Why are classic FPS games praised so much that they're considered as the pinnacle of FPS genre by their fans...

here you go bro /thread

Destiny 2 is neither like classic FPS or CRPG.

When you cook do you shove everything in the kitchen in your food? Or do you add ingredients that are going to compliment the final product?

The infiltration of RPG mechanics into genres that aren't RPG's isn't anything new but it certainty isn't automatically a good thing.

Subtle.

...

OP sucks dicks, as usual.
Check 'em.

Ever heard of the saying "less is more"? Trying to cram everything you can think of into a game can end up diluting what you think is the core of the game. By focusing the gameplay on what you want you can create a much cleaner experience. Doom was originally going to have RPG mechanics, but when the devs realized that it's a whole lot more fun to run around like a racecar and blow demons to bit they started cutting off the fat, so to speak.

And, dude, there's other games out there that have what you want. It's okay if you don't like Doom's simplicity. Different strokes for different folks.
I will say that there's tons of mods for Doom that add experience and progression bullshit. Try them out and see what the game would be like, tell us if you think they really make the game better.

checked

anything looks good compared to the shitpile known as modern fps, even when the games from 1998 and before should have been far surpassed by now but are replaced by games inferior in every single way

Wolfenstein 3D was heavily inspired by Ultima Underworld. Or dare I say it, dumbed down Ultima Underworld. FPS and RPG aren't all that different.

Doesn't feel deep to me tbh. Very repetitive even with the resource management and enemy prioritization. I want to have more reason to play than just completing levels for no reason. RPG's let your character become better over time and affect a narrative in an intricate way.

Neither this is though.

there's literally nothing wrong with a game being repetitive

There's literally nothing wrong with any video game, but there's always a way to improve something.

Nostalgia of first generation 3D gamers who are still alive to write in the interwebz. Associated in their minds with their youth, health, good erection, discovery and hope.

Of course comparing to today's over-saturated competition "classic FPS games" are just outdated crap.

OP, you should have either compared old FPS to new FPS, or to RPGs. Not jumble both together. Your thread will become a mess now.

shitty railroaded rpg mechanics are not that

Reminder that Descent 2 is the greatest classic FPS.

And there's always a point where you have to stop adding or revising things or else you end up with a bloated mess.

But the first FPS games were inspired by dungeon crawling RPG's. I don't see what's wrong with returning to the root with all the design knowledge we know today. Explain to me how an RPG with classic FPS combat would be a bloated mess.

Because when you choose the cinematic style you necessitate linearity by default. Choosing style over substance is always a bad choice.

For example DooD might look great, but I laugh that the engine can only handle 12 monsters existing at a time. AI isn't that good to ever make that small of a number difficult for the seasoned veteran. I remember when people played Serious Sam 1 unironically because for the most part it maintained the Doom/Doom2 adrenaline rush of a literally overwhelming hoard even though the graphics were mostly shit. That game was boring for other reasons.

All of the things you list as flaws are the result of cramming other shit into the FPS system. The classicst:

Then you should have titled the thread "More games should be RPG-FPS hybrids" or something like that. Now you will have people talking about 3 different things…

Jesus Christ. Just fucking kill yourself.

Also
You are making very common mistake throwing together 2 completely opposite genres. In their core
1. FPS are defined by player performance . Player plays role of "himself", his reaction and eye-hand coordination is teh core mechanic defining his results.
2. RPG by its core design decouples players body performance from the performance of ingame avatar. Remember RPGs roots lie in the AD&D, game for fat nerds who a bad in sports so they replace action with dices throw.

People try to produce hybrid Frankenstein trying to combining these opposite things of course it never succeeds, its like trying to make conservative liberal or cold fire. Action RPGs or RPG shooters of course are in no way RPGs. They are subset of actions games, loot action/FPS.

The bloated mess comment was referring to you stating that
There comes a point where a developer says "Okay, I made the game I want. It's finished."
Understand that what you consider an improvement is not what others want.
Then go play them, those sound right up your alley. Classic FPS are an entirely different category of games. It's no wonder you dislike them.

There absolutely is still room for improvement to the old FPS formula, the problem is FPS fans have become inured to a low-quality gameplay experience due to years of bad design. See 8-bit Killer for an interesting more arcade-like take on FPS.

I have always disapproved of Doom's decision to eschew lives and just grant the player infinite retries every level. Descent had the right idea but the game was very long and allowed easy savescumming. What we need is a first-person shooter with a meaningful scoring system (see ScoreDoom), strict limitations on saves and reloads, and of a somewhat shorter length.

Right. It also would only be ultimately good if it had a healthy speedrunning community as well.

Stop using multiple question marks in a row you faggot.
This usually leads to games being more fun at the later stages and boring at the early stages
Doom has plenty backtracking and going off the intended route, but the level progression is linear (except for the secret levels)
Inventory systems often slow down gameplay, for example the first STALKER game
Serious Sam has an HD version you dumbass
Objectives don't have to be meaningful, they have to be fun, Doom has a story
Interacting with NPCs is not dynamic gameplay

...

That's a good thing you ADHD cocksucker. I am sick of every game in recent years being a fucking RPG.

If you want a good mix of the genres, play the Metro series. Great mix of upgrades, and linear style shooter, with horror and survival (if you choose the mode) mixed in. Great games, and the newest one coming is going to be an open world game too, so you'll get the stronger side of rpgs in the third one, after getting to enjoy the style the first two had.

Lives are only a thing because arcade machines need more quarters. I think they have no place in PC games unless the devs are going for some stupid callback to arcades or something.

The fact that you're posing these questions with full honesty makes me think you have never played actual FPS-RPG hybrids, especially after not even mentioning them as examples of how to do first-person shooters "right".

Games like Deus Ex and Fallout: New Vegas are self-evident in their drawbacks and design limitations for trying to combine stat-based character growth and actions with real-time combat. One will inevitably impede the other. To make the character building systems meaningful you must limit player performance in order to properly simulate your character (e.g. because you are untrained in Pistols you'll have to wait 10 seconds before you can line up an accurate pistol shot), and to not entirely make the aspect of player performance in real-time combat useless, character progression and combat systems are limited in what they can affect without it looking silly because they no longer have the full advantage of abstraction in a context where player performance isn't that big of a deal. It leads to Morrowind-esque situations where even though you clearly hit an enemy, the game treats it as a miss anyways because your weapon is shit and your skills are shit.

However, this is all averting the real elephant in the room, which is your fallacious line of reasoning that the fusion of two genres would somehow make one genre better. The idea that role-playing systems would somehow fundamentally improve first-person shooters would only hold true for you because RPGs align with your personal definitions of what makes a game deep, but for the SHOOTING itself they wouldn't necessarily be a flaw nor an improvement. To put things in perspective, try arguing the case that Tetris or Mario need an inventory system, stat-based character building or towns filled with NPCs handing out quests. For the moment-to-moment gameplay, what would such systems add?

Now look back to Doom, how would all those role-playing systems improve what Doom is going for (shooting loads of demons with loads of weapons in elaborate levels)? At that point your suggestions are no longer centered around improving the game, but merely changing it to suit your own tastes. I like arcade games where my own performance is ranked to see how far I can still go, but that doesn't mean I give every game shit which doesn't do that. Nor should progression be fully be based on upgrades or some such shit. For twitch-based games like Doom, the progression comes in the form of personal skill, of having mastered your given toolset and besting increasingly more difficult challenges. Modern games all have some kind of skill tree in order to make players feel like they are becoming stronger by getting more upgrades, in order to mask the fact that the game itself is as shallow as a puddle with not that much room to get better at. If your skill tree offers something in the area of permanent choices and different builds, then sure, but if most options are unbalanced and you end up unlocking everything as a result of upgrade points everywhere like in DooT then the whole system might as well be redundant.

Basically, your repertoire of vidya knowledge is fucking limited and as a result you post dumb shit like this. Play some more games and lurk more before posting again.

Dumbasses don't know what they want.
They're not RPG in the slightest. The only thing it has in common are the maze levels.

But changing values of how fast a character moves, how high he jumps, and how fast he changes weapons doesn't take away hand eye coordination.

Opposite? When Wolfenstein 3D was based on Ultima Underworld? As I've said FPS games are just dumbed down dungeon crawler with more fluid combat.

Or challenging at the early stages and more satisfying later.
Linear level progression means there are no enemies that you can't kill. Killing enemies in Doom yield no reward anyway.
With hotkeys and menu pausing, not really.
And yet the gunplay and gore are still crappy.
collecting 3 keys is boring.
It's dynamic.

Metro is linear and sucks. Stop shilling.

Nearly all of those points are negatives that just muddied up a game.

OP definitely isn't a native English speaker and probably isn't even white. The weird grammar and ???s are dead giveaways.

You're wrong because you're missing one very key element: Player skill.
Walk into a room and spring a trap that sees you surrounded by lost souls, and an inexperienced player will probably take some damage. Walk into that same room once you know exactly how to handle lost souls, and you can kill all but one of them without taking any damage or even firing a single shot.
I grew up with Doom, and I still remember being terrified of imps when I was just six years old… but I got better. A LOT better. The permanent progression exists in real life, and it makes me feel a whole hell of a lot more powerful than when I first started.

Effort was made but you're still quite wrong. Since you posted Doom most of my examples will relate to that.

Yeah you do. It's based on what weapons you have, if they have ammunition, and whether they're appropriate for the combat scenario, plus a few other things. The good games consider the threats with what tools will be necessary but reward players who look for secrets and don't squander their most powerful toys like rockets and cells.

There's lots of that within a level in Doom, Hexen has the hub system, and Strife has a gradually opening larger world.

You get the same effect by refighting the early game enemies with higher power weapons. The difference between plinking away at troopers with a pistol and annihilating a whole score of them with the BFG9000. That at least feels good compared to one-shotting everything in a typical RPG (looking at you Re;birth 1 NG+ fuck that was retarded)

God yes there are. What balances it is again, the tools available to you. Barons are clearly more threatening if you have a shotgun instead of a plasma gun.

Funnily Heretic addresses that with the vials in the manual: They're too fragile to transport. I also happen to love the RE4 style of item management but it only works in that game due to its slower pace, it wouldn't work for something like Doom. Also stockpiling health items is a balance concern (Strife has all health items as carryable and it's beyond retarded).

Realism is not a requirement. Art style is variable I don't believe all shooters need to be gorefests although there's room for it. Above all though, FPS weapons need to feel satisfying, and Doom's do an admirable job at that.

That's Strife. But while it's a good game its pace is all over the place because you have standard FPS gameplay broken up by backtracking and story progression. Basically, classic FPSes are good for not having this.

Duke Nukem 3D has it just right as far as level interactions.

Finally, there is obviously a demand for some of these things within Doom and the mod community offers plenty to choose from with progression systems and other such features (Lithium to choose a random example) but there's just as much for leaving the game as it is or small enhancements rather than overhauls.

I had to laugh at that because quite a few Mario games have that, and modern Tetris games have the hold box. Both actually contribute to gameplay quite well too. But your general point still stands: You must consider whether adding a feature works to the game.

They're used for effect much like ?! or !?.

Also that.

I don't know what you are talking about, but they work just fine for Demonsteele. Rather, because you are working with lives instead of a health percentage where you're temporarily invincible after getting hit, you're more inclined to stay on the move to avoid damage entirely since you can comparatively take less hits, while giving you some window of opportunity to not get overwhelmed and reorient yourself after getting hit.

Give these games better gunplay and it would be good. Fallout 4 almost did it right. They just need less

Dude, do you have no imagination? Just because those games did it wrong doesn't mean that it's the standard of FPS-RPG design. Look at it this way, I have a solution. At low level, your recoil is high, your gun is wobbly, and you practically have no crosshair. At highest level, your recoil is nonexistant, your gun is always steady even when sprinting, and the cross hair is pinpoint accurate. This is how abstraction should be integrated with real time action.

I've made suggestions for the shooting itself. It's not just about the shooting, but also about making fps games less boring.

Yeah, doom is repetitive as fuck. I don't see how it would intervene with what Doom is intended to play like.

Skill trees feel unnatural.

¿¿Que pasa maricon??
Weird grammar my ass.

Because those games are not about that, they are about being given a set of tools and solving a "puzzle" in the form of the labyrinth filled with monsters. The core game is about positioning, resource management and also some reflex, making quick strategic decisions rather than progressing your character. They are surprisingly more similar to strategy games than they are to typical RPGs. Though it's true that more fun guns later on would make things a little bit more engaging, that isn't the main focus of the game.
Once again, the game is not about the progression about the character. Just like on an RTS map, there are no enemies that you are supposed to defeat later, just challenges that you are supposed to overcome with your skill and cunning, so it's not a problem. The enemies aren't singular challenges in themselves, it is the level that is one big challenge.
Only in case of DOOM, later games had inventory systems, so I'll agree on that one as backtracking for a medkit instead of carrying it around with you is kind of unnecessary seeing that you still have to manage your resources even if you take it with you. On the other hand, carrying your medkits around might lead to a problem like in F.E.A.R in which there is too much of them and the game becomes easy.
The gunplay is mostly fine although there are some problems with some of the older FPSes where the enemies feel stronger than they should due to hardware limitations Quake enemies just don't feel really fun to fight against because they feel a bit bullet spongy, although I might be the only one who thinks that and the artstyle of those games often holds up today, but I get what you mean. You're trying to say that the gaming industry doesn't innovate when it comes to new FPS made in oldschool style, but that's the gaming industry for you, and you cannot really hold this argument against the FPS of the past as this argument is… well about the newer FPS that try to emulate the old standards.
Actually fair point, I'm sure that there is a way to innovate the maps in a way that they have more interesting objectives than just get from point "A" to point "B", but the idea of just traversing the maps as the only objective is in no way detrimental to the games. It's just one thing, sure, but they did that thing very well, so who cares?
DOOM and FEAR have more complex enemy AI than most of the current year FPSes, you should really try to play FEAR if you want to see complex AI in an FPS OP. Although granted, FEAR is a more modern FPS, but that's just a suggestion on my part. I agree with the idea of having environmental interactions is a good thing but I disagree with the idea that FPS should follow RPGs that way, as they are very different genres that focus on very different stuff. Sounds like you would really like Strife and Deus Ex OP.

Nigger, why don't you just play a traditional RPG if you want so little control over your aim? First person games in general are all about giving the player direct control over their actions and having a high skill ceiling, which you want to take away because it isn't like your number-crunching CRPGs.

This is what playing too much RPGs does to you kids, you start forgetting you can actually git gud at things.

This is why I think that FPS-RPG hybrids should be done more like S.T.A.L.K.E.R. Generally, the character progression part should be centered around getting new equipment, guns, as well as abilities that allow you to traverse the world easier and go into locations that you couldn't explore before. You could add to that Bioshock-esque elements I'm specifically not mentioning System Shock because that game had stats too with you being able to buy new abilities as well as buy and craft new items.

This is bait and/or shitposting, but I'll bite

All of this, what you said? It's purely superfluous. None of this is needed in something like Doom. The whole point of the game is to shoot demons. Point and shoot. That's it. That's why it's so goddamn fun. That, and because the controls are fluid and responsive. It's just fun, user-sama

Strife definitely seems interesting. Never paid attention to that game until now, but still far from what I expected.

No I don't. The enemy variety stays more or less the same.
That's nothing.
When I upgrade my characters so much that the game becomes game breakingly easy, that's when it starts to feel good. Like getting that endgame sword that kills everyone in the world in 1 hit in Ultima VII.
The problem with linear games is it feels like the game gives away items when it wants you to get it. Unlike RPG games where all items are scattered around the world, letting you to acquire them by any means necessary.
I guess this is where CRPG fans and FPS fans agree to disagree. Balance is much less of an issue in an open ended game than in something as railroaded as classic FPS. CRPG is more of an adventure than a railroaded challenge.
Not quite, they feel flat to me. Just, you know, flat. Even guns in shitty source engine games feel like they pack more punch.
Brutal Doom's gore is too over the top, what I mean is something of Soldier of Fortune and GTA IV level. Something that packs a punch but doesn't paint the room red as if everything was a red paint filled balloon.
Not enough.

If you read any of his other posts, he's accusing anons who disagree with him of being unimaginative.

EYE is the only game that i know that does this well

I'm not suggesting that we should change the formula of classic FPS. I'm just finding it very repetitive,

I don't want to change Doom, that's just a pic I chose.

Because the combat sucks? I'm just expressing my dissatisfaction with both classic FPS and RPG.

EYE definitely did acrobatic shooting RPG better than others. However, it's still not classic FPS level of fluidity, and the level design was pretty bad, too much open area, plus the RPG aspect wasn't executed that well.

They're unimaginative because they blamed Deus Ex's and NV's shitty gunplay on the RPG aspect instead of the crappy engine.

Okay fuck it, I'll bite.

You're thinking of enemies like RPG enemies when you should be thinking of them like enemies in for example a platforming game. You cannot simply increase the difficulty by throwing a stronger enemy, or more enemies in. That's not how the difficulty in those games work, you will never be fighting just stronger enemies, instead of that you will be fighting new groups of enemies put into different situations. It's how those enemies limit your positioning and how it forces you to take a different approach each time that increases the challenge, it's not about your own character's strength increasing but about your own skill to deal with those situations.
There are some games that are more focused on exploration, and there are more open ended FPS, even those which aren't really RPG hybrids like POSTAL 2, but even, as I said already, FPS treat their maps more like levels in a platformer or even maps in an RTS, not locations in an RPG, so you will rarely see that as the levels are not really living locations and aren't supposed to be. They are obstacle courses, challenges that you have to overcome, once you overcome that challenge, there is nothing for you to do in a map anymore, expect for trying to overcome the challenge more efficiently. You shouldn't think of FPS maps as living places but as singular challenges that you have to go through.
You feel the same way once you are skilled enough to play through the levels of an FPS without losing HP, or doing it in a really efficient or spectacular way.
Not really, most good FPS games just give you the very basic tools to survive and get to the point A to B if you are skilled enough. You have to look for tools that help you through finding secrets inside the game world, or just exploring side locations.
And you said it yourself, the classic FPS formula is not about adventures, it's about challenges, though that might vary depending on the game, I'm talking about the classic FPS like DOOM, Duke Nukem etc.
That might be because of the fact that the enemies use sprites instead of models, which changes things around a bit and can lead to some slightly awkward situations, but I find it completely fine. Not really an argument as it is up to personal opinion.
It's a stylistic choice though, over-the-top gore is fun, but I hope that you actually played the original game instead of immediately modding it to Brutal Doom as the experience is very different. The original DOOM definitely wasn't as gory.
Actually I agree, I would love to see more environment interactions, it would make the levels more fun to explore.

This actually is what RPGs need to do.

RPGs with shooty combat, like Fallout should have autoaim. Hit rates, DPS, evasion from enemy attacks etc all should be decided by combination of character, skills and gear stats. This would be proper RPG not shooter.

Nah, they sucks. Turnbased and similar mechanics break pacing and immersion. These are crutch like mechanics. Real time action is superior.

Again. RPG not shooter. FPS should not have autoaim.

Then maybe you're looking at the wrong genre altogether, it seems to me as if you're looking for the wrong thing in classic FPS, it's the equivalent of looking for an amazing adventure in Tetris. You should probably instead look for some games that innovate a bit in case of both genres, not being typical examples of both of them, I think you might enjoy something like S.T.A.L.K.E.R.

Someone has never played the Unreal games.

Maybe I want an RPG game after all. Maybe this thread should have been about giving RPG games classic FPS combat rather than giving classic FPS RPG system.
No I don't, I want my character to become overpowered for having progressing through the game.
I know what original Doom is like. I want something better than 3 frame death animation.

I've played STALKER, it's an incredibly boring slog with very limited RPG mechanics. Many areas are locked, ruins are not worthy of exploration, the world is so empty, character progression is pretty linear and barely existent.

What the fuck is wrong with you

Why are we still giving this piece of shit spic the time of day? His shitposting has gotten stale.

Then blame the programmers and game designers. They didn't know how to make the guns shoot straight while keeping the game as an RPG.

That's not what he said. A game like Deus Ex affects your ability to hit things but still demands you be actually capable of landing a headshot on a foe. Purely stat-driven can work but it's a whole 'nother game style.

Bullshit it does. Even with a small roster like Doom, the composition and level design affects their threat, and again, so does what the player is armed with. Contrast a chaingunner at range (pest) vs. a chaingunner surprising you from behind (fuck Plutonia with a rusty chainsaw).

I understand this feeling to an extent if you have to work for it, or if it's a temporary power-up like Doom 3's berserk. If a game is just easy that's boring (unless it's Russian Overkill).

There's nothing inherently wrong with less structured games, but you have to understand this is not the model for every game in existence. Classic FPS games are one of them. See also: The kitchen sink approach AAA takes with everything that results in a muddy mess.

Those games have their own balance issues (classes relative to each other, and availability of items based on player skill).

Lamer. I mean, some mods do better but vanilla is solid.

Silly violence is fine in a silly game (Rise of the Triad). Again, the visuals have to fit with the intended game.

Enough for the genre. Distractions break pacing of fast games but yeah, Duke's little details like the usable electrical sockets are indicative of devs that care.

Some games do this better but it's not the norm for devs to put attention to detail.

That's not shitposting you dolt. He's an idiot but it's at least providing something to talk about and refute, and heck, making us consider why we like games!

Also apparently there's a combined ?! called an interrobang: ‽

You don't know what the hell you actually want with the way you are throwing 'gunplay' around like a buzzword. Improving the audio-visual presentation does not solve the problem of HP bloat, weapon balance, and the encounter design which plagues these hybrids, as these problems will inevitably occur when encounters become nothing more but glorified stat and gear checks.Nor would it solve the sheer laziness of an encounter consisting of little more than a bunch of buffed up dudes placed in a room with no regard for challenging your movement or aim or target prioritization or weapon switching. After all, if you could breeze through the entire game through skill alone without leveling up even once with total ease, why would you bother with all that leveling crap? RPGs will have enemies with overwhelming statistical differences in high-level areas to prevent low-level players from going everywhere willy-nilly, and that is usually presented through loads of attacks the player cannot defend himself against, or loads of HP which a player would not be able to deal with in a reasonable timespan. Hence why the RPG hybrids where it is possible to do some kind of SL1 run involves tickling enemies with 500HP for 1HP per attack, which is just tiresome to do. Fallout 4 also goes for the HP bloat route because the inner workings of the designers at Bethesda are a complete mystery.

Of course not, it's just pure coincidence that FPS-RPGs like Borderlands, Destiny, and Fallout 3/4/NV all suffer from a lot of the aforementioned issues, that is a combat system where victory is more likely to be a result of your gear than your ability to move and point and shoot, without the character building and customization of ARPGs such as Diablo and Grim Dawn to compensate. You can take the immersive sim-route like in Prey, SS, VtmB, Dishonored and Deus Ex, though nobody would call either the stealth or the combat in those games their strongest points. After all, you can't really focus on one without compromising the other, so you end up with a jack-of-all-trades kind of game. It's like trying to design a level to be playable in Doom and Thief at the same time, somewhere down the line you'll end up with balancing problems, as the aforementioned games had plenty of useless skills and stats.

Then why are you even bothering with Doom? It's as if you want to change every single game regardless of genre into your favourite game. I sure as hell don't see what you find so repetitive about Doom, unless you have some deep-seated desire for fulfilling a progression quota and can't get off unless you see your numbers grow. Does Diablo III happen to be one of your favourite games?
There's a hell of a lot of shit you can do with the gameplay and enemies in Doom as you can arrange them in a lot of devious ways, that's why there are so many fan-made levels for Doom featuring vanilla gameplay. It's the level design which keeps Doom fresh and exciting.

Too bad, play another game willing to indulge your power fantasies. If you want to be overpowered you'll have to work for it here.

Your inability to shoot straight in Deus Ex at first is merely a result of the implementation of RPG mechanics simulating your skill with the weapon, not a fault with the game engine or even the designers (the Flak Cannon in UT99, which much like DX also runs on UE1, is widely considered one of the best weapons in any FPS, so I wouldn't put the blame on the engine here).

He doesn't even know what he wants, or understand why people think adding RPG features into a classic FPS is missing the point. I refuse to believe that someone can be this dense so I think it's more likely that he's just a bored shitposter. Hey, at least he's succesful at that.
OP should just go play system shock 2. Maybe that's more up his alley. The guns shoot straight, stats modify damage, and there's a somewhat interesting narrative.

fag

Only SS2 did. Coincidentally, SS1 does most of the things you suggested.

Inspired by and blantantly copied are two different things. id looked at the first person perspective of Ultima and said "that would be cool in a shooter".

There has yet to be a FPS with good RPG elements.

In that case it makes sense, but I still prefer the slightly more forgiving health percentage or meter for FPS.

Thanks for taking your time I guess.

You're talking about encounters and not enemy variety.
It's probably boring to be invincible gameplay wise, but in an RPG, knowing how strong your character has become due to your hard work is a great feeling.
I'm just expressing my preference. The whole thread has been my opinion on why I personally think classic FPS games are boring. I don't know but no matter how much they talk about it I can never get rid of my opinion that classic FPS are repetitive.
Modern AAA games are the opposite of kitchen sink. They're extremely limited in scope and variety. The only kitchen sink AAA modern games I can think of are Bethesda games and yet they're still not as all-encompasing as their older titles.
I think the only gun that feels solid in Doom 1 and 2 is the plasma rifle. The rest feels weak.
But constant action feels tedious to me.

The problem with HP bloat and glorified gear checks is because the devs are too lazy to actually put weapon skills numbers into how the character handles a weapon, like in real life. I've just addressed that problem. An example of a good solution would be by making the guns handle like Red Orchestra in low skill character's hand, while at the high level they would have Quake's agility and precision.
What's wrong with that? I mean, the essence of RPG is character's progression and not just the player's own progression.
I don't see how a game consisted of just running shooting can be playable for more than a couple of hours without getting tedious and stale. In RPG at least, there are many routes you can possible take, many side activities you can do to improve your character, and a lot of chance to see just how the universe in this game works. Having multiple solutions to solve a problem and being able to do anything are the strengths of RPG games that break the tediousness of constant action.
Diablo games are as boring as Doom IMO. They aren't even RPG, just spam clicking and number grinding.
I don't see how overpowering is possible in a game that tries so hard to be balanced. In an RPG game, becoming overpowered requires a cunning plan through good understanding of the game's world, which is a work in itself.
No, unresponsiveness of Deus Ex's gunplay is either the programmers' fault or the engine's fault. If I could see where the bullet is going, if I could see how the gun wobbles in iron sight which causes inaccuracy, if I could see the impact of the projectile on the environment and the enemies clearly, the gunplay would be far more responsive.
UT99 has no recoil and accuracy system, unlike Red Orchestra for example, which has great, responsive gunplay despite how poor the soldiers handle their weapons. In RO, poor accuracy of a soldier doesn't stop a gun from shooting straight, it's the soldiers who are unable to handle the gun precisely.

SS2 is too narrative driven and linear to be a good RPG. Getting skill points after finishing a linear set of objectives is really horrible. Same reason why I think Gothic games horrible, though not as bad as SS2.
That's one of the poorest implementations in RPG gunplay.

FPS isn't supposed to be exactly like RPG. Play RPGs if you want that sort of thing. FPS is about white-knuckle action.

Potential means nothing.
Only objective good results matter.
The old good FPS games will always be better than current ones because they are fun.

I love both, but I also hate both. You know what I'm saying?

FUCK OFF CUCKCHANFUCK OFF CUCKCHANFUCK OFF CUCKCHANFUCK OFF CUCKCHANFUCK OFF CUCKCHANFUCK OFF CUCKCHANFUCK OFF CUCKCHANFUCK OFF CUCKCHANFUCK OFF CUCKCHANFUCK OFF CUCKCHANFUCK OFF CUCKCHANFUCK OFF CUCKCHANFUCK OFF CUCKCHANFUCK OFF CUCKCHANFUCK OFF CUCKCHANFUCK OFF CUCKCHANFUCK OFF CUCKCHANFUCK OFF CUCKCHANFUCK OFF CUCKCHANFUCK OFF CUCKCHANFUCK OFF CUCKCHANFUCK OFF CUCKCHANFUCK OFF CUCKCHANFUCK OFF CUCKCHANFUCK OFF CUCKCHANFUCK OFF CUCKCHANFUCK OFF CUCKCHANFUCK OFF CUCKCHANFUCK OFF CUCKCHANFUCK OFF CUCKCHANFUCK OFF CUCKCHANFUCK OFF CUCKCHANFUCK OFF CUCKCHANFUCK OFF CUCKCHANFUCK OFF CUCKCHANFUCK OFF CUCKCHANFUCK OFF CUCKCHANFUCK OFF CUCKCHANFUCK OFF CUCKCHANFUCK OFF CUCKCHANFUCK OFF CUCKCHANFUCK OFF CUCKCHANFUCK OFF CUCKCHANFUCK OFF CUCKCHANFUCK OFF CUCKCHANFUCK OFF CUCKCHANFUCK OFF CUCKCHANFUCK OFF CUCKCHANFUCK OFF CUCKCHANFUCK OFF CUCKCHANFUCK OFF CUCKCHANFUCK OFF CUCKCHANFUCK OFF CUCKCHANFUCK OFF CUCKCHANFUCK OFF CUCKCHANFUCK OFF CUCKCHANFUCK OFF CUCKCHANFUCK OFF CUCKCHANFUCK OFF CUCKCHANFUCK OFF CUCKCHANFUCK OFF CUCKCHANFUCK OFF CUCKCHANFUCK OFF CUCKCHANFUCK OFF CUCKCHANFUCK OFF CUCKCHANFUCK OFF CUCKCHANFUCK OFF CUCKCHANFUCK OFF CUCKCHANFUCK OFF CUCKCHANFUCK OFF CUCKCHANFUCK OFF CUCKCHANFUCK OFF CUCKCHANFUCK OFF CUCKCHANFUCK OFF CUCKCHANFUCK OFF CUCKCHANFUCK OFF CUCKCHANFUCK OFF CUCKCHANFUCK OFF CUCKCHANFUCK OFF CUCKCHANFUCK OFF CUCKCHANFUCK OFF CUCKCHANFUCK OFF CUCKCHANFUCK OFF CUCKCHANFUCK OFF CUCKCHANFUCK OFF CUCKCHANFUCK OFF CUCKCHANFUCK OFF CUCKCHANFUCK OFF CUCKCHANFUCK OFF CUCKCHANFUCK OFF CUCKCHANFUCK OFF CUCKCHANFUCK OFF CUCKCHANFUCK OFF CUCKCHANFUCK OFF CUCKCHANFUCK OFF CUCKCHANFUCK OFF CUCKCHANFUCK OFF CUCKCHANFUCK OFF CUCKCHANFUCK OFF CUCKCHANFUCK OFF CUCKCHANFUCK OFF CUCKCHANFUCK OFF CUCKCHANFUCK OFF CUCKCHANFUCK OFF CUCKCHANFUCK OFF CUCKCHANFUCK OFF CUCKCHANFUCK OFF CUCKCHANFUCK OFF CUCKCHANFUCK OFF CUCKCHANFUCK OFF CUCKCHANFUCK OFF CUCKCHANFUCK OFF CUCKCHANFUCK OFF CUCKCHAN

FUCK OFF CUCKCHANFUCK OFF CUCKCHANFUCK OFF CUCKCHANFUCK OFF CUCKCHANFUCK OFF CUCKCHANFUCK OFF CUCKCHANFUCK OFF CUCKCHANFUCK OFF CUCKCHANFUCK OFF CUCKCHANFUCK OFF CUCKCHANFUCK OFF CUCKCHANFUCK OFF CUCKCHANFUCK OFF CUCKCHANFUCK OFF CUCKCHANFUCK OFF CUCKCHANFUCK OFF CUCKCHANFUCK OFF CUCKCHANFUCK OFF CUCKCHANFUCK OFF CUCKCHANFUCK OFF CUCKCHANFUCK OFF CUCKCHANFUCK OFF CUCKCHANFUCK OFF CUCKCHANFUCK OFF CUCKCHANFUCK OFF CUCKCHANFUCK OFF CUCKCHANFUCK OFF CUCKCHANFUCK OFF CUCKCHANFUCK OFF CUCKCHANFUCK OFF CUCKCHANFUCK OFF CUCKCHANFUCK OFF CUCKCHANFUCK OFF CUCKCHANFUCK OFF CUCKCHANFUCK OFF CUCKCHANFUCK OFF CUCKCHANFUCK OFF CUCKCHANFUCK OFF CUCKCHANFUCK OFF CUCKCHANFUCK OFF CUCKCHANFUCK OFF CUCKCHANFUCK OFF CUCKCHANFUCK OFF CUCKCHANFUCK OFF CUCKCHANFUCK OFF CUCKCHANFUCK OFF CUCKCHANFUCK OFF CUCKCHANFUCK OFF CUCKCHANFUCK OFF CUCKCHANFUCK OFF CUCKCHANFUCK OFF CUCKCHANFUCK OFF CUCKCHANFUCK OFF CUCKCHANFUCK OFF CUCKCHANFUCK OFF CUCKCHANFUCK OFF CUCKCHANFUCK OFF CUCKCHANFUCK OFF CUCKCHANFUCK OFF CUCKCHANFUCK OFF CUCKCHANFUCK OFF CUCKCHANFUCK OFF CUCKCHANFUCK OFF CUCKCHANFUCK OFF CUCKCHANFUCK OFF CUCKCHANFUCK OFF CUCKCHANFUCK OFF CUCKCHANFUCK OFF CUCKCHANFUCK OFF CUCKCHANFUCK OFF CUCKCHANFUCK OFF CUCKCHANFUCK OFF CUCKCHANFUCK OFF CUCKCHANFUCK OFF CUCKCHANFUCK OFF CUCKCHAN

nice

Says no one besides nostalgic old farts.

FUCK OFF CUCKCHANFUCK OFF CUCKCHANFUCK OFF CUCKCHANFUCK OFF CUCKCHANFUCK OFF CUCKCHANFUCK OFF CUCKCHANFUCK OFF CUCKCHANFUCK OFF CUCKCHANFUCK OFF CUCKCHANFUCK OFF CUCKCHANFUCK OFF CUCKCHANFUCK OFF CUCKCHANFUCK OFF CUCKCHANFUCK OFF CUCKCHANFUCK OFF CUCKCHANFUCK OFF CUCKCHANFUCK OFF CUCKCHANFUCK OFF CUCKCHANFUCK OFF CUCKCHANFUCK OFF CUCKCHANFUCK OFF CUCKCHANFUCK OFF CUCKCHANFUCK OFF CUCKCHANFUCK OFF CUCKCHANFUCK OFF CUCKCHANFUCK OFF CUCKCHANFUCK OFF CUCKCHANFUCK OFF CUCKCHANFUCK OFF CUCKCHANFUCK OFF CUCKCHANFUCK OFF CUCKCHANFUCK OFF CUCKCHANFUCK OFF CUCKCHANFUCK OFF CUCKCHANFUCK OFF CUCKCHANFUCK OFF CUCKCHANFUCK OFF CUCKCHANFUCK OFF CUCKCHANFUCK OFF CUCKCHANFUCK OFF CUCKCHANFUCK OFF CUCKCHANFUCK OFF CUCKCHANFUCK OFF CUCKCHANFUCK OFF CUCKCHANFUCK OFF CUCKCHANFUCK OFF CUCKCHANFUCK OFF CUCKCHANFUCK OFF CUCKCHANFUCK OFF CUCKCHANFUCK OFF CUCKCHANFUCK OFF CUCKCHANFUCK OFF CUCKCHANFUCK OFF CUCKCHANFUCK OFF CUCKCHANFUCK OFF CUCKCHANFUCK OFF CUCKCHANFUCK OFF CUCKCHANFUCK OFF CUCKCHANFUCK OFF CUCKCHANFUCK OFF CUCKCHANFUCK OFF CUCKCHANFUCK OFF CUCKCHANFUCK OFF CUCKCHANFUCK OFF CUCKCHANFUCK OFF CUCKCHANFUCK OFF CUCKCHANFUCK OFF CUCKCHANFUCK OFF CUCKCHANFUCK OFF CUCKCHANFUCK OFF CUCKCHANFUCK OFF CUCKCHANFUCK OFF CUCKCHANFUCK OFF CUCKCHANFUCK OFF CUCKCHANFUCK OFF CUCKCHAN

...

Because it's the encounters which actually matter, as they determine how these enemies end up being used and how the player will be challenged. Constantly throwing new enemy types at the player won't offset poor encounter design, as you can see in Painkiller. Conversely, encounter design is also an important part in any RPG, from factoring in how much a medium encounter may affect a party which hasn't rested for a while, how enemy positioning affects your own strategy, and so on.
Yes, that's very nice, but not everything can be an RPG, nor should you expect all games to be. If that's your personal preference so be it, but don't go spouting retarded bullshit that it makes games which don't do so flawed.
How do you expect us to convince your feelings? Quit complaining about games not suiting your personal preferences and find games which actually do suit you. Imagine how stupid I would sound if I were to complain about RPGs not having scoring systems or performance rankings.
Because it effectively diminishes the input player has if all the player needs is good gear to win. For trash encounters it is fine, but there should be a balance between player performance actually mattering in combat with enough room for the player's skill to grow, and gear being important enough. See: Gothic games and Dark Souls.
Because in those kind of games there are usually enough crazy levels with their own unique setups and encounters and traps to keep them from feeling stale. What you are saying about first-person shooters effectively also applies to puzzle games, platformers, racing games, fighting games, to some extent strategy games, and basically anything that isn't an RPG. Have you only played RPGs since your very childhood or something? The things you mention you can do in RPGs aren't inherently superior over any action games, nor are they inherently inferior. They're just different things entirely, and you don't even know what the hell it is you want.
Gee, now try imagining what a player would have to do to git gud in a game like Bayonetta or Dodonpachi.
Deus Ex: Human Revolution did precisely that, but it didn't end up affecting your playstyle in any significant way because players can compensate for recoil and you might as well spec into semi-automatic weapons instead and go for headshots all day. It'd only really affect handling for automatic weaponry, but there's not a whole lot of reason to go for assault rifles when pistols are even better weapons since they can one-headshot most enemies, because REALISM. If you want to land an accurate shot in Deus Ex, you'll have to stand still for a while until the crosshair aligns. There's nothing unresponsive about it, you click and it shoots and it hits. If the crosshair is red, that means your target is within range. It's antithetical to twitch gameplay, but that's the price you pay for simulating weapon handling in an actually meaningful way.
And why would it need one?

Christ, try formulating what it is that you actually want and take it to the RPGCodex or something. You could have named an example of what you are looking for, though if it's really Fallout 4 then that's just LOL-inducing.

See, this is the kind of casual bullshit that comes out of the mouth of FPS fans.

Fuck you too, shazbot

Attached: llama.gif (320x240, 679.41K)

Eat fifteen million dicks you stupid nigger bitch. Lives are shit, you are shit. Fuck off.

Explain to me how it isn't the pinnacle of shootan. Classic FPS, like another user said, were simple systems for shooting other things and that's all people wanted out of the genre. Look at stuff like Warframe that lock your power behind a week of grindan, nobody actually wants to grind, they want to kick ass and chew bubble gum.

Yes, casual bullshit is the term. Casuals can't handle punishments, they don't like being challenged. FPS/PC game fans have grown accustomed to games allowing them to save and reload infinitely, to games that allow them retry infinitely, to games that ultimately do little in the way of testing the player's skill because completion is simply a matter of brute forcing your way to victory.

Calm down casual, let me explain how game design actually works.

With few exceptions, a game without a total reset policy isn't much of a game, and players who prefer infinite chances have not mentally progressed past the child-like self delusion that simply getting to the end of something that grants infinite chances is any sort of worthy accomplishment.

It shows a problem with the definition of gaming and players in the video game world. The reality is the vast majority of "gamers" aren't gamers at all. In fact most of them hate gaming but simply want to be fed a delusion that they are such so that they get to feed their ego with a false sense of accomplishment. The problem is easiest to see in the way that with modern gamers everyone expects to be able to "beat" every game. "Gaming" to most people is not about actual gaming, it is simply a real world collect-a-thon of accumulating "endings" that you've personally seen. Games, like movies, are seen as disposable one-time experiences. That way you can run and tell your friends that you've beaten the game… the same game all of them have also beaten in roughly the same amount of time.

However, to people who actually enjoying GAMING, the enjoyment comes from actually mastering the game and not simply collecting the ending scene.

A simple analogy would be to replace any video game with another game such as Chess and then apply the typical video "gamer" mindset. The typical "gamer" would want a Chess game in which he has an infinite number of retries at any point in the game so that he can always win. When you suggest to him that winning only really has meaning when you show that you can apply your mastery over an entire game from start to finish he will then whine and complain that starting over each time he makes a bad move is "boring" and that he "shouldn't have to start over if he has already shown he can make good moves up to a point".

Of course any Chess player (or player of any other sort of game) who had this mindset would be laughed out of the room.

But unfortunately in the world of video gaming we are forced to suffer the masses of idiots who want to delude themselves into a false sense of accomplishment for their own sad ego trips. Worse yet is that anyone who actually views video gaming as a legitimate gaming pursuit is often labeled as some sort of "elitist" who "doesn't get that some people just want to play for fun". Sorry but no, it is actually the elitist assholes who take gaming "seriously" who have a far more enjoyable time as the game they play actually has meaning and they are viewing it on a much deeper level. It is the difference between watching a sport where you have no fucking clue as to what is going on versus watching a sport where you have intricate knowledge of the rules and strategy taking place so that you can actually appreciate the skill involved.

In other words most games and gamers today are the equivalent of those "competitions" you did when you where 5 years old where everyone got a medal no matter how bad they sucked. Unfortunately we have 30-year-old "gamers" who still live in this fantasy world and who are actually proud of their bullshit participation medals.

Attached: IMG_3986.JPG (305x346, 27.61K)

You see, casual, the concepts of punishment for making mistakes and limiting the total number of mistakes that a player can make are very important aspects of skill gratification. They also allow for derived gameplay in the form of risk-reward mechanics. Should you risk damage or death to grab that 1up on the ledge over there to increase your overall amount of retries? This is a form of mechanic that can only function in a video game with limitations on retries. It incentivizes more elaborate level design to facilitate these kinds of scenarios. In addition, a game that forces the player to replay something after losing progress due to too many mistakes is a game that is forced to put considerably more thought into making levels compelling enough to still be fun and interesting on replays.

People who think that these mechanics are "just a relic from arcade games" have never actually beaten games like the original Super Mario Bros. or NES Contra without cheating. They just assume that the way modern Nintendo makes lives utterly meaningless in a game like Super Mario Galaxy is the only way lives can implemented (rather than an extremely poor implementation of it). The answer is not to remove mistake limitations entirely like the last 20 years or so of FPSs or like indie hacks like Edmund McMillan would have you believe for other genres. The answer is to make them functional. We can make the FPS genre better if we really try. It's up to the casuals whether or not they want to step outside their comfort zone and try to make the genre about skill and mastery.

Games are more than just toys. Games are tests of skill with a set of rules and limitations for the purpose of entertainment. A rubber ball is a toy. Basketball is a game.

It's a toy with extra steps..

tl:dr nigger

Attached: 1458673165206-v.gif (340x230, 486.36K)

You put a smile on my face.

Attached: 1434072544680.jpg (425x516, 109.6K)

Sounds like typical doom player.

Nobody considers savescumming to be competency. That doesn't mean the feature isn't welcome, especially since a typical Doom game or megawad is fairly long to beat if you aren't just zipping through most of it. I play in short bursts and do in fact restart a level on dying. Sometimes I'll self-enforce the vanilla Doom death penalty but that's dependent on the level and mods I'm using because some maps don't consider pistol starts and certain mods are about progression, also GZDoom makes it a pain to do that with its autoload behaviour.

Also when I'm mastering a game I've got better things to do than have to grind through a whole lot of easy levels over and over just for another chance at the later ones. Life systems are garbage for wasting your time like that.

Attached: BFG.png (782x1102, 854.45K)

I'm not saying that one is less important than the other. Having both good variety and encounter placement would great, especially when it's tied to classes, factions, and other lore.
If you're talking about competitive action games then you're right, because competition is all about real actions while RPG incorporates abstraction. Most non competitive game can be RPG, abstraction can be translated into everything including movement speed and other values.
Well, they could be more, so I don't get why they should be less.
I'm not complaining, I'm having a discussion about game design.
There isn't any mind you.
It's not necessary but it's perfectly fine to have ranking system.
Not necessarily when stronger enemies that are able to counter your character's upgrades exist.
I'm not saying there shouldn't. But there should be a point where your character is strong enough to overpower NPC's.
But still not enough.
So? These arcadey games without abstraction and side activities are only worth playing for a while. I mean, part of the NES' success back in the 80's was the incorporation of more complex games such as Zelda and RPG games that the arcade focused Atari library didn't have. So, I'm not the only one with this opinion. People demand more and more content and complexity to keep a game from getting stale.
I used to play classic FPS games but now I got bored. Doom, Blood, Shadow Warrior, Duke 3D, Quake I-II, Turok, you name them.
My NES argument up there, and the competitive vs non competitive argument.
I don't even know what kind of games those are. But let me say this, the reason why an explorable non linear world and interactive NPC's are integral to RPG games is to give players more open choices in solving a problem. So, whatever those games are, they need to have more exploration and interaction than just combat.
DEHR is a lame cover based shooter with very forgiving recoil and accuracy system. I don't even recall any gun wobbling in iron sight, it's as steady as CoD. Though I'd say that this game is much more responsive than Deus Ex 1.
Is classic FPS the only FPS genre you've ever played? There are a ton of factors that differ responsive gunplay from unresponsive ones. And have you ever played Red Orchestra games?
It's Deus Ex 1 that needed one, idiot.

I think I've formulated it enough.
It's neither RPG or FPS enough for my liking.

Gay thread. Dubs

Nice

The worst thing about the recent Doom is having to manually upgrade shit in the middle of your demon massacre. A better option would be a a predetermined upgrade path that automatically upgrades your stuff when you acquire the correct materials.
Halo CE did something like this, and people got butthurt
Fuck off retard
Meh. some games allowed for this, most didn't do it well.

Im starting to think you miss the point of FPS/TPS. It really is just mindless brutality.
But then you immediately provide both a decent explanation, as well as some shitty examples
bait/10
When you get down to the nitty gritty, there is only so much space on a disk, and many FPS have similar square footage per gigabyte.

oh and
Thanks for making me pissed about how both Borderlands and Mass Effect turned out.

They weren't inspired by the thing that actually makes an RPG underage faggot. The further an RPG moves from pen and paper the less of an RPG it is. FPS games should be the furthest removed, hybrids absolutely fucking suck ass

Every modern arcade port features a practice mode of some kind which allows you to practice all stages individually, whereas for older games pretty much everyone practices using savestates.

That's the logical pitfall of a game never having enough content. Because after what point is it enough? If the game has 20 levels, or 30, or 100? To then judge a game for what it doesn't have or what it isn't, is utterly ridiculous. At some point you have to draw the line for how much to include in your game, and you're better off judging a game for what it actually is and what it actually does. "It doesn't have enough enemies" is a vague criticism if there's no point of reference or if how these enemies are used isn't taken into consideration. What matters most is that each present element in a game has a valid purpose which is executed well and interlinked with others, meaning you don't need all that bloat. If your game is about shooting demons, then you don't need all that fancy story stuff.
No shit, your inability to name a solid example of what it is you want makes your preferences even more nebulous than a shower cabin in Auschwitz.
No, in a RPG where you may have a zillion build possibilities, having a scoring system (which always rewards a single particular way to play) would discourage experimentation and enable optimizationfaggotry even further, which because of the innate difficulty of balancing skills in an RPG would result in tons of suboptimal classes and builds. Most RPGs already have tons of suboptimal options, but as long as you survive and win it's fine. With a scoring system you're pushed to win in the best way possible, which also requires the most optimal build possible, at which point you're better off looking up the most optimal build on the internet if you want to score high. In this context a scoring system would be detrimental.
This shit is why everyone else shitposts at you. You make vague claims about fucking Doom not being varied enough and being too boring, but you can't even articulate your thoughts beyond making invalid comparisons to other genres, so you can only present the non-argument that it feels tedious to you, you being the only one in this thread who even thinks so.
Says who? Because I know people who have played a game which can take only forty minutes to beat for over a hundred hours because they want to beat it without using continues and getting a worthy score. There's a whole community of them, and not just in Japan.
This is plain factually incorrect, a cursory Google search would even tell you so. Were you to look up the top 100 NES games or some such, you'd get all these role-playing classics such as: Super Mario Bros. 3, Contra, Ninja Gaiden, Ducktales, Castlevania, Gradius, Batman, Mega Man, Ghosts 'n Goblins, River City Ransom, Double Dragon, Punch-Out, Zelda 1, and Metroid. Compared to all that, games like Final Fantasy and Dragon Warrior III were in the minority. And even some years later this desire for more complexity, and thus, RPGs, doesn't even hold true. While the SNES would be largely known for its JRPG titles, the Genesis featured a library largely consisting of arcade ports and action games, and still went strong alongside the SNES. A better conclusion to pull here would be that there are multiple audiences with different tastes in games, with there being no one-size-fits-all solution for games to appeal to both.
How the fuck are you going to shoehorn exploration and interaction in arcade games such as R-Type and Ghouls 'n Ghosts, where the game length is limited under an hour by design? Are you seriously going to tell me that the entire arcade gaming industry and their products are objectively worse because they do not shoehorn in this inane shit they absolutely do not have the room for?

Half of Halo CE is backtracking.

This is probably the worst thread on Holla Forums right now. But very likely bait.

Didn't read the thread but boy oh boy, let me tell you, let me tell you. Verticality, modern fps are cut and designed for gamepad controller. And aiming in more than one axis is a bitch with that, that's where the whole "hide behind a small wall" gimmick came into play in Gears of War, aiming was turned into pickaboo left or right, no high or low.
Old style fps games are all about doing crazy things in full 3D environment, modern ones are like 2D mazes you fill out in mspaint and win. Also unlockables, gear>skill.

Attached: (;_;)7.jpg (1366x768, 237.25K)

18+
1
8
+

just read the thread, jesus christ what faggotry

I agree with this, of course I do honestly like the mods that make the gore pretty nice. there are parts of brutal doom I really like, I really love the dismemberment of it I kinda wish that it was a separate mod for just for gore and body parts.

Funny to hear considering Doom was not ever real 3D but 2D+

Doom has height-based projectiles, it is in fact 3D.

This phrase makes no sense.

He means projectiles have a full 3D vector for position and a full 3D vector for velocity. The same with players and monsters.

Regarding human desires, there is no such thing as enough. If you're familiar with christian teachings, there's a reason why a human's desire is infinite. But regarding my suggestion, there's nothing about it that exceeds a decent game developer's capability.
Any purpose can be valid when it directly affects the player's and character's capability and progress, and when it harnesses the mechanics of the game. I mean, why did people bash the side activities in GTA games such as bowling, hitting the gym, and yoga? Because they're very disconnected from the core mechanics of the real game and serve little to no purpose to the character's progression. But having more varied enemies, each tied to different factions with different sets and give different rewards for example, serve a purpose in regard of the progression and core gameplay mechanics.
That's like a caveman saying "if your music is about banging sticks then you don't need tonal stuff". Due to their eternally unsatiated desires, humans will yearn for a more and more perfect creation. Children will grow out of fairy tales as they grow older and seek for a literature that encompasses more themes and truthfulness. Cinema progressed from stage opera format into something far more fantastical or true to life. Schoenberg created the Twelve Tone Technique out of his boredom of hearing classical harmony. Therefore, someone can have a great passion in video games as well that they will grow tired of playing the same superficial and facile video games over and over again, and will strive for a more wholesome being.
I don't understand what's so not-solid about my description. I mean, don't be stupid.

Xbox and Steam achievements do exist for some RPG games out there though, and they're encompassing any play style. A spreadsheet of character stats can also be defined as a kind of scoring system.
I don't think a good, all encompassing video game should be contrived by the limits of genre labels. It's not illogical to ask "why is Doomguy's running speed still so slow after sprinting thorugh 30 levels?" or "shouldn't he be more adept at handling his shotgun after shooting over 500 rounds?" or "is there nothing more beyond this space station?". It's not RPG, but rather a simple matter of common sense being addressed in a game.
There are two types of people, the athletes and the artists. The athletes don't really care about creating a perfect being, they care more about how a medium or an activity can prove the superiority of their own selves. The artists are a different kind of people, they find the fulfillment of their responsibility by making a wholesome creation, they care about the perfection of their product rather than themselves. In regard of video game development, the athletes should be ignored because they bring nothing new to the table. They only want games where they can prove their skills and physical prowess, which is basically any game with hand-eye coordination and balance oriented design. It was the thinkers who brought advancement to the civilization, not professional sports players.
I might be wrong in thinking that JRPG's were already popular during the NES era, but these games do contain a lot more abstractions than the old, arcade-like Atari games on 2600 and 7800. Contra, Castlevania, Metroid, and Mega Man contained a lot more weapon variations, enemy types, and exploration than any Atari game back then. River City Ransom and Zelda to some extent were ARPG games. People might not like the dice rolling mechanic and unanimated actions in those old JRPG games, but now look at the universal appeal of Elder Scrolls games.
I bet not everyone likes Bach either but his contribution to music is undeniable.
Elite and Zelda 2 exist.

In the original game projectiles were the only thing that could pass over or under entities. Everything else was technically infinitely tall, so a cacodemon 500 feet over you would block you, and explosions were just cylinders.

Yeah I wasn't 100% sure about the monster thing. I remember you couldn't pass over decorations, this is why some modern maps are broken, they expect you to not being able to go over them.

*some old maps on modern ports

But it's not everything I can think of, only the ones that improve the core of the game.
I've read the script. They were going to go with the Half Life/System Shock route. Those aren't RPG. Was Doom 3 RPG? No, just a lame scripted experience.

It's also why you can hit the final boss in Doom 2, when he's far below where your rockets land.

Just for you user, look up the ketchup mod. No gore, but plenty of blood. And it doesn't touch the rest of the game.

You're not so much improving it as you are making it a different game entirely. Everything you suggest moves it drastically away from classic FPS. It would be easier to grab a proper RPG and add FPS gameplay to that, but then I wonder what the point would be since the equipment and stat based abstraction of combat would take focus. And then you just end up with garbage like Borderlands.
Why did you even bring up Doom 3? It's not relevant at all.

Attached: tacklepup.jpg (604x454, 41.83K)

You can also ask what's the point of RPG games when you can just play chess. Don't be a dumbass, I'm tired of you people making stupid arguments like this.
Borderlands is neither an CRPG or a classic FPS. The way they implemented character's abilities into the combat was stupid on top of that.
Because it was a kind of similar to what Doom 1 aimed to be at first.

What I'm asking is why mix FPS with RPG when FPS is based on reaction skill and RPGs (as far as you've suggested) demand grinding for loot (which is luck, not skill) and long term character building.
Stop playing dumb. You know that the point of FPS games is that your own skill at controlling your aim and movement, as well as your ability to react quickly to a changing environment, are what determine success. Why dilute that with stats and gear? Why even include FPS mechanics at all at that point?
No, "Because I can" is not a good answer" If you mix FPS with RPG in the way you have suggested so far you do end up with games like Borderlands or modern Fallout, where it hardly matters how good you are if you just get a better gun.
You're absolutely right, it's whatever weird abortion of a game you're imagining.
Here's a thought: if people keep having a hard time understanding just what it is that you want then maybe you need to find a better way to express yourself.
Yeah I'll agree with you on that.
I guess? I remember the Doom bible having selectable characters with different stats though.

Aha, there he is
That stupid motherfucker
What a total fag

You feel more powerful by getting gud.
What? Do you want to be able to ask the demons to join you too?
Shitty new FPSs like Bioshock are worse with tons of ammo lying around but a ridiculously low ammo limit which meant to be upgraded with its shitty upgrade system.

nigga it's called getting good. when you started playing doom the first time, all you knew was that you had to shoot guys. when you played it for the hundredth time, you knew exactly what you needed to do and were so powerful as a player that you needed to up the difficulty level to get that challenge back
so what, are we supposed to go back to E1M1 once we've got the rocket launcher and really show those mean old sergeants who's boss? protip: start doom, type IDKFA, and you will realize instantly that that doesn't mean a goddamn thing
fuck you
what do you need? recoil? ADS? play brootal doom if you must
can't really argue this one, doom visually aged as poorly as anything else from that era, even moreso based on how hard they pushed the initial hardware
this is the biggest thing that i feel vidya has gone off the rails on. doom feels good and feels powerful because you don't have and don't need a bunch of fucking escort quests or some hippie shouting in your ear or some garbage. you are alone, fighting your way out, and your objective is simple: survive and advance. this is good because it lets you focus on the speed of the game, the variety of enemies (which has meaningful gameplay implications; it's more fun to have to prioritize your enemies and then put that plan into action than it is to defend a computer from a wave of bad guys or some shit)
literal demons from literal hell are invading earth and you are a marine who is trained to kill, do you want a fucking dialog wheel?

Attached: busted.jpg (769x717, 110.57K)

You named the reaon yourself.

Attached: 1440455985731.gif (500x281, 286.04K)

Why are FPS classics praised so much?

Because they not only invented the genre, while their newer counterparts merely copied them and added the video game equivalent of nail polish to them, but also

Their simple yet effective design, as well as truly timeless formula, are simply perfect for displays of competitive play.

There is perhaps no better hallmark of a great game when it remains competitively played after 20 years. Take Doom for example eg the current UV Max world record holder is younger than the game itself cyberdemon531.

Attached: cyberdemon531.jpg (2000x4000, 2.54M)

Attached: what act of sluttery.png (443x322, 68.34K)

And attack you. They addressed that in Heretic and Hexen, and most source ports do it too. Even Rise of the Triad had enemies you could jump over.

Pink is for lewd.

Attached: 1326134160549.png (1200x1600, 1.52M)

What the fuck is that supposed to mean?
The first stalker game doesn't have hotkeys for every consumable and requires you to manually loot ammo you stupid nigger. This is why Doom was so streamlined.
Collecting keys isn't the important part, killing enemies is
Besides the double shotgun, pistols and the XL2 the "gunplay" is good enough. You sound like a fucking 13 year old

That's exactly why they were better.