual theming, you just make it wacky and zany with fart jokes. Just look at goat simulator.

You call them fun, and I'll call them mindless. If you just accept everything about them, they end up being a great time. However if you dare to question anything, it all falls apart. These games explode and spontaneously combusts by asking why.

 

These older titles are pure arcade fps, I don't see them doing it wrong or right, it's just a particular sub-genre. Ziggurat is the most recent one I've played in that style, although I'd argue serious sam series is pretty much arcade fps too.

It's not dead or buried or anything. It just sells less than cod.

 

You do realize that all of this is just your opinion, right? I mentioned quite a while back in this thread, and several times in fact, that it most likely all comes down to different preferences of different people. You do not like the experiences offered by the older games and some of us do. It is not a matter of the old games are "best" or the new games are "best". It is just a matter of playing what you enjoy. Games are all about fun and not meant to be taken so seriously. At least that is how I see it.

 

Certainly not any more mindless than modern shooters, which also fall apart if you question them. That applies to nearly all games, actually. Big difference between games and simulations, of which there aren't very many.

--Eric

 

You could say the same about adventure games, but as far as the market sees it, they are fossilized. There is a resurgence in the style, but it's mostly through merging with rogue-lites. You can add Heavy Bullet and Receiver to Ziggurat as examples.

A lot of cases look like Doom mods, In The Kingdom is a good example (actually a unity game), but are applying modern aspects to it. In The Kingdom in particular is heavy on the atmosphere, to the point of being as good as (if not more so than) System Shock.

 

You seem to have this bizarre notion that all gamers are just like you, and your age. I happen to think original doom pace is exhilarating.

There's a reason people keep coming back to it and stuff like Brutal doom happens as well as new games all the time. Ziggurat being one of them.

 

It's probably been said already, but half life really raised the bar in the late 90s, and in fact I dove in head first with the "world craft" editor back then and that kind of pushed me into development these days. Thanks valve!

 

Games are constantly evolving just because its like this now doesnt it mean it will always be the case, maybe a big call of duty will go bust and things will wrap around. Adventure game genre was dead for a while, but telltale sells exclusively point and click adventure games and they keep landing bigger and bigger IP.

 

Very little of what I've said should be my opinion and should be fairly objective. At no point have I said I just like this or I don't like that. I've already called it violent pornography, and if that's your kink then so be it. That doesn't mean you can't be critical of it though.

I know what I like and why I like it. Quite frequently I know what I like is flawed, but I ignore that to see what is great underneath.

Modern shooters at least establish the context a little better. Who I am, who they are, why are they trying to kill me, and why am I trying to kill them is explained somewhat fuller. Granted everything usually goes to hell in a hand basket once the story kicks in.

Doom's pacing is fine when you can keep it up. It's just that the pace can come to a halt while you're lost and looking for a keycard.

 

Well...Telltale is currently doing slightly interactive videos at this point, not point and click adventure games as such. I think the genre is still kinda dead-ish, with a few exceptions.

--Eric

 

Well I dont know if "point and click" or not but I played a few of them and liked them. Everything from monkey island, to puzzle agent

 

I'm referring to the titles from the last few years; Walking Dead and so on.

--Eric

 

FPS have never been my favorite genre even the "old school" games. I enjoyed an occasional run n gun of Catacombs, Blake Stone, Rise of the Triad and Duke Nukem 3D. What I am writing may apply to "old school" and "new school" games in general.

The biggest thing for me is just in how boring modern FPS are in general. Not all but certainly most of them. Borderlands 1 & 2 were excellent. Anyway, "back in the day" I was fighting all different kinds of creatures usually some kind of spawn of hell. That is a whole lot more interesting to me than running around playing army dude. The settings and so forth just do nothing to draw me in. Yes, I know there are aliens in many modern fps games.

The next thing is just the focus of the games themselves. I was used to just being placed right into the game. Sure I might be given a mission but it was a simple blurb of text or so forth. It felt like I was basically alone. There was a kind of feeling of isolation. The focus of the gameplay was avoid being shot and obliterate enemies. There were loads of med kits, ammo and other items scattered around. It was fun to just explore and find the stuff. The emphasis was simply on fun. Compare this to now. The emphasis seems to be on making things as realistic as they can. Pickups are boring as hell in most cases and it seems like they are treated like precious gems rarely available. It also seems like there is often some mother computer or central command or whatever giving me constant feedback. Multiplayer seems like such a big deal for these games. I have no interest in it.

Before I needed to explore and find things. Sure it was fairly easy to do in most cases but still I prefer that over everything feeling scripted. Being directed continually... get to the checkpoint and meet Bravo team or whatever.

It paid to search around and explore. Often we'd find items hidden just out of sight behind a corner or machine. Also we'd find secret passages and rooms. These things don't seem to be in games these days. If you do come across a secret passage or something it seems like the game makes a big deal out of it and basically the secret passage is revealed by an explosion or some other event in the game and feels like basically that is the normal (and perhaps only) path that you were intended to go on all along.

Everything seemed pretty open within the limited environments. I could do whatever I wanted within those confines. Now in many ways it just feels like modern FPS are "on rails". With all of the scripting, cinemas, incoming transmissions and so forth they just seem like they are more controlled and limited to me now than they ever were 20 years ago.

Before I was just dropped in and expected to do the job. I wasn't nudged along with tidbits of information continually. I didn't need to watch prompts pop up press this to move. Press this to jump. And so forth. Basically the controls were simple. The purpose was simple. Have fun. And the game left me alone to figure it out. These days it is like the focus is on "let's see how complicated we can make this thing!" Maybe it is because there is less creativity now than before. Like maybe they cannot figure out how to make an engaging game without assigning a function for every button and trigger on a game pad or half of the keyboard. Or maybe it is because they are more focused on trying to make military style simulators than they are on making games. I don't know.

Okay, I think this covers most of the things. There are some more I am sure but the things listed above stand out the most at the moment.

This is not meant to try to convince people that modern FPS games suck and old school FPS rule. I am just sharing my views on it for me personally.

 

I wonder how much "America's Army" impacted this evolution? As I recall, it was one of the first FPS "games" to put a real emphasis on realism, and it turned out to be a big hit... perhaps leading many others in the industry (who really were making games, rather than a recruiting tool) to believe that realism was the way forward?

Pure speculation on my part, probably based on a faulty memory of history... but I throw it out there for discussion anyway.

 

I think the term you're wanting is modern, not real. America's Army was a half step below a simulator, and, save for Arma, there really isn't anything that is chasing realism to any extreme (and Arma is/was based off a simulator). Ten years ago we would have taken anything that wasn't set in WWII, then CoD4 came out and the modern military shooter genre took off. Hell, if I'm reading the tea leaves right, chances are the trend is toward futuristic/sci-fi shooters these days. We'll know by E3.

I just have a hard time swallowing that most of the genre is being realistic. Grounded? Sure. Serious? Rex Power Colt disagrees, but that's more often the case then not. Realistic? Not when guns akimbo is in damn near everything.

 

This undirected play is actually the niche multi player fills these days. It's an open map with the only objective being kill or be killed.

One of the things that really sucks with modern shooters is when you come off the rails. If you think in ding the key card you missed was hard, try finding the missing invisible trigger zone. It doesn't happen often. But when it does it's unpleasant.

I would actually play a modern shooter game with the undirected levels of the old school games. Add vehicles and modern control systems and decent graphics. Could be fun.

 

I'd like simple controls. Basically movement (for me the ideal would be cursor keys or a d-pad), one button / key for attacking, another for crouching and another for jumping and one more for a generic action button (context-based open doors and so forth). That should be all that is needed for the designers to focus on the environments and enemies and collectibles and build a very fun game. The controls on games these days seem a bit insane like they were set up by people who have no sense of the key to interface design being simplicity. Each of the 4 buttons does something, each trigger does something, each stick is also used as yet another button. It is a bit ridiculous to me anyway.