[QUOTE="AdrianWerner"]
[QUOTE="treedoor"]
This.
I don't care if you liked them. They got phased out quickly because of how archaic the design was.
Kevin-V
So depth and realism are archaic? It's sad to see that to gamers like you dumbing down games and making their gameplay primitiveis considered "progress" Depth and realism is important to some players. It might shock you, however, that "fun" is important too. I love me a good tactical shooter, but I can't deny that most gamers I knew when I was playing Operation Flashpoint and Ghost Recon on the PC would not have had fun with those games.
"Fun" and "dumbed down" aren't the same things. "Consistently entertaining" and "primitive" aren't the same things. "Complex" is different from "draconian." I adore tactical shooters and get a lot out of them, but there is no reason to be obnoxious simply because there are those that want to play games that are more intuitive and more immediately rewarding.
And I think that on the whole, you'll find that people like fun. And liking "fun" does not make one responsible for the downfall of gaming. You'd think that anyone preferring modern shooters was a caveman, dragging his wife by the hair after a rough day inventing the wheel. Games evolve, and they won't always do so in a way that an individual gamer likes. But like any system, the evolution of gaming is complex, and not the result of poor treedoor liking "fun" over "realism."I can have fun with most any genre. I played Ghost Recon and Rainbow Six (those are the only two that come to mind) way back years ago. I played many of them because I obviously liked them the first, second, third time around.
Your average run and gun shooter also used to be different than it is now too. Before Half Life you didn't find FPS games with story telling, and character development. They truly were just run and gun before those days.
My point that they're archaic is not really a dismissal (as I seem to have been giving off this vibe of). It shows an evolution of the gameplay. Nowadays you will find a game with run and gun, story telling, character development, scripted events, and tactics. You give orders to people in games, you pin nav points on your map, and you subdue enemies in modern games. It's just a much more streamlined process than it once was whereas before they were going for something different nowadays they use those same elements in their standard run and gun shooter to change up the game, and add a bit more variety, so you're not just constantly shooting things.
Because trust me. I am not a run and gun action junkie. I hated CoD4, and the most recent game before that I can remember liking (and actually playing) was Half Life 2, but for obvious reasons. I hardly play shooters outside of Valve's games. I still play games with archaic design because I like them, but when I see new games add in these old elements, and streamline them to fit within the game properly then I get the best of two different genres wrapped into one. It makes the games better in lots of cases. Perhaps I just haven't played this mind blowing tactical shooter you guys have, but from what I have played I see no real reason to keep that design. Just like a beat-em-up. Should we take hack n slash games and take them back to the days of beat-em-ups? Would God of War score highly if it was designed the same way Battletoads is? Probably not, but does that make Battletoads a bad game? Nope, one of my all time favorite NES games.
I mean if you guys saw my game collection in real life you would not think of me the way you think now. I'm currently playing UFO Defense Force actually which I got very recently.
Log in to comment