Grimrock

gambit37 wrote:The point of the Quake satire video is to show that FPS games used to be FUN. Players didn't need to be told what to do, they just got on and did it.
Doom and Duke Nukem 3D were the same. Not at all sophisticated or deep by today's standards, but man were they FUN!
FUN is the name of the game and it's not unfair to say that most modern FPSs don't come anywhere close to the fun factor of Quake, Doom et al.

Yet they sell millions and thousands continue to play online. Just because you nor I particulary enjoy them doesn't diminish them as games. I don't like CoD, I do like Tribes: Ascend; does that make me a fan or a hater of modern FPS?

^^ I'm just saying a lot of modern FPS games do not have the FUN factor of older games. That's all.

Yeah there are lots of bad games.

Some good ones, I assume you played L4D, but if not have a go!

I have no idea about CoD, never wanted to look, I have played/loaded like 10,000 games but for some reason the idea of it did not appeal.

Old enjoyable games on 8 bit computers needed to have gameplay in order to keep you playing,by which I mean the game could be simple but had to be fun and challenging to make you want to play them especially as you'd often have to wait 20 minutes to play them whilst they loaded from tape (often longer if you got the dreaded [R-Tape loading Error] and had to start loading again).You had to really want to play a game to sit through all that and if it proved crap after the first 2 or 3 tries you wouldn't bother loading them again.

TDK Tapes > Sony Tapes
what I learned from that era

I have 6000 roms on my PSP2 now, so tried them all and there was really only one good game.. retrospectively, lol

For me, it is a case of make do with what you have... and things have got better, unless you want to be sentimental or annoyed at marketeers.

gambit37 wrote:^^ I'm just saying a lot of modern FPS games do not have the FUN factor of older games. That's all.

For you. The fun in modern FPS comes from the competitive online play. Theres a few single player FPS that are def worth playing though like Bioshock 1/2. The reason why Dungeon Crawlers came about was partly b/c of limited hardware thats were the puzzles came in making up the majority of the gameplay b/c you didn't need a crazy super graphically intensive game to make good puzzles.

MASKOAA wrote:

gambit37 wrote:^^ I'm just saying a lot of modern FPS games do not have the FUN factor of older games. That's all.

For you. The fun in modern FPS comes from the competitive online play. Theres a few single player FPS that are def worth playing though like Bioshock 1/2. The reason why Dungeon Crawlers came about was partly b/c of limited hardware thats were the puzzles came in making up the majority of the gameplay b/c you didn't need a crazy super graphically intensive game to make good puzzles.

Just a quick point: Back when they were released, those games *were* actually crazy super graphically intensive...*and* they had good puzzles.

MASKOAA wrote:

gambit37 wrote:^^ I'm just saying a lot of modern FPS games do not have the FUN factor of older games. That's all.

For you....

Obviously. I'm not speaking for anyone else am I? Unlike some members of this forum who seem to think they represent the entire gaming community...

It is all a matter of money! Publishers want easy games so that they can lure casual players to them, and consequently more sales, more money. In the past developers were solely focused on the game development without intervention from publishers. This allowed for much more innovative and challenging games. Back then games were developed first for fun, then for money, now it is the other way around. It is strictly business, with strict deadlines. Nowadays every game resembles a small movie. Just see the army of people on the credits to understand what I mean. But I don't want a movie, I want a game. Movies are good, they may entertain you, you see things that yoy may not have even imagined ever ... but they are not challenging. Please give me a game not a movie!
Grimrock was lucky to be made by people in love with the genre, and most important by a small group of 4 people. Small groups, like small companies can produce more innovative results than large ones. First because they love what they do, and secondly because their surviving depends on this. So they must offer something different, something that can attract without having the visual quality of other games, and most of the times they do. If you look back in time you will see how true this is. All small game studios during the late 90s were absorbed by big ones. Most of them closed immediately after their absorbtion. And we speak of studios that produced great challenging games (sierra, westwood, interplay, origin, Accolade and so many more). Large groups can produce artistically perfect games, due to the army of programmers, designers, etc they have, but they rarely innovate.

gambit37 wrote:

MASKOAA wrote:

gambit37 wrote:^^ I'm just saying a lot of modern FPS games do not have the FUN factor of older games. That's all.

For you....

Obviously. I'm not speaking for anyone else am I? Unlike some members of this forum who seem to think they represent the entire gaming community...

Lack of innovation and chalenge is obvious in todays games, and specifically in FPSs. Now, regarding the Fun factor, this depends on the gamer. Casual gamer would probably find fun in them. But real gamers probably not. Personally, I have stopped playing FPS many years ago. The last one I played was, if I remember correctly, Quake 3. Thereafter I find no Challenge factor in them. Because Fun is another thing and challenge is another one)