What Do You Think of PS1 FPS Games?

Well I think Medal of Honor is quite terrible today and even Quake II, while playlable, has nothing on the PC version (perhaps it's only more colorful but PC mods say hello). "2.5D" shooters like Doom, Dark Forces, Duke 3D, ect. are also all superior in the PC versions. You may only want to play FPS games on the PS1 if you really have to play them on the console and if you for some reason like them better.

yah those old fps's are quite terible, i mena ide rather play them over the crap now but still they relay cant hold up,

granted both duke nukem and doom are still pretty fun just to put in and play for a little

I don't like FPSs in general, but I generally prefer old ones over new ones.

Well you mentioned Colony Wars but they were space combat games with multiple view points. SilverSignal

I haven't played many FPS's on the PS1. The PC is by far the best platform for the genre, for old and new games.

[QUOTE="SilverSignal"][QUOTE="AcidSoldner"]Some PS1 FPSs may have aged terribly but one I still enjoy playing to this day is Medal of Honor. Sure it doesn't have a lot of the standards of todays FPSs but it still plays damn good. Still need to play Medal of Honor: Underground; maybe I'll download it now that the Playstation Store is back up.alienlegion

I don't have a PS1 console so rely on emulators for my needs. Thankfully you can make the games look much better than they used to. That's probably all I'm allowed to say about them on here.

Yeah the FMV's in Final Fantasy VIII were amazing when I first played it. Amazing how the graphics are even better than those now. :)

I love Doom & Final Doom. And I still play them sometimes. Also I likes Quake 2 and Powerslave.

Well I think Medal of Honor is quite terrible today and even Quake II, while playlable, has nothing on the PC version (perhaps it's only more colorful but PC mods say hello). "2.5D" shooters like Doom, Dark Forces, Duke 3D, ect. are also all superior in the PC versions. You may only want to play FPS games on the PS1 if you really have to play them on the console and if you for some reason like them better.

nameless12345

I agree, the PC versions are superior in every conceivable way. Definetly go for the PC versions. They're not expensive, in fact they're dirt cheap. And if you're just too used to console controls, you can always get a PC controller.

In regards to 2.5D, we've had this discussion before. But you don't seem to understand what 2.5D is really, not if you're calling Doom and Duke Nukem 3D 2.5D. Just because the 3D doesn't look all that great, doesn't make it 2.5D. These games couldn't be further from 2.5D. They take place in a fully 3D world, it's not even questionable like Crash Bandicoot (which is what was being discussed the first time), because of Crash's limited room in a 3D level. Doom and Duke Nukem do not have limited room, it's most-definetly 3D.

2.5D is a game that mostly plays on a 2D field, however there may be a background or foreground as well like a handful of the levels on Crash Bandicoot (The Gate levels specifically), or a few of the SNK fighting games that had multiple 2D fields. Or 2.5D is a game the mostly plays on 2D field, but turns and twists perspectives of that field making it seem 3D; stuff like Nights Into Dreams and Klonoa.

Medal Of Honor, Disruptor, Alien Trilogy and Rainbow Six are pretty good, I still have to play Codename Tenka though...

I played Broken Helix and the original Medal of Honor. Playstation 1 FPS games are OK. The graphics and gameplay don't quite hold up very well. But then again it is early in the genre. The 3D gameplay and graphics are very primitive. They have not aged very well.

I played Broken Helix and the original Medal of Honor. Playstation 1 FPS games are OK. The graphics and gameplay don't quite hold up very well. But then again it is early in the genre. The 3D gameplay and graphics are very primitive. They have not aged very well.

Unfortunately PS1 FPS games have not aged well at all.

[QUOTE="nameless12345"]

Well I think Medal of Honor is quite terrible today and even Quake II, while playlable, has nothing on the PC version (perhaps it's only more colorful but PC mods say hello). "2.5D" shooters like Doom, Dark Forces, Duke 3D, ect. are also all superior in the PC versions. You may only want to play FPS games on the PS1 if you really have to play them on the console and if you for some reason like them better.

Emerald_Warrior

I agree, the PC versions are superior in every conceivable way. Definetly go for the PC versions. They're not expensive, in fact they're dirt cheap. And if you're just too used to console controls, you can always get a PC controller.

In regards to 2.5D, we've had this discussion before. But you don't seem to understand what 2.5D is really, not if you're calling Doom and Duke Nukem 3D 2.5D. Just because the 3D doesn't look all that great, doesn't make it 2.5D. These games couldn't be further from 2.5D. They take place in a fully 3D world, it's not even questionable like Crash Bandicoot (which is what was being discussed the first time), because of Crash's limited room in a 3D level. Doom and Duke Nukem do not have limited room, it's most-definetly 3D.

2.5D is a game that mostly plays on a 2D field, however there may be a background or foreground as well like a handful of the levels on Crash Bandicoot (The Gate levels specifically), or a few of the SNK fighting games that had multiple 2D fields. Or 2.5D is a game the mostly plays on 2D field, but turns and twists perspectives of that field making it seem 3D; stuff like Nights Into Dreams and Klonoa.

Well Doom and Duke 3D were, infact, regarded as 2.5D shooters back then. That's because they aren't real 3D games but use a lot of 2D stuff (like monsters, weapons, ammo packs, ect.) and also because their engines aren't really 3D (they use fake 3D method called ray casting). The first fully 3D FPS was Quake 1. Also it's noteworthy to say that most of those old 2.5D FPSes didn't allow you to look free with the mouse or had a strange perspective distortion (Duke 3D). That too was something that Quake 1 pioneered (although Descent did it before).

But I'm personally not a fan of the expression in the first place. A 2D game is a 2D game and a 3D game is a 3D game imo. If you want a more fancy expression you can also say "pseudo 3D".

Unfortunately PS2 FPS gaems have not aged well at all.

TheRaiderNation

Don't you mean PS1?

I was just playing MoH last night after reading this thread. You can play it with both the analogue sticks so it's very comfortable and playing it on a much more modern screen with high res textures makes it look better that it used to. Sure it still looks pretty ugly but so what? It's still fun to play.Plus it has really good sound for a PS1 game.

The Medal of Honor games are great... Other than that I don't know.

[QUOTE="TheRaiderNation"]

Unfortunately PS2 FPS gaems have not aged well at all.

SilverSignal

Don't you mean PS1?

I was just playing MoH last night after reading this thread. You can play it with both the analogue sticks so it's very comfortable and playing it on a much more modern screen with high res textures makes it look better that it used to. Sure it still looks pretty ugly but so what? It's still fun to play.Plus it has really good sound for a PS1 game.

I hear the same complaints leveled at Duke Nukem 3D , Quake , Quake 2 etc.

I have Quake and Duke 3D on the Saturn (also Quake 64), and Quake 2 on the PS1, all of them are perfectly playable games, they run smoothly, have great level design and great action.

Yeah I read some pretty good things about Quake 2 on the PS1. I've never played it, so it doesn't sound like I'll be too disappointed when I pick it up. I guess some of the things I like about these FPSs are that they offer a departure from the type of gameplay that became mainstream in the years to come. Also the sci-fi atmosphere is more appealing to me than the WWII, modern combat stuff that is so popular now. The more I play Brahma Force, with it's eerie atmosphere and closed in spaces, the more I wonder why I never got into this earlier. I was also looking at Codename Tenka and thought it looked cool. It's getting some mention so it's probably pretty good?

[QUOTE="Emerald_Warrior"]

[QUOTE="nameless12345"]

Well I think Medal of Honor is quite terrible today and even Quake II, while playlable, has nothing on the PC version (perhaps it's only more colorful but PC mods say hello). "2.5D" shooters like Doom, Dark Forces, Duke 3D, ect. are also all superior in the PC versions. You may only want to play FPS games on the PS1 if you really have to play them on the console and if you for some reason like them better.

nameless12345

I agree, the PC versions are superior in every conceivable way. Definetly go for the PC versions. They're not expensive, in fact they're dirt cheap. And if you're just too used to console controls, you can always get a PC controller.

In regards to 2.5D, we've had this discussion before. But you don't seem to understand what 2.5D is really, not if you're calling Doom and Duke Nukem 3D 2.5D. Just because the 3D doesn't look all that great, doesn't make it 2.5D. These games couldn't be further from 2.5D. They take place in a fully 3D world, it's not even questionable like Crash Bandicoot (which is what was being discussed the first time), because of Crash's limited room in a 3D level. Doom and Duke Nukem do not have limited room, it's most-definetly 3D.

2.5D is a game that mostly plays on a 2D field, however there may be a background or foreground as well like a handful of the levels on Crash Bandicoot (The Gate levels specifically), or a few of the SNK fighting games that had multiple 2D fields. Or 2.5D is a game the mostly plays on 2D field, but turns and twists perspectives of that field making it seem 3D; stuff like Nights Into Dreams and Klonoa.

Well Doom and Duke 3D were, infact, regarded as 2.5D shooters back then. That's because they aren't real 3D games but use a lot of 2D stuff (like monsters, weapons, ammo packs, ect.) and also because their engines aren't really 3D (they use fake 3D method called ray casting). The first fully 3D FPS was Quake 1. Also it's noteworthy to say that most of those old 2.5D FPSes didn't allow you to look free with the mouse or had a strange perspective distortion (Duke 3D). That too was something that Quake 1 pioneered (although Descent did it before).

But I'm personally not a fan of the expression in the first place. A 2D game is a 2D game and a 3D game is a 3D game imo. If you want a more fancy expression you can also say "pseudo 3D".

No, you're just not getting it. Bad looking 3D is not 2.5D. Doom and Duke Nukem 3D are not 2.5D nor were they EVER considered it like you just stated. The name of the game is Duke Nukem 3D for crying out loud. I kind of doubt you've even played Duke Nukem 3D if you think you can't look around.

This is 3D (from Duke Nukem 3D):

Notice how everything moves on a 3D Plane. And he's not just running from left to right. Yeah, it looks pixelated and poorly done compared to modern games. But in no way does that make it 2.5D.

This is 2.5D:

Notice how things are in 3D, but the game is actually being played on a 2D field. Klonoa is moving in a left to right direction despite the 3D graphics.

And this is just plane old 2D:

Oh, and BTW, here's a shot of Duke looking up:

Personally I feel the only game at the time that was good was goldeneye on the 64 and that is horrible by todays standards. the big issue for me though is not graphics or crappy ports. even by the time most XBOX devolpers had figured out the interface for controllers most the PS2 FPS games still controlled like crap. I dont think I would play anything before PS3 For FPS on a sony system.mattykovax

Personally I feel the only game at the time that was good was goldeneye on the 64 and that is horrible by todays standards. the big issue for me though is not graphics or crappy ports. even by the time most XBOX devolpers had figured out the interface for controllers most the PS2 FPS games still controlled like crap. I dont think I would play anything before PS3 For FPS on a sony system.mattykovax

I don't quite understand the Xbox comment. PS2 FPS had horrible controls? Could you elaborate on that? I have a number of FPS games for the PS2, as well as the Armored Core games and some other 3PS and I never thought they were hard to control. Heck, I even beat Nine Breaker using the old shoulder button set up from the PS1 era. I've never had any issues with the analogue sticks.

[QUOTE="nameless12345"]

[QUOTE="Emerald_Warrior"]

I agree, the PC versions are superior in every conceivable way. Definetly go for the PC versions. They're not expensive, in fact they're dirt cheap. And if you're just too used to console controls, you can always get a PC controller.

In regards to 2.5D, we've had this discussion before. But you don't seem to understand what 2.5D is really, not if you're calling Doom and Duke Nukem 3D 2.5D. Just because the 3D doesn't look all that great, doesn't make it 2.5D. These games couldn't be further from 2.5D. They take place in a fully 3D world, it's not even questionable like Crash Bandicoot (which is what was being discussed the first time), because of Crash's limited room in a 3D level. Doom and Duke Nukem do not have limited room, it's most-definetly 3D.

2.5D is a game that mostly plays on a 2D field, however there may be a background or foreground as well like a handful of the levels on Crash Bandicoot (The Gate levels specifically), or a few of the SNK fighting games that had multiple 2D fields. Or 2.5D is a game the mostly plays on 2D field, but turns and twists perspectives of that field making it seem 3D; stuff like Nights Into Dreams and Klonoa.

Emerald_Warrior

Well Doom and Duke 3D were, infact, regarded as 2.5D shooters back then. That's because they aren't real 3D games but use a lot of 2D stuff (like monsters, weapons, ammo packs, ect.) and also because their engines aren't really 3D (they use fake 3D method called ray casting). The first fully 3D FPS was Quake 1. Also it's noteworthy to say that most of those old 2.5D FPSes didn't allow you to look free with the mouse or had a strange perspective distortion (Duke 3D). That too was something that Quake 1 pioneered (although Descent did it before).

But I'm personally not a fan of the expression in the first place. A 2D game is a 2D game and a 3D game is a 3D game imo. If you want a more fancy expression you can also say "pseudo 3D".

No, you're just not getting it. Bad looking 3D is not 2.5D. Doom and Duke Nukem 3D are not 2.5D nor were they EVER considered it like you just stated. The name of the game is Duke Nukem 3D for crying out loud. I kind of doubt you've even played Duke Nukem 3D if you think you can't look around.

This is 3D (from Duke Nukem 3D):

Notice how everything moves on a 3D Plane. And he's not just running from left to right. Yeah, it looks pixelated and poorly done compared to modern games. But in no way does that make it 2.5D.

This is 2.5D:

Notice how things are in 3D, but the game is actually being played on a 2D field. Klonoa is moving in a left to right direction despite the 3D graphics.

And this is just plane old 2D:

Oh, and BTW, here's a shot of Duke looking up:

First off, let me clarify something: "2.5D" is a made-up term and comparable to the word "pseudo-3D". I know it refers mainly to 3D games played in a 2D field but you're missing something here - the graphics engine. Klonoa is a lot more of a "true" 3D game than Duke Nukem 3D is when we're talking about the tech behind it. Sure, it's gameplay is essentially "3D" but the graphics engine is not a true 3D engine. It doesn't consist of polygons but rather uses ray casting, a method where a 2D map is turned to appear 3D (the same method was used by all FPSes prior to Quake 1, save for a few exceptions like Descent). So it's actually a fake 3D game if we're discussing the tech behind it. Also notice how the freelook in Duke 3D is strangely distorted and how many objects are simply 2D (same goes for, for example, Mario 64 but that game had a real, polygonal 3D world).

In the end it's certainly not the most important thing but do know that Quake 1 was the first real 3D FPS while FPSes prior to it were not (perhaps only Descent and Future Shock but those still used quite some 2D objects).

agreed, if its not a 3D engine, its not a 3D game, it might have gameplayin a pseudo 3D world, but its not 3D on a technical level.

I don't think I ever played FPS game on PS1 lol.

agreed, if its not a 3D engine, its not a 3D game, it might have gameplayin a pseudo 3D world, but its not 3D on a technical level.

Darkman2007

The interesting thing is that the Saturn version supposedly uses a real 3D engine (although the enemies, weapons and many objects are still just 2D sprites).

You can make the PC version of Duke 3D into a real 3D game via mods. Here you can see the difference.

[QUOTE="Darkman2007"]

agreed, if its not a 3D engine, its not a 3D game, it might have gameplayin a pseudo 3D world, but its not 3D on a technical level.

nameless12345

The interesting thing is that the Saturn version supposedly uses a real 3D engine (although the enemies, weapons and many objects are still just 2D sprites).

You can make the PC version of Duke 3D into a real 3D game via mods. Here you can see the difference.

here is a video comparison to show the differences

http://uk.gamespot.com/users/Darkman2007/video_player?id=d3Flw2Ot5bMPvD_a

I also have the N64 version , but it has its own issues and advantages

the worst would have to be the PS1, its closest to the PC , but it doesnt run well , and looks quite grainy, at least the Saturn and N64 versions run well and look good.

also , the Saturn version has lighitng effects which are not present in the other versions, including the PC, for instance during an explosion or when firing a gun.

Indeed, the PSX had some great FPSs. In fact, one of my first two games for the PSX was Medal of Honor, definitely the best of the MoH series. Medal of Honor: Underground was awesome, too.

In fact, one of my first two games for the PSX was Medal of Honor, definitely the best of the MoH series.

MathMattS

That's highly debatable. The game feels primitive and limited now. Many who played all the MoH games would agree that the best one was Allied Assault for the PC. That game also influenced other WW2 shooters like Call of Duty. The MoH series did start on the PS1 but that doesn't mean that the first game in the series is also the best.

Rainbow Six is pretty good.

KillerJuan77

I have to disagree. The PSX port was barely passible even back then. Now it's pretty much unplayable IMO.

[QUOTE="MathMattS"]

In fact, one of my first two games for the PSX was Medal of Honor, definitely the best of the MoH series.

nameless12345

That's highly debatable. The game feels primitive and limited now. Many who played all the MoH games would agree that the best one was Allied Assault for the PC. That game also influenced other WW2 shooters like Call of Duty. The MoH series did start on the PS1 but that doesn't mean that the first game in the series is also the best.

[QUOTE="nameless12345"]

[QUOTE="MathMattS"]

In fact, one of my first two games for the PSX was Medal of Honor, definitely the best of the MoH series.

SilverSignal

That's highly debatable. The game feels primitive and limited now. Many who played all the MoH games would agree that the best one was Allied Assault for the PC. That game also influenced other WW2 shooters like Call of Duty. The MoH series did start on the PS1 but that doesn't mean that the first game in the series is also the best.

Sure, it was a very good shooter back then. But for PS1 standards. And like I said it's questionable if it's really the best MoH game out there. For example Allied Assault on the PC was a whole new experience.

[QUOTE="SilverSignal"][QUOTE="nameless12345"]

That's highly debatable. The game feels primitive and limited now. Many who played all the MoH games would agree that the best one was Allied Assault for the PC. That game also influenced other WW2 shooters like Call of Duty. The MoH series did start on the PS1 but that doesn't mean that the first game in the series is also the best.

nameless12345

Sure, it was a very good shooter back then. But for PS1 standards. And like I said it's questionable if it's really the best MoH game out there. For example Allied Assault on the PC was a whole new experience.

[QUOTE="nameless12345"]

[QUOTE="SilverSignal"] Well of course it's going to feel primitive these days. It's not going to play like Battlefield 3. But back then it was a brilliant game. And still is if you can get over the graphics.Darkman2007

Sure, it was a very good shooter back then. But for PS1 standards. And like I said it's questionable if it's really the best MoH game out there. For example Allied Assault on the PC was a whole new experience.

Well Doom and Quake 2 were also the most interesting ports since they had different levels, more lighting and a new soundtrack. But I still prefer the PC versions over them.

[QUOTE="Darkman2007"][QUOTE="nameless12345"]

Sure, it was a very good shooter back then. But for PS1 standards. And like I said it's questionable if it's really the best MoH game out there. For example Allied Assault on the PC was a whole new experience.

nameless12345

Well Doom and Quake 2 were also the most interesting ports since they had different levels, more lighting and a new soundtrack. But I still prefer the PC versions over them.

[QUOTE="nameless12345"]

[QUOTE="Darkman2007"] if I had to pick my personal favourite FPS on the PS1, its either Doom or Quake 2, though admittedly I haven't played enough FPS games on the system.Darkman2007

Well Doom and Quake 2 were also the most interesting ports since they had different levels, more lighting and a new soundtrack. But I still prefer the PC versions over them.

That's not really a problem for Doom and Quake 2 because they run well even on ancient PCs ;)

The long load times probably have to do with PS1's low memory of only 2 MB RAM. But perhaps it's also loading graphics stuff from the CD.

[QUOTE="Darkman2007"][QUOTE="nameless12345"]

Well Doom and Quake 2 were also the most interesting ports since they had different levels, more lighting and a new soundtrack. But I still prefer the PC versions over them.

nameless12345

That's not really a problem for Doom and Quake 2 because they run well even on ancient PCs ;)

The long load times probably have to do with PS1's low memory of only 2 MB RAM. But perhaps it's also loading graphics stuff from the CD.

[QUOTE="nameless12345"]

[QUOTE="Darkman2007"] well 9/10 times the PC version is always better.....if you had a good enough computer to run it.Darkman2007

That's not really a problem for Doom and Quake 2 because they run well even on ancient PCs ;)

The long load times probably have to do with PS1's low memory of only 2 MB RAM. But perhaps it's also loading graphics stuff from the CD.

Actually the PS1 version looks like the PC version running in software mode, just that it has more lighting. Even a low-end 1998/99 PC could handle that. Infact if you had a solid PC with a 3dfx Voodoo graphics card back in the 90s you always got the best versions of multiplat games.

I don't say Saturn couldn't run Quake 2 but it would probably need a custom engine and some other sacrifices would have to be made.

[QUOTE="Darkman2007"][QUOTE="nameless12345"]

That's not really a problem for Doom and Quake 2 because they run well even on ancient PCs ;)

The long load times probably have to do with PS1's low memory of only 2 MB RAM. But perhaps it's also loading graphics stuff from the CD.

nameless12345

Actually the PS1 version looks like the PC version running in software mode, just that it has more lighting. Even a low-end 1998/99 PC could handle that. Infact if you had a solid PC with a 3dfx Voodoo graphics card back in the 90s you always got the best versions of multiplat games.

I don't say Saturn couldn't run Quake 2 but it would probably need a custom engine and some other sacrifices would have to be made.