First Person Shooter Thread

Post Reply New Topic

It doesnt take that much time on a level.

Typically for me, hmm, 7-12 minutes at most for a new level is all I need to beat it the first time. Give me another 20 to go in and explore and I'll have all the secrets.

In Doom and it's brethren, levels are not actually very hard to figure out, as there's no real "puzzles" to be had. Find key, key goes in same-color door, find other key, find other door. Keys and important doors/objects are never hidden unless the level designer is bad at level design. And actual hidden things tend to have something suspicious about them, or suspicious things nearby that open them.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7urOG4gJGoU That one's one of my favorite levels, and also my favorite way of approaching the game.

Technically, that approach can be used to defeat basically anything that isnt the Spider Mastermind, but with large enemies it takes absolutely freaking forever.

I use that same speedy and aggressive approach regardless of if it's a new or old level. When fighting with actual guns though I'm alot less cautious about actually attacking since there's less chance of a sudden fireball to the face.

I feel like maybe the old-school shooter level-design just 'clicks' better for some people than others. I never found navigation to be a major problem in Doom or similar games, even on first attempts.

As for speed runs, I guess some people just like doing things really quickly for the hell of it. I think speed running takes the fun out of the game, but clearly the people trying to beat each others' records enjoy it.



I tried punching my way through levels before. I got my ass handed to me. I'll stick to guns, lol.

I agree with Misery, old school FPS are better, I hate Call of Duty and I suck at it. The first Halo wasn't too bad but the series went down hill after that, the first Halo is the only game in the series I care anything about. There are newer FPS games that are good, the shadow warrior remake was good as was bioshock. Call of Duty and Battlefield aren't fun in my opinion.

I liked BioShock, but it reeked heavily of "we were only about 70% done with the game before the release date hit". I still need to try the other two games, hopefully they feel more like a polished experience.

I can kind of see the appeal of CoD, how it's more of a theatrical experience than a FPS, and I'd much rather play CoD multiplayer than any Halo game, but I personally feel like the health regen mechanic just totally kills it for single player. I did like Big Red One though, and the very first CoD game is pretty decent (much better than the MoH games I tried, anyway).



I don't see it that way. I see it as people who love a game, looking for new and different ways to enjoy the game. It's not all that different from high scores back in the day.

The "health-regen" mechanic is dreadful. Especially the part of it where the player must be blinded every time they get hit. It encourages suicidal tactics and lazy level design.

Yep, but that's what the industry is these days.

Heaven forbid the player actually LOSE, after all, or have to think. They might not see the all-important ending! They might not feel like conquerors! They might not buy the next 5 sequels!

Ugh.

I actually don't mind it all the time. I think it has its place. It seems to work best for me in story driven corridor shooters. I sometimes even prefer it to quicksaves because with the quicksave I tend to become too much of a perfectionist and then the game takes forever.

I like it when they mix the two styles. Where only a segment of the health regenerates.

I'm not very good at them cuz I don't notice things rite away sometimes & I don't react very fast. I mostly played them on the Nintendo 64. I really like Goldeneye & Perfect Dark.

I really like Heroes and Generals because it can be more strategic and team-based unlike CoD. I guess it could be compared to battlefield, except no one is trying to run in the middle of a firefight with a sniper rifle trying to quickscope everybody....

I once played a PSX release called Disruptor, which was unusually brief for its era (about a dozen levels), but was quite enjoyable and had a particularly tough final boss battle, against 'President Kruger' (it took me well over 20 attempts to defeat him). The game seems to be exceptionally rare now and I haven't seen a single copy of it for sale in over 15 years, and I wish I had kept it.

I've also got a stockpile of over 30 FPS games that I've yet to play. These include one or two obscure titles like World War Zero - Ironstorm (PS2) and Area 51, also for the PS2. Does anyone have any experience of these games?

Finally any views on the Timesplitters games? From the handful of YouTube clips I've seen, they seem rather childish and arcadey.

I was actually just going to download area 51 right now. I think it's become freeware.

Disruptor is on eBay & Amazon & some are selling it pretty cheap.

I was playing the second game for a little while. It does have a lot in common with Goldeneye and Perfect Dark, but the levels are a -lot- smaller and shorter. It's also hard for me to get into, since the themes/weaponsets jump around so often (might be a positive aspect to some). I didn't try multiplayer.

I've been told that the third game is the one to play.

The first game looks way too dated for me, but I'd probably grab it if I saw it somewhere cheap.

I like your taste in FPSs. Myself, I've been playing through the single player botmatch campaign on Unreal Tournament '99... again. XD I know it's really meant to be more of a multiplayer game, but it's actually quite fun in single.

Half Life will always be the best, in my opinion. I still play the original to this day, despite pretty much seeing everything and being able to quote it more or less word for word, end to end.

Same here. I know where all the enemies are and all the surprises. I've probably played through that game more than any other game. I've also completed Blue Shift and Opposing Force several times.