What specifically makes an Old School FPS an Old School FPS?

[Baron Dupek]

Higher speed that make impossible to control it with pad.
No headshots.
Deadly melee enemies.

I dare to say new Wolfensteins (The New Order and Old Blood) are p.close in terms of it. I still don't know why they put aim down sight in RMB, if crosshair in the middle of the screen have 98% accuracy...

 

[DwarvenFood]

For me it's absolutely level design and encounter design - modern FPS games are mostly "on-rails" designed, or otherwise known as corridor-shooters. Old school FPS games had bigger levels with multiple paths where you have to do some backtracking, look for a key, go to other section, open some door, etc.

Compare that to modern games where you go from some scripted encounter to the next, with emphasis on "awesome" instead of using skill and creativity. Metro 2033 was one of the few games that despite the on-rail design, was playable, but this was mostly due to atmosphere and difficulty.

 

[octavius]

Oh well, there's hundred of great user made maps for Doom, Duke Nuken 3D, Quake, Thief, Unreal and Half-Life to play.
I guess it's in the modding, or rather level making (since modding too often is boys making nude mods) communities, that the Old School spirit still lives.

 

[made]

monochrome wireframe graphics

everything else is herpa derpa nushit declinerlglrgrlrlrgl

 

[orcinator]

I dare to say new Wolfensteins (The New Order and Old Blood) are p.close in terms of it

But they don't contain any of the things you listed unless Old Blood has "deadly melee enemies"

TNO is more of a CoDified HL2 than anything truly old school.

 

[DraQ]

The evolution of Shooters have something in common with the evolution of CRPGs. They have evolved from abstract and "gamey" games to games that focus more on realism and story..

..as long as this focus remains fully superficial and completely separated from any actual mechanics - for example by allowing player to recover from limb-tearing .50cal wounds by crouching behind box - leading to the emergence of techno-luddites who don't even understand what they are protesting against and think it's the departure from old, worn out and limiting formulae itself rather than broken promises regarding direction of this departure.
At least with FPSes we've still got some attempts at actual simulationism (to a varying degree) although sadly monothematic, and at least old FPS gameplay lent itself to its own distinct brand of fun justifying efforts for its preservation, which is more than can be said of oldschool RPGs.

Keycard hunting, mazelike levels, puzzles, secrets, etc.

So mostly shit features?

(apart from secrets and puzzles - and no, "mazelike" is not a compliment nor is it the only alternative to corridorlike)

No headshots.

Heathen.

Deadly melee enemies.

Such as? Because off the top of my head only Q1 Fiends, maybe also tarbabies come reasonably close.
If anything, decidedly non-oldschool STALKER has more and deadlier melee enemies than all the oldschool FPSes together.

 

[Shin]

Most important imho is the freedom of movement. Like some other pointed out, speed plays a major role and stuff like strafejumps, rocketjumps and bunnyhopping are the icing on the cake. Stuff that simply can't be fucking done on a controller - that's why modern FPS games suck butt. Second is indeed weapon variety, make every weapon distinct instead of giving the choice between a M16 or a FAMAS... there need to be at least 9 weapons, each one more bizarre and intimidating than the next.

 

[Ranselknulf]

No experience points, skill grinding, weapon upgrades, quick hide maneuvers.

 

[Dayyālu]

In contrast, new school RPGs (probably beginning with Dark Forces 2, but finding the first instance of the formula that would ultimately dominate the genre of FPS for a decade and a half in Half-Life) allow realism to take precedence over level design. So while level design can occasionally be complex (especially in the early examples of "realistic" FPS level design, like "Dark Forces 2") there's nothing that will break the immersion of the experience (no endless colored keys, floating platforms, or etc.). Likewise, the level design tends to follow a narrative arch of sorts, with the character progressing through the levels, changing locales, in a linear fashion. This lead, in its most extreme form, to the "rails" shooters like "Call of Duty" which were basically just a bunch of linear set pieces.

Presently, though, I actual think linear rail shooters are outmoded (which is probably the main reason why Valve has no interest in doing Half Life 3). Now the FPS is dominated by open world "Far Cry" style games and RPG-lite type experiences.

There are also other elements, though. Old school tended to privelege gameplay over realism in all areas, including: number of enemies on screen at once, number of weapons to carry, speed, power ups, and etc.

Your analysis is pretty spot-on, even if i disagree completely on the inclusion of Half-Life 1&2 on the same category of CoD (they have nothing in common, nor in guns, nor in level design, nor in setpieces, nor in the "gameplay-before-realism" approach). Funnily enough, the Half Life model was copied by very few shooters, and most of them are buried and forgotten lacking Valve's skillset.

Half-Life and Unreal both have a pseudo-"realistic" progression, but they completely lack the typical characteristics of the corridor shooters: they have reactive enemies, levels that prioritize interesting gameplay on realism (even botched attempts like Xen), variety of weapons and enemies, setpiece battles instead of setpiece scripted events.

Half-Life 3 will never happen because in the contemporary industry there is no place for a AAA-budget non-social focused, non MP-focused thing. Already the Episodes mixed some great battles and level ideas with cancerous "FEEEEEELS" with Alyx and bothersome "PLOOOOOOOT".

Pardon me, 'sperg gotta 'sperg, my Barzite friend.

 

[you know what time it is]

Good level design and solid shooting mechanics.

 

[Excidium II]

Badass animations. Old school FPS have hit feedback/enemy death that just feels good. Doesn't mattter how many times you kill them, it always makes you

In new school FPS, when enemies die they just ragdoll-ize and flop around.

 

[Mozg]

Player characters that move faster than human beings actually can. Doomguy runs 57 miles per hour, other fps protagonists are comparably fast.

can't brofist but this

 

[Tehdagah]

Player characters that move faster than human beings actually can. Doomguy runs 57 miles per hour, other fps protagonists are comparably fast.

can't brofist but this

Terminator Future Shock?

 

[octavius]

For me the real divide was Quake 4 and Medal of Honor: Pacific Assualt from 2004/2005.
They were so heavily scripted that it sucked all fun out of it, and I haven't played any newer Shooters since then. But in the past few years I've greatly enjoyed Old School FPSes that I missed when they were released, like Duke Nuke 3D, Hexen, Outlaws and Dark Forces.

 

[spectre]

For me the classic fps experience has always been three things: strafing, various pickups and no aim down sights.

 

[Angthoron]

Apart from everything else that has been mentioned here - intentional or unintentional abstraction and lack of realism. There's enough realism to make the player connect to the game world, but otherwise, everything is pretty abstract in favor of making the game fun. There's a lack or perhaps a low amount (and low effectiveness or high use cost) of hitscan weapons, a high amount of slow projectiles that you need to learn to master, there's insane movement speed and general maneuvering, there are unrealistic feats like rocket jumps... In the Modern Shooter (TM) some of the elements completely nullify each others and become redundant - for example the rocket jump, which used to have a use cost and a risk attached would now be rendered free-of-cost due to health regen, and so it's removed, and instead we get double jump in the pseudo-oldskool shooters.

So yeah, tl:dr a high level of abstraction attached to gameplay and game world rules.

 

[kek]

Can't believe no one has mentioned arrows and overall "go here" pointers that are so prevalent in modern FPS and also other genres nowadays. Doom was so fucking badass because despite the bad graphics and surreal atmosphere it played just as if you were the last god-damned human on a distant moon filled to the brim with alien demons. No logs, no quests, no waypoints. You had to find your own way and figure out the puzzles and strategies by yourself. And just like if it was real you would also die a whole lot until you beat a level in a decent difficulty level. One slip up your armor is gone, another one you're bleeding bad.

I have nothing against quests and logs but it's not about that, it's about immersion. You could do whatever you wanted and everything made sense inside the game logic and non-arbitrary limits. Your character didn't heal wounds by walking around and if the game was gracious enough to provide a map feature it would only map out where you've been, and not where you have to go. Again like in reality if you wanted to find extra items and say, an area map, you had to get out of your way, find a secret area or win a big fight. You won't find good surprises if you walk along the main road all the time in life, why should you in a game?

Another cool thing was that there were some meta moments that actually made sense in the game logic. For example: if in Doom you found a big power-up in the middle of an empty room you were absolutely certain something awful would happen if you actually took it. It also makes sense - the demons would put it there to entice you into a trap. It's your own choice (again freedom + internal consistency) to take it or leave.

These two resources only repeat what has been said here by others already but they're pretty good to "hit the nail in the head" so to speak:

 

[Severian Silk]

Another thing about oldschool shooters is the 1990s. It's not the 1990s any more. It's 2016, which is about 20 years later. 2016 - 1996 = 20. Time passes in a linear fashion. There is no known method of traveling through time.

 

[kek]

Are you implying that old school games are not old school anymore because time has passed? Because that is just wrong on all levels. You're the only one in this thread who hasn't got the point of OP's question. I suggest you go back and read the other replies that actually contributed to the discussion instead of being a smart-ass.

 

[IHaveHugeNick]

- modern FPS are designed for realism
- oldschool FPS were designed for gameplay

Everything else rounds up to difference above.

Oldschool games were about blowing shit up. The mechanics differed from game to game, but the principle remained the same. The systems weren't crafted around realism, they were crafted around fun gameplay. The devs didn't give a shit if what they made was realistic. Somewhere along the line, as gaming was going mainstream, the realism obsession creeped in. We can't have shooting from the hip, because that's not realistic (but it's fun!). We can't have rocket jumping and strafing, because that's not realistic (but it's fun!). We can't carry 500 guns, because that's not realistic (but it's fun). The list goes on endlessly.

Even the gun sounds. Modern high-budget games like BF4 actually record real weapons being fired. It's realistic. But nothing sounds as epic as Soldier of Fortune shotguns, even though the sound was obviously artificially enhanced.

There's nothing wrong with realism, but if it gets in the way of me shooting more dudes and blowing more shit up, which it often does, it needs to be ditched.

 

[Carrion]

- modern FPS are designed for realism

Hardly. It's just that a real-life setting is easier to sell to a large number of people, and "tactical" (read: slow) gameplay is something that fits a console controller much better, from the slow pace of shooting to being able to only carry a couple of guns. The realism argument pretty much flies straight out of the window when you introduce stuff like regenerating health, which is probably more unrealistic than anything you can find in Doom.

With first-person shooters there are pretty much three distinct eras: before Half-Life, between HL and HL2, and after HL2. I'd draw the line of "old school" at Half-Life, which, compared to games that came before it, had things like a more fleshed-out setting, scripted events, more controlled but not completely linear progression through its levels, exposition through in-game characters, and a more developed and human-like AI, rather than the things that ZagorTeNej mentioned on the last page. Some of those things had already been done earlier by games like Unreal and the Dark Forces games, but Half-Life was probably the game that really set the standard for the subsequent games in the genre.

The point where the "modern" actually starts is a bit blurry, as Halo is something of a blueprint for modern shooters and already came out in 2001, but I'd say that up until 2004 or 2005 the Half-Life design principles were still prevalent in slightly different forms. After that it became the standard to have regenerating health, limited weaponry, extremely linear and scripted levels (nowadays probably dethroned by an open world), lack of platforming and sometimes even jumping, rather stationary combat with use of cover rather than movement to avoid getting shot, iron sights even in games that in no way required them, an even slower pace, and other signs of console/multiplatform design. Off course, the genre has also had various offshoots like tactical shooters, which actually strived for realism but all but died out when multiplatform design took over.

 

[Snorkack]

one thing is the immediate action. You load up doom and two seconds after starting a new game you begin shooting at stuff. It must have been Unreal and Half Life that introduced those long-ass introduction levels/cutscenes.
Everything else hast been said already I guess.

 

[octavius]

But in Unreal you were rewarded with the spectacular sight of the stranded prison ship after having escaped from it.
And in Half-Life 1 a long intro was still a fresh idea.
But by HL 2 is was "get on with it already!".

 

[Snorkack]

Don't get me wrong, I loved both games. Gunplay, leveldesign, enemies, all that was great. I didn't mind the intros and scripted events either. When you entered that one hallway in Unreal, where the lights suddenly were blown out and then that Skaarj jumped on you - that was one intense moment I never experienced in pc games before. But I think those two games marked the cesura when old school fps became new school fps, because the focus of devs seemed to shift towards that now infamous 'visceral gameplay'.

 

[IHaveHugeNick]

- modern FPS are designed for realism

The realism argument pretty much flies straight out of the window when you introduce stuff like regenerating health, which is probably more unrealistic than anything you can find in Doom.

Having to find cover and hide to heal is hell of a lot more realistic than just poping a healpack when your liver has just been shot and going on your way without a slightest pause.