What happened to the FPS genre? Why is it all shit now and how do we fix it?

What happened to the FPS genre? Why is it all shit now and how do we fix it?

It ported well to consoles and was popular with dudebros.

There are still great FPS out there you just need to look.
if you are going to ask me to list some start by saying what old FPS you like and what sub-genre you prefer

Consoles happened and its already being fixed by the occasional indie studio. AAA might be very slowly fixing itself though because I suppose CRAPCUNTS is an improvement over the torrent of popcorn shooters that came after COD4.

I've got my eye on Spire and given that it's the 4 year 4 man project involving the guy that made Devil Daggers by himself from scratch in a couple months I'd say it's certainly worth keeping track of.

If you expect nothing but an arcade bullet hell shooter where you survive as long as you can then you'll be more than satisfied, if you want something like Quake then sucks for you. Given that he did everything in a couple months and that includes the engine with elder god tier sound design and tight gameplay I'd say it's extremely impressive.

It's a shame we don't get more of this shit though. Most devs just try to remake old school games rather than doing something new with the core mechanics that made them good (no regenerating health, pickups, more focus on weapons that require you to lead targets, can often dodge projectiles). DD and Spire look to be unique but other than Superhot I can't think of any other shooters that have brought anything new to the table recently. Superhot isn't really special because of the time movement thing, it takes the fundamental idea of Hotline Miami's gameplay and makes it work in first person without being a nauseating mess that makes you restart a hundred times before you get it right.

It's not shit, it's better than ever (not in the amount of "good" new releases, but the overall quality including older titles). Top-tier older games are continually being modded and improved. Go play some heavily modded STALKER and have your fucking mind blown.


Have you checked out Ziggurat?

devil daggers sucks because there's no content

Your mom sucks because she's so fat.

Oversaturation and we've gone pass the experimentation phase towards the iconic branding shit, well CS:GO is well, Battlefield Juan and CoD Infinshitty Warfare are not doing as well as they hoped, well, it's getting fucking boring with nothing to show, only FPS title I liked was Titanfall 2, but that game is like fucking dead in the water.

...

FPS are to games as niggers are to the human race.

It's a decent game really. Faggots who criticize the game always whine about how it's not Quake 2.0. Also, this year was pretty shit for FPS games. This one stood out and is mentioned more as a result.

kek

I know how to fix it!

Consoles and normalfags
Either make your own or wait it out

Funny looking blindfold.

I bet you're excited for how Strafe is going to bring back "old-school gameplay" and a "faithful old-school art style".

Catering to the lowest common denominator, to make an experience that pleases as many people as possible

Too much focus on getting back into the action as soon as possible. Resulted in smaller map size and cutting of weapon pickups in favor of set classes/loadouts so that there's no more hunting for good weapons like in Goldeneye and Halo. If someone's enough of a whiny baby that they only want constant mindless action like every game is a frag video and navigation and memorization of weapon pickups is going to be boring to them, then it doesn't bode well for the genre that they're the main audience now

FPS has been diluted for minimal cash input and maximal output and there's not much to be done about it because even the old good games came from relatively large studios (for the time, anyway). Wanting the old experience back now is asking companies to willingly accept less money in favor of greater customer satisfaction, which will never, ever happen. The only potential source for games of old are indie developers, and >implying indie development ever result in a quality game

Regenerating health and ironsights gameplay revolving around the following weapons
Instead of an interesting variety of guns that have unique utility purposes, with rarer and more valuable weapons being harder to attain with limited ammo, making them something to both fight over and utilize effectively, and supported by some kind of health-armour mechanic so a players momentum is not decided on whether or not they can kill, hide, kill, hide etc, but actually on how well they can manage resources.

consoles are not to blame for the decline of shooters. Frankly, shooters have been going downhill since the late 90s. Halo was a step in the right direction even, but was very flawed. Shooters need more structure.

weapon skins.

even battlefield 1 of all things has fucking weapon skins.

why are people so autistic?

So you're saying its shit but just a little less shit than the other shit.

what game? fal looks sexy as fuck

Consoles + An audience whose first FPS was Halo.

yes, want

...

Over the years, developers seem to be more and more confined within their respective zeitgeist. They take certain design principles for granted without even questioning their use in their game (should my game have reloading? if so, why?) and as a result you get a lot of clones. Because people assumed shooters were all about having multiple weapons in a labyrinthine level where you must find keycards and medkits to progress, they implemented those tenets without a second thought. Because people assumed arena shooters were all about fancy jumping and area control, this resulted in a plethora of Q3 clones with marginal differences, all of which have barely any players aside from the original. Because people assumed shooters were all about being cinematic as possible, they reduced challenge and player input as much as possible to the point where you have a plethora of CoD clones. Because killstreaks and RPG progression were tried and proven concepts in multiplayer shooters, they were constantly copied and reused with a minor twist.

This kind of thinking, that a genre must have certain rules outside of its definition, that shooters must have a large varied arsenal and cast of enemies, that platformers must give you the ability to jump, that open world games must follow the Ubisoft structure, that RPGs should have randomly generated loot, is a fucking cancer.

It's shit like that that kills creativity. You can improve existing concepts, sure, but many simply look at more popular games and copy whatever they're praised for with little regard how those elements are used within their own game and if they can be changed to suit the gameplay's whims. Otherwise we'd be living in an era of endless Doom clones, Quake-y arena shooters and interchangeable cRPG adventures. While we are living in an era of decline where modern developers are taking after even worse examples, the problem still remains that many designers simply lack the spark to improve and innovate. Just reverting back to 90's game design wouldn't be enough. It's tried and proven, but it'd certainly get stale after thirty years.


Then what does that make arcade games?


Actually, I'm the one always shilling it.

My dad bought the Vive just recently during the black Friday sale, from my experience I can certainly say that the concept has real potential, but controllers are going to be a tough roadblock to overcome. You can't make a traditional game using motion controllers, and using traditional controllers feels fine but can be kind of awkward, especially if there's no way to reset your position without restarting the game.

The biggest problem is that software support isn't there yet, it's mostly shovelware and proof-of-concept demos, and with the stupid format war going on a lot of good or potentially-good games are gonna end up being exclusive to Cuckstation VR or the Rift.

FPS was always a shit genre. It's basically a point and click adventure game with a thin veneer of "action" which is why it's evolved into Michael Bay style cinematic bullshit. There's no depth.

I was asking myself the same thing, but the map also STRONGLY reminds me of 7,62 High Calibre. I'm pretty sure that's what it is. It's a tactics game, not an FPS. This picture was just taken from the first person camera angle.

ONE WEAPON
ONE LEVEL
I'm amazed people defend this game.

The types of arcade games you're referring to were made over 30 years ago and cost a quarter to play, later arcade games were things like Dungeons & Dragons: Shadow over Mystara.

Tell me, read and explain to me why ONE WEAPON is such a detriment to a (short) FPS game such as Devil Daggers.

What you see is what you get. Must all first-person shooters have twenty levels or so?

Content is a relative term. There is a difference between cut content, and intentional decision when it comes to game length. Why would you criticize a game for something it isn't, or at the very least how can Devil Daggers be considered wasted potential?

Devil Daggers isn't a bad game. It's just not worth money.

Uhhh…I think this one is correct, user.

...

...

Garbage, that's what.

Yes, and?

it's no improvement. replacing loadouts with le epic skills changes nothing when everything from level design, balance, acoustics, responsiveness and modability sucks

even a theoretically bland shooter can be amazing and timeless if everything else sticks together well (see: counter strike)

Did you not see the image attached?
What a good goy you are.

There's arcade games with a shit ton of content my dude

Oh no nigger, don't you backtrack. You implied arcade games were also shallow, which shows you're either extremely ignorant when it comes to /vr/ or you think DD comes close to games like pics related.
You know what I can criticise? There's nothing to the game. It's trying to emulate the feeling of a game from the 90's while being mechanically on the same level a game from the 70's with an added dimension; games from that early era were not that way because of directional choice, they were so simple because of technical limitation.
If Devil Daggers had come out during the same year as Quake it would have gotten similar complaints to the ones it gets today, but amplified to an even greater degree.

But of course, I bet you think your TRPGs actually take skill as well.


This
Its just as bad, except now it even has more crutches and awful lazy visual design to booth.

60fps ruined FPS games.

Think back to those old clunky games that run at 15fps average and 25 at the best of times. They were more tactical, actions had to be thought out before you would execute them. Strategy and puzzle solving was prefered over precise aiming. Often times there were multiple solutions to each encounter other than outgunning your opponent.

Now what do we have? 60fps cover shooters that require no though what so ever. Duck, shoot. Duck, shoot. Duck, shoot. Duck, shoot. Duck, shoot. Duck, shoot! Duck, shoot! DUCK, SHOOT! Yeah, sure games at 60fps aim better than 30fps locked games, but they're not better games though…. The limitations helped people make better games back then since they had to find a way to make the gameplay work, even if their ambitions lay elsewhere.

Yes, and?


Do you know how often arcade games get blasted for being 'too short'? Yes, I know about it. If you're willing to compare 'arcade game have no depth' to 'arcade game have little content going for them, whatever that means' give it a try, because it sure as hell isn't the point I'm making. There's arcade games with plenty of quantity (Darius comes to mind) and Devil Daggers has the 'content' of a mobile game, with your average game lasting up to 3 minutes rather than thirty. Yet I do not understand why that's a given negative, when the game is clearly built around what little it has. Somehow DD passes a 'content' threshold not even /vr/ is willing to defend despite the shit arcade games get for length, and that's why I say content is relative. It depends on the game, to a game like Furi one boss is a whole lot while in an RPG it's just another on the pile. However, said amount of content must always be plenty to justify buying in the first place, because apparently nobody is willing to shell 5 bucks when they can get longer games for that price. The idea of score attack/time attack games must be one forgotten in the West.

First, do explain further.
Second, it's easy to say it's trying to emulate the feeling of a game made in the 90's when it looks the part, even though it doesn't play anything like it. The closest would be games like Serious Sam and Painkiller which get constantly shat on for trying to be 90's even though they're doing their own thing (at least Painkiller is a blatant SS clone) which also seems to affect DD. My guess is that everyone perceives games like DD as a failed attempt at emulating Doom, when in reality it is trying something else entirely. And why shouldn't it?
You seem to imply that because of current technical advances, games which are mechanically simple are simply trying to emulate a previous era rather than being designed by choice. Yet we still see modern releases of arcade-style games with some twists thanks to modern technology, so how can't the same be said for Devil Daggers?

6/10

Go back to your shitty mobile RPGs, faggot.

...

It's closer to Snake, or Asteroids.

It has significantly less content than most mobile games, or free flash games. The quality isn't particularly outstanding, either.

You haven't played many RPGs, have you?

I guess that make sense too, if everyone wasn't strangely turned off by the notion of ONE WEAPON, ONE LEVEL.

Yes, and?

These generalizing statements keep being made without anyone ever going into specifics. As if nobody has played the game and is just parroting the opinions of others, almost.


That was not my opinion. Re-read for context.

Nobody has that opinion.

Gee I wonder why people would be opposed to paying $5 for one weapon and one map.

And that makes it a pretty terrible value proposition. Note that I'm not saying it is necessarily bad, just that it isn't worth five dollars. Or fifty cents.

I'm not sure how the comparison makes less sense because of people being turned of by a lack of content.

There isn't much to say. You move, you shoot. If you want to make the case that you move and shoot particularly well, that's on you.

I shig the dig in this thread.

The blame is to be found within the fact that an FPS game that endlessly rewards your actions with AMAZING and GLORY will sell better than an FPS that doesn't.

Developers and Publishers only truly care about the bottom line and how much money they can get before they pull the plug on the game, so they follow the Call of Duty Model.

Even Battlefield slowly started turning into Call of Duty after Bad Company 2.

TF2 was already ultra casual, but it wasn't casual enough.

People couldn't just hop into the game and get the epic fanfare they would get in an Modern COD game, that lead to the birth of Overwatch.
Overwatch is so ridiculously casual, that applying any tactics beyond RUN AND SHOOT gets you labeled as a cheater or a camper.. But then they have the nerve to gauge a player's "skill" when the biggest skill in the game is walking and shooting at the same time.

Another example.
Battlefield Post Bad Company 2.

3 was a shitstorm, but PREMIUM worked.

4 was also, buggy as fuck, but PREMIUM worked, now with PREMIUM forum features that remind you that you're a special cupcake who is totally better than anyone who didn't buy PREMIUM.

Hardline which had no features and was really trying hard to be Black OPS , but had the potential to be the most fun… had PREMIUM EVERYTHING.

Don't even get me started on the Star Wars Battlefield, that was the biggest scam I've ever seen from DICE/EA in my life.

Battlefield 1, hey PREMIUM works!..Now if they could only fix that glitch that makes people immune to headshots if they have the DLC.. Did I say glitch? It's a feature!


Okay, let's move away from the AAA ultra mainstream for a moment.

What has the indie scene been doing to improve the FPS genre?

Absolutely. Fucking. Nothing.

The hottest FPS games on the Indie PC scene are either Hipster Trash ( Gone Home, one of the highest ranked FPS games in recent history ) , 2Sp00ky4U Jumpscare shit, X Simulators or knock-offs of well made AAA games.


The FPS genre fucked itself sideways and people are too afraid to tell the truth because in reality; Their favorite game is part of the problem.

The entire genre needs a purging because we've gone completely stagnant and sitting around and saying "It's not MY fault it was THEIR fault" isn't helping anything at all.

You're lucky you never browsed the battle.net forums.


But again, this is entirely subjective and depends on what you are looking for in a game, especially considering how the majority here pirates their games, which makes me wonder why arguments based on price are ever made here in the first place. As if a short game being overpriced automatically makes it worse in the eyes of those who rarely buy games. It's a niche game with a niche focus, it's bound to not appeal to everyone. Would you pay sixty bucks for a seven-stage shmup even if most people considered it one of the best?

You do realize that's an oversimplification of most 3D games and arcade shooters, right?
Devil Daggers is no different in that regard, but it'd be unfair to just simplify it like that. Honestly, you make it sound like you can survive for longer than five minutes easily.
I'm fairly sure you haven't played it or at least haven't played it seriously guessing how non-chalantly you describe it, but I'll bite.

The reason why I consider Devil Daggers one of the best games this year is because it achieves a sense of unity most games simply don't. Namely, sound, visuals and gameplay come together to create something unique, of which removing one element would make the game simply not work. The visuals are designed to immerse you and keep you hooked. It's HUD is intentionally minimalistic, the atmosphere overbearing, and everything contributes to the dark moody atmosphere. The sound design is unique for everything, from the enemy sounds to the sound of your daggers starting off weak but sounding like our dimension is torn a new one once you upgrade your daggers. The gameplay has you fighting off hordes of demonic entities to no end, until shit gets out of hand and you're desperately trying to survive for as many seconds as you can. This may sounds like pretentious bullcrap, but for the game it's important because the atmosphere is one part of what keeps you hooked. Take a look at walking sequences in games, in nuDOOM you will frequently walk down hallways of industrial machinery, but it's simply boring because there's nothing to fear, considering you are made up to be a demon-killing badass who doesn't afraid of anything.
Then take F.E.A.R, where you're also a kung-fu SWAT master killing clone soldiers en masse, yet the horror sections where you're not killing things manage to keep you on your toes, and it achieves that through clever use of visuals, audio, and fear of the unknown. It doesn't outright try to scare you, but to keep you on your toes, and that alone manages to immerse one more than plain walking around.

However, the aforementioned audio, visuals and gameplay also serve multiple purposes. As the gameplay is about shooting hordes of enemies while not getting hit, situational awareness is greatly important. The sound design nails this with each enemy making an unique sound which can be told apart from the rest even during massive fights, on top of positional audio being used to great effect in order to compensate for your limited field of view. Other actions, such as collecting crystals or just hitting stuff also have unique sounds, to the point where one can almost play this game blind. The demonic laughter of the enemies gets louder and louder the closer they get to you, which is pretty damn tense if you are on a good run.

Visually the game is dark, with a pitch black background on an arena mysteriously lit, whose floor gets darker the further you stray off the center. Visually the enemies are all unique, through use of color and shape. Red crystals are used to denote weak spots, while other colors like green for spiders and blue/white for ghostpedes serve to make the shit you see on screen discernible. However, enemies get brighter the closer they get to you, so a mere glance can tell you what's approximately going on.

And then there's what separates Devil Daggers from its ilk. Unlike most shooters, DD doesn't take the auto-aim roots of it's forefathers for granted and doesn't present everything on one horizontal axis like Serious Sam and Painkiller do. The vertical axis is used to a great degree, and so is your accuracy being tested. A generic swarm of skulls floats about randomly up and down, meaning that speedkilling them isn't something you can do ABC. Combine multiple enemy types all around you at once and you have one helluva target practice. Your weapon is projectile-based and you have no crosshair, so you'll have to learn how to lead like in Descent.

DD is very much centered around crowd control, which synergizes with the enemy silhouettes and positional audio. The game will get harder and harder, up to the point where your rinky dink daggers won't keep up. And that's why there are red crystals, which drop when you kill a group of enemies or shoot a weak spot. They are automatically pulled towards you, but only when you stop shooting. This creates an interesting dynamic where you'll have to learn when it's time to take a break from shooting enemies off your tail, but if you don't collect them, you'll be severely underpowered later on when enemy amounts intensify. There are certain threshold of amount of crystals you can reach in order to power up your daggers, which increase your dagger shot width, firing rate, and power, with the fourth and final one giving you the ability to fire homing daggers, as you can focus on the tougher guys while having homing daggers take care of the small fry. And you do want to grab them before the spiders do.

The enemy variety here is very original too, as it is built around the gameplay itself. Most of them aren't as bland as kamikaze enemy and projectile firing enemy (there are almost no projectile firing enemies in this game in the first place). The first enemies you encounter are spawners which spawn a bunch of skulls and occasionally a goat skull, however their weak spot rotates and requires you to move about before you can see it when they spawn at first. Eventually the spawners get multiple weak spots which require even more maneuvering. Goat skulls often take priority as they will charge relentlessly at you when in a group, but they will float around randomly when alone, meaning their presence is something you should prioritize. On the edge of the arena is where giant spider enemies will spawn, who automatically pull any crystals on the field towards them. And for each crystal they suck up, they shoot a green egg which spawns little green spiders if not immediately destroyed, making the giant spiders an immediate priority. But it'd be too easy if such a high-priority target was easily killed, which is why they constantly strafe back and forth making their weak spot hard to hit from longer ranges. If you keep hitting its shell rather than its weak spot, the spider will temporarily curl up and cover up its weak spot, making itself temporarily invulnerable which wastes valuable time. As killing shit fast is the number one means to crowd control, you want to get under their belly fast and finish them off with a shotgun blast before they can be any more of a nuisance. Later on even massive centipedes join the fray, who can burrow through the ground and fly in the air, and also beg to be killed quickly. Their large size obscures a large portion of the playing field and obstructs your movement possibilities, putting you at a severe disadvantage. And rather than having one or two major weak spots, they have around fifty small ones on their belly. If you want to dispose of them quickly, you probably don't want to do so moving considering how hard it is to hit every single weak spot, but you are rarely granted the comfort. However, because of their massive size and invincibility, centipedes will prevent your homing daggers from killing things.

And so, it constantly ramps up the threat by spawning more and more enemies until you are no longer in charge and stress starts setting in. After a certain moment a boss type enemy will spawn, whose massive presence will already take up a large part of the playing field before spawning in even more enemies. And if you do kill him, even tougher enemies await you. But getting that far ain't easy. On their own these enemies aren't much but when combined the game truly shines.

As this game is about crowd control, moving about and not getting hit is also what keeps you alive. A good offense is a good defense, but backstrafing and just circlestrafing will get you killed. Their speed is faster than yours, however their turn speed can be taken advantage of. On top of that, there are also jump techniques you can perform to increase your speed at the cost of control or possible loss of accuracy, as calibrating your aim through slightly strafing left and right is an effective way of keeping up your accuracy. There's also stuff like daggerjumping, which involves shooting a shotgun blast at the ground and jumping at the same time for an increased boost in speed, but it's hard to control and can possibly send you flying off the edge of the arena if you don't know what you are doing. So there is a skill ceiling involved, not just accuracy, speed killing, target prioritization and situational awareness, but also movement and crowd control play a large role in staying alive in DD for as long as possible. So yes, there's more to it than just 'circlestrafe while holding down the fire button at a mass of encroaching enemies'. If you thought that was the worst part about games like Doom (depends on the map) and Painkiller, this game doesn't suffer from it.

You'll be retrying a linear sequence of events which will inevitably spiral out of control in ways you cannot predict. The developers went for a full WYSIWYG approach so as to not disappoint people, unlike that Sean guy. It's a bit strange that magazine and Steam reviews are giving 10/10s around every turn for an unorthodox game like this (I guess it's the Ikaruga effect of having a neat concept and pretty looks being enough to sway the minds of casuals, don't get me wrong, this game does deserve the praise), but whatever. At least it feels kind of nice to advance thousands of positions at once just by increasing your time by a few seconds. It's a game about crowd control and it executes its concept greatly, with every aspect of the game tailored for it. It's really fucking good at what it does, it's just what it does that might not appeal to everyone. Autistically replaying games to improve your score just by a few digits is a mentality lost upon most people, and that's understandable.

I guess the small scale of this game can be explained that this is more of a tech demo for the developers' engine, as this engine will also be used for some game called Spire, which is some first-person adventure game made by the Dustforce guys also sporting a similar low-poly albeit less dark and jittery look. Still, it's rather impressive how there's little clipping between enemies going on considering their large amounts. Yet while most shitdevs would have opted for Early Access-fodder style "arcade" gameplay, DD manages to still stand out on its own despite that. I guess you can always say a game could have done more, that it could have had more enemies or levels, but where would it end? I think it's better to criticize a game for what it has rather than what it hasn't. You can make an argument for correlating price between content, but for DD it really just depends on your tastes. For five bucks you could be buying some 20-hour long RPG adventure, or you could be constantly replaying a time attack game. Again, this is a game not for everyone. It's my personal GOTY (save for the Battle Garegga Rev.2016 port if remasters count), but I understand why nobody would shell over five bucks for this.

...

I'd take a dev that can articulate design like this any day of the week over the usual cucks and retards.

Have you considered the fact that the majority of people who tried the game aren't autistic and would actually like games with content rather than trying to squeeze out depth from every minuscule, monotonous mechanic of a rather simplistic game?

Maybe he should put that much effort into making more maps and weapons.

I know, I said in my posts that scoring isn't for everyone.

If we're going by the majority, there's a 96% approval rating on Steam by over two thousand reviewers, so if that's any estimate, I guess the majority of people does like games like this.

Where's the border between 'miniscule, monotonous mechanic of rather simplistic games' and 'well-executed scoring systems through easy-to-learn but hard-to-master systems' then? Because I've got several examples right here.


Why does every FPS need more maps and weapons?

Because exploration is a big motivator on most people and having to face enemies 500 times in different settings is much more interesting than having to face enemies 500 times in an empty room.

I didn't say every, but not every FPS charges $5. You're basically asking why you should have to actually make a game before you charge people money for it.

devil daggers isn't a bad game because it accomplishes what it wants to do, but only that.

if I had to choose only a few games to play for the rest of my life, DD would not be one of them. it DOES have a lack of content, and replayability is based on wanting to beat my previous score. it's bland and there are better hardcore games out there.

as much as fans might want to deny, having more content can make a game better. it's even what makes some games bearable. imagine if alice: madness returns was only in one setting. it's already boring as hell in one map, I could never tolerate it without a scenery change.

Using more words doesn't make you more right.
Also, it's easy to encapsulate the design of the game in a few posts when there isn't much to articulate. Not to mention there isn't anything in his posts that can't be seen in a couple minutes of video, except for his assertions of quality.


I've been into those kind of games my whole life, I just don't care for this one. Whether or not the game is good is always going to be subjective, but its lack of content isn't. There's not much game to be had. If it was free maybe I'd play it on the shitter now and then.

Actually now that I think about it, Flappy Bird is probably the best point of comparison for this game.

Honestly, I do see your point. I think DD is a solid game, but I wouldn't buy it for $5, maybe $2 at the most. It doesn't matter how good the content is when there's so little of it. People like variety, and DD has very little variety. If it had 10 or so levels that you progress through till you reach a final survival level then I think people would appreciate it a lot more, if the levels were distinct and interesting.

More Overwatch waifu"s

Serious question: How is Devil Daggers even a game that is discussed here? This is not a game that deserves any kind of recognition, and yet everyone seems to know what it is.

While different layout can provide unique challenges, what's to say this can only be achieved through layout and level geometry rather than the usage of enemies?
For example, while Gradius and R-Type make frequent use of stage hazards and solid objects, newer danmakus like Touhou and Dodonpachi feature a large amount of bullets as a means of testing the player, like how Serious Sam relies on large amounts of enemies rather than tight labyrinthine level design. Different arenas could offer some new challenges like Super Crate Box does, but the game is inevitably built around staying in one space for a long amount of time as possible.
Though any layouts I can think of which aren't open doors are more or less a nuisance and detrimental to the present gameplay, as they limit your awareness rather greatly, and enemies as fast as in DD in smaller maps wouldn't work. Honestly, I'd like to see how someone intends to take DD's gameplay and then put it on an unique map.
I guess you could decide what enemy gets spawned when and where, though that's what the game already does. I'd really love to hear everyone's take on WHAT kind of maps they'd want to see in-game and how it'd work.


Alright, last question. Do you think Tetris needs more content?

Then you clearly didn't read the part where I complained about how most old school shooters don't bother innovating and just stick to the same formula Q3 had.


I haven't, will now.

So you must think Borderlands 2 is the greatest game of all time, no?
The level is the enemy layout and they're constantly moving around which makes it pretty hard to learn. The game would lose quite a bit if there was any geometry in the level other than the flat floor and it would break entirely if there were distinct levels. It was designed with one weapon one level in mind.

You must be the kind of person that thinks 2hu is bad because you only have one weapon and the "level" (open screen space) is always the same except for the bullets. Judging games by arbitrary standards that have no bearing on its quality is completely retarded and you should try thinking critically about the things you say before you say them.


Replay value is still value. Was DMC3 or RE1 not worth the modern equivalent of $70? You'd have to sink over a hundred hours into the game to become competent enough to even get on the top 200 leaderboard let alone top Sojk who has somehow made it past 900 seconds.

Because out of every game I played this year it probably has the most mechanical depth to it, moreso than Rabi Ribi I'd say and certainly nudoom. Like the other user is saying the lack of "content" isn't inherently negative as you wouldn't fault Tetris for a lack of content either. It's a game that is entirely designed around the fact that there's only one weapon and one level. People like you think it's worthless because you're comparing it to shit like Doom or Quake which it clearly isn't trying to be in any way other than art style.

note: I didn't play Factorio yet

no, touhou is bad because it's obnoxious weebshit and the actually gameplay consists of remembering where to place your character

devil daggers have fuck all in the content department. there are games with multipurpose weapons that are more varied and interesting than DD. even hard reset, with its samey looking cyberpunk city and boring as fuck "2 weapons but each has a fuckton of modes" weapon system blows devil daggers out of the water

>arbitrary standards that have no bearing on its quality

I haven't even played the new Doom, and the only Quake I've played was Quake live and I hated it. Devil Daggers is just boring as fuck. I played it for like 10 minutes before uninstalling it. That's about how long the novelty of the setting lasts. Really glad I didn't waste money on it. There's zero depth or substance to it. It's just run and shoot, and it doesn't even make that fun.

I'm also curious as to why Rabi Ribi has gotten so popular. It just kind of nowhere instantly. Can't stand sidescrollers.

NO idea how Factorio has anything to do with any of this, but it is a good game.

It just kind of came out of nowhere instantly.*

If someone wanted me to pay money for it today, it would. When I was 7 and had it on the OG gameboy, that was one thing. Even a couple of years later, my family bought a puzzle game pack that included Tetris, Welltris (which we immediately got addicted to), and a few other games, for a few bucks.


Sure, but for me Devil Daggers has little to no replay value, because of its lack of depth. Maybe you have to be really driven by leaderboard positions to be drawn into it. I've never cared. I did have some Guitar Hero 2 leaderboard spots ages ago, and while it was amusing as a side note, it didn't affect how much or little I played the game.

name any non-survival SHMUP where you don't end up doing this

There's concept and execution. What might sound interesting on paper might not turn out to be that interesting in practice. See: No Man's Sky. Doing little but doing it perfectly matters more than doing a lot but then halfassing it.


There's more to first-person shooters than Quake and Doom, not every shooter needs to treat them as the Holy Bible. It's the one point I've been trying to drive through your skull for the entire time. More weapons does not correlate with higher quality. You can see examples like Borderlands and Shadow Warrior (2) why this isn't necessarily the case. Again, quit judging a cat for not being a dog.


How do you even judge a game on its depth by playing it for ten minutes? Would you think it's alright for reviewers to judge a fighting game's depth if they only played it for ten minutes? Did you already know everything the game had to offer in those ten minutes?


So it's just a question of relativity again? That it was alright for shorter games to be expensive back in the day but that that's no longer warranted today? Just where the hell does the true values of video game lie?

I'm still not quite sure what you mean by this even though I explained there's more to it than running and shooting if you want to succeed, as if you didn't even give it a serious try. In all honestly, your posts make it sound like you suffer chronic depression, which I guess is also a reason why.

Nigger I don't even like quake or doom, that's something you're projecting on to me. Something I have been trying to drive into your skull is that one level if you can even call it that considering it is a flat plane and one "gun" is a pathetic amount of content and you deserve every bit of flak you get for trying to pass it off as acceptable.

I don't think I've ever seen a legit, honest-to-God fanboy before, but holy shit. If this game was a person then cb51bf would suck its cock day and night.

By seeing the entire game in the first 2 minutes.

I doubt they could play every character or even learn all the combos of one character that quick.

Yes. WASD and mouse1.

And that's when I dropped Overbotch. The community is trash, the SJWs in charge of the game are trash, and the gameplay is just cookie cutter bullshit. It's my only video game purchase I regret tbh lad

How are those two things arbitrary standards? I'm simply explaining why there's more depth to the "level" than you'd initially assume.

If you don't try to play the game the way the developers want you to play them then no you aren't going to have fun. If your goal in DMC isn't to max out the style meter then you won't have fun. If your goal in DD isn't to figure out how to survive as long as possible then you won't have fun. If you look at the WR holder for it he doesn't just run around and shoot the enemies. He leaves some alive and clumps them into groups while circling around the arena to avoid them to be able to go on a crystal thing high mode when he needs it, he targets specific enemies over others because he's weighing their short/long term threat against each other, and he builds up momentum to be able to outrun some enemies well before they spawn at the cost of having an easy time shooting the ones that have currently spawned.

Rabi Ribi is well liked on Holla Forums because it combines cuhrayzee with bullet hell and does both pretty decently all things considered.

And I mentioned Factorio because I was talking about "games this year with lots of mechanical depth" and I heard it has very good gameplay though obviously very different from these.


So Tetris has no depth because you've seen the entire game in the first 2 minutes as well?

Also No Man's Sky must be the deepest game ever made since it'd take forever to see the entire game huh.

depth != amount of content

I thought it was the quality, not the amount that matters.


If you're not going to actually contribute something to the discussion, I suggest you better not post at all.

The funny part about this is that ten minutes is multiple runs through Devil Daggers, with no differing content between them, and even just a hollow slog through each possible combination of characters and level would take as long as hundreds of DD runs, not to mention the variety that comes from simply playing a human opponent, learning combos and frame data, etc.

In the amount of enjoyment I get from it. Video games don't exist in isolation, there's no getting around that. And even in a year like this, there are more enjoyable games to spend my time and money on. Or free flash games, for that matter, that are on par with DD. Furthermore there's a tremendous difference in the amount of cost and effort to make and play a game now than there was when 80's arcade games of equivalent depth and length. So yes, that changes the dynamic of what a game is worth.

Your explanation doesn't match my experience. And your posts make it sound like you are down to personal attacks and projection to defend your game.

Why do you not apply the same logic to your asking price?

I wish I was Devil Daggers that way I'd get FREE BLOWJOBS from cb51bf.

You mean he'd give you $5

He'd pay you.
/r/ing a drawfag to depict cb51bf's immense cocklust for Devil Daggers.

I want more soldier of fortune, cs 1.6, fear style gameplay. Sharp and precise gunplay that's not fast run and gun. I think there's an entire market for slow, single unit, tactical fps that has not been tapped yet.All you need for a good fps is /k/ and not-braindead AI. Fuck, you don't even need solid gameplay if you got amazing aesthetic. If you take CoD and just give it a hotline miami, 80s-core theme you'd have me by the balls. Too bad not everyone shares this opinion.

I'm trying to ascertain here if your problem stems with the game being flawed by design or whether it's simply not your taste. If you're not into time attack flash games, then sorry, I can't help you. But if you think there's any critical design flaws in Devil Daggers, then please do tell.

I want to go ahead and say DMC is a terrible game. You keep referring to it as if I like it or something. I don't. It's boring as hell and highly overrated.

Correct. Tetris is not a complex game, and I honestly can't believe you're trying to suggest otherwise. It's actually kind of adorable.


No, actually, you see the entire game in about 10 minutes in NMS as well. Just because you see it in different patterns doesn't mean there's more to it. This is like saying you haven't seen all of Devil Daggers until you've encountered literally every single possible combination and amount of enemies on-screen. I wouldn't be surprised if that's the kind of mindset you have, honestly.


Seriously, as a programmer myself, Devil Daggers HONESTLY looks like a fucking test bed. Like the kind of thing where you just make a flat map to see if you managed to get your libraries working. This is not excusable in any way. It's not even a tech demo, it's just some project some kid was fucking around with and decided to put some art and sound over it, then slap a price tag on it.

Thanks for posting about the actual topic, I feel bad that I spent so much time responding to a derail.
I get where you're coming from but I always feel like there's a sort of conflicting triangle of elements. Specifically in terms of TTK vs aim handling vs tactical play. Many posters seem to hate high TTK (aka muh bulletsponge) and inherent inaccuracy/spread in the gun. But if you don't incorporate those, it becomes more twitch based than tactical, like the really early CS days. It's hard for me to see how you can have both in the same game.

Opinions discarded, kill yourself please so the world doesn't have to listen to the garbage you spew from your mouth.

It partially is, as the engine is in-house and intended to be used for some game called Spire.
However, calling it only a tech demo would be doing a disservice to the actual amount of design and thought that went into the game. Or at least I think there was, maybe I'm wrong and DD is really just a design mess, but I haven't really seen anyone pointing out any flaws in the gameplay itself, other than that there should be variation in layout, even if the implementation for something like that is rarely explained.
I don't really think you need to be a master at the game to provide meaningful criticism (even though it does help), but that you should at the very least understand the mechanics and developers' intentions.

Half Life 2.


HL2 started that crap and Valvedrones demanded it in every FPS.

hl2 didn't start it you mouthbreather, and hl2's biggest issue is unskippable cutscenes.

Oh also I think the big reason AAA games went to shit is

Now that doesn't sound accurate since CODshit isn't realistic at all, but it all starts with the design idea that bullets shouldn't be these slow dodgeable projectiles that they were in older shooters (from enemies) since the WW2 shooter was taking off and the guns had to be "real." DOOM/Quake did have some hitscan enemies, but they were much less threatening than the melee/projectile enemies and the big thing here is that hitscan enemies make it so it isn't possible to completely avoid damage. If you can't always avoid damage then how does a player on low health get through a situation where they have low health? It'd just be down to luck, so that's why we have regenerating health because if you're gonna take health away from players without it being their fault then they should be able to get it back for free.

This allowed developers to get lazy with level/enemy design, make players move at a snail's pace for muh story, and never make sure that a skilled player can avoid all damage. It encourages players to stay glued to cover only popping out when enemies do and the game has essentially become whackamole except you can only whack the moles for a couple seconds at a time due to the constant hitscan fire. This is extremely different from older shooters where the best way to play them was to be fast and aggressive, dodging bullets and running towards enemies.

Yeah, the thing is you could get these mechanics and tricks and complexities in games that also have more than one weapon and an empty fucking map.
You're saying that strategies involves letting enemies build up so you can then get the maximum use out of some powerup to kill them? Fucking genius, that's a whole new way to play that only an empty map and no multi-weapon depth could facilitate.

I'm really curious. Given the gameplay of DD, what kind of maps and extra weapons would you add in? You're the king.

I haven't given a shit since Soldier of Knifehead and SWAT 3: I Know You're Here. I Know You're in Here Edition

Why would more weapons or more maps make the game deeper though? Would Shadow of the Colossus be a better game if it had different upgradeable swords and a fuck ton of enemies? How about we add more block types to Tetris and some maps of varying width/height?

More isn't always better. This mentality is the reason there's so many shitty open world games coming out right now.

a bigger problem is
keeps devs from being able to add as much stuff, so the sacrifice most of the muh realism, and keep some stupid parts

The only fps I play anymore is Arma 3, now that all the good mods have been ported over from 2

Compare it to other games where there is actual level design and you have to navigate terrain and interact with the environment and the verisimilitude of different options and gameplay complexities that allows, DD is a step down. Compared to video games that have multiple weapons and require constant thought and reaction about using certain weapons where and also managing ammo and the various scarce resources, DD falls short.
Why should I play DD when there's games that handle both the score/time attack concept better, and games that handle the fast FPS slaughterhouse concept better, and even combinations of the two in a pinch?

Like what games? In what areas do they perform better?

Then name those games and I'll play them

Even a mediocre doom slaughterwad, Judgement Day in DUMP 3 (screenshots are with a gameplay modifier but that's irrelevant) has more fast FPS depth than DD ever could. They both have overall flat ground, with bullshit coming at you from all sides right out of the gate. However, you actually have to worry about locating weapons, choosing which weapons to use where and when in order to be effective against threats, which ties into actually managing your ammo and keeping track of where ammo is and when to pick it up. There's also terrain that you have to navigate and can be used to route enemies and shield you from attacks. That's depth.
As for the score attack aspect, there's a whole realm of speedrun games and arcade modes that require you to route out the most efficient method in order to get a better time or a new high score. Off the top of my head a good combination of speedrunning and shooting is Max Payne's new york minute, but good old Quake/Doom UV max fuckery and Call of Juarez Gunslinger's seasoned arcade mode work in a pinch.

If you had an opinion earlier that was worth something, it certainly isn't now.

I'm saying it meets a demographic for people like me who like simple arcade shooters with an emphasis on crowd control and edgy aesthetics. I wouldn't call it GOTY but I got my 8 hours of fun from it by getting a score I'm happy with.

Something I see often in regards to Serious Sam is that people criticize is for not having proper level design. Namely because it takes place in large open areas with a lot of enemies, as layout complexity is minimal outside of some gimmicks. So when I ask them how they would implement better level design in SS, the answer comes close to that of a Doom or a Quake level. However, that's precisely what the first half of Serious Sam 3 did, and barely anyone liked the first half over the second when it goes back to its roots.
The reason being that SS is a game which requires a lot of space to maneuver in, for plenty of enemies to be placed and enough space for them to be effective and not annoying. Nobody would like a Kleer monster closet because those fuckers eviscerate you up close. A handful of regular enemies barely pose a threat to you considering your arsenal power, which is why large numbers are more likely to pose a threat, and small spaces limit those possibilities. Small spaces work in Doom/Quake because most of the enemies aren't that fast compared to you, as most of them walk at a snail's pace. Rather, the level layout and placement help alleviate an enemy's inability to be a threat on its own. For example, Doom gameplay on SS maps would be fucking laughable, and annoying if you involve hitscan. Just circlestrafe them to death.

The core principle behind this is that level design suits the gameplay, there is no ultimate level design formula, and therefore you should probably take the concept of level design in your mind you think DD is lacking, and throw it in the trash.

Take a different approach and consider DD's gameplay for a moment. How would you utilize layout as a means to provide additional challenges and twists to DD's gameplay? Would you add stage hazards? How would the map layout influence player and enemy behaviour? Take in consideration the flying centipedes and spiders at the edge of the arena, can they be implemented effectively in indoor areas? Could the layout obstruct the player's awareness in any interesting way? How can you take advantage of the map with the present movement system? Can enemies and stage layout be used in any meaningful conjunction in DD? Would limiting the player's movement through solid walls be redundant considering centipedes exist?

The answer isn't that simple, it requires a fundemental understanding of the base gameplay. A flat area might seem lazy, but there can be a multitude of reasons why the devs opted for doing so.


What I see is something different, not necessarily different good or different worse. Like trying to argue stamina bars automatically add depth to everything. Wouldn't everyone love Bayonetta with stamina you have to manage. DD and this WAD simply seem to have different focuses and goals in mind. I understand you're trying to paint an example of depth, but it's got little bearing on DD itself. You said yourself that the quality of DD is subjective, but that it has no depth. Wouldn't that mean one could quickly reach the skill ceiling and get the WR scores in no time? Or did you mean something else by that?

One thing I should point out is that DD is a survival game, not a speedrun game. It's about surviving the game for as long as possible, not clearing it as fast as possible. Time attack games are probably not a metric you should measure DD by.

(DD does actually have some form of ammo management now that you say it, so I guess that point is kind of moot too).

Probably so you don't back up in to a wall when you're busy strafing and evading the wave of enemies surrounding you from almost every side. Which actually happens a lot. To be fair though the edges of the map are bottomless pits so it's not completely flat.

What a piece of shit
Nothing but pretensious cunts who think they know anything about game design and faggots who bash a pretty good 1 dev 10 dollar game and complain about lack of content when Hotline Miami has pretty much the same "quantity".

You could also exploit the game with this since you could use walls to funnel them to be all in front of your vision which would remove a lot of the difficulty.

I think Hotline Miami got WAAAAAAAAAAAAY more praise than it ever deserved, but holy shit are you ACTUALLY saying DD has as much content as HM?

Because Doom is a better fucking game. It comes from the same framework, but took the trouble of having actual level design, and weapon design for more than one weapon, and all the interplay that that comes with. This creates more variety in gameplay, flow and form, and creates a game that requires more thought and more intuition from the player with every aspect of character placement (within a complex environment) and weapon management. You are implying that mechanics that take an existing framework and build and layer complexity upon it to give more depth to the gameplay and more detail to the player is somehow a betrayal of form rather than an improvement. Adding a stamina meter to Bayonetta is a betrayal because it goes against Bayonetta's core stylish high-complexity character action form. Adding more moves, more options, more combos and more depth to a character action game like DMC3 does to DMC is an elevation of Devil May Cry's core form. Doing the same thing as a game from 20 years ago and cutting out options and depth makes for a worse game than Doom, on an objective level. One's willingness or unwillingness to make the most of those mechanics in order to get a WR time or a UV Max record does not change the fact that one set of mechanics is objectively better than the other, and leads to an objectively better game.

In short, you can take your pathetic, overtly verbose solipsism and fuck off.

what the fuck is DD

Devil Daggers

thank you fuck

Yes, I never denied that, though I fail to see the point what Doom's design tenets have to do with Devil Daggers. Doom offers more variety in terms of content for sure, but it's not any more or less solid in terms of design than games like Devil Daggers or even Super Mario Bros. It'd be once again be something different, not different bad or different good. The presence of weapon and ammo pick ups in DD would most likely render the crystals obsolete due to relying more on the situational ability of your weapons rather than their power, and by extent the spiders' threat level, managing crystals by not shooting, controlling your usage of homing daggers before you can stack enough to reach the fourth power level, and remove that one element of satisfaction when shredding a centipede. There's already a straight shot, shotgun blast and homing daggers over which the game is balanced just fine, as adding more weapons for the sake of expanding your arsenal would also have to come at the cost of other weapons' effectiveness in order to keep the balance. What more needs to be added?
You'd be simply trading one for another.

Though we'd be seeing some realized ideas for improving DD if you actually took the time to understand the workings of DD rather than judging it by some arbitrary standards. DD cuts out one part of Doom in order to focus more deeply on another, if that's the way you want to put it.

I do think that more layers of depth are always nice, but that it means jack shit if it isn't executed properly. Look at Painkiller, did you know you can juggle enemies with your grappling hook fist if you repeatedly mash RMB when they're in the air which makes them drop ingots of gold? But it means jack shit as gold is only used to buy what essentially amounts to crutches. You can perform a combo with the stake gun à la the UT ASMD by firing a grenade and shooting it with a stake for massive damage, but there's barely anything in the game which warrants that amount of damage, let alone the difficulty of pulling that trick off while moving. There's a bunch of other neat but redundant tricks like that which are rendered redundant because other easier-to-perform strategies are as or even more effective. The same can be said about Symphony of the Night, which throws so much shit and items at you that the challenge in that game is almost self-imposed. Having depth is one thing, but encouraging the player to explore the depth is another. Hence why scoring and time attacks exist.

There's also depth through execution, like how simple concepts like in Ikaruga are taken to their logical extremes through the stage designs. Again, execution trumps concepts no matter what.

Doom isn't a universally better game, it's a different game. You're comparing apples to oranges. DD doesn't test the same skills that Doom tests and it doesn't give you the same kind of enjoyment. The closest games to compare it to are Serious Sam and bullet hells and I cannot comprehend how you have yet to grasp this.

Also you still haven't addressed Tetris which is the perfect example of a game where adding more content doesn't make it better.

Can confirm, it's 7,62. First person camera mode from one of the watch towers on the mine map.

So OP is once again a fag for complaining about FPS without actually posting an fps.

...

...

We remake Majesty 2 but with Savage multiplayer mechanics.

The best shooters I've played have had these things in common:

Regenerating shields + non-regenerating health
Physics based projectiles with complex recoil (horizontal, vertical, CoF, etc.)
Damage increase for headshots, decrease for legshots
Limited amount of weapons carried at once
Gameplay changing abilities that are used in a fight (shield bubbles, cloaking, etc.)
Moderate time-to-kill in the range of ~2-3 seconds
Varied AI with completely different AI behaviour and weapons for each type of enemy

Do these things, and you WILL have a solid first person shooter.

dropped

Regenerating health/shields encourage players to hide when they're damaged so they can wait for it to recharge as opposed to games that encourage you to get aggressive when you need health since it drops from enemies or is placed around the map as pickups.

>you WILL have a solid first person shooter
😁👌

fucking alternate emoji list

the gaming transition to mainstream/hollywoodism. CoD popularising extremely bare bones gameplay for accessability: fast reloads, tiny recoil, simple player movement. "muh narrative" and "games r art"

as to Devils Daggers, it's not bad, it's just not worth more than a few bucks. the art is beautiful, but an eye strain in gameplay. the sound is interesting, but quickly grating and fatiguing. the gameplay is a few notches above a flash game, with only monster movement to make it interesting. needs something more going on, like dead monsters forming the terrain, ascend to the sky on a pile of your slain.

Have fun with those bandits popping into existence behind you.

Controllers. That is literally the reason.

Seems like it's starting to get better to me fampai

Fantastic bait

It's not bait user. How about you explain what you think is shit about my post rather then just using buzzwords.

no it's not

Heres your reply

Post like these aren't getting us anywhere.

The only good game you mentioned is Titanfall 2, and even that made me give money to EA.


It's a bit of an oversimplification, but it is the reason. Consoles have a huge share of the market, especially among casuals, and CoD 4 made FPS the go-to genre. Try telling a suit you can't make a console shooter because it'll make the gameplay worse and you'll just get a confused look followed by a pink slip.

See

If you want attention you should just ask, user.
Talk your clothes off and I'll give you all the attention you want~

...

no it's not.
yep, consoles own the core market
core, casual is PC and mobile territory.
it along with major console shooters like halo 3 further solidified the genre as a core audience genre at the time. major PC shooters at the time failed to recapture the audience due to lack of content (tf2) and unacceptable performance for modest machines (crysis), losing the PC marketshare it needed in a time it was sharply declining in popularity.
you have a weird perception of how the game industry works based on liars like tim schafer

...

problem with first person shooters these days is they focus on too much on shooting and the shooting is as boring as possible. shooters are a bottomfeeder genre (have been since doom in 1993) and few ambitious devs care enough to do anything interesting with the genre.

Oh fudge, an embarrassing typo.
Now it feels like my entire post is nullified :(

Stop being so fucking GAY

Are you frustrated over something, user?
I can help with that, just sit on my lap and I'll play with your dick until you let all of that frustration out :3

Holy fuck, kill yourself 7th Gen baby

do you know what core means?

Shut the fuck up lewd talk is my biggest kink and I'm gonna shoot you if you continue

Certainly not you you fucking casualshit
Even ASSFAGGOTS players bought Overcuck.

so you don't know what core means, alright. I don't really feel like giving a lesson on game industry basics atm so stick to lurking for now

lewd talk is my biggest kink
Oh really? :3c
Oh, I'm sure you will. In fact, I expect you to shoot all over me

Whoops, I meant that first line to be a quote

Man, you sure showed me

...

how do you, who spends so much time on a video game board that frequently butts heads against the game industry not know what core means, I'm actually really curious how you miss this

Stop fucking posting

Nice trips but goddamn how can someone be this pathetic and beta

Gee I wonder

good point

Stopped reading, because this translates to "I'm mentally ill". Nothing you say has any value, and you need to be shot or beaten into sanity.

Bioshock and CoD 4.

Goddamn 2007.

yep. Why do you think the big yearly shooters sell in the 10 million+ range on consoles but in the sub 5m range on pc? You're almost there. Soon you will no longer be retarded, but it may take another thread for you to realize it.

Stagnation

Make a good fps

Stop fucking posting

why do you think most shooter developers focus on consoles for their games? I really need to know where the problem is so I can fix it, otherwise you'll just stay retarded and continue to embarrass yourself.

Gonna try talking about video games to get this thread back on track. I fucking love a good FPS and seeing what the genre has degenerated into in recent years is depressing.

I have been playing a lot of Titanfall 2 lately, and the game's quality has surprised me. There are so many gameplay systems working together that I could talk for hours about it (if people are interested I will, don't want to blogpost too much about my experience), but what I think is most relevant to this thread is how Respawn managed to marry purchasable cosmetics and core gameplay. I think a lot of people don't realize this, but Titanfall 2 is a complete packaged product which doesn't have a season pass or any gameplay DLC. The only things you can buy are paintjobs for your titan and pilot.

There has been support post-launch with a map or two, and any future weapons/titans/maps are all going to be free. The campaign, while full of CoD tropes, is fun and has a lot of giant environments full of campaign-exclusive assets. Seriously, watch some footage of the world foundry level, it's crazy.

So you have a solid core game, but you need to make it somewhat profitable after launch since it's the current year and all, okay, sure. Most of the time when a game adds in cosmetics items like this it inevitably turns to shit like CS:GO or TF2 where the game becomes a vehicle for the microtransactions or crates. This isn't the case for TF|2 since there are only four or five packs you can even buy in the first place, and the way the pilot and titan visual designs work.

Each pilot's character model is determined by the tactical ability you have (cloak, stimpack, map hacks knife, etc.). Even if your character is a garbled mess of camo and hot pink, I can still tell what you're capable of by looking at you: a cloak character always has a futuristic ghille suit, whereas a stimpack character is always a robot with pogo feet. In something like LoL or DotA, each character can look like a completely different character with a change of skin. TF|2 lets you customize the colour palettes, but the silhouette and readability of a character is always mostly the same.

Since most everything can kill you in a third of a second in TF|2, your strategy is generally the same, too. Low TTK games like this lend themselves more to cosmetics than high TTK games like Team Fortress2 and CRAPCUNTS.

hitscan weapons really cripple titanfall 2. If it had any ambition to really deliver on those movement options it would focus on weapons that augment that movement.

That image about dota skins is now even more valid with the new viper redesign. DK ult and viper now are indistinguishable

You're an underage Halofag who doesn't know how how massively popular games like Doom, Half Life, Quake 3, Goldeneye and CS were at the time.
Thats the problem
Oh the irony


Too bad EA kiled it and they slowed down the movement speed from the first game.
Battlefield Juan is what normalfags want because advertising and niggers in WWI with DJ normalfag remixes of good music is a novelty.

Stop playing shit games you retard

pre 2007 games, by 2007 largely unpopular (except cs) compared to halo 3 and cod4 which was console focused , goldeneye is also a console game.

Eh, sort of. You can't get to max speed as quickly in TF|2, but there's a lot more to the movement system and the cap is still very fast. I haven't played the first one so I couldn't tell you if it's exactly the same, but it seems about the same with more options for engaging enemies, like sliding.

why

I got them off a gfycat compilation.

Both 4 and 5 explain themselves and are less reliant on the novels that they were paired with then CE was. Anyways, I agree the loss of split screen is shit but that doesn't affect that fact that in terms of actual gameplay it's among the best MP the series has had.


Pretty much every gametype Halo has ever had and them some can be made with forge and the current custom game settings, even the Chess gametype from Reach.


I don't see why you are even bringing up aim assist. No fucking shit console shooters have aim assist? You act as if PC shooters have it too now, and as far as i'm aware they don't, and if they do, that's retarded. Also, the predominance of regenrating health has nothing to do with consoles. It has to do with Arena shooters being less common. You'll note that Halo CE, the game where other shooters "copied" it from, still actually has non regenerating health and health pickups on map. But the loadout shooters subgenere doesn't have map pickups.

Regarding the issue of speed,faster shooters are coming back and that's part of my point that things are starting to look up again. Titanfall exists, both Halo and CoD have switched to a similar sort of momentum based movement mechanics and physics, etc.

Also regarding the Halo 3 shitposting, even Halo fans agree outside of 3babies that 3 is slow floaty garbage

Haloniggers should be gassed

But that's wrong you fucking double nigger. Any product with this much shit behind it is going to fall apart unless you're familiar with episode 4, 23:27 of the fucking serial podcast #HuntTheTruth #Halo5Guardians.

Halo's core gameplay has always been serviceable at best for a console shooter. What set it apart from the legions of clones and copycats was the care taken by Bungie to give players a robust set of tools to set up games exactly the way they want with friends. I can shittalk Halo for days, but I will never fault Bungie for not doing their due diligence when it comes to giving players choice and adding fan game modes into the games.
Fucking unbelievable. I'm disgusted to share a board with corporate livestock like you. If I pay full retail price for a game like Halo 5 and a fucking subscription for Xbox Live, I shouldn't have to make my own fucking game modes. Regardless, theatre mode is broke and always has been, and that can't just be "made" in Forge.

How come every time someone posts a weeaboo image they always turn out to be drooling retards? No, seriously, explain this correlation.

Because it's always Ruggarell. Every single time.

Nice bait

Weeaboos think they have taste and passively aggressevely try to push it on to others while pretending to not care what other people think.
I'm talking of course of the 20 something retards who watch slice of life garbage and listen to Death Grips while playing Souls games on their Sony console.
These are plentiful on imageboards and spread their cancer wherever.

...

regen health works better with controllers because it allows thm to be slower in aiming. Game design 101 pleb

Why did they klll it?

After 11 fucking years there is still no AI as good as FEAR's was in motherfucking 2005, TWO THOUSAND AND FIVE.

MY FUCKING FACE

Regenerating health also means levels don't have to be designed well as it can hide flaws and keep players content.


Most game pretty much focus on the assault rifle with everything else not as good. A lack of balance with weapons


I remember when weapon skins were unlocked by beating challenges.


Except Goldeneye 64,the world is not enough 64, turok games, medal of honor ps1 games, etc. were all good games that were not hindered by the controller. If you compare them to modern games, they are still vastly different.

i doubt it had that much influence. i know it sold well, but I don't think that it brought more casuals into the FPS market that weren't already there.

I think at most all it did was cause retards to claim that it was the shining example of videogame storytelling that proves its value as a form of art. Now that TLoU exists they just flock to that instead (because it has those cinematic cutscenes and muh realistic art style).

it is more than worth 5 dollars, i got 17 hours out of it so far

people wouldn't even buy most triple a games for more than 20 dollars anymore and you ask that?

The AI in FEAR was good, but a large part of that was because the the level design. If you took FEAR AI in any other game you'd probably have a trash AI.

That is because developers didn't learn how to design for controller players yet. Those games were basically PC shooters just with a controller.
After halo and COD though developers learned how to dumb down the game for them.