And what I'm saying is your broad statements are inaccurate - in part because you are not considering concrete examples.

Some games are worth remembering, admiring, studying, because they were the first to do something right - or to do something well - or in some cases to do something at all. Like Wolfenstein 3D. I contend, though, that Wolfenstein 3D is not as fun to play as, say, Return to Castle Wolfenstein. There were serious improvements in every way.

Superhot has introduced a new mechanic into the first person shooter. And it's awesome.

The reason broad statements are used is because examples are common enough you don't need specific examples. If I make a broad statement like "People have 2 hands", I do not need to create a list of names of everyone who has two hands to make my point. Even though most people have two hands, there are exceptions but they don't disprove the rule.


Although I agree with that you wrote here, I don't know why you brought it up. My argument was the risk aversiveness of AAA devs causes lack of inovation in the industry from their end. I emphasize LACK as exactly that, a LACK OF. I do not mean NO INOVATION AT ALL. Nothing mentioned above relates to my point.

Superhot is not a high budget AAA game. My original arguement was:

Don't get me wrong, the current gaming industry still has room to evolve. However, consider the development costs for AAA games today, I'm not surprised devs don't want to take risks. With modern AAA gaming, it's hard to be excited when you know devs are just going to stick with a proven formula rather than stretch posibilities.

Notice the emphasis on AAA games? I said nothing about smaller devs or the industry as a whole.

Yes I'm talking about FPS, isn't it the topic of this thread? :)
When you talk about phenomena complex such as the one we are talking about you have to generalize and generalization is a tool: its use can be good or bad depending on how you use it, and sometimes you have to talk in general.
Still FPS (First Person Shooter) are titles where you go around and shoot but not every title listed here are pure run&gun games so this very thread is based on a generalization and there's nothing bad with it.

With the list you posted (in which FPS can be counted on the fingers of one hand) you are actually making my point: I wrote that the games that are listed in this thread are cherry picked among the ones that came out in those years because they were masterpieces.
The games you posted were made along boatloads of bleak, poor executed or simply bait games or clones of each other with just a different coat of paint.

And that's it: back then there were more masterpieces in relation to the number of bad/uninteresting games: hell, even among DooM clones there have been very good titles fondly remembered today.
And that was because they were trying to clone DooM often putting some effort in to make it different, instead of a clone of a bad clone inspired to games that were made 20 years ago.
Nowadays those masterpieces are not only more rare and even clones are worse on average because of a number of reasons typical of these years like general dumbing down, general hand holding, development efforts diverted to eye candy, streamlining, lack of innovation.

Oldies

Wolfenstein 3D
Doom
System Shock
Rise of the Triad
Descent
Duke Nukem 3D
Quake
Blood
Shadow Warrior
Sin
Turok
Unreal
Half-Life
No One Lives Forever

Newies

Prey
Call of Juarez
Portal
Crysis
F.E.A.R.
Clive Barker's Jericho
Bioshock
The Chronicles of Riddick: Assault on Dark Athena
Zeno Clash
Metro 2033
Far Cry 2
Borderlands
Devil Daggers
Superhot

I disagree. Here's the Wikipedia List of Shooters: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_first-person_shooters

I realize it is not complete. But it is not bad, either. And there is a pretty consistent amount of junk and clones and weaker sequels put out throughout the years.

Take a look at my lists above of Oldies and Newies. I mean both to be lists of Classics - original, innovative, lasting appeal, have their own character. I think you'd be hard pressed to say that I just left out tons from the Old list and not from the new list.

I would challenge you to make similar lists to flesh out exactly what you mean about more masterpieces back then - or less crap back then.


-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------------------------
EDIT: The biggest reason I am arguing this is that I deliberately tried to start a topic that would elicit people talking about what they love. Specific games, mechanics... old and new. Hearing stories like that is a great way to learn about a new game - or an old one we might have missed!

I was specifically trying to avoid one of the most common pitfalls in this forum, which is Why Things Suck So Much! Seriously, way too much forum space is taken up by bitching and moaning about how much worse things are now. It wears me down!

And I think it's just plain incorrect! As I am trying to demonstrate here. Now, you can still disagree with me. That's fine. But I am awfully tired of hearing how much gaming sucks. I come here to talk about gaming which I enjoy. I enjoy trying out games I've never played before, both old and new.

Peace.

i would have put Tower of Guns up there also

I am unfamiliar with that game. Tell us more about it!

First person bullet hell shooter with a strong emphasis on movements in all directions (including up... in this game you do not only double or triple jump, but a successful run can have over tenupple jumps...). It is arguably on of the first successful "rougelike" shooters (but far from the first), setting the standard for games like Ziggurat. It is very original and fun. It has a sequel - Mothergunship - which is also very good, but I think that ToG is still a better game just because it is so 'pure' in its shooter elements.

Highly recommended.

https://www.gog.com/game/tower_of_guns

Last year - or maybe the year before - I finally played Rise of the Triad. I was unaware of this title back in the day, so the rebuild was my first experience with it.

I do like it! It has a lot of old school feels to it: the fast fluid movement, the secrets and traps, the platforming.

What I found I really enjoyed was treating every level like a big puzzle. There always seemed to be one optimal way to get through - and it was fun playing a level over and over again to find that optimal way.

And then trying to find all the secrets. Frustrating but rewarding.

The collection of anks - or whatever they were-- was a funny cross-genre touch. Like a little bit of Mario interjected into Return to Castle Wolfenstein.
Ooh! Sounds interesting. Probably too hard for me. I kinda suck. But I did like Ziggurat a lot! I forgot about that game!

I managed to beat it, so it is not that hard... (not yet have 100% tough, I think I stuck on 94%... missing a successful run with one of the guns).

it is a lunch break game ( a successful run is about 30-60 min, if you do not run on endless). but to get 100 % you need to unlock all items and have successful runs with all weapons and perks.

I like the current trend that continued over from Team Fortress and pefected in Overwatch where aiming doesn't have to be everything; my hands cramp on WASD and mouse so CoD shooters have been quite difficult for me

As an action game easy to use a gamepad with I was rocking Overwatch my first game.

Unfortunately Blizzard is starting to let Overwatch fall to the hackers...probably going to retire it soon for a sequel

I wondered if anyone here played Overwatch (or Destiny or Fortnite or Quake Champions or whatever else there is).

I have so little experience with these games. I don't play online multiplayer. For one thing I never started. For another, I just don't have the kind of shcedule where I can join a match and reliably play to the end. I am always jumping up to do something. 5 kids and work for myself. Single play er games that I can pause or quite at a moment's notice is what I need.

But, especially with the persistent topic of AI in shooters needing improving, I've often wondered how it is playing against live human beings!

Is it a more satisfying game playing a person with whom you are evenly matched, rather than against an AI system where the devs balance things by spawning tons of enemies to oppose one human player?

I really enjoyed Borderlands, good flow of action with a lot of shooting, hope to see them appear here on GOG some day!

That question is hard to answer because it depends on the type of person you are (ie. what you are looking for in the game) as well as the game community. FPS can also play quite differently from each other, for example there is also a world of difference between Unreal Tournament and (usually modern military based shooter) F2P MMOFPSs.

From my experience, it can be a lot of fun but it can also be an infuriating gaming experience. It's fun because you have to use your brain a bit more. You have to mentally keep track of where enemies can be on the map, possible hiding spots, the playstyle of your opponents etc. Some people don't like needing to have twitch reflexes in certain FPS games but I do so YMMV on that point. However, if you keep killing a bad player and get accused of hacking or get told to have sex with certain famiy members, it can sour the experience. Aimbots and other hacks can also ruin the experience big time.

I do enjoy multiplayer FPS games from time to time but when I'm just chilling out, i'd rather go my own pace in a single player game. Multiplayer gaming isn't for everyone and for me, I have to be in the right mood. It's kind of funny cos I remember in the late 90's gaming magazines were predicting the end of single player gaming and that multiplayer gaming was the future. Only one of many stupid predicitons in the gaming industry.

You are still making my point where's the innovation? in 10 Battlefield games that are basically the same thing? And Call of Duty? Every new game is a complete revolution? That's what I'm talking about.
Clive Barker's Jericho is a sequel, Bioshock/s is inspired to System Shock, Far Cry 2 is a sequel, Assault on Dark Athena is a sequel. What are the innovations in Crysis? The graphics? It improves every year.
Super hot, Devil Dagger are not AAA I wrote that today's development is diverted to graphics and effects, indies simply can't afford quantity and quality unless they have Star Citizen-like funding or a high and steady income.

Challenge?

There's no need for a challenge, I'm not moaning or complaining, if you your opinion is that something is incorrect that's OK, but there are opinions and facts.
Your list shows that there's way less innovation in modern games than back then in the '90.
If you take a look at the nineties (1990-1999), 267 titles, there are way, way less sequels than in the 2000-2009, 385 titles. Battlelfied: 11 games without platform exclusives, Call of Duty: 14 games not counting exclusives, Painkiller: 7, Medal of Honor: 5 without platform exclusives. And there are many others.
And in the nineties we've had DooM, System Shock, Quake, Deus Ex, which are seminal games and there where titles like Blood, Unreal, Witchaven which on their own introduced something new.

You said that you haven't played most of the games of those years, I, like many around here have and many more titles.
Games with First Person POV are the only ones I like to play and love from like more than 20 years now, simple as that, and if you like to think that today's games are more innovative than the ones from back then I respect your opinion.

Peace. ;)

Thanks for the explanations and examples! Makes for a much better forum experience.

I put Far Cry 2 up, because the first one sucked. It's the second one that was innovative. Not all sequels are weaker. ;)