Old Games Freakin' Rock

[the dark side]

MMS = Modern Military Shooter. the genre term, as coined by John "totalbiscuit" Bain, for COD clone, basically any mainstream first person shooter made after cod 4. COD/MW/nuMOh/Battlefeild/craptibond/Etc. any modern gameplay FPS is an MMS. any pile of crap constant hint' regen health, aim down yer sites from cover, 2 gun limit, designed for the xbox360 modern shooter. as opposed to the Proper FPS genre (PC designed, healthkits and armour, locked hairs and zoom aim, no gunlimit, find your own way through the levels and READ THE MANUAL! for the controlls) that sadly only really sees the light of day in indie PC releases from eastern europe these days.




(above) this is FPS




(Above) This is MMS.

@ all users, NO comments on graphics please. were talking id tech II vs Frostbite 2 there, FB2 wins, but, the older game is more fun to play by a Country blooming mile, so please, focuss on gameplay only.

[CorinthianMerchant]

I can't remember praising any of the games on your list other than being excited for Bioshock Infinite, wich I don't think meets the requirements you listed. If you watched the latest trailer you can clearly see a health bar, can't really comment on the other stuff, since it's another three months until its release.

I've played the original Bioshock (and I'm also a big fan of it), and I can assure you that it had a shit-ton of hints, either delivered from Atlas/Tenenbaum, the map menu, loading screens or the game itself.

[crisosphinx]

Dark, I love the Battlefield series, though, BF3 was a bit of a huge let down (correction, I loved Battlefield 1942, vietnam, 2 and I enjoy BF3 because 'tis different). I rather enjoy BF3 due to it's graphics and some of the mechanics. Generally, I feel like, if I joined the Marines instead of going to Art College, I would feel and see some of the same things that are in BF3 in real-life.

Then again, it's graphics are what made the game, unfortunately. Basically, that's how many current games are. I don't like Bioshock 2 or the upcoming 3.

WAY OUT OF CONVERSATION. TIME TO LIMIT IT BACK TO 2006 and earlier.


I love pong, from 1972.

[the dark side]

sorry chrisos. my fault.



well, ONE of the vids was in time limit at least, frontline was 2002

hmm. still suprised no ones talked about timesplitters series yet. dont tell me its become forgotten? it was hilarious (specially 2 and 3) , they all fit into the timeline as well, Splitters 1 was 2001, 2 was 2003, and Fp was 2005.

[Kman]

Dark Side, if you're going to judge a game on those aspects alone I highly doubt you're ever going to have much fun with new games because you're going to assume they're all terrible over a few aspects. Those gameplay mechanics, while they are used in CoD, have been used in games prior to it and have been used in games that came out after it that have nothing to do with it, but yet somehow a few minor gameplay elements ruin the whole game? That's like saying say one restaurant that you really hate starts selling pizza with pepproni and it tastes disgusting, so therefore you assume any pizza that has pepproni on it must automatically be horrible too and is obviously trying to copy that other restaurant. Do you see why so many people think you're being ignorant with this whole thing? I mean hell by that logic you could call a game a CoD clone because you have a gun in it.

Yes, I understand you fundamentally dislike those gameplay elements and so it would be hard to enjoy a game with them, but just because a game uses them that doesn't mean they're automatically trying to copy CoD and that doesn't mean they're automatically terrible games just because of a few gameplay elements you don't like. If a game has a great story and dialogue, but say makes you aim down sites during certain parts, does that mean that the story and dialogue suddenly mean nothing and are worthless, and that the whole game is suddenly spoiled? I'm sorry but I just find that a little ridiculous. If I'm going to be honest I think you're just assuming that all games past a certain point are terrible because they're different from what you're used to and you don't like your games different from what you're used to, because there have been plenty of amazing games that have come out in the last few years that you either have just brushed off as a CoD clone or I'm sure you would call a CoD clone if asked about it even though the majority of them have NOTHING to do with CoD.

[Oscar House]

checked my games collection this morning. found a real old gem, one of the first FPS games to have objectives and a Storyline, "Star wars: Dark Forces". anyone else got this one? or at least its sequal, Jedi Knight? what do you quys think of them, i love them, i feel the capture the proper star wars universe fantastically (im one of these "hardcore" star wars nuts who rank episodes 1 2 and 3 as non cannon and only recognise the original triology of episodes 4 5 and 6. even if i personally always think of BTAS/TNBA Joker before Luke Skywalker when i think of Mark Hamill.), have great gameplay, with fantastic doom style blasting, clever level design, great puzzles, and interesting and varied objectives, superb sound effects, and they really moved thw FPS on, helping to usher in the silver era of the genre, perhaps my favourite era of the 2.

I mentioned Jedi Knight in my list, yep yep! Played all 5 of the Jedi Knight games (Dark Forces 1 and 2, Mysteries of the Sith, Academy and Outcast) this year. Surprisingly I found myself not even bothered by the DOOM era graphics of Dark Forces 1, although I couldn't last watching them for extended periods of time. They're all excellent games, in my opinion.

Also, considering you're a hardcore Star Wars nut, I'm sure you know that Kyle Katarn isn't canon

[failedALIAS]

Dark Side, if you're going to judge a game on those aspects alone I highly doubt you're ever going to have much fun with new games because you're going to assume they're all terrible over a few aspects. Those gameplay mechanics, while they are used in CoD, have been used in games prior to it and have been used in games that came out after it that have nothing to do with it, but yet somehow a few minor gameplay elements ruin the whole game? That's like saying say one restaurant that you really hate starts selling pizza with pepproni and it tastes disgusting, so therefore you assume any pizza that has pepproni on it must automatically be horrible too and is obviously trying to copy that other restaurant. Do you see why so many people think you're being ignorant with this whole thing? I mean hell by that logic you could call a game a CoD clone because you have a gun in it.

Yes, I understand you fundamentally dislike those gameplay elements and so it would be hard to enjoy a game with them, but just because a game uses them that doesn't mean they're automatically trying to copy CoD and that doesn't mean they're automatically terrible games just because of a few gameplay elements you don't like. If a game has a great story and dialogue, but say makes you aim down sites during certain parts, does that mean that the story and dialogue suddenly mean nothing and are worthless, and that the whole game is suddenly spoiled? I'm sorry but I just find that a little ridiculous. If I'm going to be honest I think you're just assuming that all games past a certain point are terrible because they're different from what you're used to and you don't like your games different from what you're used to, because there have been plenty of amazing games that have come out in the last few years that you either have just brushed off as a CoD clone or I'm sure you would call a CoD clone if asked about it even though the majority of them have NOTHING to do with CoD.

Very true; as I've recently played a game that tried to look like a grey and boring shooter just so it could knock the dicks out of your mouth with it's genius story, characters, mechanics, and dialogue (simple yet philosophical, somewhat like Pulp Fiction).

[Bridge]

By the way, something has got to be said about the sickening trend that has arisen in the last decade: an obsession with realism. I really have nothing against the idea that gameplay in modern games should be modeled more closely after real life and that inaccuracies are never good, but that does not mean you have to base everything in real life. I think honestly that is the main reason dark side hates all these modern military shooters: they are totally sterile and boring. Video games will always first and foremost be entertainment. Sacrificing enjoyment for superfluous realism is probably the worst design philosophy I can think of. Newer games like Dishonored and Skyrim that have unique art styles and are full of color and imagination (although Dishonored was not as good as it could have been imo) give me a little hope, but that doesn't change the fact that a lot of games being released are lifeless and dull.

[Kman]

Yes, but realistic games have their own merits that can make them enjoyable. A lot of those realistic elements can add a new sense of strategy to the game. For example, when there's a gun limit you have to decide what guns would be best in certain situations, and based on how well you are at assessing both the pros and cons of each individual gun and how well you assessed the situation you're going into you'll either get through it easily or have a lot of trouble with it. When there's no health bar, you can never be sure if you have enough health to take on a certain enemy, which can make you think a lot more logically about how you're going to go about taking them on, where as if you had a health bar and you know you have full health you could just run in and mow them all down without worrying.

All it is is a different style of game, that doesn't necessarily make it bad though. There are some really shitty games that aren't realistic at all and some really great games that follow that realistic style of gameplay. They both have their own merits and I think it's narrow minded to assume either style is terrible by default (hence why I felt the need to write that rant).

[failedALIAS]

Yes, but realistic games have their own merits that can make them enjoyable. A lot of those realistic elements can add a new sense of strategy to the game. For example, when there's a gun limit you have to decide what guns would be best in certain situations, and based on how well you are at assessing both the pros and cons of each individual gun and how well you assessed the situation you're going into you'll either get through it easily or have a lot of trouble with it. When there's no health bar, you can never be sure if you have enough health to take on a certain enemy, which can make you think a lot more logically about how you're going to go about taking them on, where as if you had a health bar and you know you have full health you could just run in and mow them all down without worrying.

All it is is a different style of game, that doesn't necessarily make it bad though. There are some really shitty games that aren't realistic at all and some really great games that follow that realistic style of gameplay. They both have their own merits and I think it's narrow minded to assume either style is terrible by default (hence why I felt the need to write that rant).

Far Cry 3